Gardner Minshew and Anthony Barr added to Covid-19 list

[nycdan]

Our old friend Anthony Barr was added.  So was Gardner Minshew.  And Mason Crosby.  The list  is starting to grow.  Lions have 8 players and Vikings and Jaguars have 7.  These aren't opt-outs, these are players who tested positive or were exposed and have to quarantine.  

https://nfltraderumors.co/2020-nfl-covid-19-list/

[y2k8]

I just assumed Anthony Barr's ego was still recovering from getting trucked by Jimmy GQ in the playoffs.  

[UntouchableCrew]

This season isn't happening. 

You just can't do it without a bubble.

[section314]

1 minute ago, UntouchableCrew said:

This season isn't happening. 

You just can't do it without a bubble.

With you on this one. The last straw will be when one or two of the top QB's get a positive test. Obviously would never hope anyone, anywhere on the planet gets this thing, but in the NFL world, that would probably do it.

[nico002]

Bubble or not these guys were going to test positive during the initial round of testing as players report... I agree that it will be a challenge but the real problem is if there is an outbreak because a player fell through the cracks. Constant testing and identification/ isolation of infected players is what the system is indented to do. 

[UntouchableCrew]

Just now, section314 said:

With you on this one. The last straw will be when one or two of the top QB's get a positive test. Obviously would never hope anyone, anywhere on the planet gets this thing, but in the NFL world, that would probably do it.

There are just too many guys, too many moving parts on a football team to trust everyone. You need every player (including young guys in their early 20s accustomed to a certain lifestyle) every coach, every trainer, every equipment guy, etc. to be smart and safe. One guy screws up and suddenly you have a breakout.

[nico002]

1 minute ago, UntouchableCrew said:

There are just too many guys, too many moving parts on a football team to trust everyone. You need every player (including young guys in their early 20s accustomed to a certain lifestyle) every coach, every trainer, every equipment guy, etc. to be smart and safe. One guy screws up and suddenly you have a breakout.

You don’t have to trust everyone. You just have to trust that the system/protocols put in place is able to identify positive players before they have a chance to spread the virus across the team. The idea is to create a system where every practice/game is in essence a mini bubble. 

[section314]

1 minute ago, UntouchableCrew said:

There are just too many guys, too many moving parts on a football team to trust everyone. You need every player (including young guys in their early 20s accustomed to a certain lifestyle) every coach, every trainer, every equipment guy, etc. to be smart and safe. One guy screws up and suddenly you have a breakout.

I thought JD really tried to drive your point home last week when I heard him on the Michael Kay show. He went through all the safety protocols the team had set up , and said that he feels "that the safest place for all our staff is in our building." Sadly, as you stated above, it's just not in young people's DNA to do all that is required. To be fair, I'm 62, definitely starting the back nine, and it has been tough. But you are right, everyone, has to be "all in." And not just in sports, but the entire country.

[pdxgreen]

[UntouchableCrew]

8 minutes ago, nico002 said:

You don’t have to trust everyone. You just have to trust that the system/protocols put in place is able to identify positive players before they have a chance to spread the virus across the team. The idea is to create a system where every practice/game is in essence a mini bubble. 

Well first of all I think that's pretty much impossible. And I don't agree that simply identifying players is all you need. You need these guys to be smart and not get the virus.

The Marlins breakout was the result of players going to a nightclub. The Cardinals breakout was the result of players going to a casino. Is there any reason to trust football players more than baseball players? 

[nico002]

7 minutes ago, UntouchableCrew said:

Well first of all I think that's pretty much impossible. And I don't agree that simply identifying players is all you need. You need these guys to be smart and not get the virus.

The Marlins breakout was the result of players going to a nightclub. The Cardinals breakout was the result of players going to a casino. Is there any reason to trust football players more than baseball players? 

Of course I agree that players need to act responsibly for it to work. But it’s possible to get the virus even if you think you’re being careful. The only way the season works is if the systems in place can identify and isolate positive players before practices/games. As far as trusting football players more than baseball players, I hope that seeing others **** up will be motivation enough to behave. I do believe that the NfLs 1 game per week format helps with being able to create these temporary bubbles.

[Hael]

 

27 minutes ago, UntouchableCrew said:

This season isn't happening. 

You just can't do it without a bubble.

Agreed.  I think we’re  going to get a month or two of football, and then either an outbreak takes out a sizeable amount of a team or kills a coach (causing a pr nightmare for the NFL).  Even more likely a governor shuts his state down, when the weather gets cold and you get the double influenza and covid whammy.

The NFL knows the crazy logistics issue of a bubble, but I think they might try it to save a season on the brink (and I think it could work).

[nico002]

3 minutes ago, Hael said:

 

Agreed.  I think we’re  going to get a month or two of football, and then either an outbreak takes out a sizeable amount of a team or kills a coach (causing a pr nightmare for the NFL).  Even more likely a governor shuts his state down, when the weather gets cold and you get the double influenza and covid whammy.

The NFL knows the crazy logistics issue of a bubble, but I think they might try it to save a season on the brink (and I think it could work).

Your point about covid influenza is irrelevant for Sports with no fans, not sure what your point is there. Two months of football is 8 weeks. If they can make it two months they can get lucky and make it 4. Hell, by October/November we may already have a vaccine. I agree that it won’t be easy, but I don’t think it’s impossible. 

[Jetster]

33 minutes ago, section314 said:

With you on this one. The last straw will be when one or two of the top QB's get a positive test. Obviously would never hope anyone, anywhere on the planet gets this thing, but in the NFL world, that would probably do it.

Over a month until a real game. 

[sec101row23]

10 minutes ago, nico002 said:

Of course I agree that players need to act responsibly for it to work. But it’s possible to get the virus even if you think you’re being careful. The only way the season works is if the systems in place can identify and isolate positive players before practices/games. As far as trusting football players more than baseball players, I hope that seeing others **** up will be motivation enough to behave. I do believe that the NfLs 1 game per week format helps with being able to create these temporary bubbles.

You keep spewing this non-sense about temporary bubbles.  There is no such thing.  The whole point of a bubble is that it is long term and isolates the players from the rest of the world.  You can not do that by having teams traveling all over the country each week and coming into contact with one another.   Game day is literally the complete opposite of a bubble.   

[nico002]

13 minutes ago, sec101row23 said:

You keep spewing this non-sense about temporary bubbles.  There is no such thing.  The whole point of a bubble is that it is long term and isolates the players from the rest of the world.  You can not do that by having teams traveling all over the country each week and coming into contact with one another.   Game day is literally the complete opposite of a bubble.   

It’s not that hard 

Saturday - test everyone and isolate in hotel until Sunday AM, virtual walk throughs 

Sunday AM - team taken to stadium for game. Game is essentially a bubble

Sunday after game - test everyone and isolate in hotel 

Monday AM - players can go home if negative 

Tuesday AM - players tested and isolated at home - all day virtual meetings 

Wed AM - team taken to practice,  practice a bubble 

Thurs/Friday - players tested daily, practice with one day result lag- only two days where it’s not a bubble 

 

 

[The Crusher]

1 minute ago, nico002 said:

It’s not that hard 

Saturday - test everyone and isolate in hotel until Sunday AM

Sunday AM - team taken time stadium for game. Game is essentially a bubble

Sunday after game - test everyone and isolate in hotel 

Monday AM - players can go home if negative 

Tuesday AM - players tested and isolated at home - all day virtual meetings 

Wed AM - team taken today practice,  practice a bubble 

Thurs/Friday - players tested daily, practice with one day result lag- only two days where it’s not a bubble 

 

 

Not sure it will work for the NFL, but be a hell of a REALITY SHOW.   Rather than getting vote of they get the Rona. 

[sec101row23]

Just now, nico002 said:

It’s not that hard 

Saturday - test everyone and isolate in hotel until Sunday AM

Sunday AM - team taken time stadium for game. Game is essentially a bubble

Sunday after game - test everyone and isolate in hotel 

Monday AM - players can go home if negative 

Tuesday AM - players tested and isolated at home - all day virtual meetings 

Wed AM - team taken today practice,  practice a bubble 

Thurs/Friday - players tested daily, practice with one day result lag- only two days where it’s not a bubble 

 

 

Lmao...ok.   Testing does not equal a bubble.  

[Matt39]

People really don’t seem to care for potential solutions. 

[nico002]

1 minute ago, sec101row23 said:

Lmao...ok.   Testing does not equal a bubble.  

Ok... can you at least articulate the issues you see with that system? 
 

The NBA bubble isn’t really a bubble either. All the hotel staff making food, etc, is going home at night. 

[playtowinthegame]

We need 16 football fields and 32 team hotels with a prison wall around it all.

[Hael]

50 minutes ago, nico002 said:

Your point about covid influenza is irrelevant for Sports with no fans, not sure what your point is there. Two months of football is 8 weeks. If they can make it two months they can get lucky and make it 4. Hell, by October/November we may already have a vaccine. I agree that it won’t be easy, but I don’t think it’s impossible. 

I don’t understand.  What difference does it make if fans are there or not.

The point is, when the influenza season hits, the healthcare system already gets stressed.  If on top of that you have strong local covid outbreaks, there really isn’t much of a solution.  The recent outbreaks in Florida or Texas, had they happened in October, would have almost assuredly forced another lockdown for those states.  As it was, they seem to have just barely turned it around in time (it was a close call).

Sports won’t happen under lockdown circumstances, so the NFL would likely have to move the team out of state (and there you get into the bubble scenario)

 

[Jetsfan80]

45 minutes ago, Matt39 said:

People really don’t seem to care for potential solutions. 

There was a hard deadline for these players to opt out, unlike MLB.  

If they're going to come up with a solution that works for most (like bubbles/neutral site games), they need to do it very quickly.  

[nycdan]

49 minutes ago, nico002 said:

It’s not that hard 

Saturday - test everyone and isolate in hotel until Sunday AM, virtual walk throughs 

Sunday AM - team taken to stadium for game. Game is essentially a bubble

Sunday after game - test everyone and isolate in hotel 

Monday AM - players can go home if negative 

Tuesday AM - players tested and isolated at home - all day virtual meetings 

Wed AM - team taken to practice,  practice a bubble 

Thurs/Friday - players tested daily, practice with one day result lag- only two days where it’s not a bubble 

 

 

That schedule won't work.

It can take up to 11 days for an infected patient to test positive.  Most cases will express in 3-9 days.  Worse yet, you can be contagious before you are symptomatic or showing a positive test.  I believe this is because the virus can develop in your lungs days before it travels to your blood where it can trigger a positive test.  Different doctors will debate the exact number of days but pretty much all agree about patients likely being contagious before they  are symptomatic.

So by the time a positive result shows up, everyone else in the bubble has been exposed.  You either bubble for the entire season, or you are taking calculated risks.  

[nico002]

3 minutes ago, Hael said:

I don’t understand.  What difference does it make if fans are there or not.

The point is, when the influenza season hits, the healthcare system already gets stressed.  If on top of that you have strong local covid outbreaks, there really isn’t much of a solution.  The recent outbreaks in Florida or Texas, had they happened in October, would have almost assuredly forced another lockdown for those states.  As it was, they seem to have just barely turned it around in time (it was a close call).

Sports won’t happen under lockdown circumstances, so the NFL would likely have to move the team out of state (and there you get into the bubble scenario)

 

I still don't see how influenza is relevant to the NFL. To hospitals being stressed, sure, but to the NFL? You would hope that by flu season if Covid cases continue to decline (as they have for the last 10 days or so) we'll be in a much better place than today. Plus, we'll have a vaccine soon after that. 

[nico002]

5 minutes ago, nycdan said:

That schedule won't work.

It can take up to 11 days for an infected patient to test positive.  Most cases will express in 3-9 days.  Worse yet, you can be contagious before you are symptomatic or showing a positive test.  I believe this is because the virus can develop in your lungs days before it travels to your blood where it can trigger a positive test.  Different doctors will debate the exact number of days but pretty much all agree about patients likely being contagious before they  are symptomatic.

So by the time a positive result shows up, everyone else in the bubble has been exposed.  You either bubble for the entire season, or you are taking calculated risks.  

That'ts not quite right. It can take 10-14 days to develop  symptoms, which is when you are more likely to test positive. Even then, you only have about a 70% chance of the test being accurate. Testing is improving all the time, we'll probably have a rapid test in a couple of months. Regardless, in a system where everyone is being tested daily and essentially bubbled 4/7 days of the week... The risks of contracting and spreading the virus go down dramatically. I am not claiming its a perfect system, but I don't think comparing it to the MLB is fair. They play multiple times per week which complicates things significantly. 

[nycdan]

4 minutes ago, nico002 said:

That'ts not quite right. It can take 10-14 days to develop  symptoms, which is when you are more likely to test positive. Even then, you only have about a 70% chance of the test being accurate. Testing is improving all the time, we'll probably have a rapid test in a couple of months. Regardless, in a system where everyone is being tested daily and essentially bubbled 4/7 days of the week... The risks of contracting and spreading the virus go down dramatically. I am not claiming its a perfect system, but I don't think comparing it to the MLB is fair. They play multiple times per week which complicates things significantly. 

You missed the most important point.  You are likely to be CONTAGIOUS before you are either symptomatic or producing a positive test.  That means by the time someone tests positive who has been out and back in, they have potentially exposed everyone else they have come into contact with.  There is no getting around that.  14 days quarantine is conservative but 7 is not enough.  Inconvenient but true.

[nico002]

10 minutes ago, nycdan said:

You missed the most important point.  You are likely to be CONTAGIOUS before you are either symptomatic or producing a positive test.  That means by the time someone tests positive who has been out and back in, they have potentially exposed everyone else they have come into contact with.  There is no getting around that.  14 days quarantine is conservative but 7 is not enough.  Inconvenient but true.

I don't think its quite that definitive or extreme...

 

from CDC

"The onset and duration of viral shedding and the period of infectiousness for COVID-19 are not yet known with certainty. Based on current evidence, scientists believe that persons with mild to moderate COVID-19 may shed replication-competent SARS-CoV-2 for up to 10 days following symptom onset, while a small fraction of persons with severe COVID-19, including immunocompromised persons, may shed replication-competent virus for up to 20 days. It is possible that SARS-CoV-2 RNA may be detectable in the upper or lower respiratory tract for weeks after illness onset, similar to infections with MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV. However, detection of viral RNA does not necessarily mean that infectious virus is present. Based on existing literature, the incubation period (the time from exposure to development of symptoms) of SARS-CoV-2 and other coronaviruses (e.g., MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV) ranges from 2–14 days."

 

From Harvard

 

 

"How soon after I'm infected with the new coronavirus will I start to be contagious?

The time from exposure to symptom onset (known as the incubation period) is thought to be three to 14 days, though symptoms typically appear within four or five days after exposure.

We know that a person with COVID-19 may be contagious 48 to 72 hours before starting to experience symptoms. Emerging research suggests that people may actually be most likely to spread the virus to others during the 48 hours before they start to experience symptoms."

[jeremy2020]

I think we can all be thankful that Barr decided he didn't want a gigantic albatross of a contract from the Jets

[nycdan]

3 hours ago, nico002 said:

I don't think its quite that definitive or extreme...

We know that a person with COVID-19 may be contagious 48 to 72 hours before starting to experience symptoms. Emerging research suggests that people may actually be most likely to spread the virus to others during the 48 hours before they start to experience symptoms."

Yes, it is.  Read the last paragraph you posted.  It answers the question.  You can spread the virus before you experience symptoms.  

[nico002]

10 minutes ago, nycdan said:

Yes, it is.  Read the last paragraph you posted.  It answers the question.  You can spread the virus before you experience symptoms.  

Yes I agree,  but spreading the virus for 11 days without symptoms is not the most common occurrence like your post made it seem 

[nycdan]

2 minutes ago, nico002 said:

Yes I agree,  but spreading the virus for 11 days without symptoms is not the most common occurrence like your post made it seem 

No...spreading for 1-2 days before onset of symptoms is the danger.  I a small group like the 100 or so people in the Tier 1 list, you could easily infect a dozen people in that time.  Then they have another day or two to infect people.  Basically, it's World War Z inside of a week.

Honestly, I would put it 50-50 for either baseball or NFL to finish their seasons.  NBA and NHL seem to be in slightly better shape because they can fully bubble.

[Matt39]

Minshew is already off the list and had a false positive as did Stafford. Stafford's wife also just took a dump on the entire process. 

 

[SomebodytoAnybody47]

16 minutes ago, Matt39 said:

Minshew is already off the list and had a false positive as did Stafford. Stafford's wife also just took a dump on the entire process. 

 

Sounds more like she lives around some shi*ty neighbors and people. 
But I do agree with releasing the info. Are there no HIPPA laws with this? They can just release it to the world??

[Matt39]

4 minutes ago, Samtorobby47 said:

Sounds more like she lives around some shi*ty neighbors and people. 
But I do agree with releasing the info. Are there no HIPPA laws with this? They can just release it to the world??

Sports media doing a conga-line every time there's a positive test isnt helping matters either.