All Things COVID-19 College Football Impact

Donate To GopherHole
skiumah1 said:
I was thinking the same, or at least report that. What is the answer if your whole O-Line gets infected during the season? 2 weeks without your starting offensive line? They gotta find a way to maintain a level playing field.

I can't imagine they'd all purposefully infect themselves though. Seems out there. Though it does seem that's for the best interest of the team.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be surprised if that's what happened, right here with this Clemson thing.

How do 23 players all suddenly get it, when workouts right now are voluntary and individual, I think?


Think about it -- what's the only way you can guarantee that you won't get infected and let your team down during the season? Getting yourself infected now.

Like I said, I think this is a terrible idea, that's likely to get someone killed.
 

MplsGopher said:
I wouldn't be surprised if that's what happened, right here with this Clemson thing.

How do 23 players all suddenly get it, when workouts right now are voluntary and individual, I think?


Think about it -- what's the only way you can guarantee that you won't get infected and let your team down during the season? Getting yourself infected now.

Like I said, I think this is a terrible idea, that's likely to get someone killed.
Click to expand...
I just don't know what the right answer is to handling the situation. Either play through virus, quarantine kids that have it and mess with having a level playing field, or don't have college football.

Am I missing the best option or how to handle this the best while having a real college football season?
 

skiumah1 said:
I just don't know what the right answer is to handling the situation. Either play through virus, quarantine kids that have it and mess with having a level playing field, or don't have college football.

Am I missing the best option or how to handle this the best while having a real college football season?
Click to expand...
We're talking about two different things. I'm purely speculating about pre-season infections, as a method for preventing in-season infections.

There is simply zero chance that rules will "allow" players with active infections to participate in games. There is no possible other way to do it, that is medically ethical.
 

MplsGopher said:
We're talking about two different things. I'm purely speculating about pre-season infections, as a method for preventing in-season infections.

There is simply zero chance that rules will "allow" players with active infections to participate in games. There is no possible other way to do it, that is medically ethical.
Click to expand...
Right I agree so if we do look at in-season (assuming everybody does not infect themselves pre-season) I assume we are going to have some important players missing various weeks? Guys are bound to get infected during the season if tests are legitimately taken and those reporting the tests actually report true data.
 

skiumah1 said:
Right I agree so if we do look at in-season (assuming everybody does not infect themselves pre-season) I assume we are going to have some important players missing various weeks? Guys are bound to get infected during the season if tests are legitimately taken and those reporting the tests actually report true data.
Click to expand...
I would say it's likely that more than zero players on P5 rosters will get infected, at some point during the season. It has yet to be seen if a starter or significant player will miss a game. At least, any more than teams miss guys due to normal injuries.

Would be interesting after the season to do a study, looking at the % of guys that start in say the first 3-4 weeks of the season, who then miss significant time later on in the season, and see what the increase is this year vs years past.
 


MplsGopher said:
I would say it's likely that more than zero players on P5 rosters will get infected, at some point during the season. It has yet to be seen if a starter or significant player will miss a game. At least, any more than teams miss guys due to normal injuries.

Would be interesting after the season to do a study, looking at the % of guys that start in say the first 3-4 weeks of the season, who then miss significant time later on in the season, and see what the increase is this year vs years past.
Click to expand...
Ok I see I realized the big point that I'm missing is that guys aren't supposed to take the field or be around teammates without being tested anyway so in an ideal world nobody will get infected because nobody was actively infected to start. And then constant daily monitoring and testing. And I assume that testing takes place once that 6 week plan goes into effect. I think I read that was part of the deal. So we should see more infections reported during the preseason when the testing revs up and then kids isolate during that preseason time.
And this is all assuming the tests are 100% accurate.

But yes I agree it seems more likely than not that a kid will get infected and see the field at some point whether he slips through the cracks or whatever.
 
Last edited:


The whole world is taken down by an unseen enemy that is nanometers in size that multiplies exponentially inside an infected host.

It doesn't take much to transmit the virus. Is this God's way of culling humankind?

It will be difficult to control with 100% certainty the spread of the virus. It is super ubiquitous. Even the best cleaning regime may miss a handful or small cluster colonies.

To make matters worst, how do you control the movement of people? If they are confined and isolated, what if one or two players sneak out away from their isolated facilities?
 





As I was saying a couple weeks ago, these athletes generally don’t practice social distancing, and that includes Gopher players.
 

PitinoFan said:
Good article.

www.si.com

Opinion Roundtable: Discussing The Likelihood Of Football Happening

The COVID-19 pandemic has everyone wondering how football is going to look this fall.
www.si.com www.si.com
Click to expand...
Is a good article except one line. "Of course everyone will play through it as that what football players do."

This reminds me of all the players who want to play despite injured to make things worse for the rest of the lives. Some players want to play through concussions. I'm not a huge fan of that.
 

To me there is a host of legal liability issues that institutions encounter because of this virus. Even with waivers someone is going to contract the virus during organized activities (whether it be church or political rallies or band or football practice) and take it home to grandma who gets sick and dies. That's a worst case but not an unlikely scenario. Let The lawsuits begin. The further we go with this virus The more unlikely it seems that we will have football or school or church or (pick one) this fall.
 



Again, I hate to say it like this ... but it's true: those players above will survive (almost surely) and then they will be immune for the rest of the season. I just won't be surprised if some of their teammates asked them to infect them on purpose, to gain the same benefit.

As for the season, I agree that it is 99.99999% likely to start on time. Will be interesting to see what happens if there are outbreaks.

I could see some school having to "shut down" teams for periods of time, and forfeit games during that period, because of outbreaks.
 

And again - the real question is who is making the decisions on whether to play and whether to let fans in the stands.

Those decisions are not being made by fans, or posters on internet message boards.

Those decisions will be made by college Presidents, Regents and AD's.

If I say "let them play" and a number of people test positive, it's no skin off my butt.

But if the College Prexy or AD says "let them play," and a number of people test positive, it's their butt - and potentially their high-paying job - on the line.

So, be logical. Are the decision makers more likely to be cautious, or take a chance?

In the end, as long as case numbers are staying relatively high, the decision makers will go into "Cover Your A**" mode and make the decision that is easiest for them to defend. Which is usually the most cautious decision.
 

How much risk is there associated with any type of organized physical activities? More importantly, how can it be controlled or minimized?

One would think that an understanding of the risk factors go a long way to finding ways to mitigate the risks.

Here is an interesting video that I ran into quite by accident. Tulane University Epidemologist Dr. Susan Hassig has risk ranked everyday activities.

She laid out the risk determinants into three categories - The 3 Ds:
Diversity
Distance
Duration
(Add airflow or ventilation from the second article below)

What she is saying makes sense. You probably have heard of a group of sixteen young people going to bar in Florida to celebrate their being cooped in by the stay in play order. All of them contracted CoVid-19.

On another case, a very popular choir group in Washington State decided to hold choir practice in the early period of the CoVid-19 foothold. Several contracted the virus. Several died from it.

Although I think the young football team work in a new controlled environment, I think it will eventually be vulnerable to CoVid-19. Controlling the spread and the environment will be very challenging for all those involved. I hope someone comes up with some ingenious preventative techniques to control the virus. What do you do with vulnerable players like Casey O'Brien?

I wish the Gophers luck and safety.

Risk Ranking Of Everyday Activities For COVID-19, According To An Infectious-Disease Expert
Article By Dr. Susan Hassig in Business Insider, May 28, 2020



What about outdoors versus indoors? Can a runner give you Covid-19? Here is a take by Samuel Sigal of Vox Magazine:

How coronavirus spreads outdoors vs. indoors
By Sigal Samuel - Vox, May 28, 2020
 
Last edited:

Get rid of the security theater at the gates. It doesn't really do anything, and it slows down people getting through the lines. The less time people a standing in line, the better. In the seats, you're near a relatively small number of people, but in the lines, you pass by a lot. Also open the doors earlier. Maybe half an hour earlier. It will let more people enter without going through the crush of people.
 

MplsGopher said:
Again, I hate to say it like this ... but it's true: those players above will survive (almost surely) and then they will be immune for the rest of the season. I just won't be surprised if some of their teammates asked them to infect them on purpose, to gain the same benefit.

As for the season, I agree that it is 99.99999% likely to start on time. Will be interesting to see what happens if there are outbreaks.

I could see some school having to "shut down" teams for periods of time, and forfeit games during that period, because of outbreaks.
Click to expand...

This is not known, nor should it be assumed.
 

The prez sez said:
To me there is a host of legal liability issues that institutions encounter because of this virus. Even with waivers someone is going to contract the virus during organized activities (whether it be church or political rallies or band or football practice) and take it home to grandma who gets sick and dies. That's a worst case but not an unlikely scenario. Let The lawsuits begin. The further we go with this virus The more unlikely it seems that we will have football or school or church or (pick one) this fall.
Click to expand...

We don't know if there are potential long-term neurological effects of this yet, such as happened with the 1918 pandemic. For example, people whose "only" symptom was loss of smell might suffer other effects later. I can see the NFL making the players sign a waiver and moving ahead. Colleges are likely to be far more risk averse.
 

Casa de Autos said:
This is not known, nor should it be assumed.
Click to expand...
It’s known. No credible scientist doubts that recovered have immunity for at least a few months. There haven’t been legitimate cases of reinfection. Earlier reported cases were attributed to false positives of inaccurate tests.
 

howeda7 said:
We don't know if there are potential long-term neurological effects of this yet, such as happened with the 1918 pandemic. For example, people whose "only" symptom was loss of smell might suffer other effects later. I can see the NFL making the players sign a waiver and moving ahead. Colleges are likely to be far more risk averse.
Click to expand...

The damage to children, and those with fragile emotional situations is already devastating from the lockdown impact. This pandemic is on the mild side, it has been hyped up for reasons both ugly and stupid.
 

GoldenRodents said:
The damage to children, and those with fragile emotional situations is already devastating from the lockdown impact. This pandemic is on the mild side, it has been hyped up for reasons both ugly and stupid.
Click to expand...
I'm only saying that the idea of players being allowed to play while they have an active infection is not going to happen. Nor is intentionally spreading it to get immunity (though the players may do that on their own.) This is more about the universities avoiding risk than the disease itself.
 

RodentRampage said:
Also open the doors earlier. Maybe half an hour earlier. It will let more people enter without going through the crush of people.
Click to expand...
I agree about the security theater, but I’m not sure how much of an effect opening early would have. How many people are banging down the doors to get into the stadium as soon as they open? My experience has been that the security lines get congested relatively close to kickoff time. Opening earlier would just see the gate agents sitting around waiting an extra half hour for the real rush.
 

howeda7 said:
I'm only saying that the idea of players being allowed to play while they have an active infection is not going to happen. Nor is intentionally spreading it to get immunity (though the players may do that on their own.) This is more about the universities avoiding risk than the disease itself.
Click to expand...

Yeah, risk aversion is a prominent trait of feminized American culture.
 


MplsGopher said:
It’s known. No credible scientist doubts that recovered have immunity for at least a few months. There haven’t been legitimate cases of reinfection. Earlier reported cases were attributed to false positives of inaccurate tests.
Click to expand...

How many months are a few? Moreover, does immunity persist for all patients (symptomatic as well as asymptomatic) for a few months? Does immunity persist on average for a few months, or does it persist in >99.5% of patients for a few months? I'm genuinely curious, but remember absence of evidence is not equivalent to evidence of absence. There a plenty of "credible scientists" that make this logical mistake.
 

GoldenRodents said:
Yeah, risk aversion is a prominent trait of feminized American culture.
Click to expand...

Risk on the individual level is very different than risk on the systems level.

Would you say the Dutch are feminized for determining the proper height of dikes based on a height that will likely prevent a massive catastrophe?
 

Casa de Autos said:
How many months are a few? Moreover, does immunity persist for all patients (symptomatic as well as asymptomatic) for a few months? Does immunity persist on average for a few months, or does it persist in >99.5% of patients for a few months? I'm genuinely curious, but remember absence of evidence is not equivalent to evidence of absence. There a plenty of "credible scientists" that make this logical mistake.
Click to expand...
Asking a bunch of questions costs you nothing. Providing exact, scientific answers will cost years of research and who knows how many millions in government grants and other funding.

No one has been reinfected yet. That’s close enough for football this fall.
 

Casa de Autos said:
How many months are a few? Moreover, does immunity persist for all patients (symptomatic as well as asymptomatic) for a few months? Does immunity persist on average for a few months, or does it persist in >99.5% of patients for a few months? I'm genuinely curious, but remember absence of evidence is not equivalent to evidence of absence. There a plenty of "credible scientists" that make this logical mistake.
Click to expand...

Great, so you’re suggesting Agartha may exist in the earth’s core. Agree, it’s possible. However, it’s unlikely. As unlikely as COVID-19 infection not stimulating memory T and B cells.

It’s incorrect in my mind to give equal weight to a theory that contradicts the body of current scientific knowledge. Immunity may wane over a period of 6-12 months or several years time but studies suggest reinfection with the other coronaviruses even after immunity wanes produces fewer symptoms. A deranged immune response may in fact occurs but that demands evidence that doesn’t exist at this time. The tens of thousands of people involved in vaccine research and development and the millions of physicians and nurses around the world certainly hope it’s possible to stimulate an immune response.
 

At the end of the day, any player who wishes to sit it out is free to do so. These are adults. Is anyone aware of a single instance of a college football player refusing to play because of Covid? If they don’t get infected on the football field, it will probably happen elsewhere......

 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom