ldevon1

September 15th, 2020 at 1:46 PM ^

He followed the Clemson playbook. Everyone was infected early enough that they don't have to worry about it, so none of his starters will be sitting out do to quarantine.

Best part of article:

"Hopefully that once you catch it you don't get it again," he said."I'm not a doctor. I think they have that 90-day window, so most of the players that have caught it we do feel like they'll be eligible for games."

BlueinKyiv

September 15th, 2020 at 7:44 PM ^

And who exactly is NOT going to get COVID over the next 20 years?  As Fauci recently made clear, there is every reason to expect that COVID is permanent and will be with us no less in duration than the common cold or flu.  

One day digital anthropologists are going to dig up this thread and ask...so they thought they could hide from colds or flu for the rest of their lives.  The entire LSU team getting COVID in 2020 or 2030 is not news.  Its just today's reality.    

mGrowOld

September 15th, 2020 at 1:45 PM ^

So if you combine this report with the news from Texas Tech earlier today it sure looks like the B1G was right to shut down the season when they did.

Now the question is do they say "fuck it - if they get it, they get it" (to paraphrase Drago) and start back up.

bronxblue

September 15th, 2020 at 1:50 PM ^

It's pretty clear at this point that certain conferences looked at the data and said "there's a lot of uncertainty about the long-term implications of COVID-19, let's wait and figure it out" and others looked at other data and said "reinfection rates seem low, so might as well expose everyone and bank on nobody getting adversely ill".  And at this point, it's not even a morality judgement anymore; conferences listened to what their members wanted and that's how they responded.

TrueBlue2003

September 15th, 2020 at 2:06 PM ^

But the Big Ten didn't shut down.  They've been practicing just like LSU.  Seems like there are just differences in precautions teams are taking.  Michigan is doing it well based on their numbers, some others aren't (including OSU and some other teams that aren't reporting numbers - they could have had just as many infections as LSU, TTU, etc).

bronxblue

September 15th, 2020 at 2:15 PM ^

Credit to OSU - they've run 50k+ tests on their student body (which I assume includes the athletes) and have a low positive rate.  I couldn't find numbers listed for LSU or TTU but both seem to basically require students to proactively come to a testing area if they feel they're sick or, if they get a test elsewhere, call a number or otherwise tell the school the results.  It's very much a "if you don't test as much, you don't have as many cases" mindset.  

GET OFF YOUR H…

September 15th, 2020 at 2:18 PM ^

Below is a link to this here website.  Michigan lies in the "not testing much" category with under 3,000 tests over the past three weeks.  64 positive cases.  OSU lies in the "10,000-34,000 tests" category with 34K tests.  1607 positive cases.

Not sure how you conclude Michigan is doing it well and OSU isn't:
Michigan:  2.1% of tests came back positive using 3K, and that's the top end of the group they fell into so who knows how many tests actually were given.
OSU:  4.7% of tests came back positive using 34K.

I'd say OSU is testing like mad, Michigan is not.  Had Michigan conducted 34K tests, maybe their numbers are different.  That's a small sample size.

I'll also admit I have no clue where this person got their numbers, but found it interesting.

 

https://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/how-big-ten-doing-covid

ndscott50

September 15th, 2020 at 2:33 PM ^

I just went through and looked at each schools Covid dashboard and did a quick analysis of the numbers. I thought it made sense to look at the schools doing a lot of testing separately from those with more limited testing.   Somebody could dig into this in much more detail but the wide variation in testing approaches makes it difficult to draw conclusions across schools. Overall Michigan’s numbers look good but I’m not sure we can say we are really better than OSU when they are conducting more than 10 times the tests we are.

The real answer would be for all schools to do what Illinois is doing and test everyone twice a week.

TrueBlue2003

September 15th, 2020 at 2:48 PM ^

I'm talking about the Michigan Football program (and AD) which per the Detroit News: "Of the 2,200 COVID-19 tests administered to Michigan student-athletes since June, there have been 39 positive results and of the 350 tests of staff members, three positives. In total, there have been 2,550 tests with 42 positives." 

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports/college/university-michigan/20…

Harbaugh made some remarks about the football program in particular that were even more impressive.  Pretty sure just they just had a couple initial positives and none since then but I can't find that source right now.

OSU on the other hand, had enough positives in July to halt their practices entirely and never released any numbers citing "privacy" which is 1) BS and 2) a pretty clear sign they didn't want people to react to their high numbers the way people have to Clemson, LSU, etc.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/ohio-state-pauses-footb…

I definitely think it sounds like Michigan is doing much more poorly as a school, and maybe OSU is better there, but make no mistake, those are completely separate things.  This is why I said teams are doing it differently.  Has almost nothing to do with what the school is doing.

Also, in regards to the school testing, a lower number of tests if infection rates were comparable would result in higher positivity rate (because your denominator is lower, but you're still probably catching a lot of cases even if not all of them because you're testing symptomatic people and contacts of those who tested positive).

So the low number for Michigan isn't a red flag given their very low positivity rate.  They're actually testing more per positive test which means they're casting an even wider net around their positive cases, something important for finding all positive cases.  Those numbers suggest they're doing FAR better than OSU in a lot of respects.

GET OFF YOUR H…

September 15th, 2020 at 3:17 PM ^

Thanks for clarifying, didn't catch the football team part honestly, I was like wait someone just posted B1G numbers on here last week haha.  I guess we don't know what we don't know, and it's really interesting to see such a wide range of numbers being tested.  

Is there a right answer?  Who the hell knows? Haha.

 

jblaze

September 15th, 2020 at 1:51 PM ^

So we have hundreds of football players and likely thousands of college athletes who have contracted COVID-19, correct?

Are these kids showing symptoms? Going to the hospital? On ventilators? For those that have "recovered", how are they feeling? What's their lung function? 

We (and probably the schools and kids) don't know this. Nobody is going to know the long-term effects until enough time has passed (don't know if that's 6 months of 20 years), but we don't even know the short term effects.

Then we get the PSU Dr who "clarifies myocarditis comments, issues apology for causing 'confusion'" so everybody is flying blind here.

Does the B1G play football? Should they? I don't know how anybody can be firmly on one side or the other, given the lack of information.

BananaRepublic

September 15th, 2020 at 2:08 PM ^

At this point, in most young people, it looks very much like a common flu bug with the vast majority of cases not even becoming symptomatic. All the heart sign spooks they've tried to gin up have been misleading at best and outright fraudulent and retracted at worst. There's no reason to treat this coronavirus like a black box. If you want to shut down football and life for 20 years so we can figure out if there really are any long term effects, that's poor risk management. Given the context of the virus and similar viruses, there's no reason for this

TrueBlue2003

September 15th, 2020 at 2:23 PM ^

I've seen no reports of anyone being admitted to the hospital, and certainly none on ventilators.

Reports are that up to 10-20% that have been tested (albeit on a small sample) for myocardial injury, appeared to show some signs.  That number has been way lower apparently for NFL and other sports so it's likely much lower, but very important to screen for it.

People are not flying blind just because the PSU doctor misstated some things. There are LOTS of leagues playing and sharing the short term effects.

And this is an RNA coronavirus, of which there are several others that infect humans.  There are rare cases of ME/CFS and longer term issues that other viruses cause.

The overwhelming consensus of doctors and scientists that have opined believe that if young people are appropriately scanned for heart issues and listen to their bodies, they're fine to play.

Saying there's a lack of information on this like saying we don't have any information on 30+ years of cell phone use.  While it's true, at some point you have to accept some levels of risk.  There could be an exponentially greater risk of cancer as cell phone usage exceeds 30 years, and some people choose not to use cell phone because of it, but is the chance and the cost enough to not use cell phones?  Most of us think not.

And when individual players can opt out and stay on scholarship, why would we prevent those who want to play from playing?

jmblue

September 15th, 2020 at 2:44 PM ^

It's true obviously that we don't know the long-term effects of Covid (because the pandemic is only officially nine months old) but that's not much of a justification in itself to shut things down.  Generally speaking, if you don't show short-term symptoms from a virus, you don't go on to show longer-term symptoms later on.  It's typically the people whose immune systems are battling it out with the virus right now that might be compromised health-wise going forward.

Young people overwhelmingly show few effects from this virus.  Per the Washtenaw data, people in the 18-24 age group make up 22 % of all cases but just 2% of hospitalizations and 0% of deaths.  The argument to restrict their activity has little to do with their health.  It's about the possibility that they might serve as vectors of infection.  That reasoning isn't without some validity, but when you are talking about cancelling a season and possibly changing a guy's whole future career plans (imagine being a senior who has waited to start), and when you've already decided that it's OK for students to be on campus (40,000 non-athletes, most of them rarely tested, are likely to produce more infections than a group of 110 students who are regularly tested), it's pretty tough to accept it.

 

UMinSF

September 15th, 2020 at 3:09 PM ^

jmblue, while we feel differently, you have a valid POV...but not regarding LSU, because apparently almost the ENTIRE TEAM contracted the virus.

Two very reasonable/likely conclusions:

yes, the players were more likely to contract the virus unless the entire campus is already infected (and if so, it's absurd/criminally negligent for that school to be open.) 

yes, 100+ people with the virus inevitably passed it along to god knows how many other people - surely including more vulnerable folks.

 

 

TrueBlue2003

September 15th, 2020 at 3:16 PM ^

I don't think your last assumption is necessarily correct.  There's a reason Harbaugh calls fall camp "the submarine" and that's in normal times.

These guys are being fed in the team cafeteria and literally eat, sleep, live football.  They're not grocery shopping, they're not doing anything else.  It's part of the reason it spreads so quickly amongst the team.  They're doing everything together, but luckily probably aren't in contact with many other people.  Even their coaches aren't getting infected at high rates so they're not posing much risk if any to random vulnerable people.

UMinSF

September 15th, 2020 at 3:38 PM ^

From all reports, Michigan/JH have done an admirable job keeping players from Covid exposure. LSU clearly hasn't. 

Are LSU's players forbidden to interact with other students/staff members/general public? 

If they're truly in a bubble, you're right.

If not, it's inevitable 100 infected college students infected others. The fact they spend most of their time in a structured setting is offset by the fact they're...college students, who are the kings of their campus.

BigMeech82

September 15th, 2020 at 1:53 PM ^

It's like team covid-19 gatherings have been coordinated for a perceived team advantage once play ramped up.  Despicable given some of the possible long term health issues, yet not surprising.

mgobaran

September 15th, 2020 at 2:07 PM ^

For the sake of these college students being sacrificed so colleges, coaches, and conference officials can get their millions of dollars, I really hope these athletes avoid complications from myocarditis. 

Carpetbagger

September 15th, 2020 at 2:53 PM ^

Whether it was encouraged by the coaches or not would be interesting to know. I suspect it didn't have to be. If I were a 20 year old athlete on a team with a legit shot at national championship I'd make sure I wasn't sitting on the bench feeling just fine but Covid-Postive mid-season.

The best way to make sure that doesn't happen is to get it out of the way.

I still find it odd how many of you all don't accept that a very large number of people are going to get this virus eventually one way or the other, especially young people who can't hide in home offices like we older folks can.

The Deer Hunter

September 15th, 2020 at 2:27 PM ^

This is fucked up. What a dangerous model is being created here trading the health and future health of young people for the profit of large universities, even if it is the SEC/ACC. Unfortunately it will be probably be duplicated in other conferences including the B1G by certain schools when it is announced they are resuming the fall schedule. 

Soulfire21

September 15th, 2020 at 9:30 PM ^

Did they? They had one of the highest death rates per capita in Europe. They certainly didn’t come out unscathed.

I’m skeptical that Sweden’s approach would’ve worked here anyway, for a few reasons. Sweden is more sparsely populated and over half of Swedes living in single-person households compared to around 28% in the US (making physically distancing easier), the US has higher rates of chronic disease that makes COVID-19 worse (diabetes, obesity, etc.), and there are significant differences in our healthcare systems and values: every Swede has access to government-funded, universal healthcare. The Swedish government also provides paid sick leave for yourself or to take care of a sick child. Neither of those are true in the United States.

Finally, Swedes have a high degree of trust in their public health agencies which isn’t the case here. Swedes voluntarily followed guidelines issued by their public health institutions - it’s not clear Americans would have done the same.

I’m not arguing in favor or against any particular approach, just saying there are enough differences between the US and Sweden to be skeptical.

MGoStretch

September 16th, 2020 at 9:12 AM ^

All excellent points, but I don't know that the jury is out on your final point (whether or not Americans would voluntarily followed public health guidelines).  I think we can pretty conclusively say they would not.  Roughly a third of the country would bray that absolutely any policies would intrude on "muh freedoms!".  Another third would fastidiously adhere to the recommendations, which wouldn't be enough to functionally slow the spread.  The final third wouldn't know what to think because of how insanely political things are in this country.

UMinSF

September 15th, 2020 at 2:51 PM ^

So, it looks like LSU (among others) willfully placed their athletes in harm's way - this seems grossly negligent to me, and absolutely morally repugnant.

This is a brand-new disease that has killed 200 thousand Americans in just a few months. It's not the goddamn flu, and anyone that claims to know the risks and/or long-term impact on people is full of shit. 

To say "well, they're mostly recovered and no one was even hospitalized" - basically makes these kids human guinea pigs. "Let's get 'em all sick now so they can play later" is downright sinister.

On top of that - how many other people were infected by these athletes? How many people got sick or even died because this was allowed to happen? 

I'm trying to come around to the idea that playing college football this year isn't a terrible idea. This, frankly, highlights all the reasons it shouldn't happen.

God, I'm disgusted by this. 

HollywoodHokeHogan

September 15th, 2020 at 2:55 PM ^

I hope there are no nursing homes near LSU.   This whole let’s play some football and welcome back the frats is quite a dice roll for elderly and immuno compromised people in the area.