12 players and staff contracting coronavirus suggests to me that it is highly contagious. (The current strain is much worse than the original.)

Salford's testing suggests that our players were not contagious during the game. That in turn could mean they didn't catch it until after the game, but testing positive less than 24 hours later seems a bit unlikely to me.

Well I fully expect the whole off the Salford team and the rest of the hull team to test positive then or like you say we turned the contagious switch off for 80 mins during the game

Not much physical contact in Hulls defence

Your not wrong

Not pedantic at all. Just like Trump you say what supports your argument whether it is the whole truth or not

You asked for stats, I gave you some to peruse. You don't like what they say, that's your prerogative.

Quote ="Large Paws"I didn't say any had been quoted did I? I was referring to the statistics and facts that are readily available, to anyone with an internet connection, and which show that the virus isn't as deadly as first thought. I'll give you one STAT for starters. Up to the 31st July this year, there had only been 300 deaths recorded of a person under 60 years of age, from/with Covid, when no other condition/co-morbidity was present. So the FACT is that a healthy person who catches the virus is very unlikely to die from/with it..'" ONS: - https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... napril2020 “In April 2020 in England, 37.0% of all deaths occurring were a result of COVID-19. When broken down by sex, this was 41.6% of all deaths for males and 32.4% of all deaths for females. When looking at the proportion by age group, the highest proportion of deaths due to COVID-19 was in age group 75 to 84 years, with 40.1% of all deaths in this age group having an underlying cause of COVID-19. For males, the highest proportion of deaths due to COVID-19 was in age group 45 to 64 years (44.3%), whereas for females it was age group 75 to 84 years (36.5%).” “ There were 33,841 deaths involving the coronavirus (COVID-19) that occurred between 1 March and 30 April 2020 registered up to 5 May 2020 in England and Wales; of these, 32,143 (95.0%) had COVID-19 assigned as the underlying cause of death.” So up to April there were 33,841 deaths of which the highest proportion of deaths was in the age group 45 to 64 for males. Where does your figure of 300 deaths for those under 60 come from?

Quote ="Large Paws"I didn't say any had been quoted did I? I was referring to the statistics and facts that are readily available, to anyone with an internet connection, and which show that the virus isn't as deadly as first thought. I'll give you one STAT for starters. Up to the 31st July this year, there had only been 300 deaths recorded of a person under 60 years of age, from/with Covid, when no other condition/co-morbidity was present. So the FACT is that a healthy person who catches the virus is very unlikely to die from/with it..'" ONS: - https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... napril2020 “In April 2020 in England, 37.0% of all deaths occurring were a result of COVID-19. When broken down by sex, this was 41.6% of all deaths for males and 32.4% of all deaths for females. When looking at the proportion by age group, the highest proportion of deaths due to COVID-19 was in age group 75 to 84 years, with 40.1% of all deaths in this age group having an underlying cause of COVID-19. For males, the highest proportion of deaths due to COVID-19 was in age group 45 to 64 years (44.3%), whereas for females it was age group 75 to 84 years (36.5%).” “ There were 33,841 deaths involving the coronavirus (COVID-19) that occurred between 1 March and 30 April 2020 registered up to 5 May 2020 in England and Wales; of these, 32,143 (95.0%) had COVID-19 assigned as the underlying cause of death.” So up to April there were 33,841 deaths of which the highest proportion of deaths was in the age group 45 to 64 for males. Where does your figure of 300 deaths for those under 60 come from?

Quote ="Plum Bob"ONS: - https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... napril2020 “In April 2020 in England, 37.0% of all deaths occurring were a result of COVID-19. When broken down by sex, this was 41.6% of all deaths for males and 32.4% of all deaths for females. When looking at the proportion by age group, the highest proportion of deaths due to COVID-19 was in age group 75 to 84 years, with 40.1% of all deaths in this age group having an underlying cause of COVID-19. For males, the highest proportion of deaths due to COVID-19 was in age group 45 to 64 years (44.3%), whereas for females it was age group 75 to 84 years (36.5%).” “ There were 33,841 deaths involving the coronavirus (COVID-19) that occurred between 1 March and 30 April 2020 registered up to 5 May 2020 in England and Wales; of these, 32,143 (95.0%) had COVID-19 assigned as the underlying cause of death.” So up to April there were 33,841 deaths of which the highest proportion of deaths was in the age group 45 to 64 for males. Where does your figure of 300 deaths for those under 60 come from?'" The NHS data for deaths in hospital, follow the link provided in my post.

Quote ="Plum Bob"ONS: - https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... napril2020 “In April 2020 in England, 37.0% of all deaths occurring were a result of COVID-19. When broken down by sex, this was 41.6% of all deaths for males and 32.4% of all deaths for females. When looking at the proportion by age group, the highest proportion of deaths due to COVID-19 was in age group 75 to 84 years, with 40.1% of all deaths in this age group having an underlying cause of COVID-19. For males, the highest proportion of deaths due to COVID-19 was in age group 45 to 64 years (44.3%), whereas for females it was age group 75 to 84 years (36.5%).” “ There were 33,841 deaths involving the coronavirus (COVID-19) that occurred between 1 March and 30 April 2020 registered up to 5 May 2020 in England and Wales; of these, 32,143 (95.0%) had COVID-19 assigned as the underlying cause of death.” So up to April there were 33,841 deaths of which the highest proportion of deaths was in the age group 45 to 64 for males. Where does your figure of 300 deaths for those under 60 come from?'" The NHS data for deaths in hospital, follow the link provided in my post.

Typical Trumpism. Deaths in hospital show only part of the picture.

Quote ="Large Paws"The NHS data for deaths in hospital, follow the link provided in my post.'" I posted mine before reading your later posts with the information. However, even then using the NHS statistics the deaths in your age range are still higher than the figure you quote. Here’s an interesting take on it. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... SApp_Other

Quote ="Large Paws"The NHS data for deaths in hospital, follow the link provided in my post.'" I posted mine before reading your later posts with the information. However, even then using the NHS statistics the deaths in your age range are still higher than the figure you quote. Here’s an interesting take on it. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... SApp_Other

Typical Leftist political view. See verifiable statistics and refuse to believe them.
Nowhere have I said that the figures represent the whole picture, just that these are the NHS stats.

Quote ="Plum Bob"I posted mine before reading your later posts with the information. However, even then using the NHS statistics the deaths in your age range are still higher than the figure you quote. Here’s an interesting take on it. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... SApp_Other'" The data in the link quite clearly shows that of the 1,389 deaths with no underlying condition, where Covid was present, 304 were under the age of 60. I appreciate that these deaths only represent approx 75% of the total deaths. I think the data sample is however large enough to give the overall picture. Thank you for the link to the article.

Quote ="Plum Bob"I posted mine before reading your later posts with the information. However, even then using the NHS statistics the deaths in your age range are still higher than the figure you quote. Here’s an interesting take on it. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... SApp_Other'" The data in the link quite clearly shows that of the 1,389 deaths with no underlying condition, where Covid was present, 304 were under the age of 60. I appreciate that these deaths only represent approx 75% of the total deaths. I think the data sample is however large enough to give the overall picture. Thank you for the link to the article.

No you used the figures to prove your assertion that Covid-19 is not that much of a problem. Your take on the situation is way off the mark. You are also wrong in your assumption about my political views. You obviously make your decisions on more than one issue based on inadequate information.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics, or something like that, Mark Twain

Let’s hope all the boys showing symptoms fully recover, and our game can once again in the dreaded 20/20 can move on.

I, in no way suggested it isn't much of a problem.
The statistic I used was to highlight that, those with no underlying conditions, under 60 years of age, are significantly at less risk, of a poor outcome. By the way I fall in to the higher risk group, by way of being 60 plus.
We'll agree to disagree on our interpretation of the stats.

Hopefully all those at the club with the virus will come through it with no lasting problems.

Regards

Donald.

I've already pulled up ONS for them spreading lies/fake news and made several complaints regards their unlawful misuse of people dying by incorrect use of language, they continue to use the word 'FROM' or 'OF' when the thousands of doctors across the country have clearly stated that it's only deaths that have a non isolated virus mentioned in the death certificate and are not underlying cause at all for the vast majority. ONS are deliberately, and to me unlawfully manipulating deaths, producing documents with false/misleading information on it that contradicts the actual register of deaths.

Dying WITH is not the same as dying FROM, that's before you even get to deaths being attributed with no test, deaths attributed instead of pneumonia (as per the governments own directive in March re filling in death certificates), that's before you even get to the false positives, the force/pressure on doctors to put down C.19 when it's clear that the deceased had serious underlying condition/s.
This was even admitted by Prof Neil Ferguson that the vast majority who would die would die no matter what because their underlying health was so bad, his words not mine.
You only ever attribute/code a death by underlying condition, you cannot count it twice or deliberately count it as something else as the government have been doing and indeed all the shills making out that there is a pandemic when there isn't/

More people of died from removing health care and they die from their existing conditions than there have from any theoretical new virus strain.
Do you know how many people were tested in April for influenza in England and Wales? Well in one week the governments own document showed that they tested TWO people for flu, across the whole country, if you test millions then of course you will get more positives of something with a test so flawed as to be useless.

As for Trump, you clearly don't have a clue, simply wade in with the TRUMP/BORIS/any other public figure whom you think is hated and ally me to them, I'm surprised you didn't use Hitler in all honesty!


Trump has actually said some things that are accurate for a change, especially regards the W.H.O., some of the time he's made statements regards C.19 against the grain just because he wants to kick back against everyone else and got lucky in terms of them being factually accurate. Not because he necessarily believed it or had any real grasp of the matter but because it's his shtick, he's just another tool whose self inflated ego and delusional idiocy is enough that his paymasters can give him some leash to just crack on.

Here, I collated all the deaths from ONS where respiratory death was the underlying cause of death, note how low the so called peak of C.19 is to the peak of week two of 2015!

That’s them told then, eh? I bet they feel reet daft now.

I bet Sir Ian Diamond, the National Statistician, is quaking in his boots after receiving Tony's e-mail.

12 now, one staff member from Saints, just glad Bumpy knows better.

Ah right, so when a government organisation spouts propaganda/fake news you just say nothing. gotcha, it's you who looks daft by attacking someone who cares about our society and wants to make a point like others that it's not acceptable for government to lie and decieve..

at the risk of getting back to rugby matters [url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/53838573here[/url is a slightly worrying story concerning a french union team who had a covid outbreak, albeit a bit bigger than what has occurred in hull. seems some players have suffered a bit more longer term damage, though by no means permanent it may affect the timescales for them taking to the playing arena again

Give it a rest bumpy, please.

I think you’re wrong and what seems to be the main thrust of your analysis is nonsensical.

there might be a debate about the optimal way to present the data, but your interpretation and methodology wouldn’t be a front runner.

I mean, maybe I shouldn’t be a snotgob about it. Maybe it is no worse than a flat-earth theory. On the other hand, it remains a major and pressing public health issue - and you’re chucking about some pretty hefty accusations.

If only they hadn't worn bicycle helmets, it would have all been OK.

I very occasionally like this game.

A nice piece of balloon popping Sandro. Well done!!