Because the government made an almighty dog’s breakfast of the initial outbreak in the UK, allowing massive sporting events like the Cheltenham Festival to go ahead, as well as a Liverpool v Atletico Madrid Champions League match where 3,000 people travelled in from the Spanish capital – at the time one of Europe’s hotspots for the virus – they are [over?]compensating now by, as Michael Gove admitted, ‘showing caution’ even though there is less evidence of major transmissions in outdoor venues. The ‘mingling’ of fans outside and on public transport is the major concern as the stadiums themselves pose less of a threat.

Of course, if the games are live on TV, and fans aren’t allowed to go to them, where do they choose to go instead? The pub, for one, or to other people’s houses who have Sky. This conflict hasn’t been lost on people. The government’s attitude to football has been to ‘look within for help’ and ‘ask the Premier League for a loan’ yet pubs and restaurants have not only been open but given huge cash incentives to attract more people inside. Shops and shopping centres are full of people again, following – in most cases – the rules, but in comparison to those venues, most sports venues are outdoor and set up in a way that allows for more effective social distancing with multiple entrances and exits as well as easily controlled seating plans.

Germany reopened its stadiums at the weekend with Bundesliga grounds having up to 9,500 fans inside dependent on which region they were in. It seemed to pass off without problems. In many other countries in Europe, this has been the case for some time. But it hasn’t happened in the UK, where a broad-brush approach is favoured that impacts everyone from Arsenal to Tonbridge Angels. Predictably, an outpouring of media reaction followed Tuesday’s announcement.

Callum Semple, a professor of outbreak medicine at the University of Liverpool, thinks the measures aren’t anywhere near enough; he’d like to see no mixing outside of your household, closing of all sporting and hospitality venues and, presumably, hand sanitiser pumped intravenously into our veins.

The next article on the BBC website was that Whitbread, who own Premier Inn, are cutting 6,000 jobs due to lack of customers. Presumably, Mr Semple is going to help these newly-jobless people buy food for their families over the coming months.

MrDoesn’tAffectMe from Basingstoke then weighs in with the ‘it’s the right decision’ comment that’s based on health and safety, and not unreasonable, but he and Mr Semple ignore the other side of the argument; that some clubs, and even sports will be finished off by this decision. People might be safer but their hobbies (some of them that helped to keep them fit and well, or sane) will no longer be there for them. They might even be people they love and care about.

Tranmere’s vice-chair, Nicola Palios, sees the bigger picture and described it as potentially ‘devastating’. The club had some money set aside for projects that will now go towards keeping the club solvent, so they’ll probably be OK, but she says, the clubs living hand-to-mouth already might not last much longer without some form of rescue package.

Nigel Clibbens, Chief Executive of Carlisle United, calling the news ‘desperate’, was another who pointed out the inconsistency on Twitter, saying  the “pause” means that “four people from two families won’t be able to sit outside socially-distanced in our stands” but that “four people from two families can [still] sit around a table inside eating a meal out”.

It’s actually more absurd. Six students, for example now that universities are about to reopen, could sit in a bar then all get up  and leave for six separate bars, where they each meet up with another 5 different people. And so on. Yet this is deemed to be an acceptable risk while a carefully-monitored 1,000 fans at an outdoor stadium isn’t.