My big news this week should have been I've finished my first half-marathon, in
Paris.
Finally I did not had my chance...
The government showed lucidity by canceling an event with 44k people from all around the world. Add the friends and family coming to support them and here are hundreds of persons so a significant virus spread.
This is a sport event so risks of accident, deaseases and others. So you need a lot of medical persons along the road, on first help places and all around in the hospitals.
The government showed lucidity by canceling an event with 44k people from all around the world. Add the friends and family coming to support them and here are hundreds of persons so a significant virus spread.
This is a sport event so risks of accident, deaseases and others. So you need a lot of medical persons along the road, on first help places and all around in the hospitals.
Of course, when you're afraid to fight a health crisis the best is not to mobilize the caregivers out of their normal positions. Where they are working without being paid for a few months long strike.
So yes, this was the right option. But why so late? On the Saturday afternoon when a lot of the competitors have their bibs since the day before (and mostly everyone will come to have it, as a souvenir) how many people (copetitors, supporters, volunteers, visitors...) met in the La Vilette Hall?
For a lot the question was why cancel this event but not the football games?
Especially when the medical people is not the argument, because they are in strike against the bad management by the government. The Prime Minister told one argument about the virus spread. Because thousands of people in a stadium is not a risk of spread? Or maybe as the main spectator in football stadium is poor people? So less people in the strikes against the government?
Especially when the medical people is not the argument, because they are in strike against the bad management by the government. The Prime Minister told one argument about the virus spread. Because thousands of people in a stadium is not a risk of spread? Or maybe as the main spectator in football stadium is poor people? So less people in the strikes against the government?
I do think that there is a good reason to maintain the foot games, because some foot supporters are hooligans so there is another kind of risk in the city?
About the spread others half-marathons were not cancelled in the same week-end. For example the Tel-Aviv is similar in popularity than the Paris and a lot of people came back in France the day after running it. As it seems that there is no medical control at the french borders, not even the temperature, so the risk of spread is a good argument but not a coherent one.
In short I'm not happy with this last moment cancellation, with the disdain from the government taking us for dogs.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment