Potential Impact for Communities Where CFB is Being Played During COVID-19
My wife is the Chief of Infectious Diseases at a Group of 5 Conference University that will be playing on national tv next week. Needless to say I’ve had an interesting view of things for the past 5 months. The game next Saturday just got added to ESPN lineup a couple of days ago. Our medical system was already responsible for testing the football team but up until now many of those PCR tests were send outs to other labs. Because it’s a game week they’ll all need to be run as rapids. Additionally, since the game is on television we’re now responsible for conducting rapid testing on the game officials, game personnel and cheerleaders. My wife told me we normally run approximately 600 rapid PCR tests per week with the capacity to increase just slightly. Administration called her last night and said we’d need approximately 900 this week in order to meet the responsibility. We obviously don’t have the capacity. She pushed back on the cheerleaders which administration agreed to which will reduce the numbers marginally.
I chose to post this because there will obviously be secondary effects. Patients who are symptomatic in the hospital will now have to wait for their tests. Hospital staff who are symptomatic will have to wait. Kids in schools who are symptomatic will need to wait as well which will then keep parents home from work while their children await a negative test. You get the picture.
This entire situation has been awful for this country. We need normalcy and sports helps bring that to us. I just wanted to give the board a perspective that most aren’t privy to. The players simply want to play but at what cost to the overall community is this necessary? I truly hope that the areas where CFB will be played this year will be able to meet the need without sacrificing too much for their respective communities.
August 30th, 2020 at 9:47 AM ^
Now, you boys stay away from them cheerleaders... You hear?
August 30th, 2020 at 9:50 AM ^
Getting non essential people tested rapidly should at least come with a significant up charge that gets funneled back to health care that increases the amount of PPE to health care professionals and/or funds more testing capacity.
August 30th, 2020 at 10:44 AM ^
Yes, money matters and helps, but the that is not the rate limiting step to getting more testing, especially in a short period of time. Right now it's the platforms and reagents used to test everything that is preventing increasing the numbers of rapid tests. It takes many weeks/months to build the platform needed to do the testing in the laboratory. Even once its built, the reagents needed to make the testing are in extreme demand across the country making it hard to even use that additional testing capacity.
August 30th, 2020 at 9:52 AM ^
Clearly your wife doesn't have the best people on her team. Have you tried calling MyPillow Guy and Frederick Douglass?
August 30th, 2020 at 9:59 AM ^
This is a really interesting perspective. Thanks for posting, OP.
I am probably one of the most pro-sports, pro-reopening and anti-shutdown (other than short term shutdowns of a few weeks or less during significant spikes in specific geographic regions, as needed, to prevent overrunning the health system in that region), but something that most people in my camp don’t consider is that the resources needed to have sports and other things reopen are diverted from other uses. For testing, because the capacity isn’t unlimited, it’s a zero-sum game. I still believe strongly that society needs to return to normal, with those most at risk taking extra precautions, but this issue is something that needs to be taken into account until testing becomes more prolific.
August 30th, 2020 at 11:20 AM ^
Generally speaking, I am pro-playing college football in the fall, with the stipulation that the powers-that-be needed to suck it up & recognize it's not really "amateur" football played by "regular" students and those players are not there to play school (at least, in-person school--see Justin Fields; Johnny Manziel). They should have formed quasi-bubbles (not true bubbles like NBA or NHL; more like how certain NFL teams like the Cowboys and Saints are doing) using hotels & online instruction and moved from there.
They didn't do that and paired w the fact so many are opening with big in-person, on-campus instruction (e.g., Univ of Alabama), we now will have overwhelmed public health depts and local communities (e.g., I know a number of townies in Ann Arbor, and many of them have changed their grocery shopping and dining habits to avoid places frequented by students).
One item that really convinced me the "return to normal and just protect the vulnerable" is a lot harder than it would appear is how there have been huge outbreaks at nursing homes this summer in Florida, Georgia, Arizona, etc -- how could this happen months after we determined how deadly the virus is to the elderly and how important it is to protect them?
The quick answer is that once the virus is wide-spread in the community, it's close to impossible to prevent it from getting into places like nursing homes b/c the people who work there come from the community. Few nursing homes have enough money to test daily (or even weekly) their employees and PPE can only do so much (if the nursing home has enough money for *that* and it is always used effectively). So if it's widespread in the community, there is no magic wall or restrictions that can protect nursing homes.
https://www.tampabay.com/news/health/2020/07/24/covid-is-leaking-into-florida-nursing-homes-and-cases-soar/
August 30th, 2020 at 2:03 PM ^
The reality is you cannot hide from a highly contagious virus. Sweden acknowledged this and did nothing other than protect the vulnerable (which we could do a much better job of) and beat the virus with 6,000 lives lost in a country of 10 million. With the trillions spent on saving the economy after lockdowns we could have protected nursing homes and vulnerable populations.
August 30th, 2020 at 5:28 PM ^
did sweden beat the virus?
August 30th, 2020 at 6:05 PM ^
Sweden has 582 deaths per million, which is worse than the US’s 556 per million. However, Sweden has pushed daily deaths per million well below 1, while the US is just below 3. So we may pass them.
Sweden was definitely worse at first, just like the rest of Europe, but now every developed country besides us seems to have things contained for now.
August 31st, 2020 at 8:14 AM ^
Most countries are not in the middle of an election year. I still think our response to the virus has been poor.
August 30th, 2020 at 7:34 PM ^
Heard recently in general on average a nursing home patient dies 6 months from arriving
August 31st, 2020 at 11:39 PM ^
And exactly what does that vague factoid you posted prove?
August 30th, 2020 at 12:10 PM ^
With all due respect michgoblue, many serious people have considered the resources and expenses that go into reopening college and pro sports (beyond the potential long term legal liability).
It may seem at times that these issues are not the sexiest to discuss amongst the "let them play, freedom!" or "We're all gonna die!" crowds, but when president's of major universities sit down to discuss reopening, this is absolutely at the top of the list of talking points - assuming the University/Conference actually cares about controlling and treating outbreaks (looking at you SEC).
Indeed, this is not the first point of concern that Kyle on Facebook would post about, but this is absolutely a gigantic challenge for B1G officials and administrators in an attempt to bring forth a season.
August 30th, 2020 at 10:07 AM ^
and that's just for covid-19. many other tests require the same PCR machines. they will also be delayed.
August 30th, 2020 at 10:15 AM ^
It just means more... apparently.
August 30th, 2020 at 10:58 AM ^
I thought this was going to be about the money that it would bring nearby businesses.
August 30th, 2020 at 11:27 AM ^
I’ll try to be fair and balanced and research that aspect for tomorrow’s post
August 30th, 2020 at 11:03 AM ^
Very useful post.
The way non-bubble college football will "work" this fall is by 1) sucking up resources (such as testing capacity) that would have otherwise been available to non-football related folks and 2) not caring that infections related to football spread beyond the team into the public. This last part is essential.
For #1, your post lays it out. There was a plan (a hope?) that the level of infections would be down significantly, so there would be enough capacity for all. But we blew that.
For #2, I keep going back to the fact that Auburn had 34 players test positive (w the vast majority happening after they got back on campus, i.e., going to a party) and...that's all that was reported.
The school and public health officials (who are overwhelmed and, in many cases, subservient to major employers & politically connected institutions) did zero in terms of tracking whether these cases led to more cases: what was the total size of the outbreak? Were there secondary infections (e.g., did football players infect any roommates or family members)? Tertiary infections? Who knows! Who cares!
I am more convinced then ever (and I've always been strongly convinced) that football will go on this fall and will be deemed a success (even though some games surely will be postponed or cancelled, the vast majority will happen) b/c no one in Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, etc will try to track or give a rip about what cases occurred outside their (non) bubble due to their players. And b/c there will literally be thousands of cases (e.g., like at the Univ of Alabama) in their community no one will be able to track it; it will in too many places with too many possible causes.
August 30th, 2020 at 11:13 AM ^
This week the CDC quietly updated the Covid number to admit that only 6% of all the 153,504 deaths recorded actually died from Covid-
That's 9,210 deaths
The other 94% had 2-3 other serious illnesses & the overwhelming majority were of very advanced age.”
Link:
[link to www.cdc.gov (secure)]
August 30th, 2020 at 11:29 AM ^
Get this non-scientific bull shit out of here. You are completely mis-interpreting those numbers
I have an older family member who has a number of comorbidities (e.g., hypertension & high cholesterol all currently well-managed by medication; had an ischmeic stroke 5 years ago; a stent put in ten years ago). Thankfully, due to a ton of hard work by him (e.g., works out daily; eats right; regularly see his doctors), he has a full life. However, if he got COVID, it would be extremely dangerous to him and likely kill him because of those underlying conditions and his age.
But according to your "logic" it wouldn't be COVID that "actually" killed him, but his pre-existing hypertension and vascular issues, even though he had been managing them quite well for many years and (sans COVID) can be reasonably expected to live many more years.
August 30th, 2020 at 11:36 AM ^
If he got influenza it would be extremely dangerous for him. My FIL had COPD but he died from a common cold (also from the coronavirus family). Should we have shut down the country to keep him alive? Where does it stop? When does the responsibility to avoid unhealthy situations fall on the individual?
August 30th, 2020 at 11:52 AM ^
He can get a flu shot (which, even if it doesn't prevent you from getting the disease, reduces its severity). Can he do that for COVID?
It stops when we get the virus under control. Dozens of other countries have managed to do that (and even when there are outbreaks, they are incredibly small compared to what we have her) and, as a result, have school largely in person, big sporting events with people, etc. We decided not to do that.
It amazes me this country has literally two 9/11's worth of preventable deaths every week due to this and many people are like, "Eh...you all have to go sometime. Yolo!"
August 30th, 2020 at 12:05 PM ^
After decreasing COVID cases, Europe is now seeing an explosion in cases. Much like the US, this 2nd surge (of the first wave) has resulted in a lower number of patient deaths, much like the US in the past couple of months. We may be seeing the virus mutating into a less virulent form.
August 30th, 2020 at 12:55 PM ^
Hopefully that is the case and we don't get the mutation similar to what happened in northern Italy....
August 30th, 2020 at 1:04 PM ^
There is no evidence the virus is mutating; much, much more likely is the people are getting it b/c August is the time for holiday travel in Europe and thus there are people crowding into bars, nightclubs, and hotels. Most of these people traveling & engaging in these activities are younger. They will spread the virus to others as they get back and the usual course of a) increase cases b) increased hospitalizations 2-4 weeks and c) increased deaths 2-4 weeks later will follow.
Also important, that while it's an increase, and a significant one considering they were at such a small base, they are still many times smaller compared to us.
For example:
- Germany is averaging around 1,000 cases a day (4,000 cases per day if they had the same population as the US)
- UK is averaging around 1,500 cases per day (7,500 in US terms)
- Italy is averaging around 1,500 cases a day (7,500 in US terms)
- France (doing the worst in Europe) is averaging around 4,000 cases a day (20,000 in US terms)
The US is averaging 50,000 cases per day. It has been going down the last couple of weeks, but now with schools / colleges opening up, that will reverse. Deaths -- which have "stabilized" at around 1,000 deaths per day will surely follow (though hopefully not get as high as they were in April).
August 31st, 2020 at 1:02 PM ^
This has to be put into context though or makes little sense
We've tested more people than almost all major countries COMBINED last I looked.
If you want to look at it that way then you could say the United States death per case is 65th that's cause all the testing.
August 30th, 2020 at 2:53 PM ^
it's extremely sad that your relative has all of these comorbid conditions that cause him to be highly subseptible to any virus or bacteria.... The flu vaccine is at best 60% and at least 40% effective most years, so the best thing is for that individual to take extreme precaution against any contagious disease not just covid. For others for which the risk is very low, shutting down the country is not the answer. Because at some point you have to go back to living..
August 30th, 2020 at 7:01 PM ^
How you defining likely kill him. He will have a higher chance of dying than the normal person yes. That might even be a 75% survival rate which is scary but that would be astounding unless he's 80 and older. That said I wouldn't want to risk an 85% survival rate either just saying the word likely isn't going usually apply to anybody unless they're on their deathbed
August 30th, 2020 at 11:34 AM ^
Actually, the number has been adjusted to 0 since everyone was going to die at some point anyway.
The good news: lawn darts are now for sale again!
August 30th, 2020 at 11:53 AM ^
These dopes are people who would say, "Falling off a cliff is not dangerous. It's not the fall the kills you; it's the sudden stop at the end."
August 30th, 2020 at 11:36 AM ^
So are you trying to say that these 144,294 people (the other 94%) would have died over this same time period if they didn't have Covid?
Or are you trying to say that they don't matter because they had certain comorbidities (age, obesity, diabetes, etc)?
What, exactly, is your point?
August 30th, 2020 at 1:01 PM ^
West Coast Struttin,
does your interpretation account for the example that about 4% of patients who have a stroke die but when Covid positive it jumps to about 40%? Cause of death on the certificate could be something related to the stroke. The evidence is quickly mounting to show that being diagnosed with Covid can drive the death rate in cases of stroke 10x. I don’t have a specific article to cite but invite you to attend the International Stroke Conference next Feb where you will see a number of studies presented that align with the above.
August 30th, 2020 at 1:22 PM ^
Struttin here no more, West Coast. I just looked up your posting history and you appear to be a veritable fountain of covid disinformation and data misinterpretation.
As for the rest of the board, I'm out at my brother's cottage to do some relaxing, maybe some fishing and adult beverage consumption, etc., so behave yourselves on the board this afternoon and I'll return later today for cleanup.
August 30th, 2020 at 4:32 PM ^
I was wondering when someone would post this dumb, misleading stat. Since this user is gone it's not worth jumping too deep into the discussion, only to point out that the table people reference states that, on average, the other 94% of people who died had 2.6 co-morbidities, which oftentimes were exasperated by contracting COVID-19. It's like seeing someone with lung cancer die while suffering from pneumonia and acting like the cancer had nothing to do with the pneumonia. It's an uneducated, biased way of looking at data and it's tiring that after 170k+ deaths people are still acting like this is some hoax even though the rest of the civilized world, despite having numerous co-morbidities in their populations, have "somehow" not suffered from these unexpected rises in deaths.
And sadly, one of the other unintended consequences of this constant drumbeat of misinformation to people who get all of their news from Youtube clips and Eastern European-created FB pages, to say nothing of the overt and pernicious pressure put on them by a flailing federal regime, is a erosion in the public faith that organizations like the CDC will provide unbiased, accurate data without spin.
August 31st, 2020 at 5:19 AM ^
Jesus fucking Christ. That’s NOT what that means. 94% of them had underlying conditions. We’ve known from the beginning that having other medical issues can cause patients to have more severe CoVid symptoms, up to and including death.
If you have cancer and you die from cancer, but you also had high blood pressure, that doesn’t mean you didn’t die from cancer. Same exact concept with CoVid and what the CDC just showed. What it DOES show, is that having other medical issues likely causes major complications with dealing with CoVid. Again, something we’ve known since the very beginning and true of most viruses. 40-50% of adults have with high blood pressure alone (which is on the list you linked).
These are people who would be alive if they hadn’t caught CoVid. Their conditions are what made their fight with CoVid difficult, but their deaths are caused by contracting CoVid. That’s the only thing the CDC is saying here. I’m sorry that was too complicated for you.
August 31st, 2020 at 12:30 PM ^
I don't have a problem with his ban, as you are correct, saying only 9,000 people died of the Covid because they had a comorbidity is stupid. However, it's not mentioned that often that most people who die of the Covid have multiple comorbidities, 2.6 an average in fact. That's crazy, and does speak to how this virus is not as fatal to the average healthy person as some people think.
How many 20 year old students have 2.6 comorbidities?
And yes, I'm aware there are more effects than death, just as there are with all viruses. Personally aware.
August 30th, 2020 at 11:38 AM ^
That is correct. Your family member should use precautions - the rest of the country has to go back to normal.
August 30th, 2020 at 11:55 AM ^
Whew! I thought better of the tasteless comment I was about to make.
August 30th, 2020 at 11:45 AM ^
Blue Lsu ...what the numbers say, is that the big house should be full this fall, with no masks needed.
The people with pre existing conditions - should take extra precautions as needed.
August 30th, 2020 at 11:53 AM ^
So let it spread uncontrollably among the healthy population? What happens when those with preexisting conditions need groceries?
August 30th, 2020 at 11:59 AM ^
That’s not what the numbers say at all, if you’re really using numbers.
A capacity Big House would be disastrous for the community, most likely the state.
August 30th, 2020 at 11:57 AM ^
Why do you use the we when talking about the stuff your wife does, or did I read this wrong?
August 30th, 2020 at 12:08 PM ^
Fair question. I work for the same medical system (oncology). The tests that oncology requests be done on the rapid machines, along with every other department in the medical system, use the same process. Didn’t mean to imply that I work with her
August 30th, 2020 at 12:12 PM ^
Just curious if you work in infectious diseases as well, like you were privy to the testing processes first hand.
August 30th, 2020 at 12:33 PM ^
Nope, just picking up some tidbits from her while trying to be a supportive husband (pretending to listen when she’s stressed and yelling at me, to me or near me)
August 30th, 2020 at 1:40 PM ^
Seems like you are actually listening. Good on ya.
August 30th, 2020 at 12:25 PM ^
The same grocery plan as they do now. Get it delivered or do curbside pickup.
Spread would be minimal at big house - not counting box suites. One person might give it to the person next to them. No different when that same person goes to work the following Monday.
August 30th, 2020 at 1:02 PM ^
Fair enough. Except for the people that can't afford the extra cost associated with delivery, the prices at some stores that provide delivery (i.e., Whole Foods/Amazon), or live in an area where delivery is not an option. These unfortunate people will have still have to go to a store amid an even greater spread due to a packed big-house. Same for all the people that work in these stores.
I don't see how you think it would only spread to the person next to them in a "packed" big house. Anyone within a six-foot distance would be at risk (or beyond, given that cheering will send particles even greater distances).
Football may or may not be viable. A packed big house just seems like a really bad idea.
August 30th, 2020 at 2:12 PM ^
There is a lot of privilege that goes into these arguments. Privilege to be young and to have good health (not all comorbidities are self induced for those that think they should be punished). The privilege to have the economic situation to be able to avoid society, and the privilege to have access to health care should sickness ensue.
August 30th, 2020 at 12:49 PM ^
The astounding stat (which others have noted on this board) is the U of Illinois is testing all students/(and staff I think) a couple times per week. On the days that they test, U of I represents more than 2% of the test done in the entire U.S. that day...
While testing bandwidth is one of the most obvious things, there are "soft resources" that are zero-sum games--i.e., people's time to plan such things...