What if Corona hits a team hard?

[RJIII]

1 hour ago, Samtorobby47 said:

What about the reporters and others that don’t get paid millions that are around them and it spreads to?

They can get a new job, next man up. The NFL will play, on time, with fans. Enjoy it! 

[Embrace the Suck]

2 hours ago, Matt39 said:

As long as Supercuts survives the Barbershop wars, this quarantine will be a win in my book.

 

 

[Lot K Tailgaters]

I don’t really follow UFC but one of the fighters for tomorrow night just tested positive.  If everything went ok it could have helped pave the way for sports to reopen but now who knows.  
 

I can’t see sports restarting unless players, coaches, etc are literally living in a bubble for the season.   
 

The last thing any of these leagues want it for a team to get the virus.  

[JoJoTownsell1]

2 hours ago, Samtorobby47 said:

What about the reporters and others that don’t get paid millions that are around them and it spreads to?

Lol, the media don't have to be near the players. They can interview them via zoom if they fear for their lives. 

The reality is that this situation sucks.. But sacrifices will have to be made if society is to function again. The players are taking risks and so are taxi drivers, bus drivers and everyone that takes mass transit etc..

The leagues will open up. The only question is how they handle testing and what happens when one player (let alone 10) test positive. 

[Larz]

8 hours ago, OCCH23 said:

The only joke is that we're sitting here afraid of what happens if a team gets "hit hard" with a virus that statistically speaking has NO effect on 85% of the population, sickens most of the rest like the flu does (have to wait it out), and has a mortality rate of WAY less than 1% if you're not elderly/immune-compromised.

If the data changes, so will my mind.  But I'm amazed every day at how easy it's been to convince people this is the zombie-apocolypse we've all be waiting for, when the majority of people afraid they might get it probably already had it and didn't even know . . .

What’s 15 percent of 300 million?

why wouldn’t you count the elderly and immune compromised?  Just makes the data skewed to serve your view which means you’re not about the data at all 

[joebracken33]

Play the whole season on PS4 or Xbox

Don’t bother wasting millions of dollars on Jamal and others

Give kids like this one 5 years supply of soda and chips and win the Super Bowl

[OCCH23]

2 hours ago, Larz said:

What’s 15 percent of 300 million?

why wouldn’t you count the elderly and immune compromised?  Just makes the data skewed to serve your view which means you’re not about the data at all 

Um, because they don't play football and that's the purpose of this discussion?

And the real question is what's 0.2% of 300 million, because that's what the mortality rate is expected to be once all the data comes in (if you actually care about the data that is).

All you need is to look at the scarcity of toilet paper to see how easy it is to lead sheep off a cliff.  This is a sickness that attacks a specific segment of the population, and that's where our focus should be.  Worrying about elite athletes dying is just catnip for those already convinced we're in the end times . . .

[kevinc855]

31 minutes ago, OCCH23 said:

Um, because they don't play football and that's the purpose of this discussion?

And the real question is what's 0.2% of 300 million, because that's what the mortality rate is expected to be once all the data comes in (if you actually care about the data that is).

All you need is to look at the scarcity of toilet paper to see how easy it is to lead sheep off a cliff.  This is a sickness that attacks a specific segment of the population, and that's where our focus should be.  Worrying about elite athletes dying is just catnip for those already convinced we're in the end times . . .

Thank god guys like you who think it’s ok to kill thousands of people so you can go to Taco Bell aren’t the majority of people 

[Larz]

33 minutes ago, OCCH23 said:

Um, because they don't play football and that's the purpose of this discussion?

And the real question is what's 0.2% of 300 million, because that's what the mortality rate is expected to be once all the data comes in (if you actually care about the data that is).

All you need is to look at the scarcity of toilet paper to see how easy it is to lead sheep off a cliff.  This is a sickness that attacks a specific segment of the population, and that's where our focus should be.  Worrying about elite athletes dying is just catnip for those already convinced we're in the end times . . .

Did you get a diploma for your you tube research?  
 

you brought up the 85% not me. 
 

you clearly don’t care about the data you clearly manipulate the data in your mind to support your existing view 

thr basic premise of science is to let the data inform your conclusion. Your approach is the direct opposite which proves this isn’t about the data for you 

[Rangers9]

There is no evidence the virus will run its course and just go away. 

[playtowinthegame]

27 minutes ago, OCCH23 said:

Um, because they don't play football and that's the purpose of this discussion?

And the real question is what's 0.2% of 300 million, because that's what the mortality rate is expected to be once all the data comes in (if you actually care about the data that is).

All you need is to look at the scarcity of toilet paper to see how easy it is to lead sheep off a cliff.  This is a sickness that attacks a specific segment of the population, and that's where our focus should be.  Worrying about elite athletes dying is just catnip for those already convinced we're in the end times . . .

 

Yeah but some of the coaches and game officials make up that specific segment of the population...Government will need a lot more accurate testing, and a much more effective therapeutic, and obviously they'll need a COVID-19 vaccine for the world to start getting back to some sense of normalcy. I'm hopeful we'll achieve 2 out of 3 before football season, and hopefully an effective vaccine by January. 

[Hael]

One of the at risk groups are African American males with obesity issues.  And while elite athletes are probably/maybe ok, what Covid could do to the staff and family members surrounding them could be absolutely devastating.  

The NFL knows this, and are simply banking on the hope that better treatment options will miraculously be available.  My belief in an uninterrupted season is low.

[RutgersJetFan]

9 hours ago, Lot K Tailgaters said:

I don’t really follow UFC but one of the fighters for tomorrow night just tested positive.  If everything went ok it could have helped pave the way for sports to reopen but now who knows.  
 

I can’t see sports restarting unless players, coaches, etc are literally living in a bubble for the season.   
 

The last thing any of these leagues want it for a team to get the virus.  

The dude that tested positive is on the prelims and nobody else tested positive. Didn’t have any impact on the rest of the card (thus far). If anything Jacare testing positive shows that it’s possible for UFC and boxing to proceed with putting on events because the teams are small and are able to stay isolated from each other right up until the bell rings. They lost one fight off what is an incredibly stacked card.

That said it still blows. Jacare is a legend and I was looking forward to that fight.

[batman10023]

13 hours ago, Wonderboy said:

 

Batman would not appreciate smearing his name like this.

Sarcasm.  You missed it. 

[OCCH23]

30 minutes ago, Larz said:

Did you get a diploma for your you tube research?  
 

you brought up the 85% not me. 
 

you clearly don’t care about the data you clearly manipulate the data in your mind to support your existing view 

thr basic premise of science is to let the data inform your conclusion. Your approach is the direct opposite which proves this isn’t about the data for you 

If you're going to respond to a post, at least read it first.

I said 85% aren't effected -- that doesn't mean the other 15% are hospitalized/in danger of death.  It means they'll get sick, just like people do all the time (and just like I said in my original post).  I'm one of those examples -- cough/fever for two weeks but then bounced back.

If you think data is telling us to keep everyone in quarantine, please provide statistics to defend your opinion (as I have multiple times).  Please provide ANYTHING that suggests this is a mortal danger to the overall population and that getting infected is a potential death sentence.

It's OK, I'll wait . . .

[Larz]

13 minutes ago, Hael said:

One of the at risk groups are African American males with obesity issues.  And while elite athletes are probably/maybe ok, what Covid could do to the staff and family members surrounding them could be absolutely devastating.  

The NFL knows this, and are simply banking on the hope that better treatment options will miraculously be available.  My belief in an uninterrupted season is low.

Yeah the models are predicting deaths at a pretty high level in August with a possible return in “the fall”

[JoJoTownsell1]

33 minutes ago, kevinc855 said:

Thank god guys like you who think it’s ok to kill thousands of people so you can go to Taco Bell aren’t the majority of people 

Sweden hasn't locked down..

California is talking about opening gyms soon. 

The reality is that everyone, left and right, are starting to realize that you can't keep things shut down until this virus magically goes away or there is a vaccine. 

You need to protect the people at risk and safely and slowly reopen society and then have the flexibility to roll back openings if there is a larger enough outbreak.

The omg keep everything shut forever crew is as dangerous as the everything should just open today crew. 

[Larz]

3 minutes ago, OCCH23 said:

If you're going to respond to a post, at least read it first.

I said 85% aren't effected -- that doesn't mean the other 15% are hospitalized/in danger of death.  It means they'll get sick, just like people do all the time (and just like I said in my original post).  I'm one of those examples -- cough/fever for two weeks but then bounced back.

If you think data is telling us to keep everyone in quarantine, please provide statistics to defend your opinion (as I have multiple times).  Please provide ANYTHING that suggests this is a mortal danger to the overall population and that getting infected is a potential death sentence.

It's OK, I'll wait . . .

Not sure what your point is. You keep talking politics and I’m just pointing out that you are twisting everything to preserve your existing views 

you still haven’t said why you would eliminate elderly and immune compromised from the data?

not going to waste my time discussing this with you if you can’t start at the beginning and answer a direct and simple question. 

[OCCH23]

22 minutes ago, playtowinthegame said:

 

Yeah but some of the coaches and game officials make up that specific segment of the population...Government will need a lot more accurate testing, and a much more effective therapeutic, and obviously they'll need a COVID-19 vaccine for the world to start getting back to some sense of normalcy. I'm hopeful we'll achieve 2 out of 3 before football season, and hopefully an effective vaccine by January. 

I know it's "only football", so this post is more of a general statement about society as a whole:

Is Covid more dangerous for older/unhealthy people?  Yes.  But according to the CDC website, 80% of deaths are in people 65 or older, and only 4-11% of 65-84 year olds end up dying.  (Even for those 85+ the death rate is 10-27%, which means 3 out of every 4 of the VERY elderly are expected to recover).

Point is, I believe each person should decide for himself what "risk" he's willing to take.  If a 50 yo ref with good health wants to do a game, he should be able to.  If a 70 yo coach with diabetes wants to step away for a while, that would probably be a good choice.

But this idea that we're asking ANYONE (regardless of age/health) to sign their death warrant by letting life get back to normal just isn't supported by any facts I've seen . . .

 

[Larz]

6 minutes ago, JoJoTownsell1 said:

Sweden hasn't locked down..

California is talking about opening gyms soon. 

The reality is that everyone, left and right, are starting to realize that you can't keep things shut down until this virus magically goes away or there is a vaccine. 

You need to protect the people at risk and safely and slowly reopen society and then have the flexibility to roll back openings if there is a larger enough outbreak.

The omg keep everything shut forever crew is as dangerous as the everything should just open today crew. 

Should have taken more clues from Asia, having dealt with sars recently they knew the playbook for respiratory pathogens, military and industrial mass production of respirators and PPE, test and track 

many schools are open and they were on the masks thing very early 

[Rexorcism]

Wondering if the virus hit a team or two hard and they lose 20-30% of the players during the season what happens? Play on with who you have? Forfeit game or two to recover. Does league shut down. This could really get crazy. 

Corona has been shown to have no effect on normal healthy people in almost all cases, we've been had.

[OCCH23]

11 minutes ago, Larz said:

Not sure what your point is. You keep talking politics and I’m just pointing out that you are twisting everything to preserve your existing views 

you still haven’t said why you would eliminate elderly and immune compromised from the data?

not going to waste my time discussing this with you if you can’t start at the beginning and answer a direct and simple question. 

I have a feeling you don't want a legitimate discussion (considering I never once mentioned "politics" yet somehow you did). but I'll try one more time from the beginning.

The original question was "what if Corona hits a team hard".  I explained that wasn't likely according to statistics, as 85% of people who get the virus aren't affected, and that the chance of any serious illness/death was VERY low if you remove elderly/unhealthy from the equation (since they don't play football).

I later admitted I wasn't considering coaches/refs, but still provided CDC statistics that show people of ANY age/health are considerably more likely to recover than die.

Is it possible for a team to get sick at the same time?  Yes, and they would have to figure something out for two weeks until they got better (like Tampa with their medical outbreak a few years ago).

But to act like we're asking them to put their lives on the line is borderline ignorant/purposely misleading to make this thing seem like a bigger deal than it actually is.

And can't help but notice you STILL haven't provided a shred of data (which you supposedly hold in high regard) to support your position . . .

[Larz]

3 minutes ago, Rexorcism said:

Corona has been shown to have no effect on normal healthy people in almost all cases, we've been had.

Almost all

even the influenza outbreak of 1918 had an estimated mortality rate of 2.5%
 

 

[Larz]

7 minutes ago, OCCH23 said:

I have a feeling you don't want a legitimate discussion (considering I never once mentioned "politics" yet somehow you did). but I'll try one more time from the beginning.

The original question was "what if Corona hits a team hard".  I explained that wasn't likely according to statistics, as 85% of people who get the virus aren't affected, and that the chance of any serious illness/death was VERY low if you remove elderly/unhealthy from the equation (since they don't play football).

I later admitted I wasn't considering coaches/refs, but still provided CDC statistics that show people of ANY age/health are considerably more likely to recover than die.

Is it possible for a team to get sick at the same time?  Yes, and they would have to figure something out for two weeks until they got better (like Tampa with their medical outbreak a few years ago).

But to act like we're asking them to put their lives on the line is borderline ignorant/purposely misleading to make this thing seem like a bigger deal than it actually is.

And can't help but notice you STILL haven't provided a shred of data (which you supposedly hold in high regard) to support your position . . .

Oh this is a football discussion 

[OCCH23]

2 minutes ago, Larz said:

Almost all

even the influenza outbreak of 1918 had an estimated mortality rate of 2.5%
 

 

And had a high mortality rate among young adults, which this current virus does not appear to have.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3734171/

That's why they believe the mortality rate will be considerably less than 1% of the population once all data has been collected.

[OCCH23]

4 minutes ago, Larz said:

Oh this is a football discussion 

Are you capable of ANY discussion?  I would like to watch football in the fall and do not believe statistics defend the position that we shouldn't have it.  You respond to my post (not the other way around) and have done NOTHING to support your opinion.

I don't need a gif to illustrate how ridiculous your position has been throughout this thread . . .

[JoJoTownsell1]

47 minutes ago, Larz said:

Should have taken more clues from Asia, having dealt with sars recently they knew the playbook for respiratory pathogens, military and industrial mass production of respirators and PPE, test and track 

many schools are open and they were on the masks thing very early 

We definitely dropped the ball early on with respect to ppe etc but Asian countries like you said had history to work off of. The West, by in large, felt immune and the cost has been pretty severe. 

It also didn't hurt that China and to a lesser extent South Korea can also control their society with much greater ease than you can in America.. Some of the steps taken in those countries would never fly here. Could you imagine doing in the south what China did to Wuhan? There would be a civil war.

[RutgersJetFan]

2 hours ago, RutgersJetFan said:

The dude that tested positive is on the prelims and nobody else tested positive. Didn’t have any impact on the rest of the card (thus far). If anything Jacare testing positive shows that it’s possible for UFC and boxing to proceed with putting on events because the teams are small and are able to stay isolated from each other right up until the bell rings. They lost one fight off what is an incredibly stacked card.

That said it still blows. Jacare is a legend and I was looking forward to that fight.

Also worth noting: Fight camps are fairly simple things. Not nearly as much of an administrative production as football. It's a few trainers and sparring partners and that's about it. It's a very common thing for guys that are getting ready for fights to isolate themselves anyways; pros and their families are used to doing this for 5-8 weeks. The reason MMA was able to pull this off is because it's easy to train in quarantine and stay isolated from anyone outside your circle. Logistically, Dana White could (and should) have pulled this off weeks ago and the only reason he didn't is because Disney didn't like how it looked from a PR standpoint.

For football how does that even work? Think about the amount of people involved in just getting one football team ready for a season. All of the coaches, trainers, medical staff, and the players. Every single one of those guys is supposed to quarantine with each other for an entire season? No chance.

[Larz]

56 minutes ago, JoJoTownsell1 said:

We definitely dropped the ball early on with respect to ppe etc but Asian countries like you said had history to work off of. The West, by in large, felt immune and the cost has been pretty severe. 

It also didn't hurt that China and to a lesser extent South Korea can also control their society with much greater ease than you can in America.. Some of the steps taken in those countries would never fly here. Could you imagine doing in the south what China did to Wuhan? There would be a civil war.

The population following guidelines is another factor for sure from what I’ve read South Korea just put out recommendations and a majority of the people just did it.   My family in Norway helped my daughter with a school project about their taxes/ healthcare system and they told her they are happy to pay more to help fellow Norwegian’s. Not really the attitude here lol. 
 

the wuhan hard shut down was really extreme for sure.   Not sure how many countries could pull that off

[playtowinthegame]

3 hours ago, OCCH23 said:

I know it's "only football", so this post is more of a general statement about society as a whole:

Is Covid more dangerous for older/unhealthy people?  Yes.  But according to the CDC website, 80% of deaths are in people 65 or older, and only 4-11% of 65-84 year olds end up dying.  (Even for those 85+ the death rate is 10-27%, which means 3 out of every 4 of the VERY elderly are expected to recover).

Point is, I believe each person should decide for himself what "risk" he's willing to take.  If a 50 yo ref with good health wants to do a game, he should be able to.  If a 70 yo coach with diabetes wants to step away for a while, that would probably be a good choice.

But this idea that we're asking ANYONE (regardless of age/health) to sign their death warrant by letting life get back to normal just isn't supported by any facts I've seen . . .

 

You make some good points regarding the risk for different age groups. The thing I'm mostly concerned with is not overwhelming the hospitals...which have consequences outside of COVID-19...example; people dying because they're not able to get an "elective" surgery. I watched an interview conducted by Mark Levin with Dr. David Katz, who's a humanist, and he made strong arguments for why we need herd immunity. Locking people down will cost more lives. In theory once someone gets over the Coronavirus they become a blocker and shield those who haven't been infected. There really is no easy solution, but absent a vaccine it is herd immunity that is the best course of action for humanity. 

[Rangers9]

29 minutes ago, playtowinthegame said:

You make some good points regarding the risk for different age groups. The thing I'm mostly concerned with is not overwhelming the hospitals...which have consequences outside of COVID-19...example; people dying because they're not able to get an "elective" surgery. I watched an interview conducted by Mark Levin with Dr. David Katz, who's a humanist, and he made strong arguments for why we need herd immunity. Locking people down will cost more lives. In theory once someone gets over the Coronavirus they become a blocker and shield those who haven't been infected. There really is no easy solution, but absent a vaccine it is herd immunity that is the best course of action for humanity. 

Not surprised that Mark Levin would have a doctor on supporting herd immunity. If that many people get it you have many deaths. Even Trump has said you can cut deaths from 2 million to much lower and that’s right. But not via herd immunity. That’s the way you get the 2 million deaths. It’s not even working in Sweden which has the highest death rate in that area of Europe. 

[OCCH23]

19 minutes ago, playtowinthegame said:

You make some good points regarding the risk for different age groups. The thing I'm mostly concerned with is not overwhelming the hospitals...which have consequences outside of COVID-19...example; people dying because they're not able to get an "elective" surgery. I watched an interview conducted by Mark Levin with Dr. David Katz, who's a humanist, and he made strong arguments for why we need herd immunity. Locking people down will cost more lives. In theory once someone gets over the Coronavirus the become a blocker and shield those who haven't been infected. There really is no easy solution, but absent a vaccine it is herd immunity that is the best course of action for humanity. 

I couldn't agree more.  Outside of a vaccine, "stay home, save lives" is really "stay home, postpone deaths".  That's why they talk about FLATTENING THE CURVE (spreading deaths out) instead of LOWERING it (lessening deaths).

I have the same concern about hospitals, but it comes down to whether we want to rip the band-aid off all at once or slowly pick at it for months -- in the end there's little reason to believe someone who can't handle the virus in May will be able to in August.  I truly believe if those who are at higher risk acted like it (took extra precaution) we could open things up and allow herd immunity to do its thing.

But I openly admit I'm not a doctor (or a fortune teller) so I'll just make sure to take care of me and my own and do my best to live in whatever reality I find myself . . .

[OCCH23]

5 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

Not surprised that Mark Levin would have a doctor on supporting herd immunity. If that many people get it you have many deaths. Even Trump has said you can cut deaths from 2 million to much lower and that’s right. But not via herd immunity. That’s the way you get the 2 million deaths. It’s not even working in Sweden which has the highest death rate in that area of Europe. 

Honest question that I admit I don't have the answer to -- do you believe herd immunity leads to MORE deaths, or just QUICKER deaths?  Is there any reason to believe the person who would die from the virus in May wouldn't die in August?  Sure Sweden has more NOW because people got exposed quicker.  But most say they don't have to worry about a "second wave" like we will because we have so many unexposed (with weaker immunity, as that's what happens when you're not around people).

I'd be interested if you've heard anything regarding this difference, as I've only heard it from one side (pro-herd) . . .

 

[JoJoTownsell1]

12 minutes ago, OCCH23 said:

I couldn't agree more.  Outside of a vaccine, "stay home, save lives" is really "stay home, postpone deaths".  That's why they talk about FLATTENING THE CURVE (spreading deaths out) instead of LOWERING it (lessening deaths).

I have the same concern about hospitals, but it comes down to whether we want to rip the band-aid off all at once or slowly pick at it for months -- in the end there's little reason to believe someone who can't handle the virus in May will be able to in August.  I truly believe if those who are at higher risk acted like it (took extra precaution) we could open things up and allow herd immunity to do its thing.

But I openly admit I'm not a doctor (or a fortune teller) so I'll just make sure to take care of me and my own and do my best to live in whatever reality I find myself . . .

There is actually good reason to believe that by August there will be more effective treatments available than there were back in March. Back in March we were just using random, unverified treatments on the hopes that they would work. By August we will have more data on all these treatments to know which are more effective. 

Also if hospitals aren't flooded, doctors will have more time with each patient to handle their specific needs which should, in theory, help their chances of survival. 

I firmly believe the shutdown was needed to prevent mass deaths and i also firmly believe that the time has come to slowly reopen with the understanding that doing so comes with an increase in deaths. It really sucks, but the cost of shutting down could be far worse in the long term. 

As for sports, I am pretty confident these players will get tested repeatedly and once they test positive will get the benefit of the best treatments at the earliest stages and therefore should be fine relative to their chances of survival if they didn't play and caught  the virus at home while dining at a restaurant, going to the gym, a strip club etc... 

[Rangers9]

1 hour ago, OCCH23 said:

Honest question that I admit I don't have the answer to -- do you believe herd immunity leads to MORE deaths, or just QUICKER deaths?  Is there any reason to believe the person who would die from the virus in May wouldn't die in August?  Sure Sweden has more NOW because people got exposed quicker.  But most say they don't have to worry about a "second wave" like we will because we have so many unexposed (with weaker immunity, as that's what happens when you're not around people).

I'd be interested if you've heard anything regarding this difference, as I've only heard it from one side (pro-herd) . . .

 

I don’t see how anyone can be pro herd immunity. Plus there’s no clinical proof that if you get the virus you’re exempt from ever getting it again. They don’t completely understand antibodies yet. Also there is no proof that any therapeutics are going to work. There is one that they think in certain cases can help patients esp in terms of recovery. But not to save lives of people in critical circumstances. I’m kind of concerned about this “warp speed” initiative for remedies. Already we’re seeing that drugs and tests that have some kind of limited FDA approval are ineffective.