At leasr 30 LSU players quarantined due to COVID 19
https://www.si.com/college/2020/06/20/lsu-football-players-quarantined-coronavirus
“At least 30 of LSU's 115 players have been isolated because they tested positive for COVID-19 or were found to have had contact with those who tested positive.”
“None of the positive cases have been traced back to workouts within the facility, but have been contracted in the community, at bars and restaurants”
At leasr I know how to spell
Certain posters reactions when they get to drop a "I just don't see how we can have a season "
Yep you got us. Everybody that raises this possibility wants the season cancelled.
You ascribe motives to every poster that disagrees with your position. It’s really becoming.
He’s just being a trolling asshole.
To him “Reporting negative developments and acknowledging the the reality of the situation as unpleasant as it is” equals “Being excited about it”
I hope he doesn’t employ the same “I’ll just stick my head up my ass and ignore it because it’s unpleasant to me” approach to things like bills.
Well my penis is approximately that big. So that’s accurate.
"Objects in mirror may appear larger than actual size "
On my screen, that lightsaber is about one inch
You know, if you change your idea of where the gif starts, it could have the complete opposite meaning.
For those sick, lets hope for a full and speedy recovery.
Yes. And luckily for them, the odds of that are astronomically high. almost guaranteed. Additional good news is that that like the linked story says, and like almost every one of these football teams stories, all are either asymptomatic or with very mild symptoms, no hospitalizations either
This seems like as good a place as any to remind people of the CDC statistics on Covid, which show that out of over 100,000 Covid deaths, *125* have been people 16-24. Meanwhile, of the same 16-24 age group, almost 11,000 have died of various other causes at the same time. We must protect college athletes, but we should also properly assess the risks, which the facts, not political dogma, say are extraordinarily low.
https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Counts-by-Sex-Age-and-S/9bhg-hcku
Good thing that young people never come in contact with old people or immunocompromised people.
Right. Old people and immunocompromised people may be wise to socially distance themselves from those reentering academia and the economy.
So your solution to the extreme low risk of athletes is what? Not letting them play? I'd like to know honestly, because I'm really interested to know how someone could look at these facts that say the risk to athletes is nearly non-existent and still maintain, well, what are you advocating exactly?
Purely out of curiosity, are you arguing this because you really want to watch football or some other reason?
Good question. I'm listing some facts which I believe to dispositive on these decisions. I, like everyone want to see football in the Fall, for sure. But I'd apply this logic to every sport, even the ones I don't care about, which are actually most. As long as the college athletes themselves and the staff are volunteer humans who know the risks (and want to play), it's my strong belief that they should be allowed to play. The reason to not allow that would be if the governing bodies have access to data that suggests that is too risky for society. Since that data doesn't exist, and data does exist that argues for allowing it, I'm arguing what the data says IMO.
As an addition to that data, my last point is that European Commissioners have already determined that the opening of schools across Europe (most without masks) has not resulted in any increased Covid spread. (This is easily searchable on google, I've misplaced the link)
US year to year 2019 ... 2020. Not much change. But all deaths called COVID in 2020. Wonder why?
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/death-rate
Keep in mind that not everyone involved with college football is 16-24. Yes, the players are. But the coaches, the trainers, the officials (who touch the football and players regularly) are often in the danger zone. People want to discuss this in a vacuum, but there are a lot more than just the players that we need to worry about. If Cam McGrone gets COVID, he's likely to be just fine, like you said (though he might miss a week or two of practice). But if he gives it to Don Brown, totally different scenario.
Plus, most of the officials are 55+ and they don't get paid enough to literally risk their lives. We need to think bigger about all of this.
But we're ok if Don Brown is bagging our groceries, or fixing our plumbing? He's a well-paid grown man, he can assume the risk for himself if he chooses.
This may be an unpopular opinion on this blog, but I think we can agree that buying groceries is a little more important to life than watching football. People need to be able to feed themselves and their families, so risking infection in order literally survive is worth it. Risking infection to play a sport seems less essential, to me at least.
I'm not going to get into yet another circular argument, but perhaps Don Brown, Greg Mattison, Nick Saban, and Mack Brown (to name just a few coaches 64+) are willing to accept such risks because of what they're paid, but not everyone who interacts with those people on a daily basis can and would be willing to take that same risk. Also, a lot of 60+ year old people probably shouldn't be bagging my groceries or fixing my plumbing, but for a variety of reasons that aren't worth discussing here we live in a country where people aren't really given an option between taking care of their health and being able to afford to live.
And that's the problem with this disease - lots of people are asymptomatic or have mild symptoms, or don't realize they are sick until a week+ later and have spread it unintentionally. I'm on the side of the argument that at some point we as a society have to accept that more people are going to die because we did a shitty job handling COVID-19 when what passes as a "shutdown" in this country occurred, and so the next best option may well be to take appropriate measures and "ride it out". But this whataboutism and erroneous drumbeat that COVID-19 doesn't pose a risk to people because of some misguided understanding of how viruses transmit isn't helping the discourse.
The Don Brown's should likely wear an N95 mask and a shield in all social engagements, particularly in team settings with young people. It's not unlike seeing how most Asian cultures have dealt with past pandemics, and continued life largely uninterrupted. Movie theaters never shut down during any of the Covid outbreak in S.Korea or elsewhere. They simply understand the small sacrifice required (wearing masks) to mutually survive and bring the virus to an end.
You're correct but I don't understand this point, which is consistently expressed. Don Brown has to want to coach in the era of Covid, if he wants to coach and understands the risks (which are universally understood for older people) of arching then, so what? Same for the staff. No one is going to force them to coach or staff (or play) if they don't want to. But every one of them will want to. The players aren't yet (some) adults so they have to be protected--but it just so happens they are low risk. So let the adults around them choose, and if they choose, then they should all be allowed to.
Do you really think that the 50+ coaches in college football really have a choice if the season happens? Like they'll really be able to say "I don't feel safe" and they'll be off the hook until next summer? You and I both know it doesn't work that way. And believe it or not, there are college football players with pre-existing health conditions, some who know of them and some who don't.
I see your point, but I don't think there a single coach in America that won't want to coach if the season happens (there may be exceptions for individual reasons, but few)
This seems like a good time to remind you that “almost guaranteed” isn’t guaranteed. Your data, while I appreciate you actually using some, it’s incredibly biased. Almost all of the US data comes from a time when people weren’t in schools, dorms, bars, locker rooms, restaurants, class, etc etc. will the data be different once everyone is back doing all of these things for an extended period of time? Probably, maybe not. You can’t assume it will be though. How many student athletes need to die of covid before they cancel everything? In today’s society, I put that number at ONE. I’m not saying they should or shouldn’t play, I’m simply pointing out that the data is essentially useless once that first athlete dies on campus, which will happen.
I agree with that last point. It would-be acting on emotion rather than data, but it will happen if a student died. Last I read, last year 90 some student athletes died in 2019 of various things, but Covid is different.
On your point that the data is biased you are mistaken--yes, the majority (not all) of it comes from times people were in lockdown, but the data is death data, not virus spread data. There's no reason for the % of people that get Covid in an age group to die becoming just because more people are getting it. I wouldn't expect the current % of people older than 70 to die to change much when the data continues either--they will still be the most vulnerable.
To me, this is the most important point and it is getting completely buried because the public is so panicked. In March, we knew very little so the panic was somewhat justified. But now, after millions of tests and months of information gleaned from countries across the world, we know that for those under 40 without a small number of very serious pre-existing conditions, COVID is almost entirely non-fatal. So, yes, while it should be expected that a ton of people - including college athletes - will test positive, so what? The disease is harmless to those people (or at least no more harmful than a number of other viruses already circulating for decades). As an example, in NY, where antibody tests show that an estimated 20 million people likely had Covid, 19 people under 20 died. Almost all of them had such diseases as renal disease, cancer, CF or extreme obesity. Even in Florida, where cases are “spiking” (largely the result of just testing more), the death numbers are not. We need to start seeing Covid for what it is - a virus that society can live with, EXCEPT for those who are compromised and who need to be protected (nursing homes, hospitals, elderly, retirement communities). Fortunately college athletes are largely healthy and young.
in NY, where antibody tests show that an estimated 20 million people likely had Covid,
Typo I assume? The entire population of New York state was actually under 20 million last I checked.
Yup - it actually was a typo - meant 2 million. Big difference in numbers but the point is identical.
As an example, in NY, where antibody tests show that an estimated 20 million people likely had Covid, 19 people under 20 died.
This is quite an incredible claim. Especially since the population of the state of New York is 19.5 million. To have 103% of the population test positive for the virus is amazing. I'll trust you at your word here, and just assume you aren't a dipshit who is spreading obviously false misinformation because it backs up your narrative.
Have we ever seen a population of a state test at 103%? Where do you think they got the extra 500,000 people to come in and test positive? Maybe they bused some people in from surrounding states? Quite a cool logistic feat to pull off in the middle of a pandemic.
Why do you think New York is testing at 103% when most other states are only around 5-15%? You think it's possible that some other states are over 100% too, but maybe we just have inaccurate tests?
7.0.3While the 20mm number was a typo, just to answer your question (from the NY State of Health COVID website):
A person may have multiple specimens tested on one day, these would be counted one time, i.e., if two specimens are collected from an individual at the same time and then evaluated, the outcome of the evaluation of those two samples to diagnose the individual is counted as a single test of one person, even though the specimens may be tested separately. Conversely, if an individual is tested on more than one day, the data will show two tests of an individual, one for each date the person was tested.
So, just from a total (+) testing standpoint, it would be entirely possible to go above 100% as many people are getting tested multiple times. Additionally, I'd assume that when someone tests (+) they probably get tested multiple times over the next several weeks to monitor the infection. Not clear the impact this has on people's calculations wrt to death rates, infection propagation, or if that's controlled for elsewhere in those calculations.
NFL union advises players not to participate in group workouts because of virus threat
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2020/06/20/nfl-union-advises-players-not-participate-group-workouts-because-virus-threat/
These stories are becoming common.
Hate to say it but I don't see college fb coming back this fall
Why? Season is over 2 months away.
Were people expecting there to be 0 COVID cases?
Six weeks
They will play, too much money to lose.
Teams that handled this irresponsibly will probably end up better off because everyone will have had it before the season... I don’t know what happens mid-season if your whole OL or DL all catch it and are quarantined..
Next man up or forfeit. /s
But seriously, if they do play, fans have to simply accept that wins and losses are not going to be based solely on 1) talent and 2) coaching, and 3) some good fortune, but rather 1) talent 2) coaching 3) lots of good fortune and 4) how well the program manages the disease. Disease management will include prevention and rehabilitation after kids get it.
Fans should adjust expectations.
But if we beat Ohio, we were the better team and would have beaten them no matter what.
Are you predicting that because you think officials want to protect coaches and staff? Because a bunch of positive cases will have mild impact on the players, who we want to protect.
If this is happening at schools with the staff, space, support and BUDGET to social distance, clean, disinfect, use multiple facilities, etc. - imagine what is happening at smaller schools where they don't have as many trainers, team docs, multiple facilities, top end custodial staffs, etc.
This is going to get ugly.
Not sure why schools are reporting these numbers though, there's nothing that says they have to...
Entire starting lineup sick in June. No worries about playing in August.
Ceauxvid-19
You must make a fortune on Insta posting dank memes
C18H26CIN30 chased down with lysol.
Crawfish and Gumbo will cure it.
The vocal trends on this board relating to covid-19 are hilarious.
Mid-March - Shut everything down. Sports won't happen until a vaccine gets released. Not sure how I will ever leave my home.
Mid-May - When is the shutdown going to end? Talk of all sports resuming. All sports should open with little or no fans. Ready for things to get back to normal. Covid cases will happen once reopened but we lowered the curve so all is good.
Mid-June as Covid cases rise again - Shut everything down. No sports until a vaccine. Need to stop the spread. Not sure how they can pull this off.
Guys, we just had an intense couple weeks of massively crowded protests and testing is increasing, especially in sports as every program is getting tested. Not sure why any of this is surprising. Death rate is way below original expectations. I will say that I will be surprised if sports resume as scheduled but mostly because of fear and backlash. We all knew this would happen. I'm not sure why this personally should change anything. We need to learn to adapt to the presence of a new virus and live with it for now. I know not everyone agrees with this opinion, but unless the death rate changes drastically or hospitals start filling capacity again I don't see why we need to go back to shutting things down again, even sports. College Athletes technically don't get paid but there are tons of jobs lost even in college athletics without sports.
I think most people agree that it’s about hospital capacity. Some are just more optimistic that we won’t have problems and some are more pessimistic.
Except for all the people catching it (young and old) who are hospitalized (pre-existing and not) and experience long term medical issues.