The "Corona" Season

Be careful being jeolous of others salaries....somewhere there is someone who thinks your salary is crazy and thinks it is too much

 

What do you think the probability of college football being played in closed stadiums is? Would departments make enough tv money to sustain even if stadiums were empty?

 

I think when given the choice, they would postpone to October or even January to play in full stadiums. But if neither were viable options, I do think from conversations I’ve had that they will play in front of no fans. My guess is that there will be some states that allow fans and some that don’t. I think the chances that some states will have fans has to be at least 50%, though seems much bleaker in California, etc.

I don’t give the NCAA credit for much, but to be honest, IMHO they’ve gotten it right so far. People thought it was crazy they cancelled the CWS in June and spring sports back in March, but looking back it was the smart, absolutely most informed thing they could have done. We will see what happens here, but I’d be SHOCKED if there’s not a season of college football at some point fans or no fans.

 

As I read it, the argument that now is being bandied about is, on the one side we should not needlessly risk lives until it is reasonably safe to go back to work (and especially sports events) and use federal money to support those in need, versus those who are now saying that people (mostly poor, of course) will have to risk their lives in order to get the economy rolling again in the near future. (eg, We can't wait!)

So the notion that fans should congregate in stadiums as soon as possible in the fall or early 2021 becomes really scary no matter how much reassurance is given. Remember, when Valencia went to play Atalanta on February 19 there was not a single case of COVID-19 confirmed in the whole country of Italy. But clearly, the virus was already circulating. Two weeks later the pandemic hit the small city of Bergamo hard and they soon became the epicenter of the Italian outbreak in March. (Bergamo is the home for Atalanta, although the game was played in Milan about 35 miles away for reasons of a larger stadium.) 40,000 fans from Bergamo went to that game and many more of the 120,000 total population of Bergamo went to bars, restaurants, and friends homes for the game. Gheesh... presumably the Valencia team arrived in good health, and four weeks later 1/3 of their team was positive. 5 staff members of the Atalanta team died within 6 weeks of the game.

So I think that it would be extreme negligence to put people in a stadium unless they all had been vaccinated... and that ain't going to happen until well into 2021 (no matter how many $millions Bill Gates pours into building factory facilities to jump start the manufacturing of the 7 most promising vaccines now being worked on.)

 

Decision delayed --

https://www.vpr.org/post/vermont-state-colleges-system-postpones-monday-consolidation-vote#stream/0

 

Great points. I agree with your conclusion but do take exception with one of your supporting points. 5 (current) staff members did not die as your post implies.

https://nypost.com/2020/03/26/how-a...r-match-became-a-coronavirus-biological-bomb/

Atalanta has mourned the deaths of five former staff members.

FORMER. This is very important.

Here is another article saying FORMER. They also indicate not all of them had covid.

https://www.whio.com/sports/game-ze...hampions-league-match/7B7srtsD2hpQV8ZSH2vwqM/
local media have reported that at least four of them died with COVID-19.

How old were they? What were their underlying health conditions?

What if the people were 100 years old?

Including the death of a person that didn't have covid in a covid argument means nothing. The article also said the people died WITH covid which doesn't necessarily mean died FROM covid. The distinction is not trivial.

How many of the Valencia team were hospitalized? How many died?

I agree that we should be very cautious. I agree with you that we shouldn't rush back to games. At the same time I also believe strongly that we need to be accurate with things. Details do matter.

So far the old and those with underlying health conditions are in extreme danger. The danger to the majority of others is still very much in question.

 

Well, ping, I take your point that I should have caught the "former" (which I missed, but it was not from the same source as your news feed.)

But I believe that you are missing my whole point. Whether they were current of former staff members is irrelevant to what I tried to convey. Whether the significant numbers of Valencia players were old or young, mild cases or more severe cases, or went to a hospital or not is also irrelevant. The point is that there was a huge spike of corona virus infections in a small city that just happened to have a big soccer match attendance 2-3 weeks previously with no other plausible explanation advanced except for the soccer related activity. The ratio of old/young/mild/severe/underlying illness, will be what ever it will be, but what we do know is that kind of a "kick off" can easily produce havoc (and in the Bergamo case overwhelmed the available medical facilities.)

The overall point is that bringing large numbers of people together when there is (or will be) a significant chance that the virus is still active will needlessly risk exacerbating the transmission of the virus and more people will get sick and a percentage of them will die. I aplogize for not stating my point more clearly.

So the back to a former question about when it will be safe to hold such large gatherings. There seems to be agreement that only when a significant number (60% plus) of the population are immune to the virus is the answer. But the problem is that reaching that goal will not likely happen until the summer or fall of 2021 even in the best scenarios. My point is that doing it sooner is putting lives in danger needlessly (regardless of testing unless essentially all of the fans and stadium staff were tested with an instant results test on game day.)

 

My point was that old or young just might matter. Former staff are likely very old. Current players are likely young and relatively healthy.

It will all eventually come down to who defines "safe" and what that definition actually means. I'm sure there will be tremendous debate.

Maybe it is currently "safe" for a group of 20 year olds (with no underlying health issues) to gather in a stadium? Do we know at this point? I don't believe we do yet, which is why I actually agree with you right now. But I am open to the possibility that it might be.

The facts we have so far show massive deaths in elderly populations and those with health issues. The data we have for 15 to 24 year olds look very different.

I'm not saying it is safe for 20 year olds. I am saying it might be safe. I think right now we should err on the side of caution. If more data shows it is "safe" (however the experts define that) for young people to attend gatherings then let them attend and my old self will watch on tv.

I agree. We need to learn more about this virus. We need more testing, more data.

 

One fatality is too much to take a chance. And what about the coaches, staff, referees, game day ops, etc, etc who are in older age brackets?

 

Those figures don't scare me if we are in one of the most dangerous pandemics since 1918 where the young were dying.

Who died? How old were they? This is very important. There are plenty of 40 year old people on a ship. A 40 year old's risk is different than a 20 year old's according to the data we have. Did they have an underlying health issue?(yes, military people have health issues too, just like the general population)

13% infection when everyone is literally in very close contact all the time for months on end. 12 hospitalized is not many. Cruise ships have food poisonings and more people are hospitalized and die.

In order for those number to mean anything, you have to compare them to normal times and times when illness strikes a ship.

 

https://www.stripes.com/news/us/uss...-a-chief-petty-officer-from-arkansas-1.626369

The sailor was 41. No mention of medical history that I can find so far. The fact that he died is terrible.

The point is that using a 41 year old to show the risk to a 20 year old is not scientifically sound. No doctor/scientist/epidemiologist/etc would do that if they were discussing the virus in scientific ways regarding age groups. It is simply not logical.

That is my point.

I agree that the virus is very dangerous (right now we know it is more dangerous for older people and those with health conditions.) It is terrible when anyone dies. If the goal is to save as many as possible then decisions have to be made using logic, not emotion.

 

Disagree with the first part. Sounds good but isn't logical and is actually impossible in reality. Doctors/nurses/staff put their lives at risk to save others. Should they stay home too to prevent "one fatality"? Of course not. Living has risks. We seem to have lost that perspective as our living conditions have improved over the past 50 years. Fatalities are around us all the time. We just rarely stop to think about them unless they hit us directly or indirectly.

Totally agree with the last part. That is the real danger with the information we have so far.

 

Putting their own life on the line to save other lives sounds anyway quite different than doing so to play a soccer game.

 

I get what you're saying but I agree with blissett and his alluding to the fact that you're making an apples to oranges comparison between sports and healthcare. Living does have risks and there's a lot about SAR-CoV-2 that we don't know. What we do know, though, is that it kills a lot more people that become infected with it than a lot of other diseases do. While the flu generally kills more in a season, if the current trajectory holds, we don't know where we will be. This chart is eye-opening:



What we need, before there is any semblance of normalcy, is more testing. We need to find out who has antibodies. I am hopeful that many more people have been infected with COVID-19 than we realize and that it resolved and were asymptomatic. This is essential because vaccination is a long way away.

 

I posted this in the hot seat thread in response to another post but it is more appropriate here:

I've been hearing of kids that are seniors in high school that are considering taking a gap year and not starting college right away if there are only virtual classes being offered in the fall. I can't say that I blame them. If I were a freshman I would want to be on campus to begin my collegiate experience. Granted, the kids and families that I have heard that are considering this are not athletes, but I do believe that it is conceivable that an athlete might consider this as well. If this does happen, it will change the dynamics of recruiting for a few cycles.

IMHO, if there is not any sort of fall season, and I am cautiously optimistic that there will be, there will not be a spring season. Mixing in the fall sports with the spring sports will be chaotic and many universities will not have the resources to support that many sports occurring simultaneously.

 

Asinine comparisons, Donald. Not sure where to begin.

In short, consequences from choices/things you can control are much different than consequences from a pandemic beyond your control. And playing a college soccer season w/ 18-22 year old kids v essential medical workers? Wow!

 

I haven't compared the virus to the flu for the entire population. That is an "apples to oranges" or even a strawman argument. It is considerably more deadly for older people and those with underlying health issues. I've said that from the beginning.

Show me your chart for 20 year olds. Show me data where 20 year olds are dying more from covid than the flu. Those are the assertions many on here have made and they are simply not supported by the current data we have.

I have stated CLEARLY that caution is key right now, more data/testing is needed, and we should not push for an early return. The only thing that I have remotely argued is the possibility that young people be recruited to help the health care efforts.

 

I get it. If I don't agree with you I am Donald. That is brilliant!

Start a name calling thread and I'll jump in. We can call each other all kinds of names. The trash talking will be epic! You'll get reps from a lot of the partisans here.

 

For records: I didn't rep him because I am a partisan; I repped him because he pointed out at the most glaring fallacies of your reasonment. One being the same I had pointed out myself, the other being that there is a big difference between the dangers of life that you can somehow, at least partially, control, and the Russian roulette of a pandemic hitting at your country.

If it can make you feel better, I don't anyway support free name-calling, although I can somehow understand where it comes from when someone is retorting at something actually egregious having being said.The fact that I can understand it doesn't mean that I'd do the same. And anyway it doesn't stop me from repping a post whose content I mostly heartily agree with .

 

Why is it name-calling to be compared to most famous duck in the world? Seriously, it's great to see we can all agree that the name "Donald" is now deemed a derogatory term.

 

I agree with you on the "campus problem." Do you think any schools will open campus in the fall at this point? If so, do you think the majority of schools will?
I know they are just guesses at this point, but what do you think?

I saw something similar to your thoughts on the "sequester" with the NBA's "bubble" scenario. Quarantine the players in one location and play after a certain time frame. I bet some of the owners push for that. Though the commissioner said recently “We’re not seriously engaged yet in that type of environment.”

It is an interesting idea. Seems like it could potentially work if all parties agreed. That doesn't solve the women's college soccer problem (or any other college sport problems) but does take a step towards resuming sporting events.

 

Never said Donald was "derogatory", but it is a term that castrati throw around a lot lately! "Seriously", I love Donald duck. Hit me up when you start your "asinine" thread.

 

Let them take a gap year/semester - there will be plenty of other kids to take their place. And what would they do instead of study? Can't go abroad or find a job other than in the service industry.

The best place for 18-25 year olds WHO CAN AFFORD IT is to be studying. One of my kids is in med science and he is coping just fine. Not going to the lab on campus is his biggest problem. However, his university is putting measures in place so that will be possible. Yes, it sucks, but it's not the end of the world.

 

I've heard from several players that lab work is a challenge for them too. In an odd twist, the nursing majors indicate their hospital "lab" work has become more intense and educational.