BWitcher

In my younger days every meeting I could possibly attend was the best ever, I had the bug that bad. In later years I'd say 1996 and 2009. Both seasons I was fortunate enough to get to every meeting home and away and in both years Wolves were Champions.

Yet the racing is barely any different to yesteryear.. and the riders are much closer together in the majority of races.. certainly compared to late 80's early 90's. Whilst I take on board the view that we all like to see good racing, there is little to no evidence to suggest it alters crowd figures.

How many people you know is irrelevant. 40,000 people go to Cardiff every single year.. somewhat higher than the people you know who 'hated going there'. Also somewhat higher than go to any of the tracks where you find 'great racing'. You're right, Cardiff does highlight of one of the big problems in speedway. Unfortunately you've just got it mixed up.. it shows people AREN'T prepared to put up with any old garbage that you get in stadiums up and down the country.. but are willing to pay extra for quality.

Let's also not forget Covid-19 hasn't killed 115,000... 115,000 have died who happened to have it. Or in some cases.. it was 'guessed' that they had it. Significant difference.

So what you are actually saying is, you don't like Cardiff... therefore it's your belief nobody does. "Nobody who goes to speedway could care less about the atmosphere" You keep surpassing yourself with the absolute stupidity (that's being polite) of your statements. Atmosphere is the biggest factor. 1981 World Final at Wembley is remembered by many as the greatest meeting they've ever been too because of the ATMOSPHERE. Stage that meeting and have the same quality of racing in front of 1000 people, it would be deemed as an average meeting at best. Besides you keep making these bold statements of 'nobody goes' etc... when the reality is, they do go... 40,000 of them. How many pack in to the NSS, or Scunthorpe, or Peterborough? Tracks that deliver the 'great racing'?

It was Rob McCaffrey I think Philip But I agree.

Do you work for the BSPA? This is the kind of idiotic idea they'd come out with. Let's go from 40,000 crowds to 10,000. That will be a major stepping stone for the sport!

Well they are directly linked so little wonder it's part of the conversation.

I don't disagree with any of that. I just simply point to what the 'experts' that we are told by some we must listen too said if a country didn't lock down. It wouldn't just see them get cases.. but an absolute crazy amount.. hundreds of thousands were to die.. Not locking down isn't a cure... the issue is, has locking down actually made any difference, or enough of a difference to warrant the severe collateral damage.

Shhh... lest they work out the master plan behind all this.

If he has we know what he's been up to!

And once you've digested it.....

Awful places. I avoid the use of public toilets as much as possible.. especially for no 2's... if it's an absolute desperate situation, it's a case of squatting and not touching the seat!

Feel free, the more information shared the better!

Up until April 5th less people had died in the UK this year than the average for the past five years. With the recent 'success' of the lockdown and the surge of deaths, that figure is now being surpassed.

Totally agree with that.

We're up to a month now! Blimey, this virus keeps taking longer and longer. 14 days.. 21 days.. now a month. However long is necessary to get the numbers to fit I guess! In Japan it's taking 4 months to start killing. But boy.. just wait till it does. Same in Sweden no doubt.

There are just as many if not more who will have had preliminary symptoms and not self isolated. Millions and millions will have had some of the symptoms listed for Covid-19 as a number of them are the same as the common cold, or a strain of flu. The majority have not locked themselves away. Yet the overwhelming majority of deaths you see reported, the pattern seems to be the same.. had been self isolating.. condition deteriorated. Viruses thrive indoors. That's proven. Self isolating I don't mind per se, but get some fresh air and in particular sunlight at the very least! My Mother received a letter from the NHS yesterday telling her she is not to go outside her house.. but she can have a window open. Absolute nonsense. So suggesting can't sit in the garden? Do you think the virus is going to fly over the fence? But it won't fly through an open window?

These pale into comparison to the numbers still going to work, cramming onto the tube and going to supermarkets.

Perhaps he means they were out so in danger of being run over?

Indeed... the reality is, the vast majority of deaths appear to be from those who were 'self isolating'.

But we do have true evidence now that there isn't a single country that has either 'not locked down' or have a much 'laxer' lockdown that has seen any significant surge in either cases or deaths. In reality, it's actually been the opposite. The justification for the lockdown was we'd see 20 x the cases, 20 x the deaths. Events around the world are showing that simply isn't the case... so we're simply destroying the economy and creating absolutely massive problems down the line (which many simply don't grasp) for what amounts to be very little or no gain at all. Based upon the initial models there was a very strong argument the lockdown was the way to go.... but as more and more data emerges they need to stop modelling on theories and actually look at reality. The problem you will have now is stubborness. The 'experts' will not want to admit they were wrong.. governments will have a hard time coming out saying, well actually, sorry folks, we cocked up here, seems the lockdown doesn't actually help. In reality, in a sensible world they shouldn't be criticised if they did that.. they did what they thought was best and the models showed and erred on the side of caution. Sadly though people turn fast and they'd get a very negative response. PLUS you'd have a section of society who would blame every death thereafter on there not being a lockdown and forget all about those who were dying when there was one. The other factor is... for a lockdown to have any chance to work, it needs to be total.. as it was in Wuhan. However, you simply can't lock down an entire country. Whilst people are still going to work, going to supermarkets etc... and you have idiots breaking the guidelines (not the ones in parks, more the ones having house parties) it simply isn't going to happen. This 'myth' that the lockdown is working because numbers are beginning to stabilise is just that. A myth. That's how viruses work.. indeed it happens every single year without fail. In October you start to see an increase in flu/pneumonia related deaths.. the figure rises and rises quite sharply till in December you hit around 3000 a week dying. That continues for a number of weeks at that level (doesn't rise further like these stupid models keep portraying) before starting to drop down as winter comes to an end. This virus is following the exact same pattern.

Daily deaths from viruses are never below 100 a day. Even in summer.

You're underplaying it. That's just flu... it doesn't include pneumonia deaths which are another 100,000 or so deaths. At least 1/3 of which come from flu.. the rest from other viruses contracted from social contact. So basically 100,000+ deaths.. no lockdown necessary. They're expendable.

An average of 34,000 people have died between Jan and the end of March over the last five years. from flu/pneumonia. Sure, there's a vaccine but that will only cover one of the strains and even then isn't guaranteed... and as a result 34,000 people are dying. So why do we not lock down? After all, those deaths are caused from social contact. Effectively, what you are saying is, those 34,000 don't count.