Member for

13 years 9 months
Points
26674.00

Recent Comments

Date Title Body
Good luck and good fortune…

Good luck and good fortune to this blog, which now  becomes primarily a left-leaning political site for at least half a year.  I don't mean that sarcastically in any way.  I bevel guilted several weeks ago when this appeared to be the scenario, and I hope there's a lot of energy in this community to keep contributing in any way they can.  Still the best sports blog on the internet.  

My reading of the data is not aligned with this decision, but what the hell do I know? The only thing anyone can do is make the best judgment of the facts and act accordingly.  We all have to fight for the things in this world we believe in.  See Captain America's speech at the end of Winter Soldier.  Here is a cell phone. 

This is totally unhinged,…

This is totally unhinged, and merits response only because it's a wonderful example of how hyper-partisanship is not at all about points of view or reason.  It's primarily about tribalism, and of course we all know this, but specifically it's about constructing a dumbed-down and fictitious portrait of what they see as the Other, straining to present that as factual (the anti-vaxxer tell thankfully removes all doubt of this poster's intention), then shaking their fist at them while asserting their intellectual supremacy over this made-up being.  In the absence of social permission to be an outright bigot against people who don't physically look like them, many like this poster are channeling this tribal energy into partisanship, complete with stereotyping and "these Other are the source of our problems" rhetoric.  I'd urge this poster and others like him to turn back from this path, it's ultimately a lonely, destructive, and self-defeating one.  As it also always is with bigots.  

Well maybe I'll just shut my…

Well maybe I'll just shut my big fat mouth. 

Or keep talking.  What this shows is an ability to contain a virus.  Many have noted this is before they arrive on campus, and doesn't mean it will hold after.  Well duh.  It remains an excellent start, and a wonderful plan.  Someone noted that ND has these results early, and other colleges are doing the same.  If that's the case I will applaud those efforts and retract my ire against Schlissel.  If the results of other colleges are the same here, I'd say that is excellent proof point that campuses are safer than being at home (remember, those who test positive cannot matriculate). 

I've said in a post several days ago that with everything that's returned, there are difficulties, which are then worked out and there's a full return.  Meat packing plants, auto plants, major league baseball - all were some version of disaster or media Dur-hurr, and all are operating fine now.  College football has an excellent example in... college football, where MSU had an outbreak and then returned to practice.  

Harbaugh's data is sound and meaningful.  College football players have already returned and been through the return difficulties: they are safer there than at home.  What happens when students return to campus?  Well if it's a 99.7% negative population, not much.  But probably it will be like everything else: difficulties early (with Massive media focuses on them, predictably, as in the other cases noted above), it gets worked out, then full return.  

This is the life we all signed up for with Flatten the Curve.  

Flattening All Infections?  That needs a national debate. The data does not at all say that right now.  The emerging results on long term effects need to be run to ground immediately.  But barring that, we should maintain the strategy we've held since March: flatten the curve so hospital resources aren't overwhelmed.  

That should have been…

That should have been explained to the players, and I've argued this for a while: what is the risk for them compared to seasonal flu? No idea how college football didn't figure that out.  Here is a graph that shows risk for general population, and at 200K deaths this scenario assumes roughly equivalent risk for their age group.  For athlete-level physiologies I would guess it is much lower. But they should have that answer, for players and staff. 

There certainly has been a lot of progress made in 5 months.  But this is virus, it's difficult.  Look at Jaoan, who everyone loved for their response, now they're a basket case.  Sweden was ridiculed, loved, then ridiculed again, and is now one of the best positioned counties in the world (their high death rate, according to the WSJ, was because 97% of elderly patients were not taken to ICU, which is mind boggling). 

 

The death rate today is understood to be many orders of magnitude lower than it was speculated at months ago. 

Unknown long term effects are the only reason to cancel the season, and it's a very thin one based on the evidence.  Now of course anyone should be able to judge the risks for themselves and opt out. 

Even this thread cannot…

Even this thread cannot avoid the mgoblog mgoechochamber 

The child died from a…

The child died from a seizure.  Based on available data, it seems probable that seizure was not caused by covd.  I think you know that. 

Just as you know that the risk of death from covd for children is less than seasonal flu. 

The only question is potential long term effects, and the data on that is very early and inconclusive.   Otherwise follow the science and recommendations from experts: CDC, American Association of Pediatrics, etc.  Just about every industrialized nation is sending their children back to school, based on science. 

Great article!  It says 305…

Great article!  It says 305 there though, and where does the bit about him bumping Hayes come from? 

That play against Anover shows a lot: great feet, an athletic seal, good use of arms, great leg drive, tenacity 

It has the effect of…

It has the effect of implying that you believe it's related to COVD. 

The article talks about the players opting out, then says "Locksley also announced that starting tight end Chig Okonkwo is out indefinitely with a medical issue."  In my mind that sounds like an injury, given that we hear statements like that about players all the time.  But there's nothing there to indicate either way, so I don't think quotes are needed. 

I think you're right, messy…

I think you're right, messy is going to be the rule for a little while.  But it was really, really messy with the meatpacking plants.  The auto plants had a lot of bad press around here as well.  Both may have had a wider reach than the audience of college football.  And I think you already have 1 data point of the news cycle moving on in CFB, the Feeney case.  Now if there are a few more Feeney cases, that's going to be it.  But that should be an outlier based on the data. 

The other big issue is the studies on long term effects.  If those prove more and more valid, it will end.  But of course we'll go back on lockdown nationally if that's the case (and we should). 

Here's an optimist's case…

Here's an optimist's case for college football. 

With many things that have returned, there's been a period of bad/worry/panic, followed by a period of correction or smoothing, followed by a full or near-full return.  

Meatpacking plants: panic, workers claiming the companies didn't care about them, infections, shutdowns; it looked for all the world like they couldn't and wouldn't be able to open.  I bought meat and put it in the freezer.  But they either corrected things or the virus is going to virus worked in our favor, or whatever happened, it got worked out and most are operating. 

Auto plants: very similar, several of the Big 3 had infections, positive tests, and shifts walking out.  Did not seem like it was going to happen. It's happening just fine now (yes, a breakout could happen at any time and take a plant down).  You're talking about thousands of people at these sites. 

MLB: some significant issues, everyone said they screwed it up, should have had a bubble, won't work, season's going to be cancelled; the Marlins played yesterday.  Yes the league is at risk and it could end with outbreaks.  But they've worked through it and are playing on. 

College football itself: MSU resumed practice yesterday.  Yes again it's understood that another break out can happen and end it.  But they've resumed as of now. 

This extends to larger society as well - things have generally opened, had hiccups, and then went on.  Yes there have been a large amount of infections in this second wave or continuation of the first wave (or whatever it's being called).  It seems cases are cresting and headed down in many of the hotspots.  

Yes I know football is different than several of the things I note above.  And there will be infections.  And it could be lost at any moment.  But I still think there's a chance it comes off.  The B1G schedule is pretty smart, allowing it a chance - Kevin Warren deserves credit for that.  We'll see how it goes. 

Thanks, that's helpful.  Was…

Thanks, that's helpful.  Was asking that question above.  I haven't looked at points in years 

This is where I'm at, and…

This is where I'm at, and given the deep consideration people seem to be giving this, I'm worried I'm missing something.  

I don't really care about points.  What can I use them for that has real value?  If Michigan goes to a B1G title game I suppose, or national championship I might get priority?  But I always assumed there are going to be a line of richer-than-me folks ahead of me anyway that points won't matter. 

I mean everything is…

I mean everything is relative right?  If you gave me a boat and allowed me to use it for free, I'd probably go out a couple of Saturdays in the summer and that would be it.  Would never, ever consider buying a boat, paying storage costs, dock fees, gas, insurance, etc.  

Do you golf?  I can't believe how expensive that is.  

If you own a cottage or summer home, do you really go there every weekend?  Don't you feel chained to it, like you have to go even when you don't want to?  If you don't use it, it's just sitting there costing you money and no one's even there. 


And so on.  I love football, obsess over it, and season tickets give me and the family of rabid fans around me a regular appointment for it.  We add food, drink, being in beautiful Ann Arbor, and win/loss emotion.  We feel like we help the team win if we cheer loud enough.  I'll never give them up. 

This is good context, thanks…

This is good context, thanks for posting.  I'll further risk the ire of mgoblog by crediting them another way: they play the academies every year, so have to prep for that awful option offense forever and ever.  That takes practice time away from them every year on a consistent basis.  I wonder if that hurts them. 

We hate playing Army or Air Force every couple of years, and with good reason.  I'll even stretch it this far: the Wisconsin ass-kicking last year was in part due to playing Army.  The game was the 3rd of the season for both teams, and both had byes before the game.  But I think Wisconsin's staff spent the entire offseason focusing on Michigan's defense and how to beat it, as did their players.  Michigan spent the entire offseason focusing on Army.  Is that the entire reason Michigan lost?  Of course not, they had a fullback playing DT, had poor LB play (McGrone was inserted into this game), lost the turnover battle 0-4, the entire team played poorly, and they were outcoached.  They were going to lose that game to a better team.  Did it play a part in that game turning into a blowout?  Yes.  Will I ask myself another question?  No. 

This is the answer right…

This is the answer right here. 

1) he's a '22 kid, I'm a nut to follow this as much as I do and I'm not even at all concerned about '22 at this point 

2) if you were someone concerned about '22, Michigan is in on a good number of high quality DBs (and receivers btw) 

You've flipped OSU and…

You've flipped OSU and Indiana, IOW, OSU's added game is Purdue, and Indiana's is Iowa. 

I recognize that, but the…

I recognize that, but the primary angst around these parts for years has been the "brutal" nature of playing both on the road in even years.  

And even in terms of rivalry, PSU will be bigger over the next 5 years than MSU.  It's basically the game for the right to face OSU.  It's a huge national game.  MSU on the other hand, not even Sparty fans really care about the program right now.  If Tucker does something they'll all flock back, but I don't expect he'll be able to.  So even in-state the PSU game is going to be a bigger rivalry.  Yes I know in terms of tradition it's still MSU, but in practice it's PSU all the way.  This applies to season ticket attractiveness as well - I'd much rather have OSU/PSU as the anchors in alternating seasons than OSU/MSU. 

My goodness, Maryland gets…

My goodness, Maryland gets Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota in crossovers; @ OSU and @ PSU 

https://247sports.com/LongFormArticle/Big-Ten-toughest-schedules-2020-season-Ohio-State-Buckeyes-Michigan-Wolverines-Penn-State--149847120/#149847120_14

I just don't understand this…

I just don't understand this in any way.  This mattered when Dantonio had an excellent program 5 years ago.  It does not at all matter today.  

MSU is bad, and they are going to get much worse.  Tucker has a terrible recruiting class, he's going to get murdered all year, which will lead to another awful recruiting class next year.  Depleted roster plus two bad recruiting classes means at least several years of bad.  Can you be awful 3 years in a row in today's college football and survive?  I don't think so. 

MSU is not a team that needs to be accommodated in the schedule in any way.  PSU does, and is. 

Yeah the part of the story…

Yeah the part of the story Buckeye boy is ommiting is that Edwards felt Day was deceptive with him.  Told him he was their #1 RB, then told him to commit.  Edwards said I'm not ready, if I'm your top guy, you'll wait for me.  Day said nah 

Well first of all they'd…

Well first of all they'd have to pay taxes on it, don't want to do that (I know you know that).  Second of all it probably comes from the bagmen with a stipulation that you don't talk about it with anyone, and to the extent these guys just gave them money, they probably are fine with that type of "honor" agreement.  Related to that, they know if they write it down somewhere the bagman can get caught on it (assuming he's not putting it on his taxes/records), and they don't want to get the guy that paid them in trouble.  Finally they know the school can get busted, and they don't want to have any penalty come down on what's going to be a place that they love. 

I've heard that, I know who…

I've heard that, I know who he is and some of the stories.  I've never looked into it in detail because I don't care that much, and won't ask you why you believe so for the same reason. 

But if that's the metric, a lot sites need to be banned.  There is a tremendous number of pricks running a countless number of things.  

People shouldn't neg this…

People shouldn't neg this post - the other thread was removed, so no way for this OP to know it was already posted.  


In any case, I'll repeat what I said there: follow the wonderful Asian example and take off your shoes when you enter someone's home, and ask guests to remove them as they enter yours.  There are things outside that piss and shit on the ground, along with gas/oil/dirt/chemicals - there's no reason to bring that in your house. 

Here's proof with links to two studies: https://www.insider.com/why-you-shouldnt-wear-shoes-in-the-house

People don't talk about…

People don't talk about getting paid because they don't want the IRS after them.  That's the biggest reason bagmen remain underground, otherwise hell yeah a lot more people would be out bragging about what they brought down in college. 

I checked the moderator…

I checked the moderator action sticky and apparently Barstool has also been banned on this site?  

I get Chatsports completely, I get Rainer Sabin sort of - he's a troll but let's laugh about him being one is my view.  Barstool I'm tangentially familiar with as they enter my worldview with clips/links/stories and what not through other things I read.  I know they have a rough reputation, some really dislike them, some love them; I know they say Fuck a lot.  But are they Banned worthy?  It doesn't seem so.  I could have missed something, though. 

I think he does that to sell…

I think he does that to sell the value of the information he provides, sort of reminding subscribers that he's been right on this thing all along and they've had the scoop for a while.  A little bit of self promotion with the goal of furthering his business, but fair enough. 

I think you're right, and I…

I think you're right, and I think if Spindler came to Michigan it would help a great deal with Edwards.  But even here I wouldn't get to concerned.  I think if they land Kendall, the staff can spin that as a "baller" player pretty easily, roughly equivalent to Rocco.  

And I think what Edwards was getting at was ballers/players that can help win championships.  Michigan will certainly have that - if they get Kendall, Benny, Rooks on top of Worthy committing since he said that, you've got the class you need.  I mean especially on OL, see my comment above - one of the best in the country. 

I mean, says you, right?  OL…

I mean, says you, right?  OL are very hard to evaluate.  Getting the #8 guy at his position nationally is outstanding.  Kendall's father was also an NFL player, a first round draft pick.  Rivals has Spindler #3 at OG, #56 nationally, and Kendall #4 and #65 nationally.  It's a loss on the trail, no doubt.  But if they land Kendall, it's still an outstanding result at the position.  

And quick reminder that Michigan has the #2 and #4 Offensive Centers in the class in Raheem Anderson and Greg Crippen.  One of those presumably moves to guard.  And they have the #11 Offensive tackle in Giovanni El-Haddi, plus lottery ticket enormous guy Tristan Bounds (for whom they beat ND).  The OL class will be one of the best in the country if they land Kendall.  

Fair enough, thanks for the…

Fair enough, thanks for the link - was not aware of that 

Severe bummer. 


But if…

Severe bummer. 


But if they land Drew Kendall, it's not much of a miss.  Spindler was the #3 OG in his class, #48 overall.  Kendall is the #8 OG, #126 overall.  He's an excellent, excellent prospect.  Hope he comes if Spindler is out. 

Much of the Sun Belt itself …

Much of the Sun Belt itself (not the Sun Belt conference) is showing leveling or decreasing case numbers and hospitalizations from their peaks.  Nate Silver noted that 20+% of AZ and FLA have had COVD already, which should reduce Ro in subsequent months (thanks to NittanyFan for that tidbit).  In terms of deaths, cases, and hosptializations - given the very minimal effect of COVD on college age students* (i.e. roughly equivalent risk to seasonal flu) and especially those without pre-existing conditions, and assuming coaches and staff have found effective ways of protecting themselves as they're much older (this is not a given, as I haven't really seen any special precautions noted for them anywhere in college football) - this seems to make sense to me.  I understand many on this board will disagree with that, and of course this is OK. If you believe there is still too much risk to play a sport, I understand your viewpoint. 

What is concerning to me at this moment is the relatively new data being more widely reported on possible long term effects of COVD.  The world needs more clarity on that immediately. 



*yes I saw the Feeney thread yesterday, it is terrible and tragic, but as I noted there his experience is very much an outlier based on the data 

Thanks for the update 

But…

Thanks for the update 

But why take a shot at Sam Webb?  The guy is the nicest person in college football. He's what Ellen DeGeneres would be if she were actually what she claimed and not a nutcase - just super positive and great energy all the time.  Recruits and parents love him, and he seems to have their best interests in mind. He's not perfect, no one is in the recruit prognostication business, but he's one of the best in the country.  He's great, try to give him another look in that light. But obviously free to your own opinion. 

This is a political view and…

This is a political view and not a reasoned one.  Yes, if the threat of long term effects from Covd is real, it falls squarely on the shoulders of scientists globally for not prioritizing it.  I don't care how that fits into your political worldview. 

And no, those agencies have not been talking about long term effects in the terms that are required - assuming this threat is real.  Glancing mentions and "we just don't know" nothings aren't leadership.  They need to say, "here are 5 studies, the results are alarming,set aside hospitalizations and death rates for a moment - those mattered for the last 7 months so that's what we talked about, but they are supplemented now by a new threat of long term effects which may affect a large percentage of those who get Covd. We don't have all the answers but we've seen enough that we're demanding action. Another stay at home may be needed because of this new evidence." 

When they do that, the country (and world, since no one globally has done this) will know this threat is real. They haven't done so, maybe because they don't believe it is yet. They have to make this specific question the most urgent priority and get evidence.

Agree it is very difficult,…

Agree it is very difficult, but this new data on long term effects is potentially so significant that it has to be messaged broadly, and worldwide.  The fact that it has not, at least not yet, gives me pause as to how reliable it can yet be.  

Basically there's a distribution that pretty much everyone agrees with, where your risk at these ages is such and such, and your risk at these other is such and such, and if you have comorbidities at any age you're high risk (and obviously if elderly with comordities at massive risk).  The debate has said, basically, for those 18 and younger, it's less risky than seasonal flu; those 19-XX it's worse or much worse (though still very small on a percentage basis given the risk of seasonal flu is so small on a percentage basis), then as you go toward 55 it's elevated, and after that you're at much, much higher risk.  Individual views have reasonably fallen along the spectrum from "even one death is too many" to "I'd rather risk it than live this way".  

Now we're saying that underlying that distribution is a secondary effect that may affect some % of those who've had COVD.  That is a massive new piece of info, and if this was a reasonable conclusion to draw based on evidence, they should have had something on this at least a couple of months ago.  I don't think that's too much to ask. 

Nonsense.  The discussion…

Nonsense.  The discussion has been deaths and hospitalizations.  Have there been offshoots of that central argument?  Of course.  Like Kawasaki syndrome, which fairly disappeared into little concern.  You can pretend that this was part of the argument all along and make some childish point about your biased news sources vs. the other team's biased news sources, but it's nonsense. 

CDC, WHO, USG, Fauci - none of them have made this a central point of the debate.  Is that because they've looked at it and don't believe - yet - that it's a real concern?  If they believe long term effects are as serious as some of the studies suggest, they should all be halting everything and changing the strategy from flatten the curve to flatten all infections.  They have not done so, have not remotely broached it. 

Remember the TV commercial where the USG, Fauci, that other lady - they all say hey, you may not really be at risk, but we have to do our part so the the more vulnerable among us aren't infected?  That's what they did - that was their message.  If they believe these studies have merit, they need to get right back on TV and say Hey, there's new data and we need to change our plan immediately.  

My view is that in the absence of long term effects, this football player's experience is very much an outlier.  The data has proven - to me - that people his age are at little risk. 

Now if we introduce new evidence to suggest some substantial % of those infected risk long term health effects?  Then it changes everything.  But that's new data, don't pretend it was part of the national debate all along. 

I hope for the best for this…

I hope for the best for this young man.  

The data would say his ER experience is very much an outlier.  But even at low probabilities it's something that every player and parent must consider.  

The data coming out on long term effects has to be run to ground immediately.  Put football aside, if some of the alarming results so far prove true, then the country must move from flatten the curve to prevent as many infections as possible.  This is new info, and there seems to be enough there to stop everything and find the answer. It would represent a failure of epic proportions for the CDC, WHO, USG, Fauci, et al, to have significant long term effects pass under their noses. 

Zinter came in for praise in…

Zinter came in for praise in a 247 post by Steve Lorenz titled "Handful of young players impressing early".  Qualified that this is only from the early workouts/walkthroughs. 

https://247sports.com/college/michigan/board/102410/Contents/vip-handful-of-young-players-impressing-early-149761752/?page=1

 

I fully agree with this…

I fully agree with this overall.  But given the times, I'd like to see more emphasis on Aftican American culture: it's such a significant and important contribution to American English.  Probably the most important.  Maybe this is included in the larger article, which I admit I didn't read. 

I mean, in the context of what could be highlighted given the Black Lives Matter movement, "hangry" is a really, really silly example.  It's also just a stupid word that actually does deserve to be dismissed in professional speak. 

There was a thread yesterday…

There was a thread yesterday in which possible long term effects came up, and this guy's name was mentioned.  Some of the data on this is alarming, but in my opinion (and those of most of the study authors) not conclusive.  This needs to be area of worldwide focus immediately. Because if long term damage is true, it changes policy from "flatten the curve" to "prevent as many infections as possible". 

My question here is how prevalent is something like this? At the site you note, the primary cause of this condition is a virus.  And it's been around for a long time, well before Covd.  I wonder if players in the past have sat out with this pre-Covd, and if yes, how prevalent that was.  Or did some have this not realize it, or play through it. 

There was an NHL player last October who had to sit out with this. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nhl.nbcsports.com/2019/10/31/jets-letestu-shut-down-for-6-months-due-to-myocarditis/amp/

Not if I'm not interpreting…

Not if I'm not interpreting the data.  At one extreme I could be posting actual scientific studies, and my counterpart could be posting 4chan conspiracy theories.  In this scenario there is no interpretation, there is only science vs. non-science.  You would be very incorrect if you said it was debatable whether actual science pointed in the direction my posts. 

But of course we are all human beings with bias.  It's not any more correct to say I'm in the "open 'er up" camp than to say these others are in the "we're all going to die!" camp.  

You make good arguments.  I…

You make good arguments.  I need to take a deeper look at some of these studies.  However, I stand by my conclusion that none of them have provided sufficient information upon which to make judgments.  They are too early, too small, too inconclusive, and even the researchers themselves generally assert that.  Given that, my view is the "but what about the possible long term effects" concerns now pervading the national discourse are very premature. 

Three things based on this.  First, if the studies prove to be true - or are even of enough concern to be considered in decisions like college football - then this is an argument to shut down the economy until there's a vaccine.  Forget about football.  I don't see many people anywhere in the world advocating for this.  There would be much more energy around that if the studies were enough to be truly concerned.  Second, it seems like the goalposts keep moving: first it was millions will die, then it was flatten the curve, now that those have been debunked and accomplished, and it's been established that young people are at minimal risk, there is now this amorphous "but what about the possible long term effects" argument.  I want to see this as an established, real risk before I personally make decisions based upon it.  And I'd like to see the country do the same.  Finally, I believe "but what about the long term risks will eventually fade to the background very similarly to the Kawasaki syndrome concerns raised months ago.  This is admittedly a gut feel, but it feels very similar. 

Yes of course they do.  It…

Yes of course they do.  It was announced two weeks ago that the SEC would honor scholarships for athletes opting out (as did the B1G, Pac12 and ACC).  Everyone expected this, and it's come to pass.  I thought this was common knowledge and is of course part of my statement: athletes will go to school because the universities are going back, so the only thing to understand is whether they have higher or lower risk if they're going to play vs. being a normal student.  And as I've said, the university should have studied this, and this should really be the central question around which the decisions are made.  Of course yes, the individual student has the choice not to return to school.  This is true of its corollary as well, but since these things seem to be being missed in this conversation and I'm here anyway: if an athlete is choosing not to go back to school, then of course he is not going to play football; this is obviously also his right and everyone will respect his decision. 

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/29482450/sec-honor-scholarships-athletes-opting-coronavirus 

This would be the same as me…

This would be the same as me labeling you and those above as being in the "we're all going to die!" crowd.  This is a juvenile reaction. 

Thank you for saying my posts are reasonable.  I believe my view is informed by the science, and to the extent that you believe my posts skew in the direction of opening up the economy, it's because you see the science as pointed that way. 

"then the number of young…

"then the number of young people who die of COVID likely will be comparable or smaller than what we'd see from a bad flu." 

I agree for those aged 15-24, the COVD death rates are likely to be comparable to seasonal flu.  For those 15 and younger, it is much, much less than that. 


Your analysis is interesting but I will defer to the Bloomberg piece. 

I didn't have any reason to…

I didn't have any reason to dispute these other points, none of which were invalid. 

So you've relied on…

So you've relied on probabilities to determine the risk is low enough to allow him back to school.  That is an informed decision. 

It's completely fine to look at the probabilities and say no, I'm not going to play (or go back to school, or go back to work, etc) based on this.  I don't care if the % likelihood is very small, because my decision is any level of risk is too great (or even the very low level of risk is too great).  Everyone makes their decision for themselves and their families however they need to, and we must all respect those decisions.  I certainly will and do. 

My issue with your post is that it said "could be that this happens, could be that that happens, you don't know".  That's not correct.  There is a very high percentage probability that the not-bad thing happens, and a very low percentage that the bad thing happens.  Given that knowledge, we all make decisions that fit us.  

I believe nearly anyone in…

I believe nearly anyone in the scientific community would agree that the current death rate you note is certain to be overstated once the final data is established.  See below from another poster for a better analysis from Bloomberg. 

My use of the term "society" was in regard to the decision to return students to campus, not about players playing football.  That was clear, but if you didn't understand my point, I was saying that universities have already judged (by and large) that returning to students to campus is worth the risk*; assuming these athletes will then be returning to school, the only difference is how much more or less risk they incur by being football players.  Then the decision can be made based on that. 

*Of course any parent or student can disagree with this and opt to stay out of school, based on their gauge of the risks 

Thank you, I posted this…

Thank you, I posted this very analysis a while back on this site, as evidence that college players are not at more risk from COVD than seasonal flu.  At 200K deaths, it's roughly equal to seasonal flu (I will need to update my assumption from "less than or equal to" to "equal to", given the number of projected deaths has moved from what was 100K then to 200K now). 

The studies done to date on long term effects are very limited and not at all ready to have conclusions be drawn from them. 

I don't know who that person…

I don't know who that person is, but I don't rely on sample sizes of 1 for decision making, because that's not science.  I assume this is someone who has heart issues that have been judged permanent by covd? This does happen with other pathogens, but it is excessively rare.   Meanwhile I can cite the names of hundreds of thousands who've recovered with no issues at all.  One is *a*** *****, my neighbor next door, she had it and is totally fine.  Was nothing for her.  Is that strong evidence that players will be fine? Of course not, it's only 1 person.  That's why probabilities matter. 

"While there is a great deal…

"While there is a great deal that is unknown, it seems that the more we find out, the more likely it seems that at least some people may have long term impacts." 

This is absolutely not true, and not in any way grounded in science. 

The rest of your post makes subjective arguments that college players are more at risk for catching covd than typical students.  I could provide counterarguments I suppose, but don't need to: neither of us have studied this, so we don't know, but can agree that colleges should provide this answer to athletes.