|
Post by n00b on Apr 9, 2020 12:17:11 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? Even at a conference level, I'm not sure you could do that. For example, the America East only has six schools. If Binghamton decides they can't afford to have a volleyball team this fall and are taking one season off, that conference ceases to exist and loses it's AQ.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 9, 2020 12:19:39 GMT -5
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. Right. I think the NCAA's only call is if/when they'll be holding a championship. Even last month, the announcements of things like the SEC cancelling the entirety of the softball season came well after the NCAA cancelled the championship.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 9, 2020 12:49:19 GMT -5
Right. I think the NCAA's only call is if/when they'll be holding a championship. Even last month, the announcements of things like the SEC cancelling the entirety of the softball season came well after the NCAA cancelled the championship. I think this is true. Schools could choose to play sports without NCAA or conference sponsorship, assuming they find someone to play against. Conferences could choose to play sports without NCAA sponsorship. But unless someone sets up an alternate national championship framework, it is the NCAA that controls whether there is a national championship.
|
|
|
Post by crando on Apr 9, 2020 13:00:00 GMT -5
I'm not saying anything we don't already know, but maybe saying it in a different way....
As JT just said, you need rules to construct a model. If you don't know the actual fatality rate (not enough tests to know the denominator; some countries hiding their true ##s, e.g. China?), if you don't know the rate of transmission (without distancing, each person gives it to 2-3 people on average?), if you don't know if those who have it get full immunity (or if they could still pass it along without getting sick again themselves?) and how long immunity lasts (or if new mutations can moot immunity?), and if you don't know if there's a seasonal component (which would be nice now, but not nice when it comes back in November), then any model is just a bunch of guesses. It'd be like trying to predict the 2021 18 Open champ based on 17s rosters today, but hearing that 40% of the top players plan to randomly move to different states -- if the input variables all change, your prediction is no good.
If the average person gives this thing to 2-3 others (usually before they felt sick themselves), and it takes 5-7 days to get sick, we double in cases every 5ish days. In NYC for a while, the re-transmission rate was higher; they were doubling cases every 3 days or so. So 1000 cases become a million in a month, and a billion in another month, and we run out of health care people/beds/etc. Sounds bad. So we "distance" in an effort to get that re-transmission rate below 1, and hopefully well below 1. Due to lack of testing, and people who are infected but haven't seen symptoms yet, the ##s of new cases continue to blow up for a couple weeks after we take drastic steps, then stabilize, then start going down. So our goal now, still, is to do everything we can to avoid getting it, and avoid giving it to anyone else (since we might have it and not feel sick yet) -- get that number way below 1, so that people are healing up faster than they are getting sick.
But with 430K known cases in US, we have to keep avoiding contact for some time still. Whether that's staying at home, masks, hand-washing, we don't really know -- it seems like all those things would significantly help break the transmission chain: reducing air-to-lungs, surface-to-hand-to-face, and the reverse too. Considering the stakes, it seems like we're dumb not to do all of it, to get the re-transmission number as close to 0 as possible. In the short run, that avoids the extra deaths that would happen when health care gets stretched too thin, and in the longer run that eventually gets the ## of new cases small enough that we can "distance" individuals instead of everyone. At some point, the new cases are small enough and we have enough rapid-tests that, when a new case pops up we quickly quarantine that person, and anyone they've come in contact with in the prior 7ish days, but everyone else can do their thing -- business-as-usual-with-learning.
As time goes on, we get a feel for how many cases we can treat individually, we get closer to a vaccine, and hopefully much/most of the economy gets rolling again. But we might get a seasonal boom in the fall, and we won't really have herd immunity (to get that, maybe 300M Americans need to get sick, so about 3M deaths, and maybe 45M hospitalizations, which leads to millions more deaths as we're stretched too thin, so that's not the solution...), and we won't have a vaccine. So we have to keep doing wise things as individuals, to keep the re-transmission rate low enough that we can get to handling cases individually as quickly as possible, and then to stay there and not have to shut society down again.
At that point, it's: How far below 1.0 can we get that re-transmission rate, and can we keep it there; how long does it take until that produces few enough new cases that we can quarantine individuals instead of everyone; do cases re-spike seasonally in the fall; are we containing this as a planet, or are we just playing whack-a-mole one state or one country at a time; and do we screw up the calculations and open things up too early? When we know the answers to those questions, our timeline will become obvious. Until then, each person needs to assume that healthy people (including ourselves!) could have it and be spreading it, and then be accountable to reduce their chances of getting it, or giving it, as much as they can.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 12,904
|
Post by bluepenquin on Apr 9, 2020 13:26:18 GMT -5
At that point, it's: How far below 1.0 can we get that re-transmission rate, and can we keep it there; how long does it take until that produces few enough new cases that we can quarantine individuals instead of everyone; do cases re-spike seasonally in the fall; are we containing this as a planet, or are we just playing whack-a-mole one state or one country at a time; and do we screw up the calculations and open things up too early? When we know the answers to those questions, our timeline will become obvious. Until then, each person needs to assume that healthy people (including ourselves!) could have it and be spreading it, and then be accountable to reduce their chances of getting it, or giving it, as much as they can. That is the million $ question. I think we will get this close to zero by the end of May, but what about next wave, can we keep it from ever getting over 1 this fall? And there will be millions of $'s spent trying to make sure this doesn't ever get back up to 1. Failure, and we probably end up back in the same boat as we currently are in. I am an optimist - I think 'we' will figure it out.
|
|
|
Post by volleydadtx on Apr 9, 2020 14:34:02 GMT -5
This is all so overblown. The "models" - based on social distancing - are coming in at 3-4-5-6 times reality. Folks being admitted for renal failure who also have COVID are being called COVID cases and COVID deaths. This madness has to stop. We can't keep letting infectious disease doctors run this country or we will NEVER go back to work, out to eat, or to the movies. Much less have a volleyball season.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 9, 2020 14:36:55 GMT -5
This is all so overblown. The "models" - based on social distancing - are coming in at 3-4-5-6 times reality. Folks being admitted for renal failure who also have COVID are being called COVID cases and COVID deaths. This madness has to stop. We can't keep letting infectious disease doctors run this country or we will NEVER go back to work, out to eat, or to the movies. Much less have a volleyball season. Hmm. As a deadly disease is sweeping around the world, who should be in charge of policy? Infectious disease doctors? Or economic pundits?
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Apr 9, 2020 14:41:16 GMT -5
This is all so overblown. The "models" - based on social distancing - are coming in at 3-4-5-6 times reality. Folks being admitted for renal failure who also have COVID are being called COVID cases and COVID deaths. This madness has to stop. We can't keep letting infectious disease doctors run this country or we will NEVER go back to work, out to eat, or to the movies. Much less have a volleyball season. The numbers are falling because of social distancing. Be happy we're under expected.
|
|
|
Post by dcvolleyball on Apr 9, 2020 14:49:18 GMT -5
This is all so overblown. The "models" - based on social distancing - are coming in at 3-4-5-6 times reality. Folks being admitted for renal failure who also have COVID are being called COVID cases and COVID deaths. This madness has to stop. We can't keep letting infectious disease doctors run this country or we will NEVER go back to work, out to eat, or to the movies. Much less have a volleyball season. This is a dangerous and extremely ignorant post. Stop watching Fox News and actually pay attention to things. 800 people have died in NY today already. its not yet 4pm. You have no idea what you are talking about and its people like you who are the reason we will be in this situation for even longer.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 12,904
|
Post by bluepenquin on Apr 9, 2020 14:54:17 GMT -5
This is all so overblown. The "models" - based on social distancing - are coming in at 3-4-5-6 times reality. Folks being admitted for renal failure who also have COVID are being called COVID cases and COVID deaths. This madness has to stop. We can't keep letting infectious disease doctors run this country or we will NEVER go back to work, out to eat, or to the movies. Much less have a volleyball season. This is a dangerous and extremely ignorant post. Stop watching Fox News and actually pay attention to things. 800 people have died in NY today already. its not yet 4pm. You have no idea what you are talking about and its people like you who are the reason we will be in this situation for even longer. Now that is the way to call a post 'extremely ignorant' while following it up by making at least an equally ignorant statement. Bravo!.
|
|
|
Post by dcvolleyball on Apr 9, 2020 14:56:07 GMT -5
This is a dangerous and extremely ignorant post. Stop watching Fox News and actually pay attention to things. 800 people have died in NY today already. its not yet 4pm. You have no idea what you are talking about and its people like you who are the reason we will be in this situation for even longer. Now that is the way to call a post 'extremely ignorant' while following it up by making at least an equally ignorant statement. Bravo!. How is my statement ignorant? People who are not taking this seriously will allow the virus to thrive longer. It's a fact.
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Apr 9, 2020 15:06:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by noblesol on Apr 9, 2020 15:28:07 GMT -5
This is all so overblown. The "models" - based on social distancing - are coming in at 3-4-5-6 times reality. Folks being admitted for renal failure who also have COVID are being called COVID cases and COVID deaths. This madness has to stop. We can't keep letting infectious disease doctors run this country or we will NEVER go back to work, out to eat, or to the movies. Much less have a volleyball season. Hmm. As a deadly disease is sweeping around the world, who should be in charge of policy? Infectious disease doctors? Or economic pundits? False either or choice. POTUS and the Governors decide policy, Federal and State Senators and Representatives are in charge of appropriations, oversight, and new laws as needed. Public Health officials advise and carry out policy and generate regulations. The Courts settle disputes between the branches of Government and the public.
The IMHE model (from University of Washington Medicine Research Center) for COVID-19 is the main model in play being used by public health officials. It has always factored in mitigations. Initial estimates of that model, crafted by infectious disease experts and doctors, has gone from 100,000-240,000 U.S. deaths, to 80,000 deaths, to 60,000 deaths, over about a week. Drug overdose deaths in the U.S. have recently been in the 60,000 - 70,000 range. Suicides ~ 50,000. Flu and Pneumonia (2017)~60,000. Chronic lower respiratory disease (2017) ~ 160,000. Accidents-unintentional (2017) ~170,000.
An infectious disease doctor, well, what do they know or care about modeling drug abuse and overdoses, or perhaps suicides, as a function of no jobs, no income, no small business, a cratering family life, and societal enforced social isolation? Apparently it's not their job.
Now, that does sound like something an economist/social scientist/actuary might be good at. But, where are those models? IMHE I.D. doctor says lockdown and social distancing is good, leads to fewer deaths. However how foolish is it to craft a total approach to the war against COVID-19 if it doesn't also have models for the collateral damage of lockdown and social isolation. Obviously to craft wise policy, one must know as much as possible about all the collateral damage of fighting that war using the supermegaton weapons of lockdowns and societal distancing for extended periods. For instance, what about the disruption to the worlds food supply of continued lockdowns? Leading to hotspots of hunger and malnutrition, where is that model?
In multiple ways on multiple fronts, the collateral damage from lockdowns and social isolation add up over time and build on one another, interact with one another and create new pandemics of disease, hunger, death, crime, and a crumbling civil order. The infectious disease doctor that doesn't see it, doesn't think it falls within their job description to see it, doesn't care to factor it into their model, doesn't think it is relevant to his task at hand, is not the person that I want in charge of fighting the war. And the advice of the infectious disease doctor should come with a big warning label describing all the possible side-effects of taking their prescription.
|
|
|
Post by jayj79 on Apr 9, 2020 15:38:25 GMT -5
Hmm. As a deadly disease is sweeping around the world, who should be in charge of policy? Infectious disease doctors? Or economic pundits? reality show actors?
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Apr 9, 2020 15:47:23 GMT -5
Hmm. As a deadly disease is sweeping around the world, who should be in charge of policy? Infectious disease doctors? Or economic pundits? False either or choice. POTUS and the Governors decide policy, Federal and State Senators and Representatives are in charge of appropriations, oversight, and new laws as needed. Public Health officials advise and carry out policy and generate regulations. The Courts settle disputes between the branches of Government and the public.
The IMHE model (from University of Washington Medicine Research Center) for COVID-19 is the main model in play being used by public health officials. It has always factored in mitigations. Initial estimates of that model, crafted by infectious disease experts and doctors, has gone from 100,000-240,000 U.S. deaths, to 80,000 deaths, to 60,000 deaths, over about a week. Drug overdose deaths in the U.S. have recently been in the 60,000 - 70,000 range. Suicides ~ 50,000. Flu and Pneumonia (2017)~60,000. Chronic lower respiratory disease (2017) ~ 160,000. Accidents-unintentional (2017) ~170,000.
An infectious disease doctor, well, what do they know or care about modeling drug abuse and overdoses, or perhaps suicides, as a function of no jobs, no income, no small business, a cratering family life, and societal enforced social isolation? Apparently it's not their job.
Now, that does sound like something an economist/social scientist/actuary might be good at. But, where are those models? IMHE I.D. doctor says lockdown and social distancing is good, leads to fewer deaths. However how foolish is it to craft a total approach to the war against COVID-19 if it doesn't also have models for the collateral damage of lockdown and social isolation. Obviously to craft wise policy, one must know as much as possible about all the collateral damage of fighting that war using the supermegaton weapons of lockdowns and societal distancing for extended periods. For instance, what about the disruption to the worlds food supply of continued lockdowns,? Leading to hotspots of hunger and malnutrition, where is that model?
In multiple ways on multiple fronts, the collateral damage from lockdowns and social isolation add up over time and build on one another, interact with one another and creat new pandemics of disease, hunger, death, crime, and a crumbling civil order. The infectious disease doctor that doesn't see it, doesn't think it falls within their job description to see it, doesn't care to factor it into their model, doesn't think it is relevant to his task at hand, is not the person that I want in charge of fighting the war. And the advice of the infectious disease doctor should come with a big warning label describing all the possible side-effects of taking their prescription.
What models have you been seeing for deaths from drugs/crime/suicide in the wake of social distancing? I'm sure you have expert numbers and aren't just making this up. I'm gonna take a wild guess that the experts already considered that and decided social distancing was the right idea. They saw the economic numbers decreasing in China. It's not like nobody considered that slowing the economy down is bad before you.
|
|