|
Post by Wolfgang on Apr 8, 2020 17:25:24 GMT -5
Everyone, use the easy no-sew homemade face mask.
Super super easy, except for those of you who are inherently incapable of following the simplest of instructions.
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Apr 8, 2020 17:37:26 GMT -5
Santa Clara County Executive, Jeffrey Smith, M.D., said last night that he doesn't expect to see sports in their area until Thanksgiving... which is reported as a problem for the 49ers, but would seem to be just as big a problem for Santa Clara, San Jose State, and Stanford. www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-08/california-coronavirus-trendsThis raises a possibility that I hadn't considered before - Fall sports, including volleyball, could go on for many schools, but not all. And then would players transfer to a school that is still playing if they don't have a season?
|
|
|
Post by Hawk Attack on Apr 8, 2020 18:00:45 GMT -5
It is men’s volleyball that is at significant risk of not having a 2021 season. Why is that? Because the NCAA and conference big wigs are right now figuring out what to do if fall sports need to be postponed... they will not outright cancel because football and basketball needs to happen for them in the ‘20-‘21 season. They are currently looking at which highest revenue sports get priority for next year’s whole athletic season, in the case fall is postponed and NCAA’s don’t begin until November, December, etc. Women’s volleyball will almost assuredly happen, just depends on when.
|
|
|
Post by noblesol on Apr 8, 2020 18:34:46 GMT -5
Everyone, use the easy no-sew homemade face mask. Super super easy, except for those of you who are inherently incapable of following the simplest of instructions. Those masks look like a good promotional give away items for fall sport matches, instead of hand towels and t-shirts. Do them in school colors and emblems, maybe businesses offering them as promotional items could have their ad/emblem on them. Get UnderArmor, Nike, Asics, etc. to produce them in school colors and emblems for fans and maybe even some that would be suitable for athletes. They could give them away outside entrances to events, and require they be worn inside.
|
|
|
Post by Brutus Buckeye on Apr 8, 2020 21:05:51 GMT -5
Everyone, use the easy no-sew homemade face mask. Super super easy, except for those of you who are inherently incapable of following the simplest of instructions. Too much origami, and hurts the back of my ears just to watch.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 8, 2020 21:09:07 GMT -5
Would players transfer to a school that is still playing if they don't have a season? I guess it depends on whether they are students or athletes. I've always been in favor of saying students should be able to transfer at will to any school that they want to attend (and who wants them). So if somebody wants to transfer, for whatever reason, I say fine. But unless the whole school is shut down or something, if the students actually followed the advice that we all piously give to them ("choose your school based on the school, not based on volleyball"), then why would they transfer?
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Apr 8, 2020 21:14:04 GMT -5
Because the NCAA and conference big wigs are right now figuring out what to do if fall sports need to be postponed... they will not outright cancel because football and basketball needs to happen for them in the ‘20-‘21 season. They are currently looking at which highest revenue sports get priority for next year’s whole athletic season, in the case fall is postponed and NCAA’s don’t begin until November, December, etc. Women’s volleyball will almost assuredly happen, just depends on when. Will the NCAA agree to run sports if only part of the country can run them safely? Or will this be a conference by conference decision? And will there then be an NCAA championship if all areas don't agree to run sports?
|
|
|
Post by Hawk Attack on Apr 8, 2020 23:48:15 GMT -5
Because the NCAA and conference big wigs are right now figuring out what to do if fall sports need to be postponed... they will not outright cancel because football and basketball needs to happen for them in the ‘20-‘21 season. They are currently looking at which highest revenue sports get priority for next year’s whole athletic season, in the case fall is postponed and NCAA’s don’t begin until November, December, etc. Women’s volleyball will almost assuredly happen, just depends on when. Will the NCAA agree to run sports if only part of the country can run them safely? Or will this be a conference by conference decision? And will there then be an NCAA championship if all areas don't agree to run sports? From my understanding it’s all or nothing, sport-by-sport.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohn043 on Apr 9, 2020 9:43:44 GMT -5
Your answer of unequivocally no is wrong. The numbers you are suggesting assume a case fatality rate of ~1%. And while it is very possible that estimate is correct, it is also possible that there are many asymptomatic or lightly symptomatic people that caught it and were never tested. Until we have anti-body tests we won't really know. Case fatality rates could be under 0.1% and then herd immunity (while quarantining the elderly is a very sensible strategy). So you can say likely no but not unequivocally no. I would also point out that there is literally zero data on the impact of various forms of social distancing. Do we need to shut down everything or just stay 6 feet apart? How effective would it be if everyone just used a lot of hand sanitizer? Is it safe to go to the beach? We know that a total shutdown is working but not what else might work. For instance, in Sweden elementary schools are still open and never closed. They don't seem to be any worse than their neighbors at this point. There is literally no science on this. Remember all of the experts also believed that travel bans didn't work..... Sweden has the highest fatality rate per capita of any Scandinavian country and higher than Iran or the US. They're starting to shut down now that the curve is actually hitting. Their strategy clearly didn't work seeing as they're beginning to transition to mandated social distancing. There is also tons of data on social distancing, considering it's the chosen strategy of every country that seems to be coping well with the virus and is historically the best method of slowing disease. See: 1918 flu in Philly vs. St Louis, SARS measures, etc. It works. There's a reason that countries are using it. There's no situation, modeled or real, in which the herd immunity option saves more lives than social distancing rules. Also, the WHO didn't recommend travel bans but did recommend checking for symptoms at ports of entry, the reasoning being that people will at least be checked when they enter as travel bans can lead to attempts at illegal entries. The US travel bans on Europe and China allowed citizens and residents to travel and did inadequate jobs at mitigating spread because of minimal testing and a lack of self-quarantine orders early on. Sweden is slightly higher on deaths but no higher than its neighbors on cases per capita. A read of all of the data doesn't really suggest any difference from its neighbors. A quick google search doesn't suggest they are going to lock down. In fact, Denmark has said they are going to reopen elementary schools next week. It is true that social distancing works. But there is literally no data on what social distancing measures have what impact on the spread of this or any disease. What is the impact of shutting down elementary schools? How much spread is there if people go to work but wear masks and wash their hands every hour? How much does taking workers temperature every morning help? Should ordinary people wear masks when they go out? Is it safe to go to the beach or park? Do stay at home orders work? Should we ban travel or just take temperatures of travelers? There is literally no science on any of this. The experts are just making guesses. I am fascinated by this site: www.unacast.com/covid19/social-distancing-scoreboardThey are using mobile phone data to measure how much people are social distancing. The data isn't perfect but probably the best we have. My read is that stay at home orders literally have no impact. FL was one of the last states to issue one and it seemingly has had no impact that I can tell versus the national trend. Finally, I am sure that extreme social distancing is the best way to minimize the spread of disease at this or really any time. If we kept doing this forever all sorts of communicable diseases would decline. Of course you quickly come to the question of at what cost. Alcohol and drug use is skyrocketing with the resulting health care issues. Right now we are mortgaging the futures of our children. That may be the only alternative but in my view we need to at least think about a balanced approach. If the case fatality rate is low enough then herd immunity is a viable strategy IMO.
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Apr 9, 2020 9:53:59 GMT -5
Would players transfer to a school that is still playing if they don't have a season? I guess it depends on whether they are students or athletes. I've always been in favor of saying students should be able to transfer at will to any school that they want to attend (and who wants them). So if somebody wants to transfer, for whatever reason, I say fine. But unless the whole school is shut down or something, if the students actually followed the advice that we all piously give to them ("choose your school based on the school, not based on volleyball"), then why would they transfer? I was asking that rhetorically. Any transfer is a personal decision, with administrative layers/filters that govern it. And a school that might not have offered you a 4 year opportunity when you were a sophomore in high school, with the benefit of seeing your development may now be very interested in offering you a spot for your last year or two in college. Say 25 or so schools decide to skip the season, there will be some interesting personnel moves (transfers, medicals, cuts, redshirts, etc) to make room for players who are suddenly available. If the favorite in a conference takes the year off, a couple of other programs may do what they can to muscle up for this fall when they wouldn't have to contend with that team. We'll see, but this adds an endless list of possibilities.
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Apr 9, 2020 10:31:26 GMT -5
Sweden has the highest fatality rate per capita of any Scandinavian country and higher than Iran or the US. They're starting to shut down now that the curve is actually hitting. Their strategy clearly didn't work seeing as they're beginning to transition to mandated social distancing. There is also tons of data on social distancing, considering it's the chosen strategy of every country that seems to be coping well with the virus and is historically the best method of slowing disease. See: 1918 flu in Philly vs. St Louis, SARS measures, etc. It works. There's a reason that countries are using it. There's no situation, modeled or real, in which the herd immunity option saves more lives than social distancing rules. Also, the WHO didn't recommend travel bans but did recommend checking for symptoms at ports of entry, the reasoning being that people will at least be checked when they enter as travel bans can lead to attempts at illegal entries. The US travel bans on Europe and China allowed citizens and residents to travel and did inadequate jobs at mitigating spread because of minimal testing and a lack of self-quarantine orders early on. Sweden is slightly higher on deaths but no higher than its neighbors on cases per capita. A read of all of the data doesn't really suggest any difference from its neighbors. A quick google search doesn't suggest they are going to lock down. In fact, Denmark has said they are going to reopen elementary schools next week. It is true that social distancing works. But there is literally no data on what social distancing measures have what impact on the spread of this or any disease. What is the impact of shutting down elementary schools? How much spread is there if people go to work but wear masks and wash their hands every hour? How much does taking workers temperature every morning help? Should ordinary people wear masks when they go out? Is it safe to go to the beach or park? Do stay at home orders work? Should we ban travel or just take temperatures of travelers? There is literally no science on any of this. The experts are just making guesses. I am fascinated by this site: www.unacast.com/covid19/social-distancing-scoreboardThey are using mobile phone data to measure how much people are social distancing. The data isn't perfect but probably the best we have. My read is that stay at home orders literally have no impact. FL was one of the last states to issue one and it seemingly has had no impact that I can tell versus the national trend. Finally, I am sure that extreme social distancing is the best way to minimize the spread of disease at this or really any time. If we kept doing this forever all sorts of communicable diseases would decline. Of course you quickly come to the question of at what cost. Alcohol and drug use is skyrocketing with the resulting health care issues. Right now we are mortgaging the futures of our children. That may be the only alternative but in my view we need to at least think about a balanced approach. If the case fatality rate is low enough then herd immunity is a viable strategy IMO.
It isn't low enough. Again, there are many more countries where social distancing is working than where not social distancing is working. We don't even know if the body gets long-term effective immunity. When thousands of swedes die because of this, the government will have some explaining to do.
|
|
|
Post by noblesol on Apr 9, 2020 10:57:39 GMT -5
The tsunami of public health issues caused by the economic destruction set in motion by the universal lockdowns and social isolation from distancing, could in the end far exceed the public health issues mitigated by them. This is what Sweden is trying to avoid. In the end, it may be our U.S. public health officials that will have some explaining to do.
A competent public health modeling effort would show to POTUS, every Governor, and the public the expected collateral damage of continuing lockdowns and social isolation to public health. Those models which they haven't shown us, would show the additional collateral damage cases to be expected as lockdown continues. Those models would show the expected increases in violent crimes leading to crippling injuries and deaths; increases in suicide attempts and associated deaths; increases in illegal drug usage, alcohol abuse and associated deaths; increases in corruption, scams, and preying on the weak and vulnerable; increases in all manner of crimes as the out of work turn to crime to survive; increases in gangs and associated crimes, violence, and deaths; increases in family abuse and child abuse by out of work fathers, mothers, and desperate single parents; increases in prostitution and human trafficking; increases in widespread malnutrition and associated diseases and deaths. Increases in all of the bad things that come from economic destruction, loss of jobs, social isolation from social distancing, and the closing of churches for public worship. And on and on.
|
|
|
Post by JT on Apr 9, 2020 11:05:15 GMT -5
The tsunami of public health issues caused by the economic destruction set in motion by the universal lockdowns and social isolation from distancing, could in the end far exceed the public health issues mitigated by them. This is what Sweden is trying to avoid. In the end, it may be our U.S. public health officials that will have some explaining to do. A competent public health modeling effort would show to POTUS, every Governor, and the public the expected collateral damage of continuing lockdowns and social isolation to public health. Those models which they haven't shown us, would show the additional collateral damage cases to be expected as lockdown continues. Those models would show the expected increases in violent crimes leading to crippling injuries and deaths; increases in suicide attempts and associated deaths; increases in illegal drug usage, alcohol abuse and associated deaths; increases in corruption, scams, and preying on the weak and vulnerable; increases in all manner of crimes as the out of work turn to crime to survive; increases in gangs and associated crimes, violence, and deaths; increases in family abuse and child abuse by out of work fathers, mothers, and desperate single parents; increases in prostitution and human trafficking; increases in widespread malnutrition and associated diseases and deaths. Increases in all of the bad things that come from economic destruction, loss of jobs, social isolation from social distancing, and the closing of churches for public worship. And on and on. “These models would show...”. Just how are you thinking these models would be constructed? On what would behavioral changes be simulated? A model is only as good as the data it is constructed from, and I don’t believe we have useful data for this situation.
|
|
|
Post by atticus on Apr 9, 2020 11:54:47 GMT -5
Will the NCAA agree to run sports if only part of the country can run them safely? Or will this be a conference by conference decision? And will there then be an NCAA championship if all areas don't agree to run sports? From my understanding it’s all or nothing, sport-by-sport. ALL meaning every single school? That seems extreme. If the majority of schools think it’s safe to proceed and a few schools do not, whether due to the nature of the outbreak in their region or due to different interpretations of the overall situation, would that really be cause for the entire country to not move forward with those sports? Perhaps there would need to be a threshold percentage of schools participating to move forward, but 100% seems too high a threshold. Or by all do you mean every conference?
|
|
|
Post by Hawk Attack on Apr 9, 2020 12:14:59 GMT -5
From my understanding it’s all or nothing, sport-by-sport. ALL meaning every single school? That seems extreme. If the majority of schools think it’s safe to proceed and a few schools do not, whether due to the nature of the outbreak in their region or due to different interpretations of the overall situation, would that really be cause for the entire country to not move forward with those sports? Perhaps there would need to be a threshold percentage of schools participating to move forward, but 100% seems too high a threshold. Or by all do you mean every conference? Flip the perspective and you’ll understand. It’s all-or-nothing from the NCAA’s standpoint on which sports they sanction and when. They don’t care if podunk schools decide it’s not safe to proceed, the NCAA will make the necessary changes to sports & championship scheduling based on the knowledge of whether their cash cows are in or not. They’re going to hitch their wagons to the highest revenue sports regardless of whether every school agrees or not. For example, there’s no reason for the MIVA not to have a season next season in men’s volleyball. They can do what they want. But the NCAA isn’t going to sanction a championship tournament just because the MIVA, CofC, etc. can field enough teams. If men’s volleyball gets in the way of P5 stalwarts then men’s volleyball is out.
|
|