CSNbbs

Data is from the first of this week.

North Carolina data:

0-17 - there is 1 death out of 15,307 cases (0.0065%)

18-24 - there are 3 deaths out of 19,121 cases (0.0157%)

25-49 - there are 110 deaths out of 59,706 cases (0.1842%)

50-64 - there are 338 deaths out of 25,868 cases (1.3066%)

65-74 - there are 489 deaths out of 8,975 cases (5.4485%)

75+ - there are 1,231 deaths out of 7,796 cases (15.7901%)

Nursing Homes - 1,084 deaths (50% of the total deaths - only 6.8% of the cases); Nursing home death rate - 11.58%

Non-nursing homes - 1,088 deaths (50%); Non-nursing home death rates - 0.85%

(08-14-2020 08:24 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]Data is from the first of this week.

North Carolina data:

0-17 - there is 1 death out of 15,307 cases (0.0065%)

18-24 - there are 3 deaths out of 19,121 cases (0.0157%)

And truth be told ... of these four sad cases, there's a good chance all of them involved a serious co-condition like a heart ailment or asthma or diabetes, and any athlete of any age with those right now should be self-isolating anyway so wouldn't be playing football.

If a 21 year old takes the football field this year, they are much much more likely to have a serious health event from just playing the game than from Covid.

Death isn’t the only negative outcome of Covid. I’m not sure if it will make the news too much if a student-athlete suffers lung or heart damage that limits his ability to turn pro.

(08-14-2020 08:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-14-2020 08:24 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]Data is from the first of this week.

North Carolina data:

0-17 - there is 1 death out of 15,307 cases (0.0065%)

18-24 - there are 3 deaths out of 19,121 cases (0.0157%)

And truth be told ... of these four sad cases, there's a good chance all of them involved a serious co-condition like a heart ailment or asthma or diabetes, and any athlete of any age with those right now should be self-isolating anyway so wouldn't be playing football.

If a 21 year old takes the football field this year, they are much much more likely to have a serious health event from just playing the game than from Covid.

Totally True!

(08-14-2020 09:15 AM)CenterSquarEd Wrote: [ -> ]Death isn’t the only negative outcome of Covid. I’m not sure if it will make the news too much if a student-athlete suffers lung or heart damage that limits his ability to turn pro.

That is why Quo and others do not get about the athletes who caught the virus could have these problems, and any players in the future. The athletes in the Big 10 and Pac 12 are glad that the season is postponed, and they are encouraging their counterparts in the other conferences to all sit out since there are no chance that these schools can keep an outbreak from happening. Look at the FSU fiasco.

(08-14-2020 10:14 AM)DavidSt Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-14-2020 09:15 AM)CenterSquarEd Wrote: [ -> ]Death isn’t the only negative outcome of Covid. I’m not sure if it will make the news too much if a student-athlete suffers lung or heart damage that limits his ability to turn pro.

That is why Quo and others do not get about the athletes who caught the virus could have these problems, and any players in the future. The athletes in the Big 10 and Pac 12 are glad that the season is postponed, and they are encouraging their counterparts in the other conferences to all sit out since there are no chance that these schools can keep an outbreak from happening. Look at the FSU fiasco.

Football players are being tested 2X per week. That's not to say that a football player won't get COVID, but if they get sick it will be from someone outside the team.
The only way to prevent any student from getting sick on campus is to send them home where they are more likely to pick up the virus.

(08-14-2020 08:24 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]Data is from the first of this week.

North Carolina data:

0-17 - there is 1 death out of 15,307 cases (0.0065%)

18-24 - there are 3 deaths out of 19,121 cases (0.0157%)

25-49 - there are 110 deaths out of 59,706 cases (0.1842%)

50-64 - there are 338 deaths out of 25,868 cases (1.3066%)

65-74 - there are 489 deaths out of 8,975 cases (5.4485%)

75+ - there are 1,231 deaths out of 7,796 cases (15.7901%)

Nursing Homes - 1,084 deaths (50% of the total deaths - only 6.8% of the cases); Nursing home death rate - 11.58%

Non-nursing homes - 1,088 deaths (50%); Non-nursing home death rates - 0.85%

Thanks for sharing this. Where is your source?

Good thing student athletes don't interact with professors, coaches, administrators, or anyone else on a college campus who could be older or more vulnerable.

(08-14-2020 09:15 AM)CenterSquarEd Wrote: [ -> ]Death isn’t the only negative outcome of Covid. I’m not sure if it will make the news too much if a student-athlete suffers lung or heart damage that limits his ability to turn pro.

This is a very important point. True, most of those who have died had underlying health concerns. But one can still get the virus, survive, but suffer long-term negative effects.

We don't need to shut down the country. But we do need to be respectful of the virus.

(08-14-2020 09:15 AM)CenterSquarEd Wrote: [ -> ]Death isn’t the only negative outcome of Covid. I’m not sure if it will make the news too much if a student-athlete suffers lung or heart damage that limits his ability to turn pro.

So you are asserting that playing football causes COVID or causes negative COVID outcomes?

(08-14-2020 10:14 AM)DavidSt Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-14-2020 09:15 AM)CenterSquarEd Wrote: [ -> ]Death isn’t the only negative outcome of Covid. I’m not sure if it will make the news too much if a student-athlete suffers lung or heart damage that limits his ability to turn pro.

That is why Quo and others do not get about the athletes who caught the virus could have these problems, and any players in the future.

We do get it. But absent scientific studies proving large risk of heart ailments or other permanent outcomes, we quite rightly do not believe that these anecdotes should be the basis of policy. They are scary anecdotes used by covidoids to justify shutting things down.

(08-14-2020 01:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-14-2020 10:14 AM)DavidSt Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-14-2020 09:15 AM)CenterSquarEd Wrote: [ -> ]Death isn’t the only negative outcome of Covid. I’m not sure if it will make the news too much if a student-athlete suffers lung or heart damage that limits his ability to turn pro.

That is why Quo and others do not get about the athletes who caught the virus could have these problems, and any players in the future.

We do get it. But absent scientific studies proving large risk of heart ailments or other permanent outcomes, we quite rightly do not believe that these anecdotes should be the basis of policy. They are scary anecdotes used by covidoids to justify shutting things down.

That's not how public health policy is made, nor should it be.

You don't wait around for months or years for statistical evidence of adverse long-term health effects to emerge before you put safeguards into place, IF you have a compelling a priori reason to think the disease by its nature is likely to produce such effects.

Since the novel coronavirus emerged we've learned a couple of important things about how it makes people sick. The first is that it infects human cells by using a protein on those "spikes" we see in all the virus pictures to bind to a protein on the cell surface called the ACE2 receptor. The second is that after the virus infects human cells the consequences are not only viral reproduction but also inflammation and blood clotting which can damage surrounding tissues.

A misconception a lot of people have about the disease is that it only targets the lungs and so it's just a "bad flu" and once it clears from the lungs everything is fine. What they don't understand is that cells with ACE2 receptors aren't just in our lungs. They're scattered throughout the body -- including in the intestinal tract, heart, bladder, pancreas, kidney, and nose. There are even some in the eye and brain.

So depending on where the virus is able to make its way in the body it can cause inflammation, clotting and damage in many different organs, although research is still underway on which organs are most vulnerable and what kind of persistent damage might occur.

Given that, it's reasonable for athletes to be concerned about what long-term effects the disease might have if they catch it and it's also reasonable for the people responsible for athletes' health to exercise caution until better data is available.

Risk management isn't about preparing for something that we know with certainty will happen. It's about preparing for something that we have good reason to think might happen. With COVID-19 there's good reason to think long-term damage to the lungs, heart, and other organs could be a potential outcome for some patients. Ignoring this risk for months or years until we've gathered all of the statistical data necessary to fully quantify the risk is tantamount to gambling with people's lives and livelihoods.

Finally, we would all benefit if we could get past the simplistic assumption that everyone's views on this topic are being driven by their political agendas. The coronavirus doesn't give a sh*t about political agendas, shutdowns, elections, the deep state, racism, protests, Trump or Biden. It just loves our ACE2 receptors, no matter who we are or what we want.

(08-14-2020 01:20 PM)bill dazzle Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-14-2020 09:15 AM)CenterSquarEd Wrote: [ -> ]Death isn’t the only negative outcome of Covid. I’m not sure if it will make the news too much if a student-athlete suffers lung or heart damage that limits his ability to turn pro.

This is a very important point. True, most of those who have died had underlying health concerns. But one can still get the virus, survive, but suffer long-term negative effects.

We don't need to shut down the country. But we do need to be respectful of the virus.

What is the definition of long-term though? It could be a few months or it could be years. We don't know so it's hard to say it causes long-term effects when there hasn't been enough time to really determine that.

(08-14-2020 03:15 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-14-2020 01:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-14-2020 10:14 AM)DavidSt Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-14-2020 09:15 AM)CenterSquarEd Wrote: [ -> ]Death isn’t the only negative outcome of Covid. I’m not sure if it will make the news too much if a student-athlete suffers lung or heart damage that limits his ability to turn pro.

That is why Quo and others do not get about the athletes who caught the virus could have these problems, and any players in the future.

We do get it. But absent scientific studies proving large risk of heart ailments or other permanent outcomes, we quite rightly do not believe that these anecdotes should be the basis of policy. They are scary anecdotes used by covidoids to justify shutting things down.

That's not how public health policy is made, nor should it be.

You don't wait around for months or years for statistical evidence of adverse long-term health effects to emerge before you put safeguards into place, IF you have a compelling a priori reason to think the disease by its nature is likely to produce such effects.

Since the novel coronavirus emerged we've learned a couple of important things about how it makes people sick. The first is that it infects human cells by using a protein on those "spikes" we see in all the virus pictures to bind to a protein on the cell surface called the ACE2 receptor. The second is that after the virus infects human cells the consequences are not only viral reproduction but also inflammation and blood clotting which can damage surrounding tissues.

A misconception a lot of people have about the disease is that it only targets the lungs and so it's just a "bad flu" and once it clears from the lungs everything is fine. What they don't understand is that cells with ACE2 receptors aren't just in our lungs. They're scattered throughout the body -- including in the intestinal tract, heart, bladder, pancreas, kidney, and nose. There are even some in the eye and brain.

So depending on where the virus is able to make its way in the body it can cause inflammation, clotting and damage in many different organs, although research is still underway on which organs are most vulnerable and what kind of persistent damage might occur.

Given that, it's reasonable for athletes to be concerned about what long-term effects the disease might have if they catch it and it's also reasonable for the people responsible for athletes' health to exercise caution until better data is available.

Risk management isn't about preparing for something that we know with certainty will happen. It's about preparing for something that we have good reason to think might happen. With COVID-19 there's good reason to think long-term damage to the lungs, heart, and other organs could be a potential outcome for some patients. Ignoring this risk for months or years until we've gathered all of the statistical data necessary to fully quantify the risk is tantamount to gambling with people's lives and livelihoods.

Finally, we would all benefit if we could get past the simplistic assumption that everyone's views on this topic are being driven by their political agendas. The coronavirus doesn't give a sh*t about political agendas, shutdowns, elections, the deep state, racism, protests, Trump or Biden. It just loves our ACE2 receptors, no matter who we are or what we want.

Dr. Mongoose deftly delivers an accurate and reasoned diagnosis. Very well done, HM.

This is perfectly put:

Risk management isn't about preparing for something that we know with certainty will happen. It's about preparing for something that we have good reason to think might happen.

(08-14-2020 03:15 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-14-2020 01:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-14-2020 10:14 AM)DavidSt Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-14-2020 09:15 AM)CenterSquarEd Wrote: [ -> ]Death isn’t the only negative outcome of Covid. I’m not sure if it will make the news too much if a student-athlete suffers lung or heart damage that limits his ability to turn pro.

That is why Quo and others do not get about the athletes who caught the virus could have these problems, and any players in the future.

We do get it. But absent scientific studies proving large risk of heart ailments or other permanent outcomes, we quite rightly do not believe that these anecdotes should be the basis of policy. They are scary anecdotes used by covidoids to justify shutting things down.

That's not how public health policy is made, nor should it be.

You don't wait around for months or years for statistical evidence of adverse long-term health effects to emerge before you put safeguards into place, IF you have a compelling a priori reason to think the disease by its nature is likely to produce such effects.

Since the novel coronavirus emerged we've learned a couple of important things about how it makes people sick. The first is that it infects human cells by using a protein on those "spikes" we see in all the virus pictures to bind to a protein on the cell surface called the ACE2 receptor. The second is that after the virus infects human cells the consequences are not only viral reproduction but also inflammation and blood clotting which can damage surrounding tissues.

A misconception a lot of people have about the disease is that it only targets the lungs and so it's just a "bad flu" and once it clears from the lungs everything is fine. What they don't understand is that cells with ACE2 receptors aren't just in our lungs. They're scattered throughout the body -- including in the intestinal tract, heart, bladder, pancreas, kidney, and nose. There are even some in the eye and brain.

So depending on where the virus is able to make its way in the body it can cause inflammation, clotting and damage in many different organs, although research is still underway on which organs are most vulnerable and what kind of persistent damage might occur.

Given that, it's reasonable for athletes to be concerned about what long-term effects the disease might have if they catch it and it's also reasonable for the people responsible for athletes' health to exercise caution until better data is available.

Risk management isn't about preparing for something that we know with certainty will happen. It's about preparing for something that we have good reason to think might happen. With COVID-19 there's good reason to think long-term damage to the lungs, heart, and other organs could be a potential outcome for some patients. Ignoring this risk for months or years until we've gathered all of the statistical data necessary to fully quantify the risk is tantamount to gambling with people's lives and livelihoods.

Finally, we would all benefit if we could get past the simplistic assumption that everyone's views on this topic are being driven by their political agendas. The coronavirus doesn't give a sh*t about political agendas, shutdowns, elections, the deep state, racism, protests, Trump or Biden. It just loves our ACE2 receptors, no matter who we are or what we want.

These risks apply to everyone, not just athletes. And we mentioned earlier, the athletes are (allegedly) being tested far more frequently than regular students. So it’s more likely that Johnny Football Hero will pick up Covid from the regular student body rather than in a game against a B1G opponent. Yet they aren’t shutting the schools down, just sports. But not intramural sports, by the way...

(08-14-2020 03:15 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-14-2020 01:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-14-2020 10:14 AM)DavidSt Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-14-2020 09:15 AM)CenterSquarEd Wrote: [ -> ]Death isn’t the only negative outcome of Covid. I’m not sure if it will make the news too much if a student-athlete suffers lung or heart damage that limits his ability to turn pro.

That is why Quo and others do not get about the athletes who caught the virus could have these problems, and any players in the future.

We do get it. But absent scientific studies proving large risk of heart ailments or other permanent outcomes, we quite rightly do not believe that these anecdotes should be the basis of policy. They are scary anecdotes used by covidoids to justify shutting things down.

That's not how public health policy is made, nor should it be.

You don't wait around for months or years for statistical evidence of adverse long-term health effects to emerge before you put safeguards into place, IF you have a compelling a priori reason to think the disease by its nature is likely to produce such effects.

IMO there is no "a-priori compelling reason" to think that CV19 can cause non-trivial cases of serious heart damage in young people, that's why nobody was predicting that in March.

Plus, if there was, then it makes no sense to re-open campuses to large numbers of students. If heart damage is a real risk for 20 year olds, opening the campus to thousands of students is a far greater danger in terms of possible events than allowing a handful of athletes to play sports. Yet IIRC, the same schools that voted to shut down football are in fact opening their campuses for the return of students. And please, do not mention mask and social distance requirements for these returning students, as we know for sure that these will frequently be violated, in social situations in and around campus even if not in the classroom.

No, the talk about heart inflamation is at this point lacking adequate scientific basis. It's an excuse for covid-scareds to act on their un-scientific fears.

Truth is, the same people who yell the loudest about We Must Listen To The Science when the concerns of others are in play (concerns that they don't share) are among the first to say We Can't Wait For The Science or We Must Act As If Science Exists That Agrees With Us Even Though It Does Not Yet Exist when their own fears are in play.

(08-14-2020 08:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-14-2020 03:15 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-14-2020 01:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-14-2020 10:14 AM)DavidSt Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-14-2020 09:15 AM)CenterSquarEd Wrote: [ -> ]Death isn’t the only negative outcome of Covid. I’m not sure if it will make the news too much if a student-athlete suffers lung or heart damage that limits his ability to turn pro.

That is why Quo and others do not get about the athletes who caught the virus could have these problems, and any players in the future.

We do get it. But absent scientific studies proving large risk of heart ailments or other permanent outcomes, we quite rightly do not believe that these anecdotes should be the basis of policy. They are scary anecdotes used by covidoids to justify shutting things down.

That's not how public health policy is made, nor should it be.

You don't wait around for months or years for statistical evidence of adverse long-term health effects to emerge before you put safeguards into place, IF you have a compelling a priori reason to think the disease by its nature is likely to produce such effects.

IMO there is no "a-priori compelling reason" to think that CV19 can cause non-trivial cases of serious heart damage in young people, that's why nobody was predicting that in March.

Plus, if there was, then it makes no sense to re-open campuses to large numbers of students. If heart damage is a real risk for 20 year olds, opening the campus to thousands of students is a far greater danger in terms of possible events than allowing a handful of athletes to play sports. Yet IIRC, the same schools that voted to shut down football are in fact opening their campuses for the return of students. And please, do not mention mask and social distance requirements for these returning students, as we know for sure that these will frequently be violated, in social situations in and around campus even if not in the classroom.

No, the talk about heart inflamation is at this point lacking adequate scientific basis. It's an excuse for covid-scareds to act on their un-scientific fears.

Truth is, the same people who yell the loudest about We Must Listen To The Science when the concerns of others are in play (concerns that they don't share) are among the first to say We Can't Wait For The Science or We Must Act As If Science Exists That Agrees With Us Even Though It Does Not Yet Exist when their own fears are in play.

They have found a lot of young people with heart damage after they caught the virus. They are getting a data on this issue now. The virus was unknown until now that we found all these cases with heart damage and all that. There are now a lot of documated cases for the concerns.

(08-14-2020 08:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-14-2020 08:24 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]Data is from the first of this week.

North Carolina data:

0-17 - there is 1 death out of 15,307 cases (0.0065%)

18-24 - there are 3 deaths out of 19,121 cases (0.0157%)

And truth be told ... of these four sad cases, there's a good chance all of them involved a serious co-condition like a heart ailment or asthma or diabetes, and any athlete of any age with those right now should be self-isolating anyway so wouldn't be playing football.

If a 21 year old takes the football field this year, they are much much more likely to have a serious health event from just playing the game than from Covid.

It's a good thing these young men who play football don't have parents in their 40s and 50s, nor see their families, nor have any obesity or other health related problems among their close relatives. What's more the staff at the University where they go has nobody falling into those risk categories. North Carolina, and the south as a whole have no obesity or other health risks that a young person with covid-19 could inadvertently pass on and cause illness or death to loved ones or acquaintances. These 18-21 year olds are professionals and fully responsible and would never do that.

Oh wait ...

(08-15-2020 01:54 AM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-14-2020 08:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-14-2020 08:24 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]Data is from the first of this week.

North Carolina data:

0-17 - there is 1 death out of 15,307 cases (0.0065%)

18-24 - there are 3 deaths out of 19,121 cases (0.0157%)

And truth be told ... of these four sad cases, there's a good chance all of them involved a serious co-condition like a heart ailment or asthma or diabetes, and any athlete of any age with those right now should be self-isolating anyway so wouldn't be playing football.

If a 21 year old takes the football field this year, they are much much more likely to have a serious health event from just playing the game than from Covid.

It's a good thing these young men who play football don't have parents in their 40s and 50s, nor see their families, nor have any obesity or other health related problems among their close relatives. What's more the staff at the University where they go has nobody falling into those risk categories. North Carolina, and the south as a whole have no obesity or other health risks that a young person with covid-19 could inadvertently pass on and cause illness or death to loved ones or acquaintances. These 18-21 year olds are professionals and fully responsible and would never do that.

Oh wait ...

As people keep pointing out and the fear factor people keep ignoring, football is NOT the risk for getting the virus. Other students are.

And if we want anecdotes, I know a number of people who got the virus from young people spending the night on the lake or at the beach in big crowds or after one of them had exposure. Even the mayor of Atlanta ran around with people and held press conferences when she knew she had been exposed. Many young people are ignoring the risk factors. Playing football is not the most likely place these athletes will get the virus.

(08-14-2020 01:25 PM)Statefan Wrote: [ -> ]So you are asserting that playing football causes COVID or causes negative COVID outcomes?

I’m not making a specific policy recommendation, I’m just making sure we’re not belittling the hard choices that colleges are making right now. Syracuse will have to travel to North Carolina and other southern states. We’ll see how it goes, right?