The "Corona" Season

https://www.espn.com/soccer/german-...y-may-after-positive-regional-government-call
Bundesliga could restart in May from the reports today. Initial reports say empty stadiums.

 

https://www.managingmadrid.com/2020/4/20/21227726/la-liga-return-date-spain-coronavirus-2020
Tentative La Liga return June 6, training May 4th or 11th.

 

There seem to be some suggesting that Fall sports might begin even though campuses are not open to the student body. For sports other than BCS football, my understanding is that the current NCAA position is that there will not be Fall sports, in any form, unless the campuses are open. For BCS football, the NCAA does not control that but so far it seems that it will not begin unless the campuses are open -- although what I read from their discussions seemed to waffle some on what the campuses being open means.

Something that has not gotten enough discussion here, it seems to me, is the potential for faculty and administrators and other on-camups workers to get infected from exposure to symptom-free but infected students.

My own sense of things, from listening carefully to what the experts are saying, is that there are a whole lot of critical things that we do not yet know about the virus. We do not know if people with antibodies really are imune and, if they are, we do not know for how long. We do not know if any of the treatments really are effective. We do not know how long it will take to get a vaccine and, if we do, for how long it will be effective and if there will be negative side effects. And so on.

Getting things open is important too, including from a health perspective. There are very hard decisions to be made and any decision will have negative consequences and possibly very severe ones. Ideally, extremely well-informed people, with good moral compasses, would make those decisions and would be very clear about how they balanced the different considerations and about the likely positive and negative outcomes from their decisions. Tremendously sadly, the chances of that happening are just about zero.

 

Great info, I didn't know the NCAA position regarding athletics and students on campus.

Risks to older people on campus(coaches, staff, etc) are a real threat.

Agree with the "very hard decisions" position and final conclusion.

Another issue that is very concerning:
We don't have data on impairment rates. Will those that recover have reduced lung functionality or be impaired in some other way that impacts their ongoing health? We just don't know at this point. This potential issue counters the very low death rate data for young people that we have so far.

 

Sure I have!

 

Just getting back to this discussion... I appreciate ping's efforts to explain his thinking, but I still don't understand it.

Even if we agree that 20 year olds are significantly less effected by COVID-19 (especially as compared to 70 year olds) and if they go to practice and play games with each other, and have the spectators also all be 20 year olds (good luck with that), regardless of testing (which has false negatives) more of them will be infected than if they didn't participate (eg the Navy carrier). BUT THEN, unless that group or 20 year old athletes and spectators at each college would have to be tightly quarantined for the entire season so as to keep them from spreading the virus to others and eventually to the 70 year olds!! I guess that my point would be that we can't realistically segregate out an age group from our society and culture. That relatively healthy age group will (and I'll bet has) spread the virus from its perhaps un-diagnosed reservoir which eventually reaches the vulnerable, and the severity in those vulnerable populations would be worse than if the 20 year olds had not discarded the social distancing in order to play or watch sports.

Am I missing something here?

As far as I can see, the only long term solution is a combination of massive testing and tracking, medical procedures and drugs that are much more successful than what we presently are seeing in hospitals, and a hugely successful vaccination campaign. I just don't see these factors being in place until late 2021 or spring of 2022.

 

Just getting back to this discussion... I appreciate ping's efforts to explain his thinking, but I still don't understand it.

Even if we agree that 20 year olds are significantly less effected by COVID-19 (especially as compared to 70 year olds) and if they go to practice and play games with each other, and have the spectators also all be 20 year olds (good luck with that), regardless of testing (which has false negatives) more of them will be infected than if they didn't participate (eg the Navy carrier). BUT THEN, unless that group or 20 year old athletes and spectators at each college would have to be tightly quarantined for the entire season so as to keep them from spreading the virus to others and eventually to the 70 year olds!! I guess that my point would be that we can't realistically segregate out an age group from our society and culture. That relatively healthy age group will (and I'll bet has) spread the virus from its perhaps un-diagnosed reservoir which eventually reaches the vulnerable, and the severity in those vulnerable populations would be worse than if the 20 year olds had not discarded the social distancing in order to play or watch sports.

Am I missing something here?

As far as I can see, the only long term solution is a combination of massive testing and tracking, medical procedures and drugs that are much more successful than what we presently are seeing in hospitals, and a hugely successful vaccination campaign. I just don't see these factors being in place until late 2021 or spring of 2022.

 

[QUOTE="Soccerhunter, post: 38642348, member: 156528"
Am I missing something here? ....the only long term solution is a combination of massive testing and tracking, medical procedures and drugs that are much more successful than what we presently are seeing in hospitals, and a hugely successful vaccination campaign. [/QUOTE]

I appreciate your focus and the question! Admittedly, sometimes I don't understand it either as it is ever-evolving. I'll try to provide context to why I have posted what I have posted so far.

I don't think you are missing anything. Everyone wants testing and tracking. The odds of a successful vaccine are still very much uncertain, though it is something everyone is pushing for too (except for anti-vaxxers.) I think we are just looking at different parts of the problem at times and asking different questions at times. For example: What if that vaccine is 18 months down the road? What if we don't get a vaccine? What is the solution for the next 18 months?

Governor Cuomo and the Yale Professor Christakis got me thinking about the 20 year old issue. Cuomo came out publicly and said this:
“I don’t even know that that was the best public health policy. Young people then quarantined with older people, [it] was probably not the best public health strategy,” he said. “The younger people could have been exposing the older people to an infection. There’s a theory of risk stratification that Dr. Katz who’s at Yale University is working on, which is actually very interesting to me,” Cuomo told reporters then. “Isolate people but really isolate the vulnerable people. Don’t isolate everyone because some people, most people, are not vulnerable to it.”

I initially thought "he is crazy. How can he say that? Everyone knows we should bunker down, test, flatten the curve, wait for a vaccine!" Then I thought, "wait a second Ping, you don't know #@#@" The guy is talking to scientists, experts, PHDs and trying to figure out what is best. He is trying to save lives.

When I reflected on his statements I opened my mind to the possibility of....What if he is right? What if everyone quarantined was "not the best public health strategy." History is littered with public policies, even medical practices, making huge mistakes and actually killing people. Ex. It was the norm for us to x-ray pregnant women. Dr Alice Stewart argued in 1958 that xrays were dangerous to babies. She was basically dismissed and the practice continued into the 1970s.

That question opened my mind to other possibilities, which took me took me down a huge rabbit hole of data. (THE earlier OCD comments from Eddie K may very well be true)

A very simple example is Italy. They have been crushed. Everyone knows this. They literally have ZERO deaths from covid for 10 to 19 years olds. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1106372/coronavirus-death-rate-by-age-group-italy/

Zero. That is very important for EVERYONE to know. Did you know that? I didn't. Did anyone on here know that? If not, why not? (We can discuss that later but it starts with why does NYC post death stats in an age group of 18-44 when the CDC breaks it down to 15-24, 25-34, etc )

Liberal Professor Christakis (and strong critic of the current U.S. Administration) then made a compelling case that the youth were unique in this situation. Then I read some liberal professors arguing that the young should use their benefits to save the world and I thought, maybe they are right? So I posed that question here.

Most people don't really understand that there are deaths on every side of the equation. It is sobering to ponder. That is why I said I didn't agree with a statement such as ""One fatality is too much to take a chance." Without getting into too much detail, it sounds nice but is meaningless in our current situation as there are deaths from every decision. This isn't my assertion. This is a fact. So logically the mantra breaks down. If someone doesn't believe so, why doesn't it apply to deaths caused by quarantine? You have to look at deaths you prevent and deaths you cause. Cuomo gets it.

Vox
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/4/18/21212688/coronavirus-lockdowns-developing-world
"In rich countries, lockdowns are rough. In poor ones, they haven’t stopped the virus — and can lead to greater suffering."

https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/ind...r-starvation-suicide-and-more-1.1586956637547
"COVID-19: How India's coronavirus lockdown has killed nearly 200 people..."

I don't know the right answer. I'm still asking a lot of questions. I find it refreshing that a politician basically questioned PUBLICLY whether he made the right decision. He evaluated his past decision and PUBLICLY admitted he didn't know. This is in contrast to the current US administration's philosophy of everything they do is great and awesome. Though science continually fails, it moves forward in light of those failures, hopefully moving forward toward the "truth" if the process is not corrupted.

I support the quarantines now because of the multiplicative death effects of the virus. At some point there are multiplicative death effects of shutdowns. Everyone must understand this. It is a terrible thing. There are no perfect solutions. Cuomo said it best, "At some point you have to open the valve... Because this is not sustainable."

We already have a quasi-quarantine. There are openings for transmissions across the globe despite shutdowns. Viral transmissions continue. Asking if we can or should adjust those conditions(Ex. 20 year olds, in line with testing/etc) is completely logical to me. Cuomo asking if we got it wrong seems smart to me. I am certain I am missing a lot. I am very much open to that high probability.

 

For all that we've heard and read about the corona virus, there is so much more that we do not know. Like, this isn't the flu attacking the respiratory system. Covid19 is also attacking the liver and the kidney and we've even started seeing blood clots in the lungs. We don't know if people who have contracted the virus can be re-infected.

And then there is what we do know: you can be carrying the virus (for weeks) and not know you are infected.

Which makes all the models... umm... problematic. In response to what ping has already posted, New Zealand and, to a lesser extent, Australia, showed us what a real lockdown looks like and they may be the two best countries positioned to go forward. This country has not quarantined. We've social distanced, and it may not have been enough.

Fall sports should not be played, not just from the health standpoint, but also because they will be meaningless. What if the governor of Ohio says he's not opening colleges. While U Maryland matters less on the football stage than Ohio State, I would bet money that Governor Hogan isn't going to re-open schools just to get a football team on the field. What does the Big 10 look like without those schools?

And the players themselves? We've already seen football players sitting out the bowls, and to be frank, it cheapens the bowls a bit. Why in the world would Clemson's Trevor Lawrence come back? He's already pro-ready. But what happens to his career if his starting left tackle and left guard decide to stay home? Someone already posted that sure, there will be other players to take their spots, but with shortened practice sessions, the likelihood is that they're gonna suck. The kids will play hard, because that's what they do. But they won't be fit and there will be many more injuries. Chris Paul has said that it will take NBA players a month to get into match fitness. And these are the pros. I would have to think it will take college kids longer.

And while 20 year old may not be dying, they can still get pretty damn sick. One UVa women's soccer player, and her mom, got it. It was rough. It wasn't just the flu. What if, during the season, one kid on a team gets it bad? You think that team is going to stick around? A team could fold midseason, and that will screw over the schedule. Or even worse, you'll have kids pressured to play.

My son plays no sports and he's an underclassman so he won't have any senior research he has to complete. I'm not going to let him go to school in the fall. Maybe the kid playing for an NBA or NFL payday is going to go to school. But for those kids who are playing for the love of the game, I have to think that most of their parents are going to have similar feelings to mine.

 

I'm totally with you on the governor thing. I just can't see how there will be a consensus among the governors by mid-summer.

My pragmatic side agrees with you (98%) as of today. My hopeful side (2%) wants a positive outcome where this ends sooner rather than later. Right now that hopeful side appears to be in fairy tale land but I can't totally dismiss it yet.

 

Bill Gates shared his current thoughts:
https://www.gatesnotes.com/media/as...ndemic-Innovation_MED-media_&WT.tsrc=MEDmedia

Long read but informative.

There are no easy answers to these questions. Ultimately, leaders at the national, state, and local levels will need to make trade-offs based on the risks and benefits of opening various parts of the economy. In the United States it will be tricky if one state opens up too fast and starts to see lots of infections. Should other states try to stop people moving across state boundaries?

Schools offer a big benefit and should be a priority. Large sporting and entertainment events probably will not make the cut for a long time; the economic benefit of the live audience doesn’t measure up to the risk of spreading the infection. Other activities fall into a gray area, such as church services or a high school soccer game with a few dozen people on the sidelines.

There is one other factor that is hard to account for: human nature. Some people will be naturally reluctant to go out even once the government says it is okay. Others will take the opposite view—they will assume that the government is being overly cautious and start bucking the rules. Leaders will need to think carefully about how to strike the right balance here.

 

Going to have to revise my percentages to 95/5 now that I know Bill Gates might be open to soccer games

 

This is true and really sobering. Since a viable vaccine is probably quite distant, it would be nice if the effects of Covid did not have the potential to be so devastating. In that scenario, it would be best if most of the population contracted Covid so that a herd immunity could be established. I've stated here before that in order for that threshold to be reached we will need to have between 60% to 65% of the population be immunized or get the antibody. That is based on an approximate Ro (basic reproduction number) of 2.5ish. Once the Ro number gets below 1.0, the virus will stop spreading.

My optimistic, and less realistic, side tells me that will happen sometime this summer. My pessimistic, and more realistic, side tells me there isn't a chance of that happening, unfortunately.

I don't wish to get into political issues about this virus because the issue really should be an apolitical one. That said, one of the major problems that this country has had in combating all of this is a lack of cohesive leadership. Our current president, from the very beginning, made all of this about politics. Instead of giving direction, he's created confusion. There needs to be strong leadership and it just is not there.

The 21st century has had 3 very trying times for our country - 9/11, the financial crash of 2008, and now this.

During 9/11 the country pulled together. There were firefighters from all over the country going to NYC. People of all races and political ideologies pulled together in the effort to aid NYC.

During the financial crisis of 2008 the outgoing Bush administration and incoming Obama administration worked together to stave off further financial demise. There was a bipartisan bailout bill that saved the financial system. The Treasury and the Federal Reserve used monetary and fiscal policy to prevent a depression.

Now, today, we have COVID-19 and there is not a hint of leadership and a bipartisan effort to work on this thing. Our president is only concerned about himself and how he comes out of all of this. He doesn't care a lick about the general welfare of this country. Sad and scary times, indeed....

 

I think it is time to accept the fact that COVID – 19 will not go away until there is a vaccine. Social distancing can only slow the spread not eliminate the virus. We also have to look at the overall percentage of death per overall population, not specific case death (# of infected / # of dead).


We don’t really know the total number of people that have been infected only the amount texted. But we do have an idea of the total number of people that have died from COVID – 19.


Currently that is 48061 in the USA. Some will say many more have died, but we don’t know the exact number. Let’s assume that is true so let’s multiply by 3. Which means there could be 144,183 dead in the United States right now from COVID – 19.


Which means only 0.04% of the United States population has died from Corona virus. (148,183 / 350,000,000) x 100 = percentage.


Much less than 1%!!


For example, here in North Carolina we have 253 deaths from COVID – 19. Multiply that by 3 to make sure we account for any death we don’t know about, so 759.


That means 0.007%!!


We need to accept some facts that the virus will cause problems for some, but for the great majority it will not. Get life back to normal.


Let’s get back to the fields!!

 

As long as people like you, that have that outlook, agree to not go to a doctor and drain the medical system when you get the virus, let's go.

 

Purdue President says plan is to have students on campus this fall.

https://www.purdue.edu/president/messages/campus-community/2020/2004-fall-message.php

A bit surprised by this. Thought most would lay low for longer before making statements either way. Of course he gives himself an escape...."assuming governmental authorities permit reopening of our schools" Which goes back to Val1's governor point.

 

What you've failed to mention is that 5.64% of the people in the United States that contract the virus are dying. There are currently 866,105 cases in the country and 48,809 deaths (48,809/866,105 = 5.64%). That is a much higher death to case ratio than the common flu.

I will concede that a disproportionate number of those deaths have occurred among the populations of those in urban areas and people with a much larger number of comorbidities. The death to case ratio among African Americans is nearly 20%. African Americans tend to have a higher number of comorbidities in general. Take that population out and we're still looking at an alarming number of deaths.

You seem to think that getting back on the fields is one of the more important things. We need to first get some semblance of normalcy back to life and commerce before we should consider athletics. In the scheme of things there are other aspects of life that are much more important than sports.

I agree with the comment from Germans4allies. If people like you would sign a waiver stating that you would refuse medical care if you contract the virus, then have at it. The issue with that, though, is that you will endanger others also.

 

Exactly! If someone doesn't believe what Germans4Allies4 believes, you don't get medical care. We know how that worked with Germany in the past. Sign us all up. "Let's go!"

 

Play Simple no one knows how many people have the virus. In fact there are now people who believe it was in the US much longer than originally thought. So your 5.64% stat is no where near accurate.

I do wonder if some of you walk in cross walks or drive a car. I am not underestimating the virus. I am not even sure what my opinion is on opening things up. But some of you don't seem to recognize that there is a risk of death in many things we do. Yet, we still do them.

And, by closing down so much, many ill people are not getting properly treated right now. People with cancer are having their surgeries postponed because the hospital 'might' need room for virus victims. Talk to people who work at the majority of hospitals and they are near empty. NY has been an exception.

 

Let's not stop at covid. Let's make everyone sign those types of deals. If a gay guy has unprotected sex and gets HIV let's not treat him. He is putting doctors and nurses and everyone at risk. Let's start with all those New Yorkers. People riding subways in New York shouldn't get treatment for covid either, take a cab, people are dying. If someone is fat and gets type 2 diabetes let them die. Sports injuries....tough luck, you chose to put yourself at risk for a meaningless sport. This is only fair. Before anyone gets medical treatment we always ask and make sure they in no way had any factor in their need for assistance. They can't have knowingly exposed themselves to any risk. They will "drain the medical system when they get (anything.)" If you chose to take part in any activity that contributed, you "agree to not go to a doctor." That's how all the civilized medical systems do it! SARCASM

I hope you all really don't believe this.

 

The death rate will end up being less than 1%, check out the latest

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/23/new...ents-have-had-the-coronavirus-cuomo-says.html

Over 2.7 Million New Yorkers are estimated to have had the virus.

 

Sarcasm, exactly.

But what's your logic in comparing these other situations to a world pandemic like COVID-19? For example, transmission of HIV and COVID-19 is just a tad different.

 

At the end of the day we'll have to accept some risk or face a real depression in this country, whose deleterious effects will be as bad or worse than the pandemic. Medical experts, governors, private business owners and public administrators will have to decide how much risk is tolerable. Look at the economic/employment/livelihood damage that's already been created by this crisis, and then imagine what it will be like in another 3/4 months if there's not been a somewhat significant upswing in activity and some sort of return to normalcy. The administration needs to get its act together on testing, and fast. I think we as a country have to be cautious about re-opening but not excessively cautious, because if the economy sits dormant for too much longer we'll all be standing in Dickensian-style bread lines.