Look, the lockdown was supposed to be about stopping the nhs being overwhelmed (imposed, by the way, after infections had peaked), not taking away lots of our rights indefinitely. The NHS is not being overwhelmed, deaths are below a 5 year average for the time of year. Look at New Zealand, they imposed a lockdown for 4 c.v. cases (not even deaths), lots of the stuff going on is obviously nuts!I repeat, how long do you want this to go on for? Months? years? until there is no risk? It sounds like you want a year or two at least (by which time there will not be much professional sport, or jobs, left - and no money to pay for the nhs). You want to talk about Grandad? He died before Kidderminster away, having fought bravely in ww2. And I haven't seen Grandma since lockdown. But we should also talk about the over 100,000 children who are predicted to starve to death worldwide this year alone because of government lockdowns, compared to the tiny number of children who die from this virus - 3 aged 5-14 in the UK last I heard - quite a contrast - and the millions who will die in the third world because of lockdowns, and the wars and extreme governments that will inevitably result - this could easily end up like the 1930's! We are being asked to sacrifice children's lives for the supposed protection of adults, not something I could ever feel comfortable with. Crashing the economy kills quite a lot of people as well. Scaring people away from getting vital treatment at hospital kills people. Non-covid lives matter, and there is evidence that some of these lockdown measures have done more harm than good. Just to be clear - do you want non-attendance or, say, a 25% capacity at ML until there is a vaccine, or permanently otherwise? It also needs pointing out that things were quite a lot different in 1918 - the aftermath of a catastrophic war, medical advances since then etc. Professor Pantsdown's flawed computer model predicting over half a million was never going to be anywhere near the truth - and I understand he was involved in the foot and mouth debacle as well involving the unnecessary slaughter of millions of healthy livestock "just in case" - lucky he didn't recommend that for us humans. And Sweden's more limited measures was supposed to result in a catastrophically higher death rate - never happened! Less than Scotland and Finland (I understand), marginally higher than Denmark, substantially higher than Norway, which also just happens to have a substantially higher population over 65.
Half a million deaths would have implied Spanish flu level deaths for over a year - but there has been no sign of this anywhere in the world regardless of measures taken, so far as I am aware. And infections were already falling by March 23rd which suggests that further measures were unnecessary.
And the point is, when South Shields played FC United on 14th of March, I understand there were 14 deaths from Covid-19 - and matches were not officially banned for some days after that. So if we get down to those levels by October, why shouldn't we have 3,000 in Moss Lane? Seriously, what is the difference, if it was alright then? And where in the world is there any sign of this famous second wave? (And I don't mean increased infection whilst hospitalizations continue to fall, or first waves coming late in the day). Answers on a postcard please...
And, haven't we had ideal breeding grounds in shops for months? All those people going in, touching things, standing in the middle of the aisle on their phone so that people inevitably pass close to them etc. etc.
Or I know, why don't we compromise? Reserve half the ground, say, for lockdown zealots (also known as bedwetters etc.) - say 962 places at 25% capacity, and have 3850 of us in the rest of the ground. We could even increase it to 2/3 of the ground for those particularly vulnerable to this virus if there is the demand for it (1283 places, and 2566 places for the rest of us). I dare say you people love segregation, and after all it would be just like Portsmouth which had special tickets for a singing section.
Oh, and another thing. Don't panic! Do not panic, mister Mainwaring. There's a bug on the loose. Fix bayonets. They don't like it up'em, they do not like it up'em! CHARGE!
Sorry, but you're the one who implied I'm killing Grandad - and me recently bereaved and all. Certainly I think we should protect care homes, the vulnerable, disabled etc. and it was a disgrace that infectious people out of hospital were sent into care homes, throwing care homes under the bus to "protect the NHS" ( aren't the NHS supposed to protect us?) - if anyone deserves criticism, perhaps it is the people behind this. And by the way, Grandma is in a care home, so I'm absolutely fuming about what has happened. These viruses, though, as I say, tend to become less virulent over time, and, as I say, I am quite happy to reserve a section of the ground for those who feel particularly vulnerable, in the same way as I would advocate specific times to shop for those who don't want to wear face nappies.