THE F1 COVID THREAD: Will GP be cancelled?

[Adam43]

It might have been introduced a bit late, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t introduce it now. Might stop other horses bolting.

[bella]

it's a percentage game, and you swap in and out measures that will impact various things differently depending on what the priority is at the time.

they may not be looking at the direct effect a 14 day quarantine will have on the infection rate, it may be a secondary or tertiary effect that they're considering as being a motivator. for example, it will discourage tourism from other countries and make business trips not worthwhile without having to do something as drastic as close borders to anything but freight. it's one less variable when we're looking at what might cause the infection rates to increase.

for example, the priority with the lockdown was to stop it before they lost control of infection rates and hospitals were overwhelmed. tick. now they're looking at making sure the economy doesn't take too big a hit whilst also maintaining a manageable level of sickness. not limiting peoples outside excursions may only increase the risk by a small amount but it'll have a significantly positive impact on mental health and wellbeing. the challenge is how do you limit medium to large inadvertent gatherings whilst still allowing people the freedom to leave their houses? what do you do to offset that behaviour? do you then close public spaces so they have nowhere to congregate perhaps? or do you allow them freedom to roam so they're able to spread out more, but increase the amount of traffic on the road, and thus accident rates and put more pressure on the emergency services?

i hate how fascinating it all is, it feels incredibly morbid.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by S griffin

This 14 day quarantine is another case of locking the stable door after the horse has bolted.....

It's part of the balancing of control measures.
Tighten external borders to the system, while loosening internal borders.
The Government have a lot of knowledge about this. Let's wait and see what they say.
What happened to:

Originally Posted by S griffin

Let’s not panic yet. Let’s wait for the guidelines from the government. Until then let’s just keep going how we have been while taking a few necessary precautions. Don’t let it get on your mind too much

?

[Moneyseeker]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

If this is the case, it seems a bit strange to bring in these quarantine measures at the end of May, rather than implementing them from the outset.

I think that the UK and some of the other European countries are finding that the virus was actually in the Country much earlier than they originally thought, by the time they knew what it was it was already spreading. Now, it is about stopping the increase and controlling the infection rate.

I agree, on the face of it this does look like bolting the door after, etc, but I think that is the reason.

I know the media and some of the armchair experts and the usual pundits are critical of the governments approach and yes they have made mistakes. The UK government had done exercises on pandemics but expected a flu pandemic, Covid-19 reacts very differently and even the greatest brains around the world do not understand it, why it reacts it certain ways with certain people, why those with no other health conditions are dying from it.

[Moneyseeker]

Originally Posted by bella

it's a percentage game, and you swap in and out measures that will impact various things differently depending on what the priority is at the time.

they may not be looking at the direct effect a 14 day quarantine will have on the infection rate, it may be a secondary or tertiary effect that they're considering as being a motivator. for example, it will discourage tourism from other countries and make business trips not worthwhile without having to do something as drastic as close borders to anything but freight. it's one less variable when we're looking at what might cause the infection rates to increase.

for example, the priority with the lockdown was to stop it before they lost control of infection rates and hospitals were overwhelmed. tick. now they're looking at making sure the economy doesn't take too big a hit whilst also maintaining a manageable level of sickness. not limiting peoples outside excursions may only increase the risk by a small amount but it'll have a significantly positive impact on mental health and wellbeing. the challenge is how do you limit medium to large inadvertent gatherings whilst still allowing people the freedom to leave their houses? what do you do to offset that behaviour? do you then close public spaces so they have nowhere to congregate perhaps? or do you allow them freedom to roam so they're able to spread out more, but increase the amount of traffic on the road, and thus accident rates and put more pressure on the emergency services?

i hate how fascinating it all is, it feels incredibly morbid.

Some very good points Bella and yes I agree it is hideous and fascinating at the same time, we have certainly lived through some interesting times in the last 10-15 years.

On the motor sport and motoring front, I can't see sufficiently large gatherings will be allowed this year so those that can run behind closed doors will and those that need big ticket revenue to run will need to cancel.

I think the BGP puts the government in a dilemma..

The government needs to take the people with them to get compliance which means they need it to be fair and equal. If you not allowing 'gatherings' at all and maintaining social distancing rules and then you allow F1 to run at Silverstone with 2,000 people on site, just because F1 can afford Ross Brawn's 'biosphere'. What message does that send out to the public and how does that fit in with the governments 'levelling up' objective - you can have whatever gathering you like it if you can afford it? Let alone it is to allow global brands, billionaire team owners and millionaire drivers to indulge themselves - as most of the public will see it.

You will then get other venue owners saying - OK can I let people in if they have been recently tested then?

Yet, they want to see the UK getting back to business and hosting a global sport event, even without spectators is a marker.

Can Silverstone really afford to cancel and potentially refund the majority of the tickets if it is the UK that is cancelling it, not FOM. Derek Warwick says they have no pandemic insurance, but are in a much better financial position than they were, but does this extend to refunding 100,000 tickets at £150 a go.

Really tricky one for all parties. Austria is different it is a Red Bull show they own everything, the airport is next door to the circuit and Austria is in a different position with the virus than we are.

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

It's part of the balancing of control measures.
Tighten external borders to the system, while loosening internal borders.
The Government have a lot of knowledge about this. Let's wait and see what they say.
What happened to:

?

Gee am I not allowed to change my mind on things? How about letting post things without feeling the need to comment all the time?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by S griffin

How about letting post things without feeling the need to comment all the time?

[bella]

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

The government needs to take the people with them to get compliance which means they need it to be fair and equal. If you not allowing 'gatherings' at all and maintaining social distancing rules and then you allow F1 to run at Silverstone with 2,000 people on site, just because F1 can afford Ross Brawn's 'biosphere'. What message does that send out to the public and how does that fit in with the governments 'levelling up' objective - you can have whatever gathering you like it if you can afford it? Let alone it is to allow global brands, billionaire team owners and millionaire drivers to indulge themselves - as most of the public will see it.

i think this is why they need to be careful how they frame it. obviously if they tried to have a race this week, the same would be said about f1 that is being said about a lot of the celebrations on friday because both are against current guidelines, no matter how much you socially distance. how different is 1000 people in a paddock outside to 500 people indoors in an amazon fulfilment centre? i suspect the same people who moan about f1 being a business would be moaning that it's a sport if they try to start against national guidelines.

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

You will then get other venue owners saying - OK can I let people in if they have been recently tested then?

the obvious answer will be no - f1 will only just be under the acceptable numbers for gatherings no matter how much social distancing is done. and by nature of taking someone's ticket and admitting them to a space inside fences... it's a gathering.

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

Really tricky one for all parties. Austria is different it is a Red Bull show they own everything, the airport is next door to the circuit and Austria is in a different position with the virus than we are.

arguably a more dodgy one than the uk, likewise with germany. but i wonder what the atmosphere is within those countries? that'll still be a significant number of hotel rooms that would need to be made available. i'm sure enquiries are being made.

i'm increasingly of the opinion that f1 is the most perilously placed of all series in motorsport. national series only have their own set of rules to work to, international ones must conform to ingoing, outgoing and general work and life rules within each country they visit.

[Anyopenroad]

Originally Posted by S griffin

How about letting post things without feeling the need to comment all the time?

I snorted my coffee just now when I read this.

[RWill2073]

Originally Posted by bella

it's a percentage game, and you swap in and out measures that will impact various things differently depending on what the priority is at the time.

they may not be looking at the direct effect a 14 day quarantine will have on the infection rate, it may be a secondary or tertiary effect that they're considering as being a motivator. for example, it will discourage tourism from other countries and make business trips not worthwhile without having to do something as drastic as close borders to anything but freight. it's one less variable when we're looking at what might cause the infection rates to increase.

for example, the priority with the lockdown was to stop it before they lost control of infection rates and hospitals were overwhelmed. tick. now they're looking at making sure the economy doesn't take too big a hit whilst also maintaining a manageable level of sickness. not limiting peoples outside excursions may only increase the risk by a small amount but it'll have a significantly positive impact on mental health and wellbeing. the challenge is how do you limit medium to large inadvertent gatherings whilst still allowing people the freedom to leave their houses? what do you do to offset that behaviour? do you then close public spaces so they have nowhere to congregate perhaps? or do you allow them freedom to roam so they're able to spread out more, but increase the amount of traffic on the road, and thus accident rates and put more pressure on the emergency services?

i hate how fascinating it all is, it feels incredibly morbid.

I'm just gonna point out that this is a horrible view of what should be acceptable by government.

[bella]

an awful lot of people have demonstrated through this that they can’t be trusted to act in the best interests of society and their neighbours. the only reason most countries had strict lockdowns is because people were still running around putting what they want before what we all need.

[RWill2073]

Originally Posted by bella

an awful lot of people have demonstrated through this that they can’t be trusted to act in the best interests of society and their neighbours. the only reason most countries had strict lockdowns is because people were still running around putting what they want before what we all need.

What if what we need is herd immunity?

My neighbor robbed a bank. Guess I'll be going to prison....

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by RWill2073

What if what we need is herd immunity?

My neighbor robbed a bank. Guess I'll be going to prison....

Or I’ll go skydiving and risk my neighbour falling to his doom

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by RWill2073

I'm just gonna point out that this is a horrible view of what should be acceptable by government.

If you deal in absolutes yes.

But you look at western (for want of a better catch all term) governments and you know they would love to open everything up ASAP.

And what bella said. To have a society you have responsibility for others not just yourself. Some have demonstrated no consideration for others.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Or I’ll go skydiving and risk my neighbour falling to his doom

How about we all play Russian Roulette on a global scale?
Most of us will survive, as long as we keep passing the gun around.

[RWill2073]

Originally Posted by Adam43

If you deal in absolutes yes.

But you look at western (for want of a better catch all term) governments and you know they would love to open everything up ASAP.

And what bella said. To have a society you have responsibility for others not just yourself. Some have demonstrated no consideration for others.

I don't know that all the governments want to open things up. I think it could be quite the opposite in some cases.

We have a congressperson saying don't go back to work when they open up. We have lockdowns extending indefinitely without reasons. We have shifting reasoning given for why we are still locked down.

Here's a question: when campaigns are run on climate change being an existential threat to our ways of life, that a national emergency will be declared day one of candidates presidency, what makes that national emergency any less actionable than this one? You know what this lockdown has been great for? The environment. Think any power hungry politicians are seeing how great this has been for the environment and already getting ideas? If this is an effective blunt force option for stemming the tide of one national emergency, why wouldn't it be used as a blunt force option for the next national emergency?

Oh, does the economy tanking into a depression help the incumbents or the challengers?

Is there any responsibility to not willingly choose a situation that destroys the livelihoods of millions of citizens for something that for 99% of all citizens will be extremely mild sickness?

Put another way, this almost exclusively affects the elderly and those with underlying conditions. What responsibility should they have to make their own decisions about not attending events such as races, or not visiting friends or family that have been in large crowds recently? Can't they determine their level of accepted risk?

With study after study showing between 10 and 75 times more people in the studies groups have antibodies than what are reported, the actual death rate goes down to closer to .5% Is that worth all this?

Does anybody remember the actual original reason for the lockdowns? Haven't we given the supply chain and governments enough time now to ramp up capacity? Just asking, because every time the goalposts shift for continuing on the lockdowns, we come closer and closer to losing an entire year of any life-enriching activity we may like, be it attending a race, going to a local track event and participating, or even going to the gym, for God's sake. But don't forget, our dear leaders can still go use their gyms, violate their own lockdowns, go get their hair done while shutting down all hair cutting establishments to us peeons, because in her own words, she's a public figure. No, it isn't clear that all these governments want to open up asap. Some do, a lot don't.

Sorry for another rant, but what else is there to do nowadays? Also, the more we start hearing about the positive effects this has had on the climate, what does that do to motorsport in general, as an easy way to continue some of this good climate news?

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2...limate-change/

Note, even in this article, which shows positive effects, it has a familiar refrain of many political movements: "while a positive step, it doesn't go far enough".

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-52485712

This excerpt is particularly insightful: "If Covid-19 leads to a drop in emissions of around 5% in 2020, then that is the sort of reduction we need every year until net-zero emissions are reached around 2050," said Glen Peters, also from Cicero.

Again, if this is a national emergency, and climate change is also a national emergency.....

These are just two articles. There's plenty more, so the narrative is already starting. These lockdowns are now a tool for more than controlling a virus that for the majority of all healthy people is fairly weak.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Adam43

To have a society you have responsibility for others not just yourself.

That's some straight up commie crap right there!

Originally Posted by RWill2073

We have a congressperson saying don't go back to work when they open up.

Hey, you can find US representatives who will say just about anything. I saw a video of a guy who thought Guam might flip over if you put too much weight on one side. I don't put too much weight on what individual congresspeople say as they are some true wackos in the bunch.

Originally Posted by RWill2073

We have lockdowns extending indefinitely without reasons. We have shifting reasoning given for why we are still locked down.

That is your opinion (indefinitely, without reason and shifting reasons). And earlier in this thread you were locked in that it was all just about "flatting the curve". But you didn't say what happened after we reach the peak? Clearly (and it is out there if you care to look) it was not just about bending the curve and reaching a peak that is less than 100% infection rate. Or if you want to frame it as just "flatten the curve", then lets keep the curve flat. See comments below about what happens after the peak.

Originally Posted by RWill2073

Here's a question: when campaigns are run on climate change being an existential threat to our ways of life, that a national emergency will be declared day one of candidates presidency, what makes that national emergency any less actionable than this one? You know what this lockdown has been great for? The environment. Think any power hungry politicians are seeing how great this has been for the environment and already getting ideas? If this is an effective blunt force option for stemming the tide of one national emergency, why wouldn't it be used as a blunt force option for the next national emergency?

Sure. It's a real risk. Especially here in the US. Polarized politics at it's best. There is all kind of crazy ideas politicians want to use emergency powers for. Some guy is talking about building a wall. This same guys occasionally claims powers beyond what the constitution allows. He scares me quite a bit. I expect we may see more like him in the future.

Originally Posted by RWill2073

Oh, does the economy tanking into a depression help the incumbents or the challengers?

Absolutely will help the challengers. But hey, don't hint. Say what you mean. Say that the challengers are actively trying to make things worse. Or am I putting words in your mouth? Fair enough. Lets say someone says that. Do I believe that? In general no. While everyone, and I mean EVERYONE is playing this to work toward, their respective agendas, I also think everyone is trying to come out the other side together.

If I want to play the game you are playing, I might say the incumbents are hell-bent on getting back to normal in hopes it works in their favor. Sort of a roll the dice type of strategy.

Originally Posted by RWill2073

Is there any responsibility to not willingly choose a situation that destroys the livelihoods of millions of citizens for something that for 99% of all citizens will be extremely mild sickness?

As someone posted earlier in this thread. Please provide a list of people you know who you are willing to sacrifice.

Originally Posted by RWill2073

Put another way, this almost exclusively affects the elderly and those with underlying conditions. What responsibility should they have to make their own decisions about not attending events such as races, or not visiting friends or family that have been in large crowds recently? Can't they determine their level of accepted risk?

I don't think you understand how it works. It's not about them just staying home so you can play. Part of this is so that we reduce the number of people who are can expose them. These people just can't lock themselves at home. They have to do things like get groceries, etc. I also suspect you are taking about MANY people here on this forum.

Originally Posted by RWill2073

With study after study showing between 10 and 75 times more people in the studies groups have antibodies than what are reported, the actual death rate goes down to closer to .5% Is that worth all this?

Probably? Maybe? Frankly I think those in power are operating using the information they have at the moment they make decisions. If evidence shows we are over reacting, I expect they will change course. They ARE opening things up. It is happening. It is NOT going to be a light switch.

Originally Posted by RWill2073

Does anybody remember the actual original reason for the lockdowns?

Tell me how you think it works. That we peak one day and then have the president do a press conference in front a hospital with a banner that says "Mission Accomplished" and we all just go back to how it was before? Boy, I sure hope not. See lightswitch comment above.

...

Originally Posted by RWill2073

because every time the goalposts shift for continuing

...
What goalposts? Frankly I think people had dumb idea's in their heads as to how this would work. In the US, it doesn't help that our senior leader generally operates via hopeful thinking. People then sadly take that as fact.

Originally Posted by RWill2073

Sorry for another rant, but what else is there to do nowadays?

I am sorry as well.

Originally Posted by RWill2073

Also, the more we start hearing about the positive effects this has had on the climate, what does that do to motorsport in general, as an easy way to continue some of this good climate news?

I absolutely love motorsports, but the writing is on the wall for motorsports. I don't know if it will happen in my lifetime or not, but a combination of the decline of carbon based fuels and the decline of "car culture" is real. Sadly, motorsports may take a hard knock with this. And as you point out, the lack of travel, etc. has provided hard evidence that many who don't believe in human's ability impact the world may have a hard time explaining away.

Originally Posted by RWill2073

These lockdowns are now a tool for more than controlling a virus that for the majority of all healthy people is fairly weak.

As I said above, anyone who is political will use whatever is going on to advance their agenda. But I do find that point you are trying to make quite a stretch.

What really bugs me about this right now is that here in a motorsports forum we have started to talk politics. I guess shame on me for rising to the bait.

Richard

[S griffin]

We need to be careful we don’t end up saying the wrong thing. Obviously some places have managed this situation better than others. It depends who’s willing to take the risk. I just hope we do enough to keep it under control. But we don’t need misinformation. Just stay sensible and don’t do the wrong thing

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

That's some straight up commie crap right there!

That’s the situation we have here. Some can’t deal in anything other than absolutes.

RWill2073, I’m at a loss in the world you have just built on this.

We have to have some restrictions for a bit and we all fundamental freedoms have gone forever. Evidence of the last few hundred years in the countries we are in suggests otherwise. In others not so, but it’s not this situation that has caused that.

Of course governments want us to get back out there. They ultimately won’t be able to function if we don’t! And, more fundamentally to that, inherently they are governed by people who want that and believe in that and were voted there.

[RWill2073]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

What really bugs me about this right now is that here in a motorsports forum we have started to talk politics. I guess shame on me for rising to the bait.

Richard

This I can agree with! I ranted, you responded, let's end it here unless it's in private messages to avoid dragging this into a different area. Feel free to message me if you wish, I won't respond otherwise, because yeah, I don't want to go too far any more than I have. Feel free to message me if you want, I'm always down to have any viewpoint of mine challenged. It's a good way to learn, imo. I'm irritated and frustrated obviously. We just have different levels of trust of elected officials at the end of the day. And there's nothing wrong with that! Hope all is well with you and you stay healthy, and we can get back to discussing racing soon enough!

[RWill2073]

Originally Posted by Adam43

That’s the situation we have here. Some can’t deal in anything other than absolutes.

RWill2073, I’m at a loss in the world you have just built on this.

We have to have some restrictions for a bit and we all fundamental freedoms have gone forever. Evidence of the last few hundred years in the countries we are in suggests otherwise. In others not so, but it’s not this situation that has caused that.

Of course governments want us to get back out there. They ultimately won’t be able to function if we don’t! And, more fundamentally to that, inherently they are governed by people who want that and believe in that and were voted there.

I'll just say that not all were voted in on those beliefs you ascribe to them. Other than that, I'll leave it there, see response to Richard.

[Adam43]

FWIW I don’t trust them, but I’m quietly confident that this isn’t a mass global leader conspiracy to keep me indoors or even significantly change my way of life long term. I am also confident that some of them will continue to be blithering idiots, lie and say anything to get elected.

[Last2LiftOff]

Dr. Peter Daszak:

...by sort of narrow-mindedly focusing-in on ouselves, or on labs, or a certain culture of politics, we miss the real enemy.

[Armco Bender]

There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man’s fears, and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call ... The Twilight Zone....

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by S griffin

We need to be careful we don’t end up saying the wrong thing. Obviously some places have managed this situation better than others. It depends who’s willing to take the risk. I just hope we do enough to keep it under control. But we don’t need misinformation. Just stay sensible and don’t do the wrong thing

Once again, I'm confused.
Honestly, I'm not trying to pick faults - just genuinely wanting to understand what you are posting.

This post reads like it is saying that those willing to take risks managed the situation better, but we need to stay sensible.
Am I misinterpreting it? Should we be taking risks, or staying sensible? What is the wrong thing we shouldn't be doing?

(What is sensible is also another lengthy topic - some think mass gatherings are sensible, other people don't).