Two-week delay in full opening would be a crushing blow to Surrey - and county cricket

I hear on the news this morning that the Government are weighing up whether to delay the date for removing all remaining Covid restrictions - including limits on capacities at sporting venues - for two weeks.

At first glance, this might seem relatively insignificant in the grand scheme of things. But it would have huge consequences for Surrey, and for county cricket.

A two-week delay would mean that only one of Surrey's T20 home fixtures could be played in front of a capacity crowd (Kent on 9 July). The other six would be members only - so the club would make little revenue from food and drink with the ground only a quarter full, and would have to refund all of the money they have taken to sell-out (or near) crowds against Essex, Somerset and Middlesex.

In addition, the audience we have cultivated who enjoy the bite-sized cricket experience will have been so starved of it that they will snap up tickets for the Hundred simply because there is no other show in town. This would enable the wretched farce to snatch underserved success from the jaws of what is otherwise likely to be a cataclysmic failure. And the consequences of that for our counties don't bear thinking about. Would our T20 customer-base be committed enough to the Surrey brand to return after two years without watching us, and also given that we are going to be fielding fewer star attractions in our line-up than they have been accustomed to watching?

I will be holding my breath and praying that when Boris makes the announcement on Monday week he does not delay the roadmap. Because if he does, then I fear we will pay a heavy price indeed for not "walking the talk", and refusing to hand over the keys to our ground, which would almost certainly have sunk the Hundred below the waterline.

They say fortune favours the brave: regrettably, the corollary that it can often abandon the timid is also the case.

Exactly put. This country has got to stop hiding down rabbit holes on every perceived "risk" involved with this bloody virus. What is, and excuse the language, the f***ing point of the vaccines? Hospitalization s and deaths have crashed. People are just going to ignore this stuff, and I see far fewer even wearing masks now. Ok if we should get a variant resistant to the vaccines in the future which I doubt, deal with it then. But this pushing everything back policy has to stop

Hi Jackers - England's ODI against Sri Lanka is also scheduled to be held at the Oval on 1st July and so would be caught by a two week delay.

Assuming this ODI is a sell out, untold expense and hassle would undoubtedly result for the Club and those expecting to attend with numbers having to be cut back.

[My views on covid and the Government were well rehearsed on the old site and I won't bother repeating them here. Hoping others - looking at you, Adelaide - follow the same approach or set up a dedicated covid thread.]

I agree with all this. To me the whole thing is simple.

If you are vulnerable you have been offered the vaccine and if you have accepted it you are extremely unlikely to catch or transmit Covid.

If you are vulnerable and continue to refuse the vaccine that is a private matter (some would say you've made a foolish decision, but that's up to you) but it's nothing to do with the rest of us.

If you are young and have not yet been offered the vaccine you may catch it and have an unpleasant week or two - think flu.

And to all of us: new variants will appear for the rest of our lives and beyond, so for goodness' sake get over it and get on with life.

Am I missing something here?

I think you have made it a bit too simple in places.

There are vulnerable people for whom the vaccine is unsafe. The more people are infected (even harmlessly) the more danger those people are in. They can't shield for ever.

The more people are infected (even harmlessly), the quicker new variants will appear. No vaccine is 100% effective. 90% is pretty good. 60%, which is seemingly being suggested for one of the latest variants (though goodness knows from what evidence) would be a lot better than 0% but not very good. There is confidence that the vaccine can be tweaked to deal with new variants but that is bound to take at least a few months each time.

Even young people can suffer "long Covid".

For all these reasons, refusing the vaccine when you are fit to take it should not in my view be seen as a private matter, as it affects others, not just their own personal bid for a Darwin Award. People who refuse would of course be in much greater danger if most of the rest of hadn't had the jab so there is an element of freeloading about it too.

Now I hope that none of those points are important enough at this stage to delay things further but I don't think they can just be dismissed out of hand.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Adelaide. A cricket site isn't the right place for a long debate, so I'll just say that (a) nothing's perfect, (b) the harm done to the small number of people allergic to the vaccine is as nothing compared to the harm done to millions by lockdown, and (c) in a globalised world, how many we vaccinate in England (as opposed to India, Nepal ...) to say nothing of the Chinese enthusiasm for bio warfare, is irrelevant to the emergence & transmission of variants.

But more important - lets get some b****y cricket!

Robertoflondon wrote:Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Adelaide. A cricket site isn't the right place for a long debate, so I'll just say that (a) nothing's perfect, (b) the harm done to the small number of people allergic to the vaccine is as nothing compared to the harm done to millions by lockdown, and (c) in a globalised world, how many we vaccinate in England (as opposed to India, Nepal ...) to say nothing of the Chinese enthusiasm for bio warfare, is irrelevant to the emergence & transmission of variants.

But more important - lets get some b****y cricket!

Hi Robert - I fully support your view and comments, especially the wording now in bold. You may have noticed that I previously attempted to encourage Adelaide to set up a dedicated thread if he really wishes to discuss covid matters in depth here.

guildfordbat wrote:

Robertoflondon wrote:Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Adelaide. A cricket site isn't the right place for a long debate, so I'll just say that (a) nothing's perfect, (b) the harm done to the small number of people allergic to the vaccine is as nothing compared to the harm done to millions by lockdown, and (c) in a globalised world, how many we vaccinate in England (as opposed to India, Nepal ...) to say nothing of the Chinese enthusiasm for bio warfare, is irrelevant to the emergence & transmission of variants.

But more important - lets get some b****y cricket!

Hi Robert - I fully support your view and comments, especially the wording now in bold. You may have noticed that I previously attempted to encourage Adelaide to set up a dedicated thread if he really wishes to discuss covid matters in depth here.

GB - If (OK, maybe when rather than if) I post on Covid, it is in response to what other people have posted on Covid, whatever the thread is supposed to be about. As it happens, this is a Covid-related thread.

Robert - Nothing is perfect but very little is simple either, including balancing different kinds of harm. On (b) it's not so much allergy to the vaccine as immune systems compromised by other conditions, I think. On (c) that's why international travel is likely to be one of the last things to return to normal, to at least reduce the scale and speed when new variants affect the UK. Also need to avoid a new variant developing here (again) so keeping the numbers infected down here is important.

Yes infections will go up as things are relaxed. However the chance of being hospitalised or dying is significantly reduced because of the vaccine rollout. That is the whole point of the vaccines which are between 60-80% effective against the Delta. The flu vaccine is about 50% effective but we don't run down rabbit holes for that. Currently less than 900 are in hospital. Variants will continue to evolve as all viruses do, but I worry about this paranoiac risk free society that is going on here, and to get back to cricket, what effect another needless delay will have. Because they will always want "another few weeks" won't they.

adelaide wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Robertoflondon wrote:Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Adelaide. A cricket site isn't the right place for a long debate, so I'll just say that (a) nothing's perfect, (b) the harm done to the small number of people allergic to the vaccine is as nothing compared to the harm done to millions by lockdown, and (c) in a globalised world, how many we vaccinate in England (as opposed to India, Nepal ...) to say nothing of the Chinese enthusiasm for bio warfare, is irrelevant to the emergence & transmission of variants.

But more important - lets get some b****y cricket!

Hi Robert - I fully support your view and comments, especially the wording now in bold. You may have noticed that I previously attempted to encourage Adelaide to set up a dedicated thread if he really wishes to discuss covid matters in depth here.

GB - If (OK, maybe when rather than if) I post on Covid, it is in response to what other people have posted on Covid, whatever the thread is supposed to be about. As it happens, this is a Covid-related thread.

Robert - Nothing is perfect but very little is simple either, including balancing different kinds of harm. On (b) it's not so much allergy to the vaccine as immune systems compromised by other conditions, I think. On (c) that's why international travel is likely to be one of the last things to return to normal, to at least reduce the scale and speed when new variants affect the UK. Also need to avoid a new variant developing here (again) so keeping the numbers infected down here is important.

As the initiator of the discussion, I was simply attempting to highlight the devastating impact of even a two-week delay on Surrey and county cricket, rather than comment on the COVID justification or otherwise for such a delay.

Jackers wrote:
As the instigator of the discussion, I was simply attempting to highlight the impact of a delay in opening up on Surrey and county cricket, rather than on the justification or otherwise for taking those measures. If that wasn't clear (to Adelaide, or anyone else) then I can only apologise. I am not suggesting for one moment that we veto debate on the justification issue, just making clear that irrespective of whether we believe a delay is justified we need to recognise the devastating impact even a short delay will mean for those of us who desperately want county cricket, rather than the Hundred, to succeed (they are mutually exclusive, trust me).

Fair enough, Jackers but I was only replying to RobertfromLondon and Chinaman. If people post their views on justification or the science, there are going to be responses, whether from the paranoia or Pollyanna end of the spectrum.

Chinaman's vaccine effectiveness comparison needs context. Deaths from seasonal flu have averaged about 15,000 per year in England over the last few years up to 2019/20. That's why 50% flu vaccine effectiveness is OK, particularly bearing in mind that flu vaccine takeup for over-65s is just above 70%. Even with lockdown and everything else in place, Covid has killed many times that number, so 60% vaccine effectiveness against a new variant would be pretty dire. I saw 80% quoted earlier today, which is a lot more hopeful.

Remember all over 65s are now fully vaccinated give or take the odd few. 90% of Covid related deaths were aged over 82 and 40% in care homes. But you miss the point: even if you catch it your chances of hospitalization and indeed death are now very unlikely so the infection rate is barely relevant. But look let's not get into all this again, nothing in life is risk free but as of now there is no justification in my view that the country cannot be opened up completely. The perceived risks do not justify extension. And I want to see cricket grounds full!

Chinaman wrote:Remember all over 65s are now fully vaccinated give or take the odd few. 90% of Covid related deaths were aged over 82 and 40% in care homes. But you miss the point: even if you catch it your chances of hospitalization and indeed death are now very unlikely so the infection rate is barely relevant. But look let's not get into all this again, nothing in life is risk free but as of now there is no justification in my view that the country cannot be opened up completely. The perceived risks do not justify extension. And I want to see cricket grounds full!

Sigh. No, Chinaman, you miss the point. If the vaccine only offered 60% protection against a new variant then all those vaccinated would still be at pretty substantial risk of getting Covid, in which case the oldest and sickest would again be at substantial risk of hospitalisation and dying - unless the new variant is comparatively benign.

Hopefully the 60% will prove too pessimistic and we can return to normal - safely.

No they wouldn't because although they may catch it because of the vaccines it will be highly unlikely they will be hospitalised. That's the whole point of being vaccinated, otherwise why have it?

Why? If the vaccine has not protected you against a new variant, why would it be any better at keeping you out of hospital than not being vaccinated?

The vaccines may not prevent people catching COVID, but the emerging evidence is that they protect the vast majority of those who are fully vaccinated from serious illness, even from the variants. If the Government were to delay the roadmap, they would need to produce hard data which confirms that the variants are going to result in levels of hospitalisations like we witnessed in the first wave and between Christmas and early March  So far, despite the significant uptick in cases, the evidence emerging does not support that - almost certainly because the majority of us have now been double-vaccinated.

The fallback option, if they wish to be ultra-cautious, would be to limit the removal of all restrictions on 21 June to those who have been fully vaccinated for another 2/3 weeks, until sufficient numbers of the rest have received their full protection. I am not convinced the data emerging on hospital numbers in the next few days will justify such a restricted version of the roadmap, but let's see.

The vaccines boost your immune system. In doing so you are far less likely to suffer serious effects. No vaccine is going to be 100% effective, and, well no, enough of this. As far as I'm concerned I intend to carry on living life as I wish to within any obvious restrictions I can't control. As far as I'm concerned the risks have been minimal since April and you know people are just going to ignore this stuff because life must go on now. As a Government advisor said last week: "we can't keep running down rabbit holes every time some perceived new risk pops up". He's right, but it's an individual 's choice. If it all goes past shaped again in October I'll worry about it then. And I'm sure everyone will be pleased that's the last I'm going to say on the subject!

Chinaman wrote:The vaccines boost your immune system. In doing so you are far less likely to suffer serious effects.

Yes, the boost to the immune system from the flu jab protected old people really well from Covid, didn't it? Or, if we are talking variants, why would it be necessary to revise the spec of the flu jab regularly?

I'm not arguing that lockdown should continue and I hope that positive evidence will emerge that the vaccines will still cope. But if the vaccine scientists whose efforts have been pulling us out of the hole are worried about new variants, I don't think that should be lightly dismissed.

I said I've finished discussing this.

I believe there is some good data from the hospital admissions / vaccination status overlap (i.e. there isn't a major one, even for the Indian Delta double back somersault variant) and in any case, it depends heavily on whether these people have refused the vaccine (for non-medical reasons) or not. If they have refused it, then, well, tough. You're not delaying the whole roadmap because of your selfish actions.

The media would do well to remember that the vaccines break the link between cases and serious illnesses. With almost all of the priority groups having had two doses now, the cases will not be a problem, even if they get up to uncontrollable numbers again.

The only reason I would accept for the government to delay for 1-2 wks is if that 2-doses priority group list isn't where it needs to be.

Four days later...the penny is dropping

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-9665911/Cricket-counties-fear-losing-millions-Twenty20-Blast-sales-Government-postpone-stage-four.html

And Johnson is now very "downbeat" because he is wavering over whether enough have had 2 doses, although he will be "guided by the data". I will be pleasantly surprised if remaining restrictions are lifted in this risk adverse environment.

Chinaman wrote:And Johnson is now very "downbeat" because he is wavering over whether enough have had 2 doses, although he will be "guided by the data". I will be pleasantly surprised if remaining restrictions are lifted in this risk adverse environment.

I thought you weren't discussing it any more!

adelaide wrote:

Chinaman wrote:And Johnson is now very "downbeat" because he is wavering over whether enough have had 2 doses, although he will be "guided by the data". I will be pleasantly surprised if remaining restrictions are lifted in this risk adverse environment.

I thought you weren't discussing it any more!

Guilty. In my weak defence I believe you mentioned previously when it's strongly linked to the topic it's difficult. But I will try harder!

Chinaman wrote:

adelaide wrote:

Chinaman wrote:And Johnson is now very "downbeat" because he is wavering over whether enough have had 2 doses, although he will be "guided by the data". I will be pleasantly surprised if remaining restrictions are lifted in this risk adverse environment.

I thought you weren't discussing it any more!

Guilty. In my weak defence I believe you mentioned previously when it's strongly linked to the topic it's difficult. But I will try harder!

Let's hope the R value isn't too high or I might start doing it again!