|
Post by azvb on Aug 7, 2020 14:09:22 GMT -5
Hadn’t thought of this before, but I guess officials will need to be tested and provide results to game management.
We have quite a few places here that do testing for free. Is this just an Arizona thing?
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Aug 7, 2020 14:16:18 GMT -5
Interesting someone mentioned water polo. I was talking to a BW coach who mentioned that more than 50% of the schools that sponsor water polo have already cancelled (I don't follow water polo and had no idea they'd passed that limit), so I'm interested to see how quickly the NCAA reacts to that. Will the cancellation encompass the entire academic year or will they leave the opportunity for spring competition? Sad for the sport of water polo, but certainly a test case for WVB. Looks like only 22 schools compete at the D1 level and 12 of them are in California (4 PAC12, 5 Big West) and 4 are Ivy, so no surprise.
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Aug 7, 2020 14:19:18 GMT -5
The cases reported in March/April are vastly underreported compared to June/July due to the huge increase in testing. Looking at deaths - we can tell that things were much worse early on. So comparing a chart only looking at cases isn't telling the whole story. % positive (7 day average): 4/15 - 19.9% 5/15 - 7.0% 6/15 - 4.5% 7/15 - 8.7% 8/6 - 7.7% Opening back up occurred at different times. Georgia opened things back up in the middle of April - and we didn't see a corresponding increase in cases until 2 months later (while testing more than doubled). I agree there is something there and asymptomatic cases were, and probably still are, underreported. The theory blaming the rise solely on increased testing fails when you compare the daily tests chart to the daily cases chart and watch the cases dip as the tests increased through mid June. I think hospitalizations and deaths are better metrics because you eliminate the debate over increased cases through increased testing. Hospitalizations and deaths also both dipped at the same time tests were rising. Deaths have gone down relative to hospitalizations, which is interesting. My WAG is that probably means some mix of the following: 1) We are learning and getting better at treating patients. 2) The patients are now more spread out and are not overwhelming one system (e.g. New York) 3) We are doing a better job isolating the most at risk (the elderly, nursing homes, etc) 4) We have already lost a high percentage of the most at risk people, and they can't die twice.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Aug 7, 2020 14:28:43 GMT -5
Hadn’t thought of this before, but I guess officials will need to be tested and provide results to game management. We have quite a few places here that do testing for free. Is this just an Arizona thing? I doubt it. Officials can keep 6 feet of distance from others and stay masked for the duration of their time on campus.
|
|
|
Post by trainermch on Aug 7, 2020 14:39:10 GMT -5
Hadn’t thought of this before, but I guess officials will need to be tested and provide results to game management. We have quite a few places here that do testing for free. Is this just an Arizona thing? I doubt it. Officials can keep 6 feet of distance from others and stay masked for the duration of their time on campus. You are probably correct. NCAA basketball refs (so far) will have temp check, sign a waiver and answer questionnaire before games. No access to training room, ice, heat, etc. No ref "refreshment room" at halftime. No dressing on site. Arrive in stripes.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Aug 7, 2020 14:46:55 GMT -5
For "hand and ball" sports (including volleyball), the ball becomes a disease vector. Soccer and hockey don't have hand-to-ball or hand-to-puck contact.
|
|
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: 12,437
|
Post by bluepenquin on Aug 7, 2020 14:50:46 GMT -5
The cases reported in March/April are vastly underreported compared to June/July due to the huge increase in testing. Looking at deaths - we can tell that things were much worse early on. So comparing a chart only looking at cases isn't telling the whole story. % positive (7 day average): 4/15 - 19.9% 5/15 - 7.0% 6/15 - 4.5% 7/15 - 8.7% 8/6 - 7.7% Opening back up occurred at different times. Georgia opened things back up in the middle of April - and we didn't see a corresponding increase in cases until 2 months later (while testing more than doubled). If that's for Georgia, have the pre-June % positives been corrected? Georgia wasn't counting it properly until June.
% positive rate above was US overall. Shown mostly to illustrate how bad it was back in March/April. And it also shows how things have gotten worse sense the middle of June. This helps to factor in differences in testing. Most (every) state has changed their reporting as we have moved along. Georgia - along with several other states - were counting antibody testing with the viral testing. The volume of antibody testing was pretty small early on with a negligible impact when corrected. Much smaller than the corrections made in deaths occurring months earlier or large correction dumps of testing (neither of which Georgia has done).
|
|
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: 12,437
|
Post by bluepenquin on Aug 7, 2020 15:08:46 GMT -5
I agree there is something there and asymptomatic cases were, and probably still are, underreported. The theory blaming the rise solely on increased testing fails when you compare the daily tests chart to the daily cases chart and watch the cases dip as the tests increased through mid June. I think hospitalizations and deaths are better metrics because you eliminate the debate over increased cases through increased testing. Hospitalizations and deaths also both dipped at the same time tests were rising. Deaths have gone down relative to hospitalizations, which is interesting. My WAG is that probably means some mix of the following: 1) We are learning and getting better at treating patients. 2) The patients are now more spread out and are not overwhelming one system (e.g. New York) 3) We are doing a better job isolating the most at risk (the elderly, nursing homes, etc) 4) We have already lost a high percentage of the most at risk people, and they can't die twice. Not blaming the increase solely on increased testing, increased testing was a factor - but agree it is more than this and certainly doesn't explain the large increases in cases. And I agree with your WAG - although I believe the biggest reason for lower deaths is the average age of people testing positive is considerably younger than when we first started. My comment 'proven false' wasn't correct. It would have been better to say that it is difficult to find a correlation w/o ignoring all the instances where there is the opposite correlation. If adding restrictions helps reduce cases - then it is doing so at the margins and is being overwhelmed by 1,000 other factors. The trendlines between restrictions and cases is all over the map, that is better explained as being random chance. When we see the data supporting what we would expect as in the case of overall California over the past month - we find other areas that doesn't support that same correlation. Leading me to believe what happened in California was more likely the result of random variation than easing then putting back restrictions.
|
|
|
Post by baytree on Aug 7, 2020 15:09:31 GMT -5
If that's for Georgia, have the pre-June % positives been corrected? Georgia wasn't counting it properly until June.
% positive rate above was US overall. Shown mostly to illustrate how bad it was back in March/April. And it also shows how things have gotten worse sense the middle of June. This helps to factor in differences in testing. Most (every) state has changed their reporting as we have moved along. Georgia - along with several other states - were counting antibody testing with the viral testing. The volume of antibody testing was pretty small early on with a negligible impact when corrected. Much smaller than the corrections made in deaths occurring months earlier or large correction dumps of testing (neither of which Georgia has done). Most states have changed the way they report. Many times, it's to provide more data. Georgia was one of the few states that was counting antibody tests in the denominator but not in the numerator. That was about from April - early June. To count it in one but not the other was blatantly incorrect. I don't see how it was done in good faith unless the ppl doing it were incompetent.
I've noted that other states screwed up. Recently, CA has a glitch in their case reporting so I wouldn't put much stock in the numbers. I think that's a real problem in comparing any of the numbers: who gets the tests have changed, how things are counted have changed (in some states), what's reported has changed, etc. In the beginning, only NY had a reasonably high rate of testing (compared to Europe, S. Korea, etc.).
I look at hospitalization rates but even that is sometimes questionable, as I've noted for CA (when looked at on the county level). But some states have been transferring patients to other states so the same questions are raised as the transfer of patients within CA: Are they counted in the transferee county's number or in the numbers of the place they're transferred to? If you're looking at hospital space, it should be the place they're transferred to. If you're looking at source of infection (and how well various areas are doing), it should be the place in which the case originated. That would include out of state ppl who get the virus. I don't know if it's still true but for quite a while, FL excluded those. IIRC they excluded the ppl even if they were snowbirds and were currently living in FL.
|
|
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: 12,437
|
Post by bluepenquin on Aug 7, 2020 15:23:51 GMT -5
% positive rate above was US overall. Shown mostly to illustrate how bad it was back in March/April. And it also shows how things have gotten worse sense the middle of June. This helps to factor in differences in testing. Most (every) state has changed their reporting as we have moved along. Georgia - along with several other states - were counting antibody testing with the viral testing. The volume of antibody testing was pretty small early on with a negligible impact when corrected. Much smaller than the corrections made in deaths occurring months earlier or large correction dumps of testing (neither of which Georgia has done). Most states have changed the way they report. Many times, it's to provide more data. Georgia was one of the few states that was counting antibody tests in the denominator but not in the numerator. That was about from April - early June. To count it in one but not the other was blatantly incorrect. I don't see how it was done in good faith unless the ppl doing it were incompetent.
Georgia wasn't the only state that was counting antibody tests in the denominator. I am pretty sure that Texas, Michigan, and Missouri also did this - along with several other states. It was a dumb thing to do - but it also doesn't appear to have been done because of incompetence or bad faith. At the time - ~ 10% of the Georgia tests were antibody. This was usually done before people started really looking at % positives. States (like Georgia) were looking in terms of # of cases. Since a positive for antibody is a good thing and a positive for viral is bad - they only counted the viral positives in their cases (which is the correct way to do this). In turn, they were independently counting the # of tests - in which case they were counting both viral and antibody. Which is sort of okay, until you want to look at % positive for viral. At this point - Georgia and other states started correcting their data and made a one-time correction for the past. This is very minor compared to some of the massive data corrections New Jersey has made over time.
|
|
|
Post by baytree on Aug 7, 2020 15:37:35 GMT -5
Most states have changed the way they report. Many times, it's to provide more data. Georgia was one of the few states that was counting antibody tests in the denominator but not in the numerator. That was about from April - early June. To count it in one but not the other was blatantly incorrect. I don't see how it was done in good faith unless the ppl doing it were incompetent.
Georgia wasn't the only state that was counting antibody tests in the denominator. I am pretty sure that Texas, Michigan, and Missouri also did this - along with several other states. It was a dumb thing to do - but it also doesn't appear to have been done because of incompetence or bad faith. At the time - ~ 10% of the Georgia tests were antibody. This was usually done before people started really looking at % positives. States (like Georgia) were looking in terms of # of cases. Since a positive for antibody is a good thing and a positive for viral is bad - they only counted the viral positives in their cases (which is the correct way to do this). In turn, they were independently counting the # of tests - in which case they were counting both viral and antibody. Which is sort of okay, until you want to look at % positive for viral. At this point - Georgia and other states started correcting their data and made a one-time correction for the past. This is very minor compared to some of the massive data corrections New Jersey has made over time. I understand that they weren't the only ones doing it. But they were reporting a positivity rate so I disagree that it was before ppl were looking at the percent of positive tests. The ppl I know were looking at the percent of positive tests in April (and clearly others were too or it wouldn't have been reported). Another thing that some places (including Orange County in CA) did was to report the number of tests, not the number of ppl tested. That was another way to make an area look good. (bc you'd add 2 to the denominator for every test and, if it was positive, only 1 in the numerator or 0 if it was negative)
Regardless of why they did it, it means that unless you go back and correct the old data to make sure it's being calculated in the same way as current data, you shouldn't compare the two (including by conflating the data on one trend line). That was my main point.
ETA: Maybe it has all been corrected. that's why I asked. But I wouldn't assume that it has been.
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Aug 7, 2020 15:42:20 GMT -5
I agree there is something there and asymptomatic cases were, and probably still are, underreported. The theory blaming the rise solely on increased testing fails when you compare the daily tests chart to the daily cases chart and watch the cases dip as the tests increased through mid June. I think hospitalizations and deaths are better metrics because you eliminate the debate over increased cases through increased testing. Hospitalizations and deaths also both dipped at the same time tests were rising. Deaths have gone down relative to hospitalizations, which is interesting. My WAG is that probably means some mix of the following: 1) We are learning and getting better at treating patients. 2) The patients are now more spread out and are not overwhelming one system (e.g. New York) 3) We are doing a better job isolating the most at risk (the elderly, nursing homes, etc) 4) We have already lost a high percentage of the most at risk people, and they can't die twice. Nancy Sinatra is 80 and Sean Connery will be 90 in 3 weeks, so they are both ultra high risk. I hope they are sequestered in a secret Japanese volcano right now.
|
|
|
Post by nothingbutcorn on Aug 7, 2020 15:43:48 GMT -5
You better forget doing headers in soccer.
|
|
|
Post by joplin on Aug 7, 2020 15:49:55 GMT -5
I haven't gone far enough back in the thread to know if this was discussed, but I can't help but believe that the NCAA is waiting to receive the economic status of the non P5 schools who must decide if the cost to run their programs (who already lose money) including the preventive measures they must take to keep the players and staff safe is worth it. As much as I would like to believe that UCONN and Randy Edsall placed the welfare of their football players at the forefront of their decision not to play this season, from afar it looks more like an economic decision than the way it was presented.
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Aug 7, 2020 16:55:21 GMT -5
Not blaming the increase solely on increased testing, increased testing was a factor - but agree it is more than this and certainly doesn't explain the large increases in cases. And I agree with your WAG - although I believe the biggest reason for lower deaths is the average age of people testing positive is considerably younger than when we first started. ... You can see a good example of the age disparity when looking at the DoD numbers. Active military skews pretty young and DoD civilian and contractors are often ex-career military and skews much older. The difference is pretty stark. Military: 30,392 cases, 510 hospitalizations, 4 deaths Civilian: 6,410 cases, 295 hospitalizations, 45 deaths www.defense.gov/explore/spotlight/coronavirus/
|
|