[ad_1]
Do you consider that the conditions for returning the technical opinion of the General Directorate of Health are adequate?
This is a DGS document on the conditions for the resumption of football. I am a mere public health consultant to the Club League who collaborated with them, but not to replace them, nor did they order me to replace them. I can say what I have said: the resumption of football will have to be done with criteria of safety and responsibility, in accordance with the criteria established by the General Directorate of Health, and I cannot say anything more.
How do you rate the eight positive cases of confirmed players on Sunday?
I already said that the positive cases were normal and expected, that is why the evaluation was carried out in this standard, precisely to identify the players who could be positive, so that all the rest could safely resume the activity, and not there would be more no case when soccer started again.
Are DGS expected to detect new cases of infected players?
I think it is normal for this first detection to detect some players. I hope that next time you won’t find anyone else. The objective, at this stage, is to create conditions to identify confirmed cases. [positivos] and to avoid having confirmed cases to train with negative cases, to be able to risk infecting more elements of the team that, later on, can be detected and, at a later stage, to avoid collaborating with the resumption of football. What was done, according to the League’s proposal and included in the DGS document, was an initial evaluation to progressively provide security conditions and, for example, no infection in the people who are going to play.
Are the players more protected with these measures?
I believe that if the precepts that were presented and are being evaluated are followed, the objective is to guarantee the safety of all the players and interested parties and to give an example of the resumption of an activity that is not essential, but that is important, and that It can serve as an example for the resumption of other activities.
It is not the first time that he says that football can be an example.
Me and my colleague António Diniz, both doctors, we both have the same official positions and we did this pro bono, even in the perspective of giving football as an example for the necessary resumption of other activities in a context of public health that must be implemented and, at the same time, guarantee the maximum possible security. I like soccer, I am a defender of the defense, but we understand that, after being contacted, it was an opportunity to use our knowledge, along with the knowledge of the medical departments and the Club League, to give an example. Is this possible to do? Yes Do you require any adaptation work? It demands. But it can be done in a way that ensures everyone’s safety, which does not mean that there are no people who can test positive. In the hospital, from time to time, there are colleagues of mine who test positive, but that does not mean that the hospital stops working or does not maintain very high levels of security.
Is it a matter of risk minimization?
My goal was to abolish risk, but risk cannot be abolished, because it is totally impossible. But it is to minimize the risk to always guarantee the safety of all the players. Risk cannot be abolished because people have life, right? There’s a way to minimize it, which is to try them out and put them in one place, like Big Brother did, but soccer is not Big Brother. People have their lives, but when it comes to football, it’s about minimizing risk to ensure, in times of pandemic, the safety of all concerned and to set an example for all activities. We need good news, which is this: the new normality adapts to our activities. We have to change our lives, but it is legitimate that the adaptation and implementation of these measures allow us to carry out these activities. Let life continue.
As far as possible.
It would be bad for us if a virus would take away football forever, or take away life in society forever, or take away the possibility of living together forever.
But soccer would not be a priority activity.
It is one of the most important among the least important. It is one of the most important of the least important activities.
Three players from FC Porto and one from Sporting expressed their discontent regarding the return conditions presented.
I think it is perfectly normal for people to have doubts and it is through discussions between different parties that problems are often resolved. I think it is perfectly normal; If people have doubts, they should express them. I am used to dealing with people clearly, I am concerned when people are not comfortable expressing their concerns. I think it is normal to see the framework of these measures and that people reflect on the impact they have. I accept naturally and normally that there are doubts and legitimacy for clarification by the players. Probably, if you were a player, you also want to be clarified.
Is there freedom and scope to change the Code of Conduct?
If there are arguments and depending on the validity of the arguments presented. Everything can be adapted according to the arguments presented. In my profession, we change a lot according to argumentation, validation, and reasoning. Nothing is immutable and untouchable.
