Harbaugh Open Thread
A bunch of people seem to have a problem with this statement, "COVID is part of our society. Wasn’t caused by football or caused by sports. And there’s no expert view right now that I’m aware of that sports is going to make that worse. It’s part of our society; we’re going to have to deal with it.”
Full statement is much more reasonable.
"These kids are going to have to do the same thing. They’ve got to go to school. They’ve trained their whole lives for the opportunity to play their sport. That is my view with the knowledge that we have and time to learn more about it. It would be my responsibility, our responsibility and the players’ responsibility also, to keep themselves safe and get the schooling and training that they need.”
"If students are on campus, then my personal belief as a parent of a daughter who would also be on campus that this is a safe place," Harbaugh said. "As safe as possible, would be within the university, in our athletic buildings and complexes. The safety precautions that have been put into place. I would feel good with the medical oversight of the students, student-athletes. I would want the responsibility. I would want the responsibility of keeping our players safe and educating them .... I share the same opinion as our players. They want to play."
Much more to discuss (argue about) in his presser. Discuss away!
Our coach is a sensible man and is working closely with the best health system in the state. I trust him to do what needs to be done.
Ironic that people are comparing him to Dabo when we have had two positive tests so far. I'll go one step further and predict chicken little Lincoln Riley has more positive tests this year.
Step 1: Harbaugh says something
Step 2: Media reports said something out of context
Step 3: Generate more clicks
Step 4: Profit
very true.....it's not South Park vague where Step 3 = ? it's all about the clicks....
Somewhat of a strange opening. ‘A bunch of people seem to have a problem with this statement‘. Are you inferring this from things people have said? Has there been a huge outcry somewhere else about the statement?
Some punk from only fans athletic was talking shit. Seth retweeted part of a thread from some judgy sounding editor lady from some other site. That's what I saw on my feed earlier today.
Why do people hate on The Athletic here for having a subscriber model? I don't get it, especially because people seem to not mind 24/7 which runs on the same deal!
I loved the Athletic until they charged me more than twice as much as their email said they would, then stopped all communication after I asked to speak to a supervisor.
We found a wild Karen in the tall grass
Mgobloggers pretty much hate any sports media outlet or personality
A bunch of people may have been the wrong words. In the initial stories and twitter post from the event the quote about, "no expert view" was the lead with an implication that he was ignoring expert opinions relative to restarting football. I don't think he is doing that but of course its all about generating clicks as opposed to conveying the whole picture of what he said.
If you go to r/cfb there's posters on there that took that misleading click bait headline and rolled it into a narrative that Harbaugh wants to cram 100k+ people into stadiums and is against social distancing.
It's pretty fucked.
Harbaugh literally says:
IF students are on campus this fall, then he thinks it's safe to play football. If it is deemed it is too dangerous, then not playing is the right thing to do.
Then he says that statement. Then he talks about how his players are taking the pandemic seriously, wearing masks, social distancing, cooking food at home and not going out, etc. He's also fine with EMPTY STADIUMS if that helps get a season in.
He's going to respect and follow the decision President Schlissel makes. Who, you know, is kind of an expert on this stuff. And Schlissel's old stomping grounds in the Ivy League just cancelled/postponed all of their sports.
Here is the link to the whole thing
https://www.freep.com/videos/sports/college/university-michigan/wolverines/2020/07/08/jim-harbaugh-michigan-football-video-interview/5398235002/
Talks about the team and a number of other issues as well
He means well. Not gonna lose sleep over this. I mean, it's not like his conference road record.
Pretty much what I've been saying for awhile, good for him.
And to emphasize, the players want to play! They understand the risks.
No, they really don’t. Because nobody fully appreciates the risks. To them or to other people.
Are we sure the players are indeed expressing that? or is this like "voluntary workouts"
Nice blanket statement. You would make a good talking head. "Jim, the players understand the risks and they WANT - TO - PLAY."
"Jim, what the American people want is...."
I'm have no inside info at all, but based on the interview with Chris Hinton's parents, I'm going to guess that it's a little more complex and variable than how you describe, especially when the parents' opinions are taken into account.
Imagine a world in which we let football coach make public health decisions.
vs. a president steeped in the nuances of real estate bankruptcies and reality TV shows, hmmmm, depending upon the coach, I might pick the coach.
I'd settle for letting the CDC make them, but apparently that won't be happening either.
They apparently hurt Trump’s feelings.
Genuinely fuck Austin Meek for tweeting that. He purposely took a small snippet from the middle of the answer knowing it would sound bad out of context, got all the attention and retweets he wanted, then an hour later puts out a follow up saying his tweet was out of context and provided context.
Irresponsible journalism at it's finest
I've listened to a few of his podcasts with Bumgardner. He generally has a sarcastic tone in his voice and it wouldn't be much of a stretch to find out he is a douche.
Agreed. Baumgardner is a class act. Meek seems to be a guy who believes his shit don't stink. As for podcasts I much prefer Baumgardner and Quinn. Now Quinn is an A caliber smartass but I've always thought it was tongue in cheek.
I think the controversial part is, "And there’s no expert view right now that I’m aware of that sports is going to make that worse."
Obviously this quote alone makes it seem like Jim doesn't believe playing football in a pandemic would increase risk, but in the context of talking about all of the precautions they are taking and if everyone follows them he's pretty much right.
I think when you look at the fact kids are gonna do things they might not do if the were 35 and older, yeah sports won't make it worse. The kids playing sports will be tested and you will know who has it. In society kids will go to the beach, go to bars, go to the mall, and never know if they are carrying this thing from place to place. These athletes will be in a more controlled atmosphere than any other student or person in the general public.
I don't see how any reasonable person can disagree with this.
The virus is not going away. New treatments are being developed, many of them very promising (I read about some ARV treatments that are showing incredible promise as both preventatives and treatments today), and its pretty clear we are already seeing a lower death rate from what has been learned the last three months. A vaccine may come early next year, but the efficacy of the vaccine and its durability are huge question marks. If the thing needs to be taken every 3 months to be effective, you can forget that as a route to herd immunity. So, let's wear masks, let's not gather in huge crowds (looking at you, Gen Z), and let's try to adjust to this as best we can while moving on with our lives.
well said! we have to adapt - some may chose to take more risks than others.
He's not wrong; the situation could be better had the country handled COVID-19 properly months ago, but at this point it's just the reality and if the school is open then I guess players might as well play. But for the record, this slapdash season didn't have to happen had leadership nationally been better.
Don't disagree with anything other than your conclusion. Could the response have been better on a national level? Yes. What was the ideal course of action? I am not sure anyone knows those answers. However, thinking things would be peachy if our leaders had just done "X" is foolhardy imo.
As a resident of one of the current hottest spots in the country (in more than one way..) I can say that we went into lockdown around the same time as the majority of the country.
- AZ had relatively few cases and deaths at that point and after 4-6 weeks people were starting to disregard the social distancing and other guidelines (This was NOT gun toting militia types it was Upper middle class PTA parents etc..)
- When the restrictions were lifted way too many people went back to life as completely normal - no masks etc. == It is hard to get people to worry about a disease if they don't know anyone who has actually had it, let alone been seriously affected.
- With the recent spike in cases - (finally) local govt. enacted mandatory mask policies and shut the bars and health clubs back down. Most places are enforcing the rules and I expect infection rates will taper back down. Fortunately the death rate is currently still a small fraction of what the Eastern US and MI saw.
I guess my point is that even for folks that believed they should continue, the complete lock-downs were not going to hold indefinitely. Expecting people from regions that were relatively untouched to act as those in NYC and MI did coming out of lockdown was wishful thinking. Therefore this was going to happen eventually. One can't really make this current situation a red v. blue state thing either as I saw a similar argument re: lack of concern from Covid among Californians in the LA Times last week.
I guess I had a different experience because I live in Boston now and have friends and family in NYC and Michigan, so early on it was made clear that this was a serious disease and people needed to respond appropriately. I do recognize that if you haven't seen the scope of the disease early on you might be persuaded to take it less seriously when it comes to precautions. But at the same time, lots of government entities (spearheaded by the federal government) sent out mixed signals about the severity of the disease and its staying power (the various "oh, it's like the flu" and "it'll be gone by Easter/May/June/etc." talk). Virtually every other country was able to get through to its people that even if you hadn't been exposed to it yet, taking precautions now would limit the growth of the disease (and the threat it posed to them) in the future. That never really materialized here, and led to a bunch of half-ass rationalizations justifying it, like how COVID-19 didn't like the heat (hence by Southeast and West states seemed "safe"). Of course, the reality was some places just got lucky early on and didn't have an outbreak; that luck then ran out when the disease was allowed to just linger other places and then spread once things opened up.
Now, I don't believe that there was a silver bullet behavior that would have "saved" the US from a certain level of pain as a result of this disease, but you look at basically every other 1st-world country and you see them follow the general flare-up-then-tamped-down curve that comes from temporary, limited movement, acceptance of different behaviors such as wearing masks and limited holding of larger group meetings, and acknowledgment that this was a global pandemic and not "Kung Flu" or some attempt by a mysterious organization or political party to rob you of your rights and your income. There were just so many unforced errors, from POTUS making it clear numerous times that this wasn't something people should worry about (exemplified by him not wanting to wear a mask publicly and holding a freaking indoor rally in Tulsa with virtually no social distancing warnings or enforcement), to state governors sniping in public about how they'd bar citizens from other states because of their exposure rates (Florida threatened tri-state citizens, now NY is doing the opposite), to these various rallies and protests against shutdowns (and the BLM protests, though seemingly less of a source of new cases than some assumed, didn't help in terms of limiting exposure vectors) turning what should have been a public health issue into a political one. And this isn't some partisan take - Cuomo handled NY terribly and Mike DeWine in Ohio did a great job by all accounts.
So I agree it's not a red v. blue state thing; it's a divide between people who trusted experts (while acknowledging they could be wrong especially early on as we learned more about this novel virus) vs. those who didn't want to be bothered changing their lives (and yes, I recognize there were people who were hurt financially [count me in that group] and felt abandoned by the government when it came to keeping the lights on) or who instinctively assume they're smarter than the experts because we've made it a point over the years to downplay experience and knowledge while amplifying bombast. But in the end, we're still right here; the country is seeing yet more spikes in cases (and honestly, deaths will also spike - AZ just saw 117 yesterday, which I believe is a record) and it's unlikely they'll die down before the fall when kids are likely sent back to school, college re-convene, and your normal run-of-the-mill flu season joins in with what will undoubtedly be new hotspots at schools across the country.
I recognize that America is different in a lot of ways, and there wasn't some "perfect" path that could have been followed. But looking back at the past couple months it would be a stretch to say the US handled COVID-19 even competently across all the states, let alone nationally. And so I guess I'm just done with anyone trying to find some silver lining with schools opening in the fall and why we might as well just take the hits and wait for the vaccine. America looks at other countries being able to open up and demands that same freedom without putting in any of the legwork that got places like Germany and South Korea to that point, but that level of introspection and frank recognition of failure isn't going to fly politically so what's left is the current states jamming fingers into leaking ships. I'd love to be wrong and maybe these reversals really do tamp down cases and infection rates, but I'm not optimistic.
When the Persians were marching through Greece, unimpeded, an agent went to a king of one of the Grecian cities and told them that a Persian invasion was eminent and to join a counter invasion course. The king told the agent to pound sand. Next the agent went to the democratic Grecian city. Same message was met with wringing of hands by the landed leaders. That city, out of fear, was manipulated to join the counter invasion. They got smoked. (listen to Dan Carlin Hardcore History for a much better recount of the situation).
I love democracy, but we have to recognize its flaws. Having the populace, gripped with fear, into decision making roles is one of them. The US has done its share of terrible things when fear was its guide (disguised with names like patriot or internment). It is difficult to analyze covid while in the midst of the fear we, or certainly I, have for myself and for those I love. In time, when the fog of fear has passed, I'm still not sure how posterity will judge us. Hindsight is always clearer.
My only advice is to stay safe, control what you can control, stay social, get vitamin d, get sleep, work out, try and enjoy your time quarantined with family, and pick up a hobby (I purchased a trumpet and am terrible but I love playing).
That said, it is difficult for me not to want to watch my favorite team play some football!
Go Blue!
"What was the ideal course of action? I am not sure anyone knows those answers."
I think there are plenty of examples of countries that handled this much MUCH better than us.
Quick repsonse....but close the borders asap and make people and get the stay at home orders out inmediately.
There have been plans for this type of situation going back to the Bush W. years...and Obama continued the manual on what to do. We lost ground people in China over the past 4 years that would've had an ear to the ground on this outbreak and even without them, the leadership in this country knew something was amiss much earlier than March/or even February.
It really was poor leadership all around...and all the way down to state levels with each state doing different actions. It should've looked more like overkill than it does now. Sure death rates are lower than initially thought but this is still something we probably could've gotten under control with less egomaniacal leader. I really don't mean to play sides with regards to politics in typing all of this so I'll say, many other Rep. leaders probably could've gotten this country a better grasp on this and better outcome than what we're enduring.
Wearing a mask has become a political and divisive notion at this point and that falls on leadership.
Shocking (not) that Ace jumped in and ripped Harbaugh without reading the quote in full context. I finally had to unfollow him.
I unfollowed Ace a long time ago. He sucks on Twitter.
I wish I had the energy this Ace guy has
I unfollowed Ace a few years ago. I actually wish both he and Brian would go "the Scott Bell route" and have a separate twitter accounts for personal vs. MGo-business.
I didn't want to be that "stick to sportz! guy" --- they are free to do and say as they want -- but I really only follow then for their M content. (Not that I don't LOVE a good Ann Arbor zoning or City council tweet as much as the next person......)
The MGoElsewhere list of Twitters does not include Ace’s.
Honestly, he might overreact a bit much on twitter but if I was going through what he was I probably would too. Hell, I've gotten pretty sensitive since the lockdown in March from spending 20+ hours a day in my room.
Harbaugh is entitled to his opinion of course, but he is not a disinterested observer and IMO has obvious bias. There is simply no way you can reopen a major university and restart sports programs without increasing infection risks when the people involved are interfacing with a community with infection and living, playing and working in close proximity. Harbaugh may feel that the risks are worthwhile; others have a different view.
Playing football is a risk too. Probably higher risk for long term health concerns for players than Covid.
To me there are a few separate and distinct issues:
1. Health of the players themselves - from a mortality risk this seems pretty small. At somewhere in the neighborhood of 200,000 deaths it would be comparable to the flu for a 15 to 24 year old (e.g. similar number of annual deaths). There is certainly uncertainty about long term impacts for asymptomatic folks, but, I suspect the amount of extra testing they will get will compensate for the extra football induced contact.
2. Health of coaches and support staff. For older and higher risk younger, face same challenges that many others face (and once again, probably with significantly greater testing than most.
3. Community spread. Seems like it should be evaluated like any other activity if community spread worsens in an area. Seems likely that in at least some areas, these restrictions may preclude games (e.g. gatherings of more than x people) if as it appears we continue to see hotspots. This also gets at issues like, should football games be a priority if hospitals are stretched thin.
4. What happens when high numbers of players on a team are quarantined. Once again, seems likely to lead to cancellations of games.
Point being, it is not about the inherent danger of football Itself, but rather the level of precaution across the board we want/need to take to protect our hospital systems from getting overwhelmed. If there isn’t significant spread in the community or on the two teams playing (and we don’t bring in large numbers of fans from outside the area the game is being played) football games may not be particularly problematic. Unfortunately there are likely to be any number of times the two conditions (low local spread and low spread on the teams) are being met.
Are you suggesting asymptomatic people will magically have scars on their lungs or respiratory problems for life? Pretty sure some symptoms would show, rendering them pretty symptomatic.
You would be incorrect. Asymptomatic people can have lungs as bad as someone with walking pneumonia and we have no idea how this will resolve. I post the NPR link and not nature medicine because I assume not everyone has access to the actual article (which is linked in the npr article.)
Thanks KingFury
I’m not suggesting it Actual medical professionals are.
‘Even if someone is infected by the novel coronavirus and remains asymptomatic — free of coughing, fever, fatigue and other common signs of infection, that doesn't mean the coronavirus isn't taking a toll. The virus can still be causing mild — although likely reversible — harm to their lungs.
A new paper in Nature Medicine, published June 18, documents the clinical patterns of asymptomatic infections. It finds that many of the people studied developed signs of minor lung inflammation — akin to walking pneumonia — while exhibiting no other symptoms of the ‘coronavirus.
The study shows that being asymptomatic doesn't always mean that no damage has occurred in someone's body; follow-up studies will help researchers assess for potential long-term impacts. It also demonstrates that the intense scrutiny applied to novel coronavirus infections could shed light on how other respiratory diseases operate: Asymptomatic carriers of flu or common cold viruses are not studied much, so it's unclear whether the documented inflammation is a typical immune response or specific to the novel coronavirus.’
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/06/23/864536258/we-still-dont-fully-understand-the-label-asymptomatic If you google asymptomatic covid and lung damage you will find other papers on the topic.
I was assuming that was the impetus for question #14 of the Hinton letter.
“Will an athlete testing positive receive cardiovascular/lung testing before they return to workouts?“
You may want to also note that I did not make a big deal of it or suggest it was a reason not to play football. I just noted that it was an uncertainty
Likely reversible doesn't sound very permanent.
Minor means not bad enough to affect them, I assume.
I’m not sure what has gotten you all worked up about this, but I’m going to repeat two comments from the post you are responding to in an attempt to make things clearer for you.
‘You may want to also note that I did not make a big deal of it or suggest it was a reason not to play football. I just noted that it was an uncertainty”
‘The study shows that being asymptomatic doesn't always mean that no damage has occurred in someone's body; follow-up studies will help researchers assess for potential long-term impacts”
You are welcome to assume whatever you’d like. I personally don’t think there is quite enough information to know one way or the other, but as I assume most others would, I hope that there are no significant long term impacts in asymptomatic people. I think most would have been more reassured if drs had found no evidence to suggest it could be a problem. The uncertainty is not going to change my opinions or actions but I think it is worth knowing and seeing where the science goes.
I agree with everything that is quoted above. Hopefully the games will be played. Covid-19 isn't going anywhere. Time to learn to live with it.