Big Ten Expects To Have All 14 Schools Ready For College Football This Fall

Donate To GopherHole
GoldenRodents said:
Young players without risk factors are at almost zero risk of serious illness from COVID-19. If they do contract the illness, they will emerge with immunity a week or so later. This virus simply bounces off the young and healthy.
Click to expand...
But then players give it to coaches and supporting staff which are certainly not as young and probably not as healthy as them. Some more thought than "Let the player play, they won't be sick long or die" needs to be put into it...a healthy team is nothing if half the coaches are bed ridden during practices and games.
 

swelna said:
False negative doesn't quite catch what I meant though. There is a certain threshold at which the test can detect the virus, as you have pointed out. What we don't know is if that threshold is lower than the point of viral load needed to be contagious. If it is, then yes, no problem, but if it isn't, that means someone could test negative and still be contagious. This can be categorized as a false negative yes, but my point is a bit more nuanced.
Click to expand...
My point was, it's being amplified in the test. Whatever is there. It can even detect virus genetic material with no infection just dead/inactive bits of virus left over. If there is any live/active virus at all, it's going to get it. And I'm guessing you can turn the amplification up even higher to lean even more on the side of false positives.

Also think about what it would mean: all players test negative the morning before the game. Then a player tests positive after the game. Somehow, the virus would have to infect the player, take root, and have started replicating fast enough to then be shedding in the players breath. I don't think that can happen in half a day. Could be wrong though.
 

MplsGopher said:
My point was, it's being amplified in the test. Whatever is there. It can even detect virus genetic material with no infection just dead/inactive bits of virus left over. If there is any live/active virus at all, it's going to get it. And I'm guessing you can turn the amplification up even higher to lean even more on the side of false positives.

Also think about what it would mean: all players test negative the morning before the game. Then a player tests positive after the game. Somehow, the virus would have to infect the player, take root, and have started replicating fast enough to then be shedding in the players breath. I don't think that can happen in half a day. Could be wrong though.
Click to expand...
To be clear, it sounds like you’re claiming that false negative test results do not exist. Is that a valid takeaway from your post?
 

swelna said:
But then players give it to coaches and supporting staff which are certainly not as young and probably not as healthy as them. Some more thought than "Let the player play, they won't be sick long or die" needs to be put into it...a healthy team is nothing if half the coaches are bed ridden during practices and games.
Click to expand...

Hey @swelna, look at the numbers for healthy 60 year olds.

The Minnesota website had these numbers a week ago, but they are too embarrassing for the lockdown advocates to publicize.

If you subtract nursing home deaths, COVID-19 is less lethal than the seasonal flu. A healthy 60 year old has almost zero chance of serious illness from COVID-19, like driving to work each day, it is a chance he would likely take. Plus, my sources at North Memorial tell me that they are getting better saving afflicted COVID-19 patients. In the early days of the epidemic, New York hospitals were killing patients with ventilators.

If you quarantine the vulnerable, this is a minor disease, certainly not worth killing our economy.

 

MinneStoa said:
To be clear, it sounds like you’re claiming that false negative test results do not exist. Is that a valid takeaway from your post?
Click to expand...
Can never be exactly 0.0%. But if the chance is lower than the chance of the plane carrying the team to the game going down ... life is never without risk.
 


MplsGopher said:
Can never be exactly 0.0%. But if the chance is lower than the chance of the plane carrying the team to the game going down ... life is never without risk.
Click to expand...
The chance that a test will return a false negative is less than the chance that a given plane will crash? Really?

Remind me to never fly again since there are so many reports of coronavirus tests with false negative rates >15%.
 

MinneStoa said:
The chance that a test will return a false negative is less than the chance that a given plane will crash? Really?

Remind me to never fly again since there are so many reports of coronavirus tests with false negative rates >15%.
Click to expand...
Not all tests are made equal. I didn't say they should go to amazon and order tests from JimBobTestCo.
 

Pitched an idea of a "gameday covid pack" to the A.D. and got a respectful response. Based on it and some other follow-up, I'm confident they're working the issues reasonably and will make the right call.

Whether it will work for me and Mrs. Billd...well, only time will tell.

The best that can be done is to mitigate risk as much as possible, with the fans and athletic institutions working as partners to do it.
 

GoldenRodents said:
Hey @swelna, look at the numbers for healthy 60 year olds.

The Minnesota website had these numbers a week ago, but they are too embarrassing for the lockdown advocates to publicize.

If you subtract nursing home deaths, COVID-19 is less lethal than the seasonal flu. A healthy 60 year old has almost zero chance of serious illness from COVID-19, like driving to work each day, it is a chance he would likely take. Plus, my sources at North Memorial tell me that they are getting better saving afflicted COVID-19 patients. In the early days of the epidemic, New York hospitals were killing patients with ventilators.

If you quarantine the vulnerable, this is a minor disease, certainly not worth killing our economy.

Click to expand...
I fail to see how that addresses my point of coaches being sick? I'm not saying the coaches die or anything, but there are numerous accounts of those around the ages of many coaches being bed ridden for 1-2 weeks due to being sick and then recover. It only takes a small outbreak on the team to cause half the coaches to not be able to work for 1-2 weeks, much less coach during the game. On the team there are numerous backups that can fill spots to keep playing/practicing, but losing a few position coaches for a week or two would be tough.

I think something that a lot of people touting the "this is less deadly than the flu for most people" miss is the fact that it can still mean a week or two of being bed ridden. This fact affects the team in different ways depending on who gets sick. Explain to me what happens if half the Offensive coaches test positive due to a small outbreak on the team. None of them have to die, but they will all be quarantined until they get over the infection.

These are the logistical things that I see getting brushed off by the "let the kids play" crowd. Just because people don't die doesn't mean a team couldn't be crippled by an outbreak.

MplsGopher said:
My point was, it's being amplified in the test. Whatever is there. It can even detect virus genetic material with no infection just dead/inactive bits of virus left over. If there is any live/active virus at all, it's going to get it. And I'm guessing you can turn the amplification up even higher to lean even more on the side of false positives.

Also think about what it would mean: all players test negative the morning before the game. Then a player tests positive after the game. Somehow, the virus would have to infect the player, take root, and have started replicating fast enough to then be shedding in the players breath. I don't think that can happen in half a day. Could be wrong though.
Click to expand...
I guess what I'm saying is I haven't seen specific evidence that by the time you are contagious you would absolutely show up as positive. That could be the case and I understand your reasoning behind your belief, I just haven't seen anything concrete.
 



MplsGopher said:
Not all tests are made equal. I didn't say they should go to amazon and order tests from JimBobTestCo.
Click to expand...
These are false negative rates for leading tests, not random “bad eggs”. Things like the Abbott ID NOW, user widely across the country.

Edited: positive->negative
 
Last edited:

I hope it happens. And I really, really hope students can go back to campus and live in the dorms.
 

MinneStoa said:
These are false positive rates for leading tests, not random “bad eggs”. Things like the Abbott ID NOW, user widely across the country.
Click to expand...
You said false negative rates >15%.

A false positive is fine. That just means a play would be held out, even though he didn't have it.
 

FredCoxRocks said:
I hope it happens. And I really, really hope students can go back to campus and live in the dorms.
Click to expand...
I think its likely that if dorm living is allowed, it'll be at reduced capacity. An outbreak could spread through the dorm like wild fire and, again no one has to die, but a significant portion of the student body could be bed ridden for anywhere from a few days to a few weeks. If I was still a student, that doesn't sound appealing to me.
 



MplsGopher said:
You said false negative rates >15%.

A false positive is fine. That just means a play would be held out, even though he didn't have it.
Click to expand...
My mistake in the last post. The Abbott test has shown false negative rates >15% in recent trials. I will edit my previous post.

So again, these are leading tests, used nationwide by top-quality institutions, that cannot reliably and precisely detect the presence of the coronavirus in legitimately-infected people. Your posts in this thread for some reason make it seem like false negatives are effectively impossible, which is patently false.
 

MinneStoa said:
My mistake in the last post. The Abbott test has shown false negative rates >15% in recent trials. I will edit my previous post.

So again, these are leading tests, used nationwide by top-quality institutions, that cannot reliably and precisely detect the presence of the coronavirus in legitimately-infected people. Your posts in this thread for some reason make it seem like false negatives are effectively impossible, which is patently false.
Click to expand...
The Abbott test is a quick test. Those aren't the best method. And that's not a "leading test" by any means.

And I would say, regardless of method, 15% false negative should not be allowed to sell that test period.
 

MplsGopher said:
The Abbott test is a quick test. Those aren't the best method. And that's not a "leading test" by any means.

And I would say, regardless of method, 15% false negative should not be allowed to sell that test period.
Click to expand...
First, I’m not going to get into semantics about how you define “leading”, but it absolutely is. And I think even you would agree that it is certainly much closer to “leading” than it is to “JimBobTestCo”

Second, the Abbott test is not the only test with high false negative rate. This is a well-documented problem that has health professionals worried. Folks from the Mayo Clinic have some good write-ups on the impact from even a relatively small number of false negative results if you’re willing to do some outside reading.

Third, I’m glad you at least now recognize that false negatives exist. Here’s hoping for more slow and steady progress.
 

MinneStoa said:
First, I’m not going to get into semantics about how you define “leading”, but it absolutely is. And I think even you would agree that it is certainly much closer to “leading” than it is to “JimBobTestCo”

Second, the Abbott test is not the only test with high false negative rate. This is a well-documented problem that has health professionals worried. Folks from the Mayo Clinic have some good write-ups on the impact from even a relatively small number of false negative results if you’re willing to do some outside reading.

Third, I’m glad you at least now recognize that false negatives exist. Here’s hoping for more slow and steady progress.
Click to expand...
I'm quite certain the Abbott test has been called out for being a poor test. Leading in marketing doesn't mean leading in quality.

Not sure why you want to hang your hat on that one in particular.
 

MinneStoa said:
Does Casey O’Brien have pre-existing conditions? How would you recommend the Gophers handle an infection on the team?
Click to expand...
Sadly, he should self quarantine. Hopefully the NCAA would give him another year of eligibility.
 

swelna said:
My issue is the fact that this data includes the lock downs which definitely slows the virus. No one knows what the death toll would be like now if everyone had just gone about their business since march. One of the hallmarks of successfully flattening the curve is people saying "what was the big deal". I'm not for keeping shut down at this level until we get a vaccine, but all of these numbers need an asterix and we need to methodically open back up and monitor hospital capacity.
Click to expand...
And how much worse would crime be if we didn’t have the Batman policing the streets at night?
 

MinneStoa said:
These are false negative rates for leading tests, not random “bad eggs”. Things like the Abbott ID NOW, user widely across the country.

Edited: positive->negative
Click to expand...

The Abbott test does seem to have a sensitivity problem (false negatives) according to a couple credible outside validation studies. Luckily there are other rapid diagnostic COVID tests on the market and very likely more coming with reasonable turnaround times < 1 hour to allow for a reasonable assurance of safety. There really isn’t any reason football couldn’t be played in relative safety.

The bigger issue from my standpoint is there are sure to be complaints on why football players are receiving testing while students attending Econ class or living in a dormitory are not - or take your pick of wringing of hands and whining scenario. I would not discount the probability - the schools should probably provide testing for all anyway, an expensive option but worthwhile in these extraordinary times. There is some fat in the budget.
 
Last edited:

Schools like the U can probably use their own proprietary testing technology that they've developed, and proven to be (reasonably) quick and accurate. As opposed to spending a bunch of money to purchase tests from Abbott.

If it was a Minnesota company, like Mayo perhaps, that would be one thing. But why send all that money out of state to Illinois (Abbott)?
 

MplsGopher said:
Schools like the U can probably use their own proprietary testing technology that they've developed, and proven to be (reasonably) quick and accurate. As opposed to spending a bunch of money to purchase tests from Abbott.

If it was a Minnesota company, like Mayo perhaps, that would be one thing. But why send all that money out of state to Illinois (Abbott)?
Click to expand...

Hopefully they don't use their proprietary modeling systems, which would likely show football expenditures of $356,000,000 and a record of 3-426 for the 2020 season.
 

swelna said:
But then players give it to coaches and supporting staff which are certainly not as young and probably not as healthy as them. Some more thought than "Let the player play, they won't be sick long or die" needs to be put into it...a healthy team is nothing if half the coaches are bed ridden during practices and games.
Click to expand...

How long will Coach Fleck stay here if we do not have a season while other Big Ten teams are allowed to play? Do you think he has the time or patience for taking such a big step backwards here? I don't. So, that is not going to happen. Nor is Iowa is going to have practices in June while the Gophers will not start practice until August.
 

Veritas said:
How long will Coach Fleck stay here if we do not have a season while other Big Ten teams are allowed to play? Do you think he has the time or patience for taking such a big step backwards here? I don't. So, that is not going to happen. Nor is Iowa is going to have practices in June while the Gophers will not start practice until August.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying don't have a season, I have not said those words this entire time, all I'm saying is no one has explained to me the extent of what happens if half the coaching staff is sick for 1-2 weeks due to covid...Mass testing helps prevent that, but it's still not impossible at that point.

Another, related scenario, what if half the team tests positive the day of the game, do you forfeit? Do you play with a severely hindered team? I'm fine with either, but I better not be seeing the people who wanted a season throw a fit if this happens to the gophers. I want the gophers to play, but I also want to know on what terms they are playing so I'm not disappointed if something happens like this.
 

GoldenRodents said:
Hey @swelna, look at the numbers for healthy 60 year olds.

The Minnesota website had these numbers a week ago, but they are too embarrassing for the lockdown advocates to publicize.

If you subtract nursing home deaths, COVID-19 is less lethal than the seasonal flu. A healthy 60 year old has almost zero chance of serious illness from COVID-19, like driving to work each day, it is a chance he would likely take. Plus, my sources at North Memorial tell me that they are getting better saving afflicted COVID-19 patients. In the early days of the epidemic, New York hospitals were killing patients with ventilators.

If you quarantine the vulnerable, this is a minor disease, certainly not worth killing our economy.

Click to expand...
That's certainly not true if you look at the numbers around the US and the world.
 

GophersInIowa said:
That's certainly not true if you look at the numbers around the US and the world.
Click to expand...
It turns out that if you subtract a significant portion of one data set, and then compare it to another data set that DOES include that population, the second one is going to have higher numbers. Who’da thunk it?
 

swelna said:
I think its likely that if dorm living is allowed, it'll be at reduced capacity. An outbreak could spread through the dorm like wild fire and, again no one has to die, but a significant portion of the student body could be bed ridden for anywhere from a few days to a few weeks. If I was still a student, that doesn't sound appealing to me.
Click to expand...
Some would be bedridden. Not sure what number it would take to be labeled significant...some people think one is enough and some would need to see dozens per dorm in order for it to be significant. I think the young will fare better, but the older profs and staff not so much.
 

FredCoxRocks said:
Some would be bedridden. Not sure what number it would take to be labeled significant...some people think one is enough and some would need to see dozens per dorm in order for it to be significant. I think the young will fare better, but the older profs and staff not so much.
Click to expand...
Yeah, another issue is quarantining students...dorms have shared bathrooms which defeats the purpose of quarantine...I imagine the U has some plan in the works if they want the dorms open in some capacity. Your right that what is labelled as significant is currently subjective, but given the statistics I remember off the top of my head, I'd say on the order of tens of students per dorm would probably be bedridden in an outbreak that hit most of the dorm.
 

swelna said:
I'm not saying don't have a season, I have not said those words this entire time, all I'm saying is no one has explained to me the extent of what happens if half the coaching staff is sick for 1-2 weeks due to covid...Mass testing helps prevent that, but it's still not impossible at that point.

Another, related scenario, what if half the team tests positive the day of the game, do you forfeit? Do you play with a severely hindered team? I'm fine with either, but I better not be seeing the people who wanted a season throw a fit if this happens to the gophers. I want the gophers to play, but I also want to know on what terms they are playing so I'm not disappointed if something happens like this.
Click to expand...

Well, that's easy. I can assure you we will play the games with the players that are available on the day of the game and they will be coached by the coaches available to coach on that day. Just the way it has always been. Personally, I think Fleck will be like all the coaches have always been, he will do everything he can to keep every player and coach available. Indeed, it would be totally unFleck to expect him not to go full out with whichever 30 guys are not sick that day. You know, "row the boat".
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom