If you did not think the SEC could be more irresponsible....
LSU is turning Tiger Stadium into the biggest bar in the country and not even doing wellness checks upon entry.
#LSU announces changes to its gameday COVID-19 protocols:
— Brody Miller (@BrodyAMiller) October 5, 2020
-No CDC wellness checks, which an LSU spokesperson says is to increase speed of entry and reduce build up in lines.
-The return of alcohol sales
October 6th, 2020 at 1:06 AM ^
Every college student knows that alcohol kills any germs/viruses.
October 6th, 2020 at 3:40 AM ^
This is why instead of using hand sanitizer I just use 151.
8.5.0October 6th, 2020 at 8:37 AM ^
Well, which is it? Do you use 151 or 8.5.0???
October 6th, 2020 at 10:27 AM ^
Another commenter also has what looks like a software version beneath every post. Is that indeed a software version, or area code, or gang numbers or what?
October 6th, 2020 at 10:45 AM ^
These days could be part of some scurrilous underground society .
October 6th, 2020 at 11:07 AM ^
A political party, no doubt.
October 6th, 2020 at 7:54 PM ^
Cofefre
October 6th, 2020 at 11:51 AM ^
It's coordinates.
October 6th, 2020 at 3:56 PM ^
Yea, it's me. I get the same exact numbers under like 80% of my posts. No idea why. I've said something to the mods but no response. I'm thinking it's some Chrome plugin.
October 6th, 2020 at 1:07 AM ^
Capacity restrictions at all? What exactly is a wellness check?
what have the Chiefs been doing? They have really just went to 22% capacity and are ‘requiring’ masks. I haven’t seen them called out.
granted, it could end up being worse for LSU, but at least provide something suggesting they are more irresponsible than other athletic programs and clubs to support the claim.
October 6th, 2020 at 1:54 AM ^
Well, you know, according to some here, the Big Ten is more responsible than the SEC.
Those folk ignore the facts that the Big Ten currently has 3 states in the Top 10 in the nation in positivity rate (NE, IA, WI), while the SEC currently has 1 (MO).
------------
The South is beginning to reach the same point the Northeast has reached. They had their surge in the summer, and now they're "benefiting" (as it is) from a degree of immunity built up in the community.
Now, it's the upper Midwest (KS, MO, IA, NE, MN, WI, ND, SD) to go through the same thing. This too shall pass with time.
You can't stop the virus. We're all getting to the same spot (as regards % of population infected) eventually.
Louisiana will likely be fine. Florida's fine right now too, and they're certainly at the far end of the spectrum as regards being open.
October 6th, 2020 at 6:54 AM ^
What? Louisiana and Florida are fine? Southern states are benefiting? This is just an awful take and wrong.
October 6th, 2020 at 7:12 AM ^
You are probably right but evidence would be appreciated
October 6th, 2020 at 1:42 PM ^
Not the person you replied to but, in order, states with the highest documented cases per capita are LA, MS, FL, AL, ND, GA, AZ, TN, SC, IA. None of those states have documented rates higher than roughly 3.6% of the population that have had COVID (cue conjecture about actual rates) herd immunity guesses are that somewhere around 50% of the population needs to have antibodies. The northeast does generally have the highest death per capita rates, likely at least in part due to having been on the leading edge. New infections per capita is literally all over the map with a top 10 (yesterday's) of KS, ND, TN, UT, RI, WI, AK, ID, NE, CT.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
October 6th, 2020 at 8:13 AM ^
Florida is fine.
October 6th, 2020 at 9:48 AM ^
Seems legit.
October 6th, 2020 at 11:08 AM ^
Of all the adjectives I could use to generally describe Florida, "fine" would not be in my top 10.
October 6th, 2020 at 1:13 PM ^
Depends where you go. I'm lucky to have a good career and live in one of the top vacation destinations in the state and things are pretty awesome, even through the pandemic. Go up to New Port Richey and, uh, yeah that area is generally pretty shady.
October 6th, 2020 at 1:21 PM ^
Extremely hot take. Thanks so much for your insight.
October 6th, 2020 at 12:47 PM ^
Let’s be honest Clarence...nobody has trusted you since the time you had the wrong info on concentrated OJ futures.
October 6th, 2020 at 2:04 PM ^
Yep Florida is fine...now
October 6th, 2020 at 10:09 AM ^
Florida is basically fine. If you want a detailed view of how Florida is doing, you can look at Florida Atlantic University's covid tracker. Basically, covid peaked in Florida in mid-to-late July, and has been improving steadily since, despite schools opening statewide near the beginning of September, and businesses (restaurants, etc.) gradually opening up over the same time period.
October 6th, 2020 at 10:20 AM ^
Florida's hospitalizations are down 75% from peak. it's over. panic purveyors will move on to various locales where we haven't hit the threshold yet, but there's a reason the curves look roughly the same everywhere
October 6th, 2020 at 10:31 AM ^
It depends what your goalposts are.
(1) If your goalposts are "zero tolerance of CV cases", they almost definitely won't be fine.
(2) If your goalposts are "the medical system can handle what cases do arise", they'll very likely be fine.
October 6th, 2020 at 12:35 PM ^
Florida cases have remained steady in spite of near-total reopening. Florida deaths have approached zero. Here you go:
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/96dd742462124fa0b38ddedb9b25e429
(Florida Department of Health numbers. No, I don't know how to embed. My UM degree is Computer Engineering, I know nothing practical.)
I'm not trying to make a political statement at all. These numbers seem to speak for themselves. Yes, Florida is fine in terms of "death by Covid" metrics.
Edit: Oops. This is discussed in detail below. MIchigan is rated A+ and Florida A in spite of diametrically different approaches. Maybe in a couple years we can correctly evaluate all the data...
October 6th, 2020 at 3:25 PM ^
Didn't Florida fire the person responsible for reporting their numbers amid allegations that they were just planning to lie?
October 6th, 2020 at 7:49 AM ^
Here you are, again. (And here I am, again.)
"Well, you know, according to some here, the Big Ten is more responsible than the SEC. Those folk ignore the facts that the Big Ten currently has 3 states in the Top 10 in the nation in positivity rate (NE, IA, WI), while the SEC currently has 1 (MO)."
Hmm. I didn't know the University of Wisconsin was responsible for all the citizens of Green Bay.
"The South is beginning to reach the same point the Northeast has reached. They had their surge in the summer, and now they're "benefiting" (as it is) from a degree of immunity built up in the community."
Herd immunity, eh? Sounds reasonable, maybe, to an uneducated person, but it has no backing, yet, from the USA's scientific community. Irresponsible speculation at this point, pending additional knowledge of (say) T-cells ...
"You can't stop the virus. We're all getting to the same spot (as regards % of population infected) eventually."
This is the best and maybe most essentially "NittanyFan" part of your post. Go on building your straw men. No one of influence has suggested that the virus can be stopped. Reasonable people have suggested that slowing the rate of infection would be smart.
- - -
What's your deal, NittanyFan? What's the unrelated core issue that's motivating all these weasely posts?
October 6th, 2020 at 10:17 AM ^
Herd immunity, eh? Sounds reasonable, maybe, to an uneducated person, but it has no backing, yet, from the USA's scientific community. Irresponsible speculation at this point, pending additional knowledge of (say) T-cells ...
This is untrue. Also, anyone who appeals to non existent authority such as the "scientific community" is an idiot.
Plenty of epidemiologists all over the world, including in the US from places like Harvard, Yale, and Stanford back a herd immunity approach because it is obvious at this point.
October 6th, 2020 at 10:54 AM ^
Herd immunity requires 70% to 80% to be infected. The last study showed that only 10% of US citizens have been exposed. We have a LONG ways (and probably at least another 1 million deaths) to go before herd immunity.
October 6th, 2020 at 10:59 AM ^
I really doubt that there are many who can confidently back the herd immunity approach. Especially with so many unknowns about long-term impacts. How could a reasonable person throw caution to the wind and end up with thousands (and possibly millions) in bad long-term health situations?
Even worse, there is a growing body of evidence that antibodies may not last. If that turns out to be true, herd immunity isn't a solution, and we have a big problem.
There is sadly just too much unknown at this point, which makes it very hard to get this right. Anyone who claims otherwise is just being dense.
A small aside: you decry the "scientific community" but then say "Plenty of epidemiologists all over the world, including in the US from places like Harvard, Yale, and Stanford back a herd immunity approach." Isn't that an appeal to (a carefully chosen subset of) scientific community?
October 6th, 2020 at 1:21 PM ^
Then provide some sources for these "epidemiologists all over the world", please. I will wait.
October 6th, 2020 at 2:40 PM ^
I didn't think so.
October 6th, 2020 at 3:02 PM ^
Plenty of epidemiologists from prestigious institutions have wondered whether we're closer to herd immunity than we think due to T-cells. That doesn't mean they "back a herd immunity approach." That also doesn't mean there is anything close to scientific consensus. Having almost everyone get the virus isn't an approach to stopping a virus. It's an abject failure. You get herd immunity from vaccines.
October 6th, 2020 at 6:01 PM ^
No there are not plenty of epidemiologists the world over saying that. As for Stanford I think you're confusing their epidemiologists with racist, republican mouthpiece scott atlas who is their head of radiology who is suing Stanford because the epidemiology department told him to STFU:
" September 10, 2020. Steve Goodman (pictured left) authored an Op Ed warning the public about the scientific misinformations presented by Scott Atlas. This piece was signed by every primary faculty member in the (epidemiology) department. They begin, "We are writing to offer some expert advice: Don’t trust all experts, particularly those expounding in fields far afield from their area of expertise."
Stanford's epidemiologists: "time to shring your quarantine bubble going into the fall" ...not advocating herd immunity.
Harvard's epidemiologists: "William Hanage, associate professor of epidemiology, noted that herd immunity achieved through natural infection would also come at an undue cost to some of the most vulnerable, marginalized groups in the U.S., because they are more at risk of becoming infected than others. "
Yale's epidemiologists: " Debates over herd immunity and natural infection arise with every outbreak. Effective vaccination always wins. "
Dr. Saad Omer, an infectious disease expert and Director of the Yale Institute for Global Health. : "
But ultimately, herd immunity is not something to strive for unless it is achieved through vaccination.
"The cost of that is a substantial number of people dying, and a substantial number of people as we increasingly know having long-term effects," said Dr. Omer.
About 40% of the U.S. population amounts to more than 130 million people.
If that many people were to get sick, many will not survive.
Public health experts have stressed that the key is to prevent infections from occurring in the first place, so that the virus is not circulating at a high level within the community."
You are so full of shit, got any more easily debunked garbage to spew?
October 6th, 2020 at 8:03 AM ^
Why didn’t Louisiana “benefit” from the herd immunity that they built up in the spring? Louisiana has roughly half the population of Michigan (4.7 million to 9.9 million). During the spring surge Michigan had roughly a 3 week window where they were averaging over 130 deaths per day, by mid June, they were down to less than 15 deaths per day (using 7 day rolling averages from worldviews. In mid June, Michigan had about 6000 covid deaths. Louisiana had its first peak in April. It was not quite as bad as Michigan’s (over 60 deaths per day for about two weeks), but they did not tail off as much as Michigan, with their death count only getting down to the low to mid teens in June. Sometime in June they surpassed Michigan in teems of death per capita, but unfortunately they didn’t benefit from all of that herd immunity and now have 1202 deaths per capita as compared to Michigan’s 702.
Why is it that we are seeing some other states that were hit hard early starting to see their numbers increase? I’m not sure we are quite yet at the point that we should be assuming that even in the hardest hit areas, we are yet at the point that we should be counting on herd immunity. I am definitely not a fan of large scale shutdowns, but refraining from activities that bring 1000s of people together to spend hours drinking, screaming etc seems to me to be an activity that should be pretty low on our priority list to open back up.
October 6th, 2020 at 8:24 AM ^
Not going to engage in all the other this and that arguments. I have an Infectious disease Dr and a couple other Drs in the family. They all agree that Michigan was hit early and hard by the virus, probably starting late February/March, their main focus points are always that Detroit was one of 6 cities with non stop from Wuhan, shotty airport protocols, and no testing available, and when Michigan finally got test it wasn’t enough and was far from the amount actually needed to get an accurate estimate on the true numbers. Another key point to them for the spread its weeks and weeks 4/6 weeks of no mask rules, schools were open for up to 4 weeks after the outbreak, the democratic primary was probably a huge super spreader (March 9th). The state of Michigan has Choosen not to amp up the antibody testing early on so we will honestly never know the truth.
October 6th, 2020 at 9:07 AM ^
I'm sorry but this thing was in Michigan in mid-Dec. Unless tele-health diagnoses are worthless, I personally know a few hundred people in SW MI who have already had covid. All survived unscathed. This all happened just as news was emerging in China. Patient Zero for us brought this back from a seminar in Chicago in mid-Dec and infected a great majority of the people in the plant where I work. We had to shut down lines because so many people were out sick.
October 6th, 2020 at 9:45 AM ^
There is absolutely no scientific basis for believing it was here in December. All evidence points to limited community spread occurring in late January or early February. Anyone suggesting otherwise is pushing an agenda and you should view that source with skepticism on all things covid.
October 6th, 2020 at 12:14 PM ^
So you are saying that his personal experience at his workplace is worthless information? It still seems to be unclear as to who knew what and when. Could it have happened? Absolutely. Did it happen? Unclear. Still needs to be checked.
October 6th, 2020 at 4:21 PM ^
Worthless? No. Probably wrong? Absolutely. December is flu season. Those people probably had the flu. With how contagious COVID-19 is, it didn't show up in December and ravage one workplace, take a nap for a few months during prime spreading season, then decide to go bonkers in March/April and fill the metro-Detroit hospitals.
October 6th, 2020 at 9:07 AM ^
Whoa. Wait. I have it on good authority that covid does not spread at D events or protest/riots. Only at R events and whatever other events the self proclaimed experts here don't agree with.
October 6th, 2020 at 9:18 AM ^
Viruses don’t care whether you are a democrat or a republican. It is however interesting that there is a fair amount of evidence that protests were not large super spreading events. For instance:
‘Looking at the relationship between rising coronavirus cases in states with greater protest participation, researchers wrote: “There is a clear and significant negative correlation between the percentage of a state’s population who reported protesting and the subsequent increase in cases of COVID-19.”
In other words, the demonstrations “were very unlikely to be” the big driver behind the surge in infections in June and July, says David Lazer, university distinguished professor of political science and computer and information sciences at Northeastern, and one of the researchers who conducted the study.
“We’re not saying the protests didn’t cause more cases, an assessment that will require substantial, additional analyses” he added. “It’s just that if they were the key drivers, then you would expect the places that had the most protesters to have the biggest surge, and, in fact, the opposite is the case.””
October 6th, 2020 at 9:26 AM ^
That proves nothing. Was every one of those people tested?
The part where it postures that maybe since they were mainly outdoor events as a reason for reduced spread. So let's go ahead and have limited fans in stands at stadiums then, right? Have supporters at outdoor rallies. Make up your mind about what bullshit you want to believe already.
October 6th, 2020 at 9:35 AM ^
It would seem like his ‘BS speculation’ has better documentation than yours.
October 6th, 2020 at 9:53 AM ^
'here is a sample picture of the curvature of earth from space to show it is not flat'
'that proves nothing. was every inch of the earth photographed?'
October 6th, 2020 at 1:55 PM ^
https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1502/5917573
October 6th, 2020 at 2:35 PM ^
It is a pretty simple concept: places with more protests did not have more spread. I would love to see your evidence that the protests did cause large spread.
With regards to the OP, I have no problem with limited numbers of fans, I actually posted months ago that I thought they should allow a limited number of students on one side of the stadium and players families on the other side. Alcohol and more fans coming in likely from out of town significantly increase the risk because those people are likely to spend time indoors after the event (at bars and restaurants) that are in fact likely to be spreading events. That typically doesn’t happen at protests.
I know I don’t believe your bullshit.
October 6th, 2020 at 10:57 AM ^
Negative correlation between protestors and outbreak. I think we've found the solution!!
October 6th, 2020 at 9:09 AM ^
It is actually the federal government that chose not to arm up antibody testing early, greatly impacting states abilities to do so since testing protocols need federal approval.
October 6th, 2020 at 10:34 AM ^
If one does a deeper dive on Louisiana's numbers, they see that there were 2 geographically distinct outbreaks. One in NOLA in the spring, one in the rest of the state in the summer.
Of note, NOLA did not see an increase in the summer. Which is evidence for the "benefiting from a degree of immunity" argument.