University of Alabama COVID-19 outbreak not great news for college football season

Donate To GopherHole
Pompous Elitist said:
The players seem tuned in to the known risks, and the known unknowns. I’m not sure about unknown unknowns. They have the right to walk out and some have.

Do you have any back of the napkin calculations on why you think there is a significant chance of death? Obviously its above zero, because NCAA athletes die of various causes every year. Exercise itself can lead to sudden cardiac death, as you know. I’m genuinely curious. There have been a total of 280 deaths thus far in the 15-24 age group. What are your assumptions for team attack rate, fatality, severe myocarditis complications in this age group? What proportion of known and presumed infections have occurred in this age group (Using the 6-20x multiplier based on state testing rates).
Click to expand...
Your entire second paragraph goes out the window if a player dies due to complications of covid. Probabilities, aggregations, and expected values just don't compare to the emotional reaction of when the improbable actually does strike.

Hence why my post (that you quoted) and this response here are predicated on if a player dies. If it doesn't happen, which we all hope will be true, then it doesn't matter (for now).
 

Block M said:
They work for influenza so just a matter of time. I hope.
Click to expand...
That's great. Just a soon as they're formally, rigorously proven out, then I'm good with them in the clinical setting (and required to report the results, of course).

If a private individual wants to spend their personal money to buy a machine, then they can do that full price. No subsidy allowed, and certainly not purchased for them by the government. Hard no
 

PitinoFan said:
Stop with this bullshit. Do you actually know the total number of people who would have to die, for there to be 10s of thousands of dead college students? It’s virtually a mathematical improbability.
Click to expand...

It's science, man.

MplsGopher said:
Your entire second paragraph goes out the window if a player dies due to complications of covid. Probabilities, aggregations, and expected values just don't compare to the emotional reaction of when the improbable actually does strike.

Hence why my post (that you quoted) and this response here are predicated on if a player dies. If it doesn't happen, which we all hope will be true, then it doesn't matter (for now).
Click to expand...

Players die fairly frequently of various causes, every year. Do we shut down all precipitating causes (including exercise), no matter how rare?

Some of you haven’t accepted the virus is going to be around, and we need to learn to live with it. Shutting down society with all of the myriad disastrous outcomes stemming from that is not the answer for lower risk individuals.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Players die fairly frequently of various causes, every year. Do we shut down all precipitating causes (including exercise), no matter how rare?

Some of you haven’t accepted the virus is going to be around, and we need to learn to live with it. Shutting down society is not the answer for lower risk individuals.
Click to expand...
None of the other causes you mention are contagious. Just the same old non-sequitor, invalid response. Be better than that tripe.

No idea why you're rooting for the virus to be seasonal. That would be the worst case scenario, since it is far more deadly and dangerous than seasonal flu and cold, and likely with far worse long term effects.

Vaccines have potential to be an answer. So the prudent thing is to wait for them.
 

MplsGopher said:
None of the other causes you mention are contagious. Just the same old non-sequitor, invalid response. Be better than that tripe.

No idea why you're rooting for the virus to be seasonal. That would be the worst case scenario, since it is far more deadly and dangerous than seasonal flu and cold, and likely with far worse long term effects.

Vaccines have potential to be an answer. So the prudent thing is to wait for them.
Click to expand...

It’s not about contagiousness. It’s about absolute risk and relative risk of activity. Activities have inherent risks. Do you genuinely beleive there is high risk for these players (and most students)? The staff, particularly the older ones should be taking appropriate distancing, hygiene, n95+ precautions. Test frequently. Quarantine infected. Quarantine high risk exposed, or test them daily if feasible.
 


Pompous Elitist said:
It’s not about contagiousness. It’s about absolute risk and relative risk of activity. Activities have inherent risks. Do you genuinely beleive there is high risk for these players (and most students)? The staff, particularly the older ones should be taking appropriate distancing, hygiene, n95+ precautions. Test frequently. Quarantine infected. Quarantine high risk exposed, or test them daily if feasible.
Click to expand...
It's entirely about contagiousness. Absolute risk is a red herring.

When a player dies from a car accident, he doesn't accidentally infect and kill a staff.

You know this, and are trying as hard as you can to pretend it doesn't exist. I won't let you.
 

MplsGopher said:
It's entirely about contagiousness. Absolute risk is a red herring.

When a player dies from a car accident, he doesn't accidentally infect and kill a staff.

You know this, and are trying as hard as you can to pretend it doesn't exist. I won't let you.
Click to expand...

What are the odds of an infected player infecting staff if they are utilizing distancing, hygiene, masks indoors?

There have been hundreds of known athletes testing positive and tens of thousands of students - how many coaches and staff have had secondary transmission result?
 

Pompous Elitist said:
What are the odds of an infected player infecting staff if they are utilizing distancing, hygiene, masks indoors?

There have been hundreds of known athletes testing positive and tens of thousands of students - how many coaches and staff have had secondary transmission result?
Click to expand...
Not being able to precisely calculate odds doesn't prove they're zero. :rolleyes:

They're more than zero. We're about to find out this fall just how much more.
 

MplsGopher said:
Not being able to precisely calculate odds doesn't prove they're zero. :rolleyes:

They're more than zero. We're about to find out this fall just how much more.
Click to expand...

I’m glad we can agree they’re above zero.

Do you want to put any hard numbers on incidents of COVID-related deaths and long term disability in this age group vs say, vehicle and pedestrian accidents? All preventable, of course.
 



Pompous Elitist said:
I’m glad we can agree they’re above zero.

Do you want to put any hard numbers on incidents of COVID-related deaths and long term disability in this age group vs say, vehicle and pedestrian accidents? All preventable, of course.
Click to expand...
Not contagious = irrelevant to the discussion. Trying to distract and obfuscate. Bad faith tactics
 

Pompous Elitist said:
It's science, man.



Players die fairly frequently of various causes, every year. Do we shut down all precipitating causes (including exercise), no matter how rare?

Some of you haven’t accepted the virus is going to be around, and we need to learn to live with it. Shutting down society with all of the myriad disastrous outcomes stemming from that is not the answer for lower risk individuals.
Click to expand...

that is the crux of the matter. the complication is that different people will define "living with it" in different ways.

So your definition of "living with it" may include doing things that I do not want to do. If I say I don't want to do that, then you respond with "you're not willing to live with it." And I respond, "I am willing to live with it, but you are willing to accept a higher level of risk than I am."

So, we are ultimately talking about individual choice.

And, unfortunately, we are in a place where people seem free to tell others how to live their lives, and to criticize them if they disagree on what that entails.
 

MplsGopher said:
Not contagious = irrelevant to the discussion. Trying to distract and obfuscate. Bad faith tactics
Click to expand...

I don’t follow your reasoning, but that’s nothing new. You’re suggesting heavily tested and monitored football players are going to drive community transmission, instead of the tens of thousands of young and middle-aged people mingling, socializing, habitating in irresponsible ways? I suppose it’s not completely outside the realm of possibility
 

short ornery norwegian said:
that is the crux of the matter. the complication is that different people will define "living with it" in different ways.

So your definition of "living with it" may include doing things that I do not want to do. If I say I don't want to do that, then you respond with "you're not willing to live with it." And I respond, "I am willing to live with it, but you are willing to accept a higher level of risk than I am."

So, we are ultimately talking about individual choice.

And, unfortunately, we are in a place where people seem free to tell others how to live their lives, and to criticize them if they disagree on what that entails.
Click to expand...

Take elementary schools, for example, and top down solutions being enacted across large school districts. There are many teachers that want to teach in person when there are relatively low levels of community infection, with appropriate precautions and appropriate ventilation, including outdoors when feasible. This is light years better for children (and their often young, lower risk working parents).

There are other educators that are panicked, have absurd ideas of risk in their heads (tens of thousands of students dying), and have lobbied to persuade unions to push for virtual instruction. While less likely to spread the virus, there are many negative outcomes associated with that we are all familiar with (or should be familiar with).

The irony is nobody cares about viral transmission during influenza season, which has real and measurable risks for children.
 



Pompous Elitist said:
I don’t follow your reasoning, but that’s nothing new. You’re suggesting heavily tested and monitored football players are going to drive community transmission, instead of the tens of thousands of young and middle-aged people mingling, socializing, habitating in irresponsible ways? I suppose it’s not completely outside the realm of possibility
Click to expand...
Silly misframing of what I said. I've been crystal clear. You're trying to obfuscate in bad faith.

Never once said anything about community transmission. Have only ever discussed health and safety of players and staff. And have been crystal clear in this thread that it's about if a player dies.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Take elementary schools, for example, and top down solutions being enacted across large school districts. There are many teachers that want to teach in person when there are relatively low levels of community infection, with appropriate precautions and appropriate ventilation, including outdoors when feasible. This is light years better for children (and their often young, lower risk working parents).

There are other educators that are panicked, have absurd ideas of risk in their heads (tens of thousands of students dying), and have lobbied to persuade unions to push for virtual instruction. While less likely to spread the virus, there are many negative outcomes associated with that we are all familiar with (or should be familiar with).

The irony is nobody cares about viral transmission during influenza season, which has real and measurable risks for children.
Click to expand...
"Many" "others"

Typical obfuscation in bad faith. Burden rests on you to quantify these scenarios, or else your entire argument is bad faith.


My guess is that the majority of grade school teachers, nationwide, do not want to be physically present this semester. I support them and their rights, in my opinion.
 

MplsGopher said:
"Many".

Typical obfuscation in bad faith.

Burden rests on you to quantify these scenarios, or else your entire argument is bad faith.
Click to expand...

District surveys, personal anecdotes, media reports...

I get it, when it comes to the panic of some. Nobody likes getting on a a plane and contemplating the risk of a grisly, terrifying death. Pick your phobia. Even when it’s one in a million it’s terrifying to the point of physical and psychological disability and paralysis for some.

There are real risks associated with this virus. However, some of the discussion and “facts“ out there border on insane. Some people are less risk-averse than others based on their personal situation and beliefs. There are negatives associated with suspending society. That doesn't mean suspend common sense mitigations or stop the deployment of better testing methods.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
District surveys, personal anecdotes, media reports...

I get it, when it comes to the panic of some. Nobody likes getting on a a plane and contemplating the risk of a grisly, terrifying death. Pick your phobia. Even when it’s one in a million it’s terrifying to the point of physical and psychological disability and paralysis for some.

There are real risks associated with this virus. However, some of the discussion and “facts“ out there border on insane. Some people are less risk-averse than others based on their personal situation and beliefs. There are negatives associated with suspending society. That doesn't mean suspend common sense mitigations or stop the deployment of better testing methods.
Click to expand...
My guess is that the majority of grade school teachers, nationwide, do not want to be physically present this semester. I support them and their rights, in my opinion.

Better testing methods are welcomed .. only if they're proven first.
 

MplsGopher said:
Silly misframing of what I said. I've been crystal clear. You're trying to obfuscate in bad faith.

Never once said anything about community transmission. Have only ever discussed health and safety of players and staff. And have been crystal clear in this thread that it's about if a player dies.
Click to expand...

In your mind, what is the probability of this occurring?
 

MplsGopher said:
My guess is that the majority of grade school teachers, nationwide, do not want to be physically present this semester. I support them and their rights, in my opinion.

Better testing methods are welcomed .. only if they're proven first.
Click to expand...

I’d agree with that. It seems to be about a third of (mostly younger but some middle-aged) teachers in my personal experience and the surveys I’ve seen. And, there is the level of uncertainty with indoors classes, spacing, that are understandable. Perhaps a bifurcated approach, some in-person teaching and some 100% virtual depending on staff and family beliefs and desires) is possible rather than a monolithic one size fits all approach. That philosophy is at odds with the authoritarianistic know it all-ism or unhinged panic of some.
 

Here’s an anecdote that illustrates how crazy some of this is: each district out here had a vote on whether to require teaches to go to school to do virtual broadcasts, or allow them to stream from home. Some were arguing it wasn’t safe to eg, pass each other in the hallway, go to the school office, etc. One union I’m aware of negotiated a stipulation to have an ionizing (hypochlorous acid) cleaning performed on each classroom each day prior to their virtual broadcast, despite them being the only person in the room or using the room...is that rational, necessary, or prudent?

The panic is real folks.

One interviewee had the gall to mention she needs to watch her kids at home, so can’t possibly go to the school to broadcast.
 

On the school thing - FWIW - on "Stay Safe MN" at the State Dept of Health site, they have the 14-day average Covid-19 case rate for each county. This is what school districts are supposed to follow for recommendations on what learning model to adopt.

There are 87 counties in MN.

As of the last report,
50 counties had a case rate of 0-10 per 10,000 people. at that level, all schools may hold in-person classes.

29 Counties had a case rate of 10-20. The recommendation is Elementary in-person, MS/HS Hybrid.

7 Counties had a case rate of 20-30. The recommendation is all schools in hybrid model.

1 county had a case rate of 30-50. the recommendation is Elementary hybrid, MS/HS distance learning.

No counties have a case rate above 50, which would mean all schools distance learning.

So only one county in the state has a rate high enough that would require distance learning, and that is for MS/HS students.

And again- "hybrid" does not mean half in school, half home. schools can have all students in class under the hybrid model if they can limit classrooms to 50% capacity with social distancing. My local school district is doing that, and they had to hire more teachers so they could split up the Elementary grades into more sections with fewer kids in each section.
 

Thanks SON for finally some facts. In my District, a BIG majority of the teachers want in person education. A small minority want on line only (the lazy, older teachers who can’t be fired because of the Union - my opinion). MplsGopher is way off base with his guess that majority want on line only.
 

Pete smith said:
Thanks SON for finally some facts. In my District, a BIG majority of the teachers want in person education. A small minority want on line only (the lazy, older teachers who can’t be fired because of the Union - my opinion). MplsGopher is way off base with his guess that majority want on line only.
Click to expand...
Why don't you stop with your usual bullshit. Someone who might be in his or her 60's or has a condition that puts them at risk or might have a family member who is susceptible and they're just lazy or older? And you precede that with praising SON for "finally some facts." Trying not to get drawn into this mess but a jackass comment like yours needs to be called out.
 

Knowing some of those teachers who want on line rather than in person, are actually that, older and lazy. Have I asked them, no? But just watching and listening, it is evident they would rather teach sitting on their butt in front of a camera. Not sure if fear of Covid is even in the discussion. And yes, they can’t be fired because of the Union.
 

Pete smith said:
Knowing some of those teachers who want on line rather than in person, are actually that, older and lazy. Have I asked them, no? But just watching and listening, it is evident they would rather teach sitting on their butt in front of a camera. Not sure if fear of Covid is even in the discussion. And yes, they can’t be fired because of the Union.
Click to expand...

Teachers can be fired. It's actually easier than most people realize. There is a disciplinary process that the district goes through. Whether or not the district exercises that is up to them. I have heard of many cases of teachers either being fired or being "encouraged" to leave. It's a bit of a myth that teachers can't be fired.

The older teachers are actually the ones that are least comfortable teaching online as they often aren't as comfortable with newer technology. I could see older teachers (in their 60's) being more fearful of in-person teaching as they are at higher risk than a younger teacher.

Back on topic though - I don't think the COVID outbreak will stop Alabama or the SEC from playing football.
 
Last edited:

Pompous Elitist said:
I’m glad we can agree they’re above zero.

Do you want to put any hard numbers on incidents of COVID-related deaths and long term disability in this age group vs say, vehicle and pedestrian accidents? All preventable, of course.
Click to expand...

The inevitable "more likely to die in a car crash" talking point.
 

Block M said:
The inevitable "more likely to die in a car crash" talking point.
Click to expand...
Well, depending on age, it is true. If you are under 45 in the US, you are more likely to die in a car crash than Covid. The Covid deaths may grow faster the rest of the year than auto fatalities, but it would take a lot of Covid deaths to surpass car crashes. Conversely, if you are older (especially over 60 or so), you are much more likely to die of Covid.
 


forever a gopher said:
Well, depending on age, it is true. If you are under 45 in the US, you are more likely to die in a car crash than Covid. The Covid deaths may grow faster the rest of the year than auto fatalities, but it would take a lot of Covid deaths to surpass car crashes. Conversely, if you are older (especially over 60 or so), you are much more likely to die of Covid.
Click to expand...

One wonders whether the inevitable “vehicle travel/crashes can’t affect other people“ argument on is its way?.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom