Oklahoma State Players Told To Not Report Today After Three Players Test Positive for Covid
While Okla St. is feeling optimistic, I have a bad feeling about what this means for college football in general. Obviously, well wishes to the kids (it sounds like they are ok, however).
This is bound to happen to multiple teams around the country. I'm not sure how you can successfully start or have a football season when multiple players on multiple teams are testing positive when players are in contact everyday and then having direct physical contact on the field
This was my exact point in a previous thread I got negged for. Players will test positive with no symptoms and this will put everything in peril. No way you can get 100 players together and not have this happen. At some point we are going to have to bite the bullet and let asymptomatic players / people out in society and quarantine people with compromised immune systems or older people. There is really no way around it. Another issue is, the test aren't 100% accurate. People test negative, who actually end up having it.
I was arguing the opposite point. Having a football season and putting all of these players, coaches, and staff members at risk for the sake of people's entertainment is immoral. Are people really ok with knowing that statistically some players/coaches/staff will get it and die for the sake of your viewing pleasure? If people want to go out in society and take the calculated risk, then yes, I think most of general society can be reopened with restrictions, but basically putting unpaid players into high risk sport for the sake of people's entertainment is shitty
I'm not really arguing a point. I just know from experience within my family, the test isn't 100% accurate, and at some point everyone will be exposed to an asymptomatic person, or a person who was tested and misdiagnosed. It's just a numbers game once things are fully reopned. It would be easier for the less healthy and older people to self quarantie than the rest of society.
I think I would go further and say that “asymptomatic carriers” do no have an illness of any kind but are instead victims of unnecessary and unfair discrimination bases on essentially “an impurity” in their body.
You. Are. Insane.
Actually, you are. Even worse, you are doing this intentionally.
Hoping one of these players files suit. We shall see who is insane.
Tell that to my little cousin recovering from a stroke.
Girl was in great health, not fat, not a smoker, no known issues of any kind, and in her early 30's. No symptoms of the rona or any other illness.
Few weeks ago she has a fucking stroke, literally out of nowhere. Rushed to the hospital where she tested positive for covid.
She's out of the hospital, but she's a little fucked up, like many stroke victims.
I hope that doesn't happen to anyone you love, despite the fact that I think you're insane.
Wonder how many people she infected doing her grocery shopping and such?
Damn her for all that infecting she did, aMiRiTe?!?
You are so twisted man, a literal human pretzel. This is a free society, there is risk involved.
Sorry you have a relative who had a stroke. Not sure that is germane to the discussion. If she is early 30s, in good health, with no preexisting health issues, it sounds very unlikely it had anything to do with Covid.
Right. Tons of perfectly healthy people having strokes.
Do you literally only read right wing news sources? Because her doctors said covid was the reason for the stroke. And there are many others in that age group that are having them.
You should honestly seek professional help.
Hatter, we were speaking the same language until 6 months ago and you know it. The left it radical now, not just in the hypothetical, “abstract” sense, but in a very real “extremist” sense. You have let this shit get away from you now. The language you are speaking is a fascist one, even if you want to self-title yourself the opposite of that.
Dude! They are sick! They are carrying and spreading the virus, though probably not at the rate symptomatic folks are. They just happened to be asymptomatic, like a bunch of modern day Typhoid Marys. It's almost guaranteed that within a couple weeks more people, maybe a lot more people, will have the virus.
Yeah and while we’re at it let’s stop the discrimination against fruits and vegetables that are months old. Just because they are moldy and considered to have “an impurity” doesn’t mean we shouldn’t eat them.
Well, one is a human being and the other is a fruit/vegetable. If you can’t see the difference not sure there is much else to say.
There's a certain level of risk that a player will contract the virus or catch it from other players, assuming player protection protocols are put in place. Then there's another level of risk for poor outcomes once they have contracted it. I don't know what the probability of the former is, but the data says the probability of the latter is extremely small for 18-22 year olds. This risk should be explained to them in no uncertain terms, probably with seasonal flu as a comparator. Then they should consult with their families and anyone who isn't comfortable playing should opt out, and remain on scholarship. Doesn't that seem like a reasonable plan?
Many of the players will want to play, for reasons that are very important to them. They aren't your reasons, but you matter much less than they do. Why don't we listen to them.
The risk of serious illness for 18-22 year olds is virtually zero and less than the seasonal flu. There are certainly coaches and refs that could be at risk. Most kids wanna play because it’s their dream to play.
Mgo civil lawyers, is there any way schools will ignore CDC guidelines and come up with their own, more lenient standards.?
I don't deal in liability, but I don't see anyway that happens as a matter of school policy. The potential cost strikes me as prohibitive.
NJ, while I agree with your overall point of this being immoral, this is not being done so you or I are entertained. This is only about money, which to me makes it even worse.
Sports Illustrated had an article on this issue
https://www.si.com/college/2020/06/02/coronavirus-covid-testing-college-football-return
But to combat the virus’s ultimate weapon, there is a solution: testing. Initial and frequent testing is a way to expose—and subsequently isolate—asymptomatic people. However, in varying reopening plans released last week, some universities plan to only initially test athletes experiencing symptoms, and many more do not plan frequent testing during June workouts. The vast majority of medical professionals who spoke to Sports Illustrated for this story are vexed by such plans. Refusing to initially test athletes is a “fool’s errand,” one said, while another described the approach as concerning. Steven Goodman, a professor of epidemiology at Stanford and an avid sports fan, was struck when told about the plans from some schools. “I’ll use an adjective to describe that: surprising,” he says. “You absolutely have to test everybody when they first come back because you have to know if there are any actively infected students. Objectively, they’re taking chances.”
But others say it’s not so easy. The medical community is somewhat split on the practice of testing people without symptoms. In fact, among the general public, doctors don’t recommend people be tested if they aren’t experiencing symptoms. But what about sports? “A lot of people are trying to come up with their best guess,” says Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at John Hopkins University and an infectious disease physician who sits on the NCAA COVID-19 advisory panel. “I don’t think we’ve come to a consensus in general as a society or even as a task force at the NCAA about what the appropriate amount of testing is needed yet.”
That is really interesting. This might be an overly cynical take, but exposing the majority of the team now (which is implicitly being accomplished by what the quote above describes), as opposed to during the season could be a competitive advantage. Obviously, caveats apply about what we don’t know about immunity for people that have recovered. And even more obviously a player or coach having serious complications would not be good. Just a thought I had when reading your post.
Certainly testing is a major part of any re-opening, whether it be sports, economy, anything. There are 2 major constraints. One, money. Two, resources. It's not going to be free for anyone to start and continue testing indefinitely, particularly colleges when it comes to sports. Testing is only part of the new expenses they will face in the new reality (cleaning, PPE, distancing accommodations). And, as a society, do we want to direct testing resources to sports over other priorities, ie hospitals, grocery stores, even restaurants? Even when it comes to colleges, what is the priority testing to get athletes back or testing to ensure students can return to campus? I live for college football, but if you have me choose between every health care worker getting tested whenever needed and every meatpacking worker having access to a test or a college football team, I'll choose the former every time.
Just quarantine the players who are sick and let the rest play. This idea that we have to cancel football because a small number of players tested positive makes no sense. If the rest of the players tested negative, they can still play.
You do realize that once players test positive, others will have to be quarantined for a time, and you have support staff and older coaches to worry about, not to mention referee's and others who will have to be part of the game day experience.
They will NOT quarantine anyone other than those who test positive. No way they could function if done any other way.
Why test? Just wait till someone shows symptoms in your scenario. If you don't quarantine people who have been in contact with people who test positive, you are just asking for more problems. Are you suggesting they treat players differently than the general public?
Say the the team is tested on a Wednesday.
The 4th string quarterback's comes back positive on Friday.
The quarterback room did a film session on Thursday.
Does a single quarterback suit up?
A coach suggested this possibility to me. A player on the OL tests positive. Who has to sit out?
My guess is that the response will be to have practices, film study and other team activities more fragmented. If the contact between a player testing positive and a teammate have been minimized, that teammate won't need to sit out. Those that worked together closely with him would.
Only guys who test positive would be out. That kind of talk was at beginning before they realized this wasn't nearly as serious as they thought.
Not sure why they neg you considering your comment is exactly how they are going to handle it.
Does anyone believe only a small number of football players will test positive this year?
Been saying same thing for months. No other way to realistically handle it.
We have done same thing with viruses out there and overall done a good job with this plan.
On side note- Italian top doctor came out other day saying the viral load currently with covid is way lower than earlier this year. In fact his choice of words are much stronger than that actually
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN2370OQ
Okay then what?
Not trying to mock you but in all seriousness I'm amazed that 3 months into this not a single well known celebrity, athlete, politician etc has died from this. I'd have bet everything we'd have seen many well known people dying but fact the entire United States and no one of noteworthy mention had died. Almost hard to believe but thankfully it's true.
That said a German official document was leaked last week that called covid "a false alarm".
Even says the threat of CV is no more than most viruses.
https://www.iceagenow.info/covid-19-a-global-false-alarm-according-to-report-leaked-by-german-official/
Mike Gundy in April...
"In my opinion, if we have to bring our players back, test them. They're all in good shape. They're all 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22-year-olds. They're healthy. A lot of them can fight it off with their natural body, the antibodies and the build that they have," he said, per KFOR's Dylan Buckingham.
Key words: "a lot of them"
Gundy basically said he's willing to take the chance on a few of his players dying in order to have a season
If there are concerns about CV19 infecting football teams, and I believe the concerns have merit, it would seem that calling the University back for a fall semester with 48,000 students living in a petri dish of sorts won't work out terribly well.
U of Tennessee announcement on how they are going to handle workouts.
I wouldn't be shocked if most of college football pushed it back after the demonstrations and protests.
Wouldn't surprise me if most of these guys were symptom free before the rallies and marches. Which is fine (in a sense), stand for what is right and for what you believe in.
But I think we're going to see another spike after this past week. People shouting and what we've learned about aerosols. 6' isn't necessarily enough.
But no rush, take the 14 days, self quarantine and recover and let's get to it in a couple of weeks. It was voluntary anyway.
A positive COVID test this year will be worse than a torn ACL for a team this season.
Confusing title. On first read I thought that the coaches told players not to report that they had COVID lol. It will definitely be interesting to see how teams cope with this process, here’s hoping we can have a SAFE and RESPONSIBLE college football season.
This will undoubtedly happen. You just know teams like Alabama will miraculously make it through clean.
+1 for the Alabama prediction.
When I saw the headline this morning it said "OSU players ..." and of course I thought of the Buckeyes.
St. Saban's Memorial Hospital only admits patients not projected to make the two-deep.
Yet another way for Bama to process guys. The covidshirt.
Shocker. And somehow people thought this wasn't going to happen to numerous teams around the country
No one thought this wasn't going to happen, it's a virus. The question becomes how to handle it.
I have seen zero follow-up on this: Have any of the athletes who contracted COVID suffered anything beyond mild symptoms? Or seen the reduced lung capacity and other issues doctors have mentioned?
Am I going crazy or is there some evidence out there that positive asymptomatic folks are less likely to transmit it to others than those with symptoms? I feel like I've heard that scuttlebut, but my memory is not the best.
You aren't going crazy. This came out a few weeks ago:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7219423/
Since then, there has been more information refuting these claims. I'm not a doctor, but this may be what you're thinking of.
I have also seen reports of people testing positive but are really shedding dead virus cells. So, I don't think a positive test on an asymptomatic player means they are spreading the virus.
That particular paper was a case study of a single 22-year old woman in Guangdong, China who tested positive for SARS-Cov-2 but evidently didn't pass it on to any of her contacts. There are lots of reasons that could have happened (or not happened), but it's very tough (and totally inadvisable) to draw conclusions from a single individual.