|
Post by jake on Apr 3, 2020 13:26:41 GMT -5
“ So Pro Football has conditions ....trickle this down "As long as we're still in a place where when a single individual tests positive for the virus that you have to quarantine every single person who was in contact with them in any shape, form or fashion, then I don't think you can begin to think about reopening a team sport," Sills told NFL.com. "Because we're going to have positive cases for a very long time." They may still be quarantining based on exposure to people who have treated positive in some places, but in many areas of the US that’s not what is happening. Once they hit a sizable number of cases, some counties have moved away from that and describe it as a move to mitigation instead of containment. They consciously decided not to spend resources tracing down every contact a person with the virus had in the previous 10 days or so. And,...let's remember to report the number of fully recovered, too.
|
|
|
Post by joetrinsey on Apr 3, 2020 14:48:10 GMT -5
www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/28989073/nfl-dr-allen-sills-says-certain-conditions-met-season-startSo Pro Football has conditions ....trickle this down "As long as we're still in a place where when a single individual tests positive for the virus that you have to quarantine every single person who was in contact with them in any shape, form or fashion, then I don't think you can begin to think about reopening a team sport," Sills told NFL.com. "Because we're going to have positive cases for a very long time."
That may be the case, and that would be really rough. But I think the more likely case is that we get conclusive evidence that post-recovery immunity occurs (at least, to an acceptable degree) and then we'll start to hit the downslope of it.
I think it's worth remembering that the most likely scenario is that the majority of people, possibly "everyone" (to a first approximation), will be exposed before any type of vaccination happens. And that level of exposure will probably happen sometime between May (hopefully not!) and August. That of course, puts this fall in some jeopardy, but at a certain point, we'll hit a point where the NFL (for example) has functional herd immunity because of the amount of players already exposed.
(Again, contingent upon post-recovery immunity, which seems promising based on preliminary research. If there's no post-recovery immunity at all, our society has far greater problems than sports...)
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Apr 3, 2020 15:37:03 GMT -5
If you had asked me yesterday to bet on college sports getting canceled this fall, I would have wanted somewhere around 3:1 odds to take that bet. Based on some conversations I was party to today, I think I'd take it at even money.
|
|
|
Post by volleav on Apr 3, 2020 16:07:40 GMT -5
If you had asked me yesterday to bet on college sports getting canceled this fall, I would have wanted somewhere around 3:1 odds to take that bet. Based on some conversations I was party to today, I think I'd take it at even money. How long did it take for things to get back up after SARS. Obviously it wasn't to this scale but in those areas most affected in Asia.
|
|
|
Post by Wiswell on Apr 5, 2020 8:10:50 GMT -5
I am having a hard time seeing the schedule go on as planned for the fall. Because of the way the virus spreads, even a season with no fans still means there is a high probability the players get it. Let's face it, they all end up in some form of sick by the end of the season anyway, but it's not "life-threatening sick." It's the flu and colds. Do you really want to take the risk of players getting a life-threatening illness? Until there is a vaccine I have a hard time seeing large group events and sports taking place. I don't think we will be in "safer at home" forever (except for the Idiots Out Walking Around in IOWA, who don't have one), but group assembly and close contact is going to be a hard sell.
I see the professional league owners want to restart in August or September. Nobody asked the players. And nobody can guarantee the fans will show. I could potentially lower contact sport like baseball resuming, but then they'd to refrain from spitting in the dugout and all the other gross things athletes do.
It's a sad proposition, but decidedly a "first world problem."
|
|
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)
Posts: 12,447
|
Post by bluepenquin on Apr 5, 2020 10:33:59 GMT -5
I see the professional league owners want to restart in August or September. Nobody asked the players. And nobody can guarantee the fans will show. I could potentially lower contact sport like baseball resuming, but then they'd to refrain from spitting in the dugout and all the other gross things athletes do. It's a sad proposition, but decidedly a "first world problem." Owners and players for most professional sports have the same financial interest. Players don't get paid if there are no games. The player unions are strong enough that if the players collectively don't want to play, then the leagues will not start up. If they do start up - it will be about mitigating risk and whether that can be done. Many people today are working in essential jobs - and in every one of these places the work environment is much different now than it was before these shut downs. People that are (having) to work right now are at greater risk than those that don't, but there have been steps taken to mitigate those risks. Is it enough? That is how professional sports will work. There probably are going to be ways to mitigate risk. Think of something like football: all helmets have shields. Players wear gloves that are constantly being changed. Constant player testing and quarantines. In theory - would a football/volleyball/baseball player in August be at more risk than the grocery store worker today?
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Apr 5, 2020 11:30:12 GMT -5
I see the professional league owners want to restart in August or September. Nobody asked the players. And nobody can guarantee the fans will show. I could potentially lower contact sport like baseball resuming, but then they'd to refrain from spitting in the dugout and all the other gross things athletes do. It's a sad proposition, but decidedly a "first world problem." Owners and players for most professional sports have the same financial interest. Players don't get paid if there are no games. The player unions are strong enough that if the players collectively don't want to play, then the leagues will not start up. If they do start up - it will be about mitigating risk and whether that can be done. Many people today are working in essential jobs - and in every one of these places the work environment is much different now than it was before these shut downs. People that are (having) to work right now are at greater risk than those that don't, but there have been steps taken to mitigate those risks. Is it enough? That is how professional sports will work. There probably are going to be ways to mitigate risk. Think of something like football: all helmets have shields. Players wear gloves that are constantly being changed. Constant player testing and quarantines. In theory - would a football/volleyball/baseball player in August be at more risk than the grocery store worker today?No, but it's still bad that we're putting grocery store workers at risk. Football is definitely less of an essential business than a grocery store, no need to take the extra risk.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Apr 7, 2020 12:48:05 GMT -5
The current poll #2 expires today at 5:00 PM (Pacific time). Get your votes in! (Not sure why the exclamation point.)
New poll #3 will be posted soon!
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 7, 2020 12:59:27 GMT -5
Owners and players for most professional sports have the same financial interest. Players don't get paid if there are no games. The player unions are strong enough that if the players collectively don't want to play, then the leagues will not start up. If they do start up - it will be about mitigating risk and whether that can be done. Many people today are working in essential jobs - and in every one of these places the work environment is much different now than it was before these shut downs. People that are (having) to work right now are at greater risk than those that don't, but there have been steps taken to mitigate those risks. Is it enough? That is how professional sports will work. There probably are going to be ways to mitigate risk. Think of something like football: all helmets have shields. Players wear gloves that are constantly being changed. Constant player testing and quarantines. In theory - would a football/volleyball/baseball player in August be at more risk than the grocery store worker today?No, but it's still bad that we're putting grocery store workers at risk. Football is definitely less of an essential business than a grocery store, no need to take the extra risk. So what is the appropriate level of risk? At some point, life has to resume. If this killed 20 Americans per year, we'd do nothing. If this killed 20 million Americans per year, we'd live in bubbles for the rest of eternity. Shutting things down now is absolutely appropriate because there is so much we don't know. But what is the threshold? The flu kills 50,000 per year and we don't do much/anything about it. At what point do we change our way of life? Another 50,000/year? 150,000/year? I don't have an answer, just interesting to ponder.
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Apr 7, 2020 13:05:18 GMT -5
No, but it's still bad that we're putting grocery store workers at risk. Football is definitely less of an essential business than a grocery store, no need to take the extra risk. So what is the appropriate level of risk? At some point, life has to resume. If this killed 20 Americans per year, we'd do nothing. If this killed 20 million Americans per year, we'd live in bubbles for the rest of eternity. Shutting things down now is absolutely appropriate because there is so much we don't know. But what is the threshold? The flu kills 50,000 per year and we don't do much/anything about it. At what point do we change our way of life? Another 50,000/year? 150,000/year? I don't have an answer, just interesting to ponder. Depends on 1) when it slows down and 2) if it picks back up when we relax the rules. It's clearly not safe now and I don't think we're in a position now to set a date for the reopening. This question will be much easier to answer in 2 or 3 weeks when we are hopefully on the downslope of the curve in some states.
|
|
|
Post by justahick on Apr 7, 2020 13:12:34 GMT -5
No, but it's still bad that we're putting grocery store workers at risk. Football is definitely less of an essential business than a grocery store, no need to take the extra risk. So what is the appropriate level of risk? At some point, life has to resume. If this killed 20 Americans per year, we'd do nothing. If this killed 20 million Americans per year, we'd live in bubbles for the rest of eternity. Shutting things down now is absolutely appropriate because there is so much we don't know. But what is the threshold? The flu kills 50,000 per year and we don't do much/anything about it. At what point do we change our way of life? Another 50,000/year? 150,000/year? I don't have an answer, just interesting to ponder. IMHO the biggest justification behind the shutdown was the fact that without a shutdown hospitals would have been (much more) overwhelmed. Once the future infection rate/hive immunity get us to a point where patients (COVID and non-COVID) aren't dying because of lack of medical resources, things will reopen and return to something resembling normal. Most places in the US should be through the worst of the hospital overload phase by mid-late May. I still see an opening of most things by the summer.
|
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 28,352
|
Post by trojansc on Apr 7, 2020 13:18:28 GMT -5
No, but it's still bad that we're putting grocery store workers at risk. Football is definitely less of an essential business than a grocery store, no need to take the extra risk. So what is the appropriate level of risk? At some point, life has to resume. If this killed 20 Americans per year, we'd do nothing. If this killed 20 million Americans per year, we'd live in bubbles for the rest of eternity. Shutting things down now is absolutely appropriate because there is so much we don't know. But what is the threshold? The flu kills 50,000 per year and we don't do much/anything about it. At what point do we change our way of life? Another 50,000/year? 150,000/year? I don't have an answer, just interesting to ponder. Kind of related to that, I keep wondering if quarantines are helping the virus evolve. Would herd immunity work at the cost of more lives temporarily? I don’t see many experts saying yes or no to that question. There is so much uncertainty with this virus. I’m not advocating opening things up sooner, but I am curious if the idea is at least being danced with. It seems everyone’s focus is on a potential vaccine, not that they are wrong for that.
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Apr 7, 2020 13:28:08 GMT -5
So what is the appropriate level of risk? At some point, life has to resume. If this killed 20 Americans per year, we'd do nothing. If this killed 20 million Americans per year, we'd live in bubbles for the rest of eternity. Shutting things down now is absolutely appropriate because there is so much we don't know. But what is the threshold? The flu kills 50,000 per year and we don't do much/anything about it. At what point do we change our way of life? Another 50,000/year? 150,000/year? I don't have an answer, just interesting to ponder. Kind of related to that, I keep wondering if quarantines are helping the virus evolve. Would herd immunity work at the cost of more lives temporarily? I don’t see many experts saying yes or no to that question. There is so much uncertainty with this virus. I’m not advocating opening things up sooner, but I am curious if the idea is at least being danced with. It seems everyone’s focus is on a potential vaccine, not that they are wrong for that. Unequivocally no. The estimated deaths with britain's herd immunity strategy was 500k, a per capita rate that would be 2 million people in the US. There's a reason they switched away from it. Trust me, the experts studied it and said no. The talking heads suggesting herd immunity are mostly not public heath experts. I'm not sure what you mean about quarantines helping the virus evolve. The virus will evolve over time regardless, it's a biological process.
|
|
|
Post by oldmanred on Apr 7, 2020 17:31:07 GMT -5
Maybe the Volleyball uniforms could be completely enclosed! Then after the match you'd have to shower before removing the uniform! Crazy 🐱🚀 GO HUSKERS
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Apr 7, 2020 21:05:17 GMT -5
New poll #3 up!
Results from polls #1 and #2 are summarized in the first post of this thread.
|
|