Moving toward Football in the Fall

jacket67

Dodd-Like
Jeez man just look at the numbers. Estimated mortality is somewhere over .05% from what I am seeing now, compared to the typical flu at about .01. By the time this settles down, and hopefully it does, we will be somewhere in that range more than likely. As I’ve said I don’t think we should shut down again but wearing masks and social distancing in public makes sense. How that will impact sports is something we will have to adjust to as things play out.
Again, over 90% of the people who die from COVID-19 are elderly and chronically ill people who you will never see on the field or in the stands of a football stadium. For example, data from Minnesota shows that 80% of the deaths there were among residents of long-term care facilities, and 98% of the deaths were individuals with serious chronic health problems. And hopefully, such people at risk will choose to avoid being in large, close groups like football games. What do you think the mortality rate is for healthy people under 60? I have no problem with social distancing when practical and masks when practical.
 

ramblinwise1

beware the zealot
I see a lot of speculation on here without a lot of data to back it up, so I wanted to provide some data from Arizona.

This is a 7 day rolling average of the number of new cases per day in AZ. You can see a sharp uptick starting around May 28. We "gradually" opened back up for business between May 11 and May 15.

View attachment 22039

I have a similar graph with the 7 day rolling average of deaths, that looks to be following a similar pattern, just lagging by a couple of weeks, but it won't let me upload two images to a single post. The 7-day rolling average has been creeping up from about 12 per day in late May to about 20 per day last week, with a spike up to 32 today, due to 79 deaths identified yesterday.

The protests have probably started showing up as a factor, but not until the past few days. The dramatic increase that you're seeing in the graph above starts long before they would have had an impact, or even before they started.

The lone caveat is that the daily data is taken from the Arizona Department of Health, and just because a death is identified on a particular day doesn't mean that the death occurred on the day. This can also be said about positive tests. There's likely a 2 or 3 day lag for both. However, it's still definitely useful to use to identify trends.
So, y'all suck. Do better.
 

GT98

Dodd-Like
Must have hit a nerve. Those are facts.
based upon what?

where have the death tolls been inflated?

Sports can happen, likely with modified seating/capacity. Keep the elderly/vulnerable health groups at home and others use just a small amount of common sense and care for someone else. Not hard.
 

Skydog

Eat a Peach
I will give the ticket office credit, their refund policy is extremely reasonable and fan friendly. That being said, I hope I'm there in person for the first game.
 

CiraldoForever

Varsity Lurker
Again, over 90% of the people who die from COVID-19 are elderly and chronically ill people who you will never see on the field or in the stands of a football stadium. For example, data from Minnesota shows that 80% of the deaths there were among residents of long-term care facilities, and 98% of the deaths were individuals with serious chronic health problems. And hopefully, such people at risk will choose to avoid being in large, close groups like football games. What do you think the mortality rate is for healthy people under 60? I have no problem with social distancing when practical and masks when practical.
The problem with your argument is that some of the younger people who go to the games have parents and grandparents. So, the younger people get the virus, don't have serious consequences, interact with their parents and grandparents, and give them the virus, from which the older people get very serious consequences.

I like college football. I'm sure it will be played because, when push comes to shove, concern over older people dying will always be rationalized away by younger people, who care more about money and sports. Still, I would not choose to watch Tech suffer through another three win season, or even an undefeated season, if it put my wife's health at risk.
 

ncjacket

Dodd-Like
Again, over 90% of the people who die from COVID-19 are elderly and chronically ill people who you will never see on the field or in the stands of a football stadium. For example, data from Minnesota shows that 80% of the deaths there were among residents of long-term care facilities, and 98% of the deaths were individuals with serious chronic health problems. And hopefully, such people at risk will choose to avoid being in large, close groups like football games. What do you think the mortality rate is for healthy people under 60? I have no problem with social distancing when practical and masks when practical.
Here’s the question I keep coming back to. If a player tests positive there is a protocol. I don’t know exactly what it will be but probably something along the lines of 10 says isolation and 2 negative tests. But before they test positive they are contagious. So what happens when the whole “qb room” gets infected ? What happens when you play a team and it turns out a DL was positive? I wonder how teams are going to deal with those kinds of situations.
 

ncjacket

Dodd-Like
Do they have to have a positive test to classify the patient as Covid-19?
I would assume so but can’t say for sure. There has to be evidence to support it of some kind it but treatment regimens may count. What I do know is that every charge to the government is subject for audit and they do claw back payments and if they believe fraud is involved hospital execs can and have gone to jail.

Edit to add every hospital I work with tests every patient who is admitted no matter what they are in for so they would know.
 
Last edited:

jacket67

Dodd-Like
The problem with your argument is that some of the younger people who go to the games have parents and grandparents. So, the younger people get the virus, don't have serious consequences, interact with their parents and grandparents, and give them the virus, from which the older people get very serious consequences.

I like college football. I'm sure it will be played because, when push comes to shove, concern over older people dying will always be rationalized away by younger people, who care more about money and sports. Still, I would not choose to watch Tech suffer through another three win season, or even an undefeated season, if it put my wife's health at risk.
That's your choice. People should take precautions around the vulnerable members of their families, even if they are just going to the supermarket or to work. And they should think about that every flu season, even when there is not a shutdown. It's not that hard to protect the high risk individuals. If 70-80% of the deaths have been among people in long-term care facilities, it means the most vulnerable should now already be under strict mitigation policies. The great majority of people don't share a household with anyone who is at risk. It makes no sense for our entire society to be disrupted and our economy to be destroyed when protecting them can be accomplished without that. It is a small minority of the population at risk, most of whom are retired, already mostly home bound, or in long-term care. It's not about "concern over older people dying" being "rationalized". It's just about finding a common sense set of strategies that protect the vulnerable which also allows our society to function.
 

GT 1950

Varsity Lurker
Again, over 90% of the people who die from COVID-19 are elderly and chronically ill people who you will never see on the field or in the stands of a football stadium. For example, data from Minnesota shows that 80% of the deaths there were among residents of long-term care facilities, and 98% of the deaths were individuals with serious chronic health problems. And hopefully, such people at risk will choose to avoid being in large, close groups like football games. What do you think the mortality rate is for healthy people under 60? I have no problem with social distancing when practical and masks when practical.
I don't know about the "mortality rate" for under 60. I did ask a hospital administrator in our area which, at one time was a COVID 19 hotspot, what the odds are of a person under 50 dying from the virus who was NOT immune system impaired by diabetes, lupus, heart disease, etc. He said it was about 1 in 10 million. He did say that this virus is opportunistic. If you have sickle cell anemia, diabetes, obesity, heart disease or you are over the age of 65 you have valid reason to be concerned and should self isolate. He is one of the most respected physicians in our area and was instrumental in getting the pandemic under control in our area. Take of that what you will.
 
Top