NCAA Tournament & COVID-19

[BeeRBee]

The idea of refunding money came up in a conversation I had when Harvard first made the decision to go online last month (they were one of the first to go this route). My question was whether any of the money the student (or more likely his/her parents are paying) will be refunded - particularly room and board. That individual's response was he didn't see schools doing anything like that, maybe a little small refund, but not nearly what parents will be expecting.

Northeastern University is refunding a proportionate share (6 weeks out of 16) of housing and meal plan costs. I was actually surprised that they made this decision. No idea what their financials look like at the moment.

 

[orientalnc]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/14/health/social-distancing-research-coronavirus-2022-trnd/index.html

 

[RamblinRed]

This chart is taken from a Morgan Stanley analysis document looking at getting back to work. (keep in mind based on current numbers and reports the numbers/dates set in this document appear to be optimistic. Right now the US is testing less than 150K per day and a report says testing has dropped 30% week over week so far this week).

“Ultimately, we believe Governors will begin considering relaxing social distancing measures once cumulative mortality rates peak, which lags new cases by ~20 days. This means that some resumption in activity will occur in the coastal regional areas prior to the full US peak, followed by other states that have experienced a similar trajectory in peak new cases and cumulative mortality. Ultimately, based on our projections we do not expect to see significant resumptions in activity for ~70 days.”

 

[684Bee]

This chart is taken from a Morgan Stanley analysis document looking at getting back to work. (keep in mind based on current numbers and reports the numbers/dates set in this document appear to be optimistic. Right now the US is testing less than 150K per day and a report says testing has dropped 30% week over week so far this week).

“Ultimately, we believe Governors will begin considering relaxing social distancing measures once cumulative mortality rates peak, which lags new cases by ~20 days. This means that some resumption in activity will occur in the coastal regional areas prior to the full US peak, followed by other states that have experienced a similar trajectory in peak new cases and cumulative mortality. Ultimately, based on our projections we do not expect to see significant resumptions in activity for ~70 days.”

I wonder if they are just using the wrong phrase. When they say relax social distancing, I think they mean SIP.

Social distancing is something that most individuals will continue to practice, even when the “all clear” is given.

 

[orientalnc]

You can read about this on the Washington Post today (I think the paywall is off for this article), but the CDC and FEMA are working on a plan for re-opening the country. It will be a recommendation, not an order. Governors have the ultimate authority. But, the plan is based on a set of models that carry this warning: “Models indicate 30-day shelter in place followed by 180 day lifting of all mitigation results in large rebound curve — some level of mitigation will be needed until vaccines or broad community immunity is achieved for recovering communities.” I cannot imagine 80,000 people in Sanford Stadium as being an essential activity. No matter how much we might want to have football back this fall.

 

[RamblinRed]

FWIW, right now public opinion is heavily against re-opening the economy quickly
New poll has the following numbers

More than eight in 10 voters, 81 percent, say Americans “should continue to social distance for as long as is needed to curb the spread of coronavirus, even if it means continued damage to the economy.” Only 10 percent say Americans “should stop social distancing to stimulate the economy, even if it means increasing the spread of coronavirus.” Nine percent of voters have no opinion.

By a ratio of more than 2 to 1, voters say they are more concerned about “the public health impact of coronavirus, including the spread of the disease which would cause more deaths,” than they are about “the economic impact of coronavirus including the effect on the stock market and increased unemployment.” Overall, voters break toward the public-health impact, 64 percent to 29 percent — though it’s more narrow among Republicans, 51 percent to 43 percent.

Three in four, 75 percent, say it’s more important for the government to address the spread of the virus, while 17 percent say it’s more important for the government to manage the economy.

Just 37 percent would support allowing some Americans to return to work as long as the virus is still spreading, fewer than the 52 percent who would oppose Americans returning to work under those circumstances. And even fewer, 27 percent, would support allowing Americans under age 45 — who researchers say are less likely to die from Covid-19 — to work while older Americans continue to stay home.

But majorities do want returning workers to take significant precautions if they do go back: 76 percent would support their testing negative for the virus before being allowed to work again, 60 percent say they should take an antibody test to determine whether they’ve been exposed to the virus, and 76 percent support workers’ being required to wear face masks.

“Public trust in the safety of interacting with other Americans is a necessary precondition for being able to reignite the U.S. economy,” said John Leer, an economist for Morning Consult. “If Americans believe that their eating at restaurants or spending time in an airport jeopardizes their safety, loosening restrictions on businesses is not a sustainable economic solution.”

 

[RamblinRed]

This disappointing news came out last night

Spain has registered a daily increase of 1,220 active coronavirus cases -- the largest rise in more than a week -- according to Spanish Health Ministry data released Wednesday.

This jump brought the country’s total active cases to 88,201.

The setback follows more positive news earlier in the week.

On Tuesday, Spain saw its first ever decrease in active cases, as the numbers of deaths and recovered people outnumbered new diagnoses.

Germany's highest single day number of deaths: 285 people died of Covid-19 within 24 hours in the country on Tuesday. However, fewer new infections were recorded than in recent weeks, with cases rising by 2,486.

Study rules out coronavirus drug: A French study has found that hydroxychloroquine doesn't help coronavirus patients and was associated with heart complications.

Singapore recorded 334 new cases of the novel coronavirus on Tuesday -- none of them imported -- as the second wave continues to spread through the community.

The vast majority of cases were linked to known clusters in the country, according to the Ministry of Health.

The total number of new infections reported is slightly lower than the highest single day total of a day earlier, which was 386.


Mostly this just reminds me this is going to be a slow, bumpy road with stops and starts and probably setbacks.

 

[H-Wade]

FWIW, right now public opinion is heavily against re-opening the economy quickly
New poll has the following numbers

More than eight in 10 voters, 81 percent, say Americans “should continue to social distance for as long as is needed to curb the spread of coronavirus, even if it means continued damage to the economy.” Only 10 percent say Americans “should stop social distancing to stimulate the economy, even if it means increasing the spread of coronavirus.” Nine percent of voters have no opinion.

Which website conducted this poll? I have a feeling if this was a Fox News poll for example, the numbers wouldn't look anything close to this.

 

[orientalnc]

Which website conducted this poll? I have a feeling if this was a Fox News poll for example, the numbers wouldn't look anything close to this.

Reed can speak for his source, but these look like the results of the USA Today/Ipsos poll from two days ago.

 

[RamblinRed]

Reed can speak for his source, but these look like the results of the USA Today/Ipsos poll from two days ago.

It's actually a Morning Consult/Politico poll, not the USA Today poll which had similar results.

FWIW, FOX News Polls seldom differ much from other mainstream pollers as it is not Fox News conducting the poll, it is a third party poller employed by Fox (Depending upon the poll Fox uses Beacon Research or Shaw & Co Research). Morning Consult is a respected pollster.

Though the numbers for staying closed are higher than I expected, as oriental mentions these numbers are in general agreement with the USA Today/IPSOS poll.

Though as I have mentioned in a different thread, the whole having to choose between our health and our economy is actually a false choice. That dichotomy assumes you can simply go back to the world of Dec 2019, but you can't. If you choose to open up, but don't have the proper controls in place, then within 6-8 weeks the economy will basically be shutdown because too many people are sick. The Smithfield Plant is a good example of that. Basically that same story will happen in every state. So then you have a shutdown economy like now but with alot more people sick and dying and using more resources and that negatively impacts your ability to restart your economy later.

 

[RamblinRed]

This is focused more on professional leagues than college, but goes through all the legal minutiae that are going to have to be dealt with before alot of the team sports return.

https://www.si.com/nba/2020/04/15/donald-trump-adam-silver-mark-cuban-economy-advisory-coronavirus

 

[Jazzchaz]

FWIW, right now public opinion is heavily against re-opening the economy quickly
New poll has the following numbers

More than eight in 10 voters, 81 percent, say Americans “should continue to social distance for as long as is needed to curb the spread of coronavirus, even if it means continued damage to the economy.” Only 10 percent say Americans “should stop social distancing to stimulate the economy, even if it means increasing the spread of coronavirus.” Nine percent of voters have no opinion.

By a ratio of more than 2 to 1, voters say they are more concerned about “the public health impact of coronavirus, including the spread of the disease which would cause more deaths,” than they are about “the economic impact of coronavirus including the effect on the stock market and increased unemployment.” Overall, voters break toward the public-health impact, 64 percent to 29 percent — though it’s more narrow among Republicans, 51 percent to 43 percent.

Three in four, 75 percent, say it’s more important for the government to address the spread of the virus, while 17 percent say it’s more important for the government to manage the economy.

Just 37 percent would support allowing some Americans to return to work as long as the virus is still spreading, fewer than the 52 percent who would oppose Americans returning to work under those circumstances. And even fewer, 27 percent, would support allowing Americans under age 45 — who researchers say are less likely to die from Covid-19 — to work while older Americans continue to stay home.

But majorities do want returning workers to take significant precautions if they do go back: 76 percent would support their testing negative for the virus before being allowed to work again, 60 percent say they should take an antibody test to determine whether they’ve been exposed to the virus, and 76 percent support workers’ being required to wear face masks.

“Public trust in the safety of interacting with other Americans is a necessary precondition for being able to reignite the U.S. economy,” said John Leer, an economist for Morning Consult. “If Americans believe that their eating at restaurants or spending time in an airport jeopardizes their safety, loosening restrictions on businesses is not a sustainable economic solution.”

 

[Jazzchaz]

'A French study has found that hydroxychloroquine doesn't help coronavirus patients and was associated with heart complications.'
People have misquoted that article. It said that using the combination of zithromax and hydroxychloroquine on patients WITH heart conditions could prove fatal.
Their point was, it's not a treatment that can be used on just anybody.
A friend on mine's brother in New York was in ICU and asked for hydroxychloroquine about a day before Cuomo announced trials would begin the following week.
He showed a big improvement within hours. I'm sure the timing is everything.
Officials asked people to not wear masks not because they didn't think they might hinder transmission, but because they knew folks in the U.S. would hoard masks that health workers needed.
So after that problem was addressed, they then recommended masks.
What frustrates me is that not enough is said about what we should do BEFORE getting it. I've been talking to a nurse a lot and we've decided to take extra vitamin C and zinc daily and also discuss with your doctor about how to get oxygen delivered to you at home if needed.

 

[RamblinRed]

'A French study has found that hydroxychloroquine doesn't help coronavirus patients and was associated with heart complications.'
People have misquoted that article. It said that using the combination of zithromax and hydroxychloroquine on patients WITH heart conditions could prove fatal.
Their point was, it's not a treatment that can be used on just anybody.
A friend on mine's brother in New York was in ICU and asked for hydroxychloroquine about a day before Cuomo announced trials would begin the following week.
He showed a big improvement within hours. I'm sure the timing is everything.
Officials asked people to not wear masks not because they didn't think they might hinder transmission, but because they knew folks in the U.S. would hoard masks that health workers needed.
So after that problem was addressed, they then recommended masks.
What frustrates me is that not enough is said about what we should do BEFORE getting it. I've been talking to a nurse a lot and we've decided to take extra vitamin C and zinc daily and also discuss with your doctor about how to get oxygen delivered to you at home if needed.

Went and read the 20 page document tonight. Only 20% of the HCQ patients also got zithromax.
The study is pretty clear. They found no statistical difference in outcomes for those that took HCQ vs those that did not.
With or without the zithromax, it didn't make a difference and not all the cases of the heart complications were patients that were taking zithromax with HCQ.

A separate article I read tonight mentioned that a number of hospitals in the US have discontinued using HCQ because they are not seeing any positive results but are seeing negative side effects.

 

[Jazzchaz]

Went and read the 20 page document tonight. Only 20% of the HCQ patients also got zithromax.
The study is pretty clear. They found no statistical difference in outcomes for those that took HCQ vs those that did not.
With or without the zithromax, it didn't make a difference and not all the cases of the heart complications were patients that were taking zithromax with HCQ.

A separate article I read tonight mentioned that a number of hospitals in the US have discontinued using HCQ because they are not seeing any positive results but are seeing negative side effects.

Not enough studies to come to your conclusions sir. It helped my friend....which is one person saved .

 

[684Bee]

Not enough studies to come to your conclusions sir. It helped my friend....which is one person saved .

He’s been pretty negative and pessimistic on this thing for a while now.

 

[mstranahan]

I try to leave the science to the medical pros and I think Red has done a nice job of presenting information without any obvious slant. I don't know if there is a drug that will help or hurt COVID patients. I know there has been little to no evidence that it helps people based on published clinical trials and some trials have shown an unacceptable mortality rate (similar to the LD50 in other trials). There is anecdotal evidence that it has helped individual patients.

As far as Red's posts, I've been glad to see his posts about what's happening in sports and related areas. He has provided a lot of insight into the thought processes and complicating factors related to reopening schools, restarting sports leagues, etc. Without his posts, there wouldn't be many posts on here the last few weeks

 

[MWBATL]

@RamblinRed's posts have been measured and full of worthwhile links and information. Whether you disagree with him or not (and often I do disagree) he embodies what it means to discuss and debate respectfully, and I applaud him for that.

Now, let me go back to disagreeing with him....

 

[slugboy]

This is University related rather than AA specific, but if Harvard is having financial issues, I can't even imagine what it is going to be like for your typical state university.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2020/4/14/harvard-coronavirus-hiring-salary-freeze/

I’m guessing that Harvard doesn’t dip into the principal of the endowment, and uses the yearly growth and dividends, but that’s simplistic. Six months ago, the S&P 500 was at ~3000, and now it’s back up between 2700-2800. It seems like their endowment would be pinched somewhat (and the article says it shrank), but maybe the bigger story is that they still have to maintain the facilities, plus they have to support more eLearning and other increased expenses, plus corporate grants and research dollars aren’t coming in.
The article mentions new expenses rising and other financial channels shrinking, but doesn’t say much about either.
I’ve seen corporations lock down and postpone expenses that can be postponed, and that might be hitting Harvard harder than not getting dorm fees and student dining.
For athletic departments, I’m not sure how much big donors are affected, but I’m sure recent graduates are watching their pennies and dimes more than ever, and the middle donors are watching their jobs and companies to make sure they can make it through. I was glad to see Stansbury say we were still on track for AI 2020, but you’d think that donations are getting pinched a lot, in addition to ticket sales.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[RamblinRed]

Not enough studies to come to your conclusions sir. It helped my friend....which is one person saved .

I'm really happy that your friend was saved, that's great news.
It may or may not have been due to HCQ. This is why we have to test every drug and not assume based on anecdotal evidence. It can be due to a placebo effect. It could be a patient would have improved even if they had not been given it. It could be that HCQ did help in his case. That is why you have to have controlled clinical studies though, to figure that out.

Here's what i know from an analytical standpoint right now. One study shows it has no positive effect compared to a control group (and you could argue the control group was actually a sicker group as it had a higher avg age, higher avg BMI and more comorbidity factors). 2 other studies have been stopped due to side effects.
There are other studies still ongoing (as there should be because one study showing no positive effects is not enough to say it doesn't work).
Some US hospitals have stopped using it because they haven't seen any positive effects from using it (that is not a proof of anything though, just a statement).

I have been pessimistic towards it because its high level of attention came not through good studies and good practices but due to an initial study in France that has been discredited and an initial paper in the US that was a fake written by 2 non-medical people.
I'm an analyst for a living. I believe very strongly in using data to drive decisions. The reason i'm pessimistic is that in the case of HCQ, we don't have any controlled data yet that shows it works any better than a placebo. Not a single non-discredited study has shown it works while we do have some early data results that it does not work and does have serious side effects.

The survey of doctors talking about HCQ ( they were asked about other therapies as well) has some issues as well. First, only 20% of the doctors that had responded had actually treated a COVID19 patient. So most of them were just relaying what they had heard, not what they had actually done. Second, as many doctors responded that it was ineffective as effective (and in the US the ineffective had a higher response rate). One of the other drugs asked about had an effective percentage 1% less than HCQ (and among US doctors actually had a higher effective %) - though like HCQ, that drug had an ineffective % as high as an effective %.

If we start getting studies that shows HCQ works and the side effects can be managed, then i'd be all for using it. But right now there simply isn't any data to say that is going to be a case and if I had to bet whether a large scale future therapy for COVID19 is based on HCQ or some other drug, right now i'd bet on some other drug.

More than anything I just hope we can find something that works in reducing the symptoms and the mortality rate because this thing is a sh*t of a disease. The ICU nurse that lives in my cul-de-sac (who needed 17 days to fight this thing when she got it) says the doctors and nurses are really scared by what they see with this disease. It's nasty and what it does to the body is not pleasant and they don't have many weapons to fight it yet, things like the ventilators and the oxygen don't help you fight it, they just keep your body going longer while it fights it to give it more time to heal itself.