It's almost like they've been reading this thread... Germany women's friendly vs. USA cancelled :: DFB - Deutscher Fußball-Bund e.V. - https://www.dfb.de/news/detail/germany-womens-friendly-vs-usa-cancelled-214675/ Nah, it's for Covid travel reasons, obviously.
That stinks. It seems sporting events will be the last thing to come back online (back to normalcy) after the virus threat is over.
While I miss the sports I had been watching I do not believe sports should have any priority about returning to "normal." I don't believe that we should realistically look at restarting any sports that place people in close proximity until we have a viable vaccine. If a real rush is placed on the development of the vaccine we might have one and a distribution method and enough vaccine by January or February but it will probably be some months later. The lives of people are more important than sports. Any day I expect to hear of processions through the streets of the hot spots with people chanting "Bring out your dead." I do not wish to see that little fantasy come true and doing something stupid like stopping social isolation too soon might well bring out the worst this virus can do. We have not seen what the worst is, yet. People keep talking weeks to the end when they should be talking many months and looking for ways to fill the voids left by the directives.
I don't think we need a vaccine to resume sports, but you would need the capability to test all the athletes, coaches, officials, trainers, TV crews to know that none of the athletes have the virus--and even then it might be (probably be?) sports without spectators or crowds for a time. Is it possible to have NFL or college football or soccer games without fans in the stands? It would be strange, but I thing the answer could be yes, if only because TV and TV-rights revenue plays such a massive role in the economics of some sports at the pro and college level--notably American football. Even without spectators, if you can play games with athletes and crew who've been tested and cleared, you can televise the games, I should think--and the ratings would be very good. Can you image if the NCAA basketball tourney was being played now? The games would be quiet, with no spectators, but the TV ratings would be through the roof. NFL clubs and colleges would certainly lose a lot of money without spectators--but at least the TV money would be back, and the TV advertising. As testing becomes more refined and efficient, I don't see why athletes/student-athletes can't be tested and then play real games, without, probably and sadly, crowds to watch the games. A lot would depend on the state of testing in, say, three months and how much pressure there might be to resume sports. They shouldn't take priority over the welfare of the general population, to be sure--but sports are a major diversion for people all over the world--and a major economic driver. If there were no college football this fall, for example, the economic damage to college athletic programs all over the country would be huge. American college football revenue subsidizes all non-revenue sports, including, obviously, soccer. Would it be possible in, say, July, for every college to test its fall student athletes--and the same for NFL and pro soccer clubs? I don't know. Who knows if college students will be back on campuses by fall. I certainly don't put much stock in what Trump thinks or says, but he clearly wants sports to resume ASAP. It will be interesting indeed to see how this unfolds. We can only hope for rapid progress in all areas related to beating back this virulent bug.
Ugh...so got called... First, read this thread early, but not recently. Sorry, been tied up with other things, but as I said, you all are good people. A comment on attendance. Remember, COVID19 was prevalent in the US before the Cup started, and I was surprised it actually went forward considering that other sports were talking about what to do with their seasons and tournaments. This was also shortly after the heavily criticized Atalanta v. Valencia match at the San Siro, and around the closed door replay. Thus, any additional attendance from Spain (very little) or Japan (also very little) would have been reduced. Further, as was noted, the non-US matches were played at inconvenient times. Further, for many middle and high school (and even college) students, these games would have been during the time leading up to Spring Break/midterms. Finally, the only match to be a sell out was the Sunday match, and at an earlier time. Put all that together, and it should not be a surprise that attendance was down. Only it wasn't. A quick check, and the attendance was greater than all tournaments going back to 2017 (2017 seemed to be similar - I didn't do that actual math). Further, only one match had below 10k, and that was the early match in Orlando, not exactly a bastion for women's football. So, as usual, there is the comparison to the men's game going on, and we all know that is an unfair comparison - women's matches will have lower attendances apart from US matches in the US or at high level tournament (WC, Olys, etc). It appears to be growing, though. Regarding Germany, there is a difference between interest and respect. I wouldn't say the last thing, but sports are not an over all priority in the large scheme (for example, I think education will be up and running very quickly), and it also takes time for the players to get back to match fitness. As a mod note, when posting "thread" versus "threat" please double check that you are clear. There were at least two difference occurrences where that word could be either, and obviously it changes the meaning of the post. Now, I'm going back to watching 28 Days Later so I can feel better about myself.
There are a lot of factors which need to be in place before sports can safely resume. Remember, medical professionals all over the US and Europe are being stretched to the limit, and both being reassigned (non-ICU doctors being moved to support ICU doctors/patients) as well as just the availability for those medical professionals and the equipment they need. Beyond that, having the players, staff, all the media all move around and all needing a place to stay is going to put an undo burden on various resources which might not be ready or even able to support. To give you an example, I just had my apartment sprayed for bugs. To make that happen, I needed to vacate, and there were 7 other people doing various necessary things for this to take place. For 1 person in 1 apartment. I can only image a professional basketball team, or worse, NFL team. Let along anything international. And all of this is knowing that, based on history, there will be a second wave that hits sometime in the fall (in the northern hemisphere).
The problem with that idea is that people can be contagious without symptoms and that means that someone only slightly contagious might carry the virus into a crowd and infect others. But maybe even the lowest virus load that is contagious might be high enough for viable testing so that might be a moot point for the testing to work as protection. Also when you look and the real numbers involved the testing, just to play sports, would be hideously expensive and that expense would be ongoing because just because someone is clear today does not mean they will be clear tomorrow. Also the testing would need to be in place at each and every team practice because restarting sports is not just restarting the games. I do not see any reasonable possibility of restarting things without a viable vaccine. BTW: That goes for things in general. We cannot restart our lives unless we can be sure that at least a large percentage (I have seen numbers between 50% and 80%) is immune and that requires a vaccine or a LOT more people will have to get sick and recover. Also it is still not proven that recovered people are immune for a period longer than a month or two.
Your point about testing and then having to retest--assuming that players after any practice or game will go out again into the world and thus risk getting contaminated--is valid. It means that the number of new cases being recorded will have to be brought way down before robust economic activity resumes. However, I do not believe that anybody is prepared to effectively reduce global economic activity by 50 or 75 percent until a vaccine is developed and given to, what, hundreds of millions of people. We'd have a situation much worse than the Great Depression. I think countries/people may end up living with this virus--at a low level--for a time, until it can be eradicated--and that would mean communities acting quickly to isolate/treat/contain new cases when they develop and probably accepting a certain number of deaths from this disease until it can be completely beat. I just can't imagine a prolonged major slowdown of the global economy that stretches out for a year or two--the effects of that would be worse than the disease. Experts may have to determine what an acceptable amount of risk is, and we'll probably see social distancing/work from home go on for quite some time to mitigate health risks while trying to resume something close to normal life. And there is certainly the risk or likelihood of resuming lockdowns in specific areas where there has been a new outbreak. It is an unprecedented situation, with no easy answers at the moment.
I just want to be careful here in that there is a lot of unknowns about this virus. Some of the questions: What is the actual infection rate? (Indications are starting to show it might be higher than currently known) Can an infected develop an immunity? Can somebody get reinfected? (a different medical/science question than above) Are there any indications as to why one is asymptomatic and another is not? Those are basic questions which should have a solid answer, preferably proven. Regarding this point, yes the reduction of sustainability is going to be very, very hard to maintain. But there will be a readjustment of the economy (new sensitization processes will show up for example along with more remote work). But as usual, the lowest of the low in actual physical production will go back to work too early. We are seeing that in China now. We saw that in 1918 in the US (it is part of what caused the huge second wave post summer). It sucks, it is wrong. But people have the need to support their families/kids and will take unhealthy risks. I doubt there will be a Great Depression level economy, but it will be bad for some unknown time until we can wrap our heads around how to adjust. Beyond that, gathering at events like weddings or funerals or church or lectures or theater performances can happen once we have the medical infrastructure in place, IMO. But we need to get the current wave under control before we, as a society, can think about safely gathering for events. Even if that means closed door sporting events.
That is the basic problem with the pseudoscience of medicine. It is basically just guesses based on statistics and small differences from previous experience can change what was a cure into a poison. This virus is quite new and it does not behave like any other virus we have seen in that "correct" responses to what is happening are always too late even when they might have been effective earlier. There is another issue that has been little mentioned so far in that there may never be an effective vaccine. One of the closest viruses to this one, the common cold, (Which is really a number of very close virus strains) has no effective vaccine. Admittedly it is not particularly deadly but it is so common that an effective vaccine could be very profitable, yet it still does not exist. The reason some medical friends I have told me is that immunity from the common cold is short term only and you can be reinfected just a few weeks after having a cold. The novel coronavirus is acting very much like the cold and reinfection after a short term is more than a little possible. This virus already has a least three different viable strains and it is possible that one or another may prove to be unable to be controlled. We just do not know enough to even accurately predict what will or won't work to control the disease at this time and using statistical models to try and predict the future is, at best, unreliable. Remember: "Most people use statistics the way a drunkard uses a lamp post, more for support than illumination." Mark Twain I still doubt that life will ever resume the way it was before this outbreak but we may get close in a year or two. Also you are correct that the actual infection rate is probably wrong. Countries like Russia, N. Korea and even China are, most probably, under reporting their numbers intentionally. There are also countries like the US, Japan, Italy, Spain, England and many others that are trying but simply are continuously behind the curve because they keep reacting to what is and the virus stays ahead of them. And lastly there are countries like India, much of Se Asia, most of Africa and most of South America that simply do not have the infrastructure to even remotely know their infection rates or even have the ability to isolate cases at all. Many of those countries have too many people in poverty or even worse to have any idea of actual infection rates and those countries cannot enforce any form of social distancing that has any chance of being effective. The virus has not progressed even half way through its cycle and I think that the ending of the first cycle will just be the beginning of the second. Those of us in developed countries bemoan our lost right of congregation but those in the under-developed countries cannot even isolate if they want. I wonder what will actually be the final outcome. The one thing I am fairly sure of is that the world has changed as the result of a virus that is one billionth the size of the humans. It is bringing humans to their collective figurative knees and we may not be able to even fight it to a draw. Maybe we are in the process of losing the human race. Edit to add: Americans are underestimating how long coronavirus disruptions will last, health experts say https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/03...rus-disruptions-will-last-health-experts-say/
Let me stop you right here. 1 - Medicine is not "pseudosciene." It is science, and the nature of science is constant discovery. Medicine uses what is known from past experiences to treat the present, but it cannot perfectly predict the future. You used the flu - well, there are many, many strands of flu and the flu shot given years is only for two or three variations of that based on expected mutations and transmissions, decision which are scientifically based. 2 - This specific virus is new in that it jumped, but it is not all that different from MERS or SARS (and if you look at the names, this is known as SARS-CoV2 where as the 2003 version was SARS-CoV). Previous versions of a coronavirus that jumped is that they were lower respiratory infections. SARS-CoV2 is both lower and upper. So it effects breathing, but also induces coughing which produces the droplets which help it spread easier. 3 - As I stated, there is no evidence of immunity or reinfection which has been published and vetted. I've read articles suggesting both, written by those who study these particular areas (virologists, immunologists, etc). That is actually a positive. Viruses tend to mutate quite quickly and that this one is not is a good sign for treatment. I haven't read have many variations there are, but I have read that it is low. [Teacher hat]That quote is being used too often in the discussions of what is happening and what will happen, and I think it is out of place. All of the statistical models of what is going to happen scientifically are projecting the unknown, and they all stay that. But I would caution saying they are unreliable. Some may turn out to be accurate, some may will not. But how those numbers were reached should be done via some scientific method (those coming from people who are able to do the appropriate math with the appropriate medical/scientific knowledge). This is why statisticians are interesting, but medical/science people are knowledgeable. I was not meaning to talk about places like China or Russia or India or Indonesia (man, Indonesia is looking like it is going to be really bad). I am talking about places like Italy and Spain and Germany and So Korea where a re-examination of the data makes it appear that there are more asymptomatic people than previously thought. One of the things a lot of science and medical people are pointing at is the Spanish Flu of 2018 and how it came back with a vengeance after the summer. What those people are worried about is if we get lax as things stabilize and try to bring society back to normal in the fall, and then we get hit with wave 2. I understand the desire to want to get back to normal (I'm starting to get tired of watching old F1 races or replays of various football matches). But if we get lax, then we are going to have another problem. Biology has shows over millions of years the ability to adapt to new threats. In recorded history, there have been plenty of pandemics going as far back as the ancient Greeks (the Plague of Justinian in the 540s is thought to have killed half of Europe). Yet, we as a species survive. And there is good indication that this will be the same. If you know biology, a virus is a living organism, and living organisms have a desire to survive and procreate. So if a virus kills it's host, that is counter productive. This is why we don't see Ebola outbreaks more often - because it is too effective. With SARS-CoV2, if the asymptomatic numbers are as high as now thought, that is good in that it is showing that it is not destructive to us like the Bubonic Plague has been over the centuries. A little background on me - my ex was a post doc at St. Jude's Children Research Hospital in Memphis. They have an immunology lab there which is not often discussed, and does the highest level of research with some of the most deadliest diseases. I got to interact with a few of them on occasion and a comment which came up several times was that part of the research they were doing was not thinking about the initial infection, but what happens when further waves hit. Thus, I began to think that, like with antibiotics, listen to what the doctors (and scientists) say rather than politicians who speak for them and have the power to lift order or make behavioral recommendations.
Did you know Dr. Wynn Wang? I know he did research on Sickle cell disease there and for a while he and I were friends but we parted when I was asked to return to the North East Pacific area for a while. My reference to pseudoscience was not really intended to disparage medicine but rather to point out that when you reach the level of the human body is is impossible to 100% apply the scientific method. There simply is too much of chaos theory in any attempt to apply science to something as complex as the human body. That reduces medicine to a statistical science rather than a science where you say if thing A happens then thing B will result. Of course most other sciences are reduced to statistical science once you pass a certain level. The uncertainty principal pretty much assures that. It is just that medicine and meteorology and other "sciences" that deal with too many sensitive variables hit the "uncertainty" wall much sooner than "hard" sciences. I have PHDs in Mathematics and Physics but only the former mostly avoids the uncertainty principal and that is only true if you avoid, as I did, applied mathematics. I have great respect for people in the medical professions as I doubt I could tolerate dealing with the human animal as much as most in that field must do. I just do not believe there will be effective control of this virus in anything like the time frame that many are predicting. But I will be very pleased to be wrong. I just strongly hope I am not wrong in the wrong direction.
Something not discussed here, but perhaps relevant to international sports, is the connection between today's pandemic and globalization. It may not be politically correct to say it, but: There have been viruses around forever (in life on earth terms), and there must have been previous versions of viruses as dangerous to humans as this one. When human communities were isolated, whole communities may have been wiped out or at least major portions of them. That surely is not a new phonomenon. What is new is that this virus entered the human population during a time when the world is relatively densely populated by humans, and when we have great numbers of humans traveling from place to place worldwide, and when we have an increasingly gobal economy. We as a species are going to have to think very hard about the implications of this. At a micro level, it has to do with international sports -- the wisdom of having the Olympics providing a great case study. At a macro level, it has to do with the level of our human population, the extent of our international travel, and our growing economic globalization. At what point do developments that seemed to have positive adaptive value begin to turn negative? There is danger in the possibility of xenophobes going crazy with questions like this, but they are serious questions it looks like we are going to need to grapple with.
There are examples of pandemics that are well documented from the earliest of recorded history to now. In times that we can relate to we have: 1 The probably deadliest and longest lasting started in Eastern Europe in about 1348 CE and progressed throughout history in waves and periodically reappears even as recently as two or three years ago. It was commonly called "The Black Death" or simply "The Plague." It was bacteria caused and most commonly transmitted by rat bites or their fleas. 2. Influenza - First reported in Eastern Europe in 1708 and strains have reared their heads many times with probably the deadliest in 1918 with at least 30 million dead world wide. There have also been outbreaks of Typhus (first in 1740), Cholera (first in 1829) and Smallpox (first in 1870 in Europe and also used once as a weapon to kill off a number of American Indians [actual numbers unclear]). There have been many outbreaks throughout history and the numbers killed does seem to directly relate to globalization. However I cannot find numbers that present numbers killed in direct relation to percentages killed so the historical numbers may not actually reflect the levels of devastation. I suspect that the two waves of the 1918 flu was actually the deadliest pandemic ever and it did occur when travel around the world was becoming easy and the understanding of medicine was still very poor. I think that the speed of spread has increased because of the speed of travel but so has the speed of response. I think in would be very hard to come up with a mathematical model that could reliably contrast any one factor with pandemic spread. I even found several websites that included famine and floods in with pandemic statistics and I cannot be sure they were wrong to do so. https://kehilalinks.jewishgen.org/Myadel/Pandemics.htm I believe that math can explain many things and even statistics have their place but I think once the variables get too high and the meaningful numbers get too defuse or hard to compile or too subjective math fails to deliver a clear picture. I would not be surprised to find that the probability of global pandemics did coincide with better/easier transportation but also fell in inverse proportion to improvements in medicine and that those two offset each other so that, except for a spike in 1918, the total infection rate from any modern pandemic has been pretty much flat. This is made worse by the number of people that have access to a little knowledge and by the number of people that have access to a lot of knowledge. "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. So is a lot." Albert Einstein The real scary thing is that we are run by a democracy where the "average" man is electing the "average" man to run things. (into the ground) "Quit worrying about your health. It'll go away." Robert Orben
Matches will very likely be behind closed doors and only available for TV viewing at first. So, not that many people in close proximity.
This is definitely true. I'm just hoping though that proper support is given to female players and any male players that rely on sports and/or other jobs heavily impacted by these lockdowns to get by in life. This of course applies to the many other people who have had their means of income critically affected by the coronavirus. My worry is that there is a time/amount limit to the support that can be provided.
Still we must have a viable vaccine or we must test everyone involved before every match and practice. People seem to think that matches are the only point of possible infection but there are team practices as well and most teams need to have many practices before matches. If the leagues have not started when international matches begin there will have to be a lot of practices or the soccer will be pretty horrible. If the leagues do start up with the alongside international matches without fans then you still have practices and testing before every practice. Of course a viable vaccine will mitigate all that but I think we are at least a year from a vaccine and it is possible there will never be one. Having matches in closed stadiums will only slightly reduce the risk. It is just not worth that risk unless the virus is under control. Sports are simply not important enough to risk the health of anyone and I do not believe that closed matches are a viable solution at all.