The ACC will delay the start of competition for all fall sports until at least Sept. 1

g0lftime

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,427
A recent study of protective mask by Duke University found N95 masks were the best. The neck gators actually made things worse. Those caused larger droplets to become smaller and stayed airborne longer. Article was in the Durham paper.
 

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,070
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.
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.
 

Augusta_Jacket

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
7,902
Location
Augusta, Georgia
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.

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.
 

Augusta_Jacket

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
7,902
Location
Augusta, Georgia
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 read somewhere recently that most flu deaths are not strictly from the flu alone, but rather from patients with underlying conditions who contract the flu. I would hope that with a vaccine we could achieve the same status with COVID-19.
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
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 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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

lv20gt

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,568
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.
 

Augusta_Jacket

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
7,902
Location
Augusta, Georgia
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.

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.
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
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.

Right, and look at what they (university presidents etc) are saying - they want to see how things go at school for awhile first. Total and complete disconnect. If they honestly have true health concerns, they are willing to let their students be permanently disabled and dead guinea pigs. These people are unserious, or at best have no idea how this stuff works.
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
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.

That’s my point (well the point that university presidents and others are basically advocating.) . These people are unserious.
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,545
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.

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.
 

Augusta_Jacket

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
7,902
Location
Augusta, Georgia
That’s my point (well the point that university presidents and others are basically advocating.) . These people are unserious.

Most of America is "unserious" in regards to this. 6 weeks of a mild lockdown almost caused mass hysteria in the US. We aren't good at dealing with things like this. It's not in our cultural DNA. There are no easy answers in navigating this. I desperately want college football this fall, but the best answer right now is probably to punt on 2020 and hope for better times in 2021.
 

CuseJacket

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
18,965

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."
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
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.

That’s exactly right (what they would be doing), and why the argument is so unserious. If they were serious, they wouldn’t have kids in dorms, on campus apartments, and so on.
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
Uh oh.

I’m assuming Trevor is assuming they’d be sent home because if getting the disease is truly that serious, all on-campus life should be ended.

 

RamblinRed

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
5,740
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.
 

BleedGoldNWhite21

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,298
I’m telling you guys, the season most likely will be canceled not for health risks, but because they don’t want to pay players. Every lawyer has said that this season will set a precedent that these athletes aren’t “regular students”. A lot of schools are thinking that canceling one season is worth keeping the status quo in the long run.
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
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.

If 3.7% of confirmed cases end up in the hospital in that age group, and there are 10x as many actual cases out there, then the hospitalization rate is 3.7% / 10 = 0.0037. In other words 0.9963 of the people that age who get the virus do not end up in the hospital. And as you pointed out, for highly fit athletes the numbers are even better than that.
 
Top