Barrow AFC.net

Barrow started testing earlier and so had more RECORDED cases. That is all

russell_anderson wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 9:23 am

Main Stand SeasonTct wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 9:07 am

Yes please check the facts. No new cases in Barrow over the last five days and only 8 since May 11th. We are no hotspot.

The fact is that Barrow certainly was a hotspot even if it not any longer.

Are you sure? - Barrow had a lot of positive test results because they (along with the rest of the Morecambe Bay trust )did a lot of tests and started in February and also in care homes - which nationally was not done.

You could compare this to Football - because footballers are being tested they are getting more positive results - does that mean football is a hotspot area of does it just reflect the fact that if you test for something you will find it?

Statistics can be used for many things but usually are done without full context being explained (or listened to)

The only way to accurately compare any area would be to have tested every single person in the country on a rolling weekly basis - then a true comparison could be made - as every region/trust/are did things differently then any comparison of 1 figure is IMO very subjective and probably misleading.

Stephen Leonard wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 10:22 am

russell_anderson wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 9:23 am The fact is that Barrow certainly was a hotspot even if it not any longer.

Are you sure? - Barrow had a lot of positive test results because they (along with the rest of the Morecambe Bay trust )did a lot of tests and started in February and also in care homes - which nationally was not done.

You could compare this to Football - because footballers are being tested they are getting more positive results - does that mean football is a hotspot area of does it just reflect the fact that if you test for something you will find it?

Statistics can be used for many things but usually are done without full context being explained (or listened to)

The only way to accurately compare any area would be to have tested every single person in the country on a rolling weekly basis - then a true comparison could be made - as every region/trust/are did things differently then any comparison of 1 figure is IMO very subjective and probably misleading.

Unfortunately, the damage is done - the reputation of the town took a hit, even if that is nonsensical. I've spoken to plenty of people from outside the area who have asked me what it's like living in a coronavirus hotspot. Even our useless MP got it dragged up and Barrow used as an example in the daily briefings.

We tested early AGAINST GOVERNMENT ADVICE, and our local NHS should be being praised for that. Instead it looks like they did a terrible job to the casual observer.

Moribund wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 10:29 am

Stephen Leonard wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 10:22 am Are you sure? - Barrow had a lot of positive test results because they (along with the rest of the Morecambe Bay trust )did a lot of tests and started in February and also in care homes - which nationally was not done.

You could compare this to Football - because footballers are being tested they are getting more positive results - does that mean football is a hotspot area of does it just reflect the fact that if you test for something you will find it?

Statistics can be used for many things but usually are done without full context being explained (or listened to)

The only way to accurately compare any area would be to have tested every single person in the country on a rolling weekly basis - then a true comparison could be made - as every region/trust/are did things differently then any comparison of 1 figure is IMO very subjective and probably misleading.

Unfortunately, the damage is done - the reputation of the town took a hit, even if that is nonsensical. I've spoken to plenty of people from outside the area who have asked me what it's like living in a coronavirus hotspot. Even our useless MP got it dragged up and Barrow used as an example in the daily briefings.

We tested early AGAINST GOVERNMENT ADVICE, and our local NHS should be being praised for that. Instead it looks like they did a terrible job to the casual observer.

I've been in touch with simon fell requested he does more highlighting exactly what you have said!!
It just seems that at any given opportunity, our town and area get hit with the shit stick!
What we did early on should as again mentioned is be praised and used as an example to other places.

I didn't believe all this virus stuff at the start but obviously my opinion changed when it all hit the fan!

Will all the bad press go against our promotion Hope's?

Sorry guys I didn't mean to trivialise coronavirus wherever it is. And I agree that lives saved against football games lost is not a debate worth having.

If I was speculating it was more to do the motivation and attitudes of those who think that they are in charge. Human nature is often such an odd thing. Take the Premier league who meet today to discuss the details of restarting the season. Within that discussion will be what happens if they cant complete the season - the same debate as the EFL is trying to conclude. However the context that they are having this debate is one where they have restarted. Their focus is a second wave occurring before they complete. So they've already indirectly discounted the existing level of COVID as being "acceptable" to play. Like it or not it creates precedents.

With regard to Barrow's COVID experience I was made aware of this via the media. However with a little digging I did discover that the numbers were quoted simply by taking population and dividing it by cases. Further I then became aware of the fact that the incidence of testing in the town was higher than the norm - ergo you test more, you find more.

More compelling was a piece of research put out by HMG last week, that showed that in 18 boroughs in the UK the incidence of COVID 19 was still rising. Towards the top of that list were Carlisle and Preston though not Barrow.

Suffolk Blue wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 10:50 am Sorry guys I didn't mean to trivialise coronavirus wherever it is. And I agree that lives saved against football games lost is not a debate worth having.

If I was speculating it was more to do the motivation and attitudes of those who think that they are in charge. Human nature is often such an odd thing. Take the Premier league who meet today to discuss the details of restarting the season. Within that discussion will be what happens if they cant complete the season - the same debate as the EFL is trying to conclude. However the context that they are having this debate is one where they have restarted. Their focus is a second wave occurring before they complete. So they've already indirectly discounted the existing level of COVID as being "acceptable" to play. Like it or not it creates precedents.

With regard to Barrow's COVID experience I was made aware of this via the media. However with a little digging I did discover that the numbers were quoted simply by taking population and dividing it by cases. Further I then became aware of the fact that the incidence of testing in the town was higher than the norm - ergo you test more, you find more.

More compelling was a piece of research put out by HMG last week, that showed that in 18 boroughs in the UK the incidence of COVID 19 was still rising. Towards the top of that list were Carlisle and Preston though not Barrow.

This is the thing though - 99% of people don't do that extra digging. They saw The Mail front page "Barrow is the worst for coronavirus" and then the subsequent hatchet jobs by the nationals (which the Mail was suddenly opposed to), and took them at face value.

Of course testing doesn't explain that away and the numbers are/were a cause for concern - but if all towns and regions tested to the same level, they'd find that loads of places have been just as badly hit.

And yes, if it ever came down to a straight vote, Barrow or Stevenage (for example), you can bet that the recent bad press for Barrow would play on some chairmen's minds.

Taking this back on track:

The EFL clubs are going to have 6 proposals to vote on next week:

1) the current EFL framework (Unweighted PPG, Promotions, relegations and play offs)
2) The Tranmere proposal (PPG with margin of error added/subtracted with some promotions and relegations)
3) Barnsley Proposal (No Relegations anywhere)

There are also the 3 extra amendments which were suggested which they can vote on:

1) Lincoln’s Proposal (working out PPG when Points have been deducted)
2) League 2’s original proposal (no relegations from league 2)
3) Additional Play Offs in League One

Adam29 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 12:23 pm Taking this back on track:

The EFL clubs are going to have 6 proposals to vote on next week:

1) the current EFL framework (Unweighted PPG, Promotions, relegations and play offs)
2) The Tranmere proposal (PPG with margin of error added/subtracted with some promotions and relegations)
3) Barnsley Proposal (No Relegations anywhere)

There are also the 3 extra amendments which were suggested which they can vote on:

1) Lincoln’s Proposal (working out PPG when Points have been deducted)
2) League 2’s original proposal (no relegations from league 2)
3) Additional Play Offs in League One

The Tranmere proposal will cause problems because ultimately it seeks to save Tranmere and shaft Wimbledon. But it would be deployed across the entire EFL. It also creates a variable number of promotion/play-off candidates each time it is deployed. The EFL seem wedded to 4 in a play-off. It as solution based on sorting a problem in L1. I'd be surprised if that passed.

The Barnsley proposal is also very crude. No relegations from the EFL means no relegations from the Premier League. Might work if the Prem decide on no relegations. Otherwise doesn't seem to hold much appeal.

The Lincoln proposal would actually save Macclesfield as far as I can see, so I'm not sure has much relevance. May or may not be passed

Additional Play-offs in League 1. Again a League 1 matter only.

Reintroduction of no relegation from L2 - presumably by Stevenage. Who knows?

But plenty of scope for us being shafted amongst that lot. It should be clear by now that I'm a conspiracy theorist at heart. So I'm not optimistic.

Suffolk Blue wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 12:52 pm

Adam29 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 12:23 pm Taking this back on track:

The EFL clubs are going to have 6 proposals to vote on next week:

1) the current EFL framework (Unweighted PPG, Promotions, relegations and play offs)
2) The Tranmere proposal (PPG with margin of error added/subtracted with some promotions and relegations)
3) Barnsley Proposal (No Relegations anywhere)

There are also the 3 extra amendments which were suggested which they can vote on:

1) Lincoln’s Proposal (working out PPG when Points have been deducted)
2) League 2’s original proposal (no relegations from league 2)
3) Additional Play Offs in League One

The Tranmere proposal will cause problems because ultimately it seeks to save Tranmere and shaft Wimbledon. But it would be deployed across the entire EFL. It also creates a variable number of promotion/play-off candidates each time it is deployed. The EFL seem wedded to 4 in a play-off. It as solution based on sorting a problem in L1. I'd be surprised if that passed.

The Barnsley proposal is also very crude. No relegations from the EFL means no relegations from the Premier League. Might work if the Prem decide on no relegations. Otherwise doesn't seem to hold much appeal.

The Lincoln proposal would actually save Macclesfield as far as I can see, so I'm not sure has much relevance. May or may not be passed

Additional Play-offs in League 1. Again a League 1 matter only.

Reintroduction of no relegation from L2 - presumably by Stevenage. Who knows?

But plenty of scope for us being shafted amongst that lot. It should be clear by now that I'm a conspiracy theorist at heart. So I'm not optimistic.

The Lincoln proposal is potentially bad news for Macclesfield as it would mean that any further points deduction against them could relegate them;-

As it stands PPG is calculated and then the points deduction is taken off;- so a PPG table would have Macclesfield on 44.76 (-11) = 33.76 points whilst Stevenage would be on 28.11 and would need a further 6 point deduction (including the suspended 2 point deduction) to go below Stevenage.
Under the Ipswich proposal Macclesfields PPG points would be calculated on the number after the points deduction, giving their new PPG final figure as 31.08 points (46*(25/37)).
IF Macclesfield get 1 more point deduction from the 3 new charges then along with their 2 points suspended penalty that would put them on 22 points the same as Stevenage but having played a game more and under Ipswich's proposal instead of still being safe with 33.76 - 3 = 30.76 they would be bottom on (46*(22/37)) = 27.35

Even with all these different proposals The EFL & F.A. remain committed to promotion and relegation , if this wasn`t the case why would they let the Premier League & Championship finish their leagues it would be a futile gesture and they would have had to inform them of this before a ball has been kicked because if not the whole thing would be a waste of time.

Chipmunx - thanks for that. The maths was doing my head in. The proposal now makes more sense.

Responding to the earlier divergence from the topic, Barrow was 'the worst' for Coronavirus by population at one point. The MP - who actually seems to be pushing the area's profile with government very well since his election - did his job by raising it with the Health Secretary to seek find out in the face of various hypotheses: mobile workforce, external workers, poverty*, education and level of testing. I haven't yet seen any detail of reporting back as yet but I guess the NHS statisticians have a lot of regular reporting to keep them busy.

It is said that UHMBHT tested far more than most hospital trusts at an earlier stage though I haven't seen figures to show this either. Certainly the other two District LA in their area (S Lakes and Lancaster) also featured in the 'top ten' at the same time.

The most recent figures based upon death certificates published by ONS on Tuesday are for the week ending 22nd May and were quoted on Twitter by Bob Cooper of BBCRC

The Mail was right to challenge some of the National press. While the Mirror report was balanced, it was presented with a large picture of their reporter wearing a medical grade mask by the Barrow sign on Abbey Road. Hardly nuanced.

*It was disappointing to see the deputy leader of the Borough Council leap in straight away with the "we have so many problems" card. Nobody would deny them but they appear worse by being a higher proportion in a small district; had Barrow district had wider borders and bigger population like all the other local districts, it would have enabled a truer comparison. Local leaders need to project more positives nationally. Barrow AFC and its supporters can do the same by helping to challenge stereotypes. If we join the FL, this will give us a bigger platform to do so.

blue nige wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 1:32 pm Even with all these different proposals The EFL & F.A. remain committed to promotion and relegation , if this wasn`t the case why would they let the Premier League & Championship finish their leagues it would be a futile gesture and they would have had to inform them of this before a ball has been kicked because if not the whole thing would be a waste of time.

Nige. As far as I'm aware the Premier League have not concluded their thoughts on their season as they will be playing on. So they've never stated definitively that there will be relegation. The FA fired a warning shot a little while ago when it said that it expected the Premier League to declare a result irrespective of finishing though this was probably aimed at avoiding null and void.

There is also the issue of what happens if the Premier League recommences and then has to stop again. In fact they are considering this today. So nothing is fixed in stone. You could have an outcome that says in the event the Premier League finishes there is relegation, but if it is curtailed again there is not. I wonder how the EFL would their head around that one!

Suffolk Blue wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 2:00 pm

blue nige wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 1:32 pm Even with all these different proposals The EFL & F.A. remain committed to promotion and relegation , if this wasn`t the case why would they let the Premier League & Championship finish their leagues it would be a futile gesture and they would have had to inform them of this before a ball has been kicked because if not the whole thing would be a waste of time.

Nige. As far as I'm aware the Premier League have not concluded their thoughts on their season as they will be playing on. So they've never stated definitively that there will be relegation. The FA fired a warning shot a little while ago when it said that it expected the Premier League to declare a result irrespective of finishing though this was probably aimed at avoiding null and void.

There is also the issue of what happens if the Premier League recommences and then has to stop again. In fact they are considering this today. So nothing is fixed in stone. You could have an outcome that says in the event the Premier League finishes there is relegation, but if it is curtailed again there is not. I wonder how the EFL would their head around that one!

I get where you`re coming from but there must have been some discussion or how do you thinks Leeds & other clubs` would react there would be a massive legal battle so the EFL & Premier League would have to agree before a ball is kicked , just because it`s not in the public domain doesn`t mean there`s been no agreement.

And I'm back on topic.

Good that the Tranmere proposal acknowledges "a clear leader" in the National League.

Meanwhile in replies to relevant posts on Twitter, that noted source of reasoned, intelligent conversation, the emphasis seems to have moved from Barrow should/shouldn't be promoted to the question of whether Harrogate will also be promoted.

If Barrow do go up, the club and supporters should be grateful to Neil Ardley for his frankness in his opinion on "the best team in the league" and repeating it in recent weeks. Truly sporting.