If there's an effective vaccine, that changes everything. In that case, if you elect not to take the vaccine you're on your own.If this season is cancelled then next year will also be cancelled because nothing will really change. Vaccines aren’t fool proof and a lot of the population won’t get the vaccine even when availabl. Think about the flu. We have the vaccine yet every year millions get the flu and thousands die. it will be the same with Covid. This precedent being set is scary. Nothing will be different in a year.
So we’re canceling college football because of how deadly a virus is to the elderly. Seems about right for life these days. We can’t have nice things.
neck gators actually made things worse.
If there's an effective vaccine, that changes everything. In that case, if you elect not to take the vaccine you're on your own.
I think the great vast majority of those who die during flu season either didn't take the vaccine or were infected by one of the many strains of flu not covered by the vaccine.
I know you probably didn't mean to sound this harsh, but that's a very callous post. It's not just about the elderly, it's about the unknown future problems with myocarditis that even asymptomatic patients have had and how that affects the SAs future. It's about whether or not we can even afford to have fans come to the games. There are a lot of decisions to be made, and none of them are easy.
This discussion is hard to have because everyone here wants to return to normal and everyone here wants GT football this fall. We all want whats best, we just don't all agree on the correct methodology to achieve it.
I haven't reached the point where I can just write off additional deaths as long as they are 65+ just so I can watch football. I honestly don't think you have either.
No that’s exactly my point - if we feel that strongly about health risks, we should be canceling college and getting the kids off campus. The only way this can be a legitimate concern is if highly fit people seem at much more risk than sedentary regular people. I am pretty sure the data shows the opposite.
No that’s exactly my point - if we feel that strongly about health risks, we should be canceling college and getting the kids off campus. The only way this can be a legitimate concern is if highly fit people seem at much more risk than sedentary regular people. I am pretty sure the data shows the opposite.
The NCAA doesn't have the power to do that.
In any case, many universities have started altering how they are doing things with some going to online only or majority online.
Highly fit people will almost always be less at risk of any disease than sedentary regular people. You've basically just set a bar that can never be crossed by any disease out there.
No that’s exactly my point - if we feel that strongly about health risks, we should be canceling on-premises college and getting the kids off campus. The only way this can be a legitimate concern is if (a) highly fit people seem at much more risk than sedentary regular people and (b) the action of playing football is worse than hanging around dorms, going to parties, going to restaurants, class, etc. I am pretty sure the data shows the opposite.
The reason I made the comment about older people, the vast majority of those with severe health complications, is to show the extreme absurdity and disconnect. They only it makes sense is if people are thinking (a) and (b) above.
That’s my point (well the point that university presidents and others are basically advocating.) . These people are unserious.
Dr. Cameron Wolfe, a Duke infectious disease specialist, told Sports Business Daily that doctors have learned enough over the past six months to manage the risk.
"We believe we can mitigate it down to a level that makes everyone safe," Wolfe told The Daily. "Can we safely have two teams meet on the field? I would say yes. Will it be tough? Yes. Will it be expensive and hard and lots of work? For sure. But I do believe you can sufficiently mitigate the risk of bringing COVID onto the football field or into the training room at a level that's no different than living as a student on campus."
But Wolfe has also told commissioner John Swofford and league athletic directors that there is no way to cut the risk to zero and that they have to be comfortable with some level of risk tolerance.
"You can't tell me that running onto a football field is supposed to be a zero-risk environment," Wolfe continued. "Look at all of the regular sporting injuries that we accept as a certain level of risk as part and parcel of football. Now the reality is that we have to accept a little bit of COVID risk to be a part of that."
Or maybe (b) is playing football is worse than social distancing. I haven't seen any college that is encouraging people to have parties. My daughter is starting college this fall. She has one out of five classes that is going to meet in person. The others are online only. The one that is meeting in person has the class split into two sections. Half go to physical class on Tuesday and online class on Thursday. The other half rotates with them.
I think this whole discussion of players being safer playing football sounds incredibly elitist. What could these stupid kids do without papa head coach watching out for them. If they aren't under the strict control of papa Saban and making money for him, then they are going to get sick and die. If they aren't playing football games, they would probably still be on campus in the same environment for workouts. They would probably still be undergoing the same type of symptom checking and testing as they are currently. Even if they do go home, then they would be in the same exact situation as me and my kids. Oh, the horror that a college football player actually has the same risk of infection as us on this forum. Oh, that is so extremely dangerous.
Like most diseases it affects the elderly and those with underlying conditions at a higher rate. That is absolutely true. But that doesn't mean it does not affect younger people.
According to CDC statistics 3.7% of all 20-29 yr olds end up being hospitalzed (17.9% among those with underlying conditions and 2.7% without conditions) i'd consider anyone who ended up in the hospital as a seriuous case - and frankly there are likely serious cases where they are never hospitalized. Even if you assume infections are 10X confirmed cases that would mean 1 in every 370 healthy 20-29 yr olds ends up in the hospital (and almost 1 in every 50 with underlying conditions). For 10-19 yr olds it is 2.5% overall being hospitalized, 2.3% without conditions.
Also, the big issue for the Presidents right now seems to be the potential for serious long term consequences that you don't tend to have with the flu and other infectious diseases. This is something of a timing issue imo. I expect Presidents would like to have more time and see more studies and research before having to make a decision. If they are forced to decide now they are likely to make a more conservative decision and err on the side of caution. Just how common are serious side effects - that is something i'm sure they would like to know and something there isn't enough research on yet, mainly due to the virus exitsting for less than a year. If the 2 German studies that just published in JAMA the last 2 weeks that show up to 70% of COVID patients having ongoing myocardial inflammation, many of whom had mild or asymptomatic cases, are further supported by other research that would be troubling. I don't think it is that surprising that with the rising rates in June and July that many universities have chosen to change plans and have fewer students on campus (or in some cases be basically online).
One other note from the CDC statistics. Those statistics show younger kids getting more ill from COVID than older kids. Hospitalization rates among under 10 was 4.1% vs the 2.5% of 10-19 yr olds. They also had higher rates of ICU usage. There were alot more cases in the 10-19 range than the 0-9 range. That begs an important question. Is the fewer cases in the younger kids due primarily to them being less suscpetible to the virus than older kids, or is it due to them being more protected by their parents and having fewer interactions where they could contract it? The answer to that question is quite important over the long run with us trying to get our schools up and running again.