I was intrigued by the answers for "will" so wanted to ask if there should be a FBS or any other level season? Unlike many forums we have an extraordinary number of informed persons to opine on such a subject from a combined scientific, economic, and social perspective -- and I was impressed that it stayed pretty apolitical on the will there be a season thread. It would be nice to see some informed opinions combining these factors. Should there?

My sense is that college football in its current form is so bizarre and distorted that a complete reset is in order. Forgoing a season might help achieve a reset. Then again, it might not.

(05-06-2020 07:58 PM)mebehutchi Wrote:  I was intrigued by the answers for "will" so wanted to ask if there should be a FBS or any other level season? Unlike many forums we have an extraordinary number of informed persons to opine on such a subject from a combined scientific, economic, and social perspective -- and I was impressed that it stayed pretty apolitical on the will there be a season thread. It would be nice to see some informed opinions combining these factors. Should there?

Thomas Sowell: "There are no solutions, only trade-offs."

My own less elegant spin on the above is that as long as information remains imperfect (and it is not likely to approach perfection anytime soon), no one, not even a supposed "expert," can give a right answer to the "should" question. The question boils down to how much to err on the side of caution, or how best to strike a balance between "safety" (i.e., physical health) and economic health. In essence that is a guess, and therefore quintessentially a political question about what public policy should be. And everybody's answer to that (even from "experts") is inherently political, because everybody has (or believes they have) an ox in danger of getting gored.

Epidemiologists (sworn to do no harm) are interested in minimizing deaths, period. Healthcare experts want to avoid their system getting "overwhelmed" (as they define it, which is a political question in itself). Economists (and only some of those, I might add) are interested in minimizing socioeconomic damage and the long-term costs associated with prolonging economic constriction. How much cost should be paid to, in essence, protect people in their 70s/80s/90s is something on which reasonable people can disagree and therefore is essentially political.

John Maynard Keynes: "In the long run, we are all dead." So here's my obviously political answer to the "should" question: Let's all pop on masks when around other people, and especially when visiting Grandma, and let's get on with life. And for the love of all that's holy, let's play football!

(05-07-2020 06:37 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(05-06-2020 07:58 PM)mebehutchi Wrote:  I was intrigued by the answers for "will" so wanted to ask if there should be a FBS or any other level season? Unlike many forums we have an extraordinary number of informed persons to opine on such a subject from a combined scientific, economic, and social perspective -- and I was impressed that it stayed pretty apolitical on the will there be a season thread. It would be nice to see some informed opinions combining these factors. Should there?

Thomas Sowell: "There are no solutions, only trade-offs."

My own less elegant spin on the above is that as long as information remains imperfect (and it is not likely to approach perfection anytime soon), no one, not even a supposed "expert," can give a right answer to the "should" question. The question boils down to how much to err on the side of caution, or how best to strike a balance between "safety" (i.e., physical health) and economic health. In essence that is a guess, and therefore quintessentially a political question about what public policy should be. And everybody's answer to that (even from "experts") is inherently political, because everybody has (or believes they have) an ox in danger of getting gored.

Epidemiologists (sworn to do no harm) are interested in minimizing deaths, period. Healthcare experts want to avoid their system getting "overwhelmed" (as they define it, which is a political question in itself). Economists (and only some of those, I might add) are interested in minimizing socioeconomic damage and the long-term costs associated with prolonging economic constriction. How much cost should be paid to, in essence, protect people in their 70s/80s/90s is something on which reasonable people can disagree and therefore is essentially political.

John Maynard Keynes: "In the long run, we are all dead." So here's my obviously political answer to the "should" question: Let's all pop on masks when around other people, and especially when visiting Grandma, and let's get on with life. And for the love of all that's holy, let's play football!

Very good post. And I think that it’s a pretty good distillation of both sides of the argument.
The other practical side comes in the Fall. If, as most people predict, there is a resurgence of the virus, even at a modest rate, will college, high school and pro football be giving a party that only 20-30% of their previous “fans” will attend.
I’m not sure.

illiniowl Wrote:  Let's all pop on masks when around other people, and especially when visiting Grandma, and let's get on with life. And for the love of all that's holy, let's play football!

Welp, it’s probably time for the next stage in the storied and well-documented evolution of the football face mask. Integrate the droplet protection (I’m thinking the clear visor shield style that we’ve already seen players don in some form already, but extending low enough to cover the mouth.

That, plus a TV timeout after every play for a proper hand washing, and we should be all good !

(05-07-2020 07:48 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  The other practical side comes in the Fall. If, as most people predict, there is a resurgence of the virus, even at a modest rate, will college, high school and pro football be giving a party that only 20-30% of their previous “fans” will attend.
I’m not sure.

Also known as “The Rice Model”

(05-08-2020 06:44 AM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(05-07-2020 07:48 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  The other practical side comes in the Fall. If, as most people predict, there is a resurgence of the virus, even at a modest rate, will college, high school and pro football be giving a party that only 20-30% of their previous “fans” will attend.
I’m not sure.

Also known as “The Rice Model”

(05-08-2020 06:44 AM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(05-07-2020 07:48 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  The other practical side comes in the Fall. If, as most people predict, there is a resurgence of the virus, even at a modest rate, will college, high school and pro football be giving a party that only 20-30% of their previous “fans” will attend.
I’m not sure.

Also known as “The Rice Model”

Without a doubt

(05-07-2020 06:37 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(05-06-2020 07:58 PM)mebehutchi Wrote:  I was intrigued by the answers for "will" so wanted to ask if there should be a FBS or any other level season? Unlike many forums we have an extraordinary number of informed persons to opine on such a subject from a combined scientific, economic, and social perspective -- and I was impressed that it stayed pretty apolitical on the will there be a season thread. It would be nice to see some informed opinions combining these factors. Should there?

Thomas Sowell: "There are no solutions, only trade-offs."

My own less elegant spin on the above is that as long as information remains imperfect (and it is not likely to approach perfection anytime soon), no one, not even a supposed "expert," can give a right answer to the "should" question. The question boils down to how much to err on the side of caution, or how best to strike a balance between "safety" (i.e., physical health) and economic health. In essence that is a guess, and therefore quintessentially a political question about what public policy should be. And everybody's answer to that (even from "experts") is inherently political, because everybody has (or believes they have) an ox in danger of getting gored.

Epidemiologists (sworn to do no harm) are interested in minimizing deaths, period. Healthcare experts want to avoid their system getting "overwhelmed" (as they define it, which is a political question in itself). Economists (and only some of those, I might add) are interested in minimizing socioeconomic damage and the long-term costs associated with prolonging economic constriction. How much cost should be paid to, in essence, protect people in their 70s/80s/90s is something on which reasonable people can disagree and therefore is essentially political.

John Maynard Keynes: "In the long run, we are all dead." So here's my obviously political answer to the "should" question: Let's all pop on masks when around other people, and especially when visiting Grandma, and let's get on with life. And for the love of all that's holy, let's play football!

This is a problem with US healthcare. US healthcare has become increasingly specialized and this fragments "wellness". The problem with "epidemiologists" is that it can focus on only 1 condition. It is impossible to treat COVID as a single cause for disease, morbidity and mortality in a population. In other words, taking measures to control COVID could negatively impact other health conditions and lead to increased morbidity and mortality. We have seen a decrease in access to healthcare during this crisis. Non emergent procedures have been postponed and access to many providers, ancillary tests and treatments has decreased. Increased morbidity and mortality will likely go up in other areas and these effects could not be seen for years. Say someone skips a screening colonoscopy or follow up colonoscopy from a previous history of polyps and has developing colon cancer. The delay in diagnosis and treatment decreases the chance for survival the further it progresses. The same is true for mammograms and pap smears. Mental health issues have increased with the stresses of the economic downturn. These are not just economic issues but also health issues. Doing no harm in these areas is in direct conflict with some of the decisions made to combat COVID.

The sooner we return to a place that considers all factors that contribute to health and wellness and make decisions that benefit a broad spectrum of health, the better off we will be for the vast majority of us.

So, yes we should have football as it improves well-being for a large group of our population. Of course, we should maximize the safety of this endeavor to promote wellness in all of us. But to say that not having football is much safer may not be true when you look at health holistically.

(05-08-2020 01:59 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(05-07-2020 06:37 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(05-06-2020 07:58 PM)mebehutchi Wrote:  I was intrigued by the answers for "will" so wanted to ask if there should be a FBS or any other level season? Unlike many forums we have an extraordinary number of informed persons to opine on such a subject from a combined scientific, economic, and social perspective -- and I was impressed that it stayed pretty apolitical on the will there be a season thread. It would be nice to see some informed opinions combining these factors. Should there?

Thomas Sowell: "There are no solutions, only trade-offs."

My own less elegant spin on the above is that as long as information remains imperfect (and it is not likely to approach perfection anytime soon), no one, not even a supposed "expert," can give a right answer to the "should" question. The question boils down to how much to err on the side of caution, or how best to strike a balance between "safety" (i.e., physical health) and economic health. In essence that is a guess, and therefore quintessentially a political question about what public policy should be. And everybody's answer to that (even from "experts") is inherently political, because everybody has (or believes they have) an ox in danger of getting gored.

Epidemiologists (sworn to do no harm) are interested in minimizing deaths, period. Healthcare experts want to avoid their system getting "overwhelmed" (as they define it, which is a political question in itself). Economists (and only some of those, I might add) are interested in minimizing socioeconomic damage and the long-term costs associated with prolonging economic constriction. How much cost should be paid to, in essence, protect people in their 70s/80s/90s is something on which reasonable people can disagree and therefore is essentially political.

John Maynard Keynes: "In the long run, we are all dead." So here's my obviously political answer to the "should" question: Let's all pop on masks when around other people, and especially when visiting Grandma, and let's get on with life. And for the love of all that's holy, let's play football!

This is a problem with US healthcare. US healthcare has become increasingly specialized and this fragments "wellness". The problem with "epidemiologists" is that it can focus on only 1 condition. It is impossible to treat COVID as a single cause for disease, morbidity and mortality in a population. In other words, taking measures to control COVID could negatively impact other health conditions and lead to increased morbidity and mortality. We have seen a decrease in access to healthcare during this crisis. Non emergent procedures have been postponed and access to many providers, ancillary tests and treatments has decreased. Increased morbidity and mortality will likely go up in other areas and these effects could not be seen for years. Say someone skips a screening colonoscopy or follow up colonoscopy from a previous history of polyps and has developing colon cancer. The delay in diagnosis and treatment decreases the chance for survival the further it progresses. The same is true for mammograms and pap smears. Mental health issues have increased with the stresses of the economic downturn. These are not just economic issues but also health issues. Doing no harm in these areas is in direct conflict with some of the decisions made to combat COVID.

The sooner we return to a place that considers all factors that contribute to health and wellness and make decisions that benefit a broad spectrum of health, the better off we will be for the vast majority of us.

So, yes we should have football as it improves well-being for a large group of our population. Of course, we should maximize the safety of this endeavor to promote wellness in all of us. But to say that not having football is much safer may not be true when you look at health holistically.

What are they doing in your part of the world for high school football? Information all over the map here in the great state of Texas. My best guess is that the "pre-season" non-district games won't be played, start district games in October. Heard somewhere that all summer 7 on 7 cancelled.

(05-11-2020 06:02 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 01:59 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(05-07-2020 06:37 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(05-06-2020 07:58 PM)mebehutchi Wrote:  I was intrigued by the answers for "will" so wanted to ask if there should be a FBS or any other level season? Unlike many forums we have an extraordinary number of informed persons to opine on such a subject from a combined scientific, economic, and social perspective -- and I was impressed that it stayed pretty apolitical on the will there be a season thread. It would be nice to see some informed opinions combining these factors. Should there?

Thomas Sowell: "There are no solutions, only trade-offs."

My own less elegant spin on the above is that as long as information remains imperfect (and it is not likely to approach perfection anytime soon), no one, not even a supposed "expert," can give a right answer to the "should" question. The question boils down to how much to err on the side of caution, or how best to strike a balance between "safety" (i.e., physical health) and economic health. In essence that is a guess, and therefore quintessentially a political question about what public policy should be. And everybody's answer to that (even from "experts") is inherently political, because everybody has (or believes they have) an ox in danger of getting gored.

Epidemiologists (sworn to do no harm) are interested in minimizing deaths, period. Healthcare experts want to avoid their system getting "overwhelmed" (as they define it, which is a political question in itself). Economists (and only some of those, I might add) are interested in minimizing socioeconomic damage and the long-term costs associated with prolonging economic constriction. How much cost should be paid to, in essence, protect people in their 70s/80s/90s is something on which reasonable people can disagree and therefore is essentially political.

John Maynard Keynes: "In the long run, we are all dead." So here's my obviously political answer to the "should" question: Let's all pop on masks when around other people, and especially when visiting Grandma, and let's get on with life. And for the love of all that's holy, let's play football!

This is a problem with US healthcare. US healthcare has become increasingly specialized and this fragments "wellness". The problem with "epidemiologists" is that it can focus on only 1 condition. It is impossible to treat COVID as a single cause for disease, morbidity and mortality in a population. In other words, taking measures to control COVID could negatively impact other health conditions and lead to increased morbidity and mortality. We have seen a decrease in access to healthcare during this crisis. Non emergent procedures have been postponed and access to many providers, ancillary tests and treatments has decreased. Increased morbidity and mortality will likely go up in other areas and these effects could not be seen for years. Say someone skips a screening colonoscopy or follow up colonoscopy from a previous history of polyps and has developing colon cancer. The delay in diagnosis and treatment decreases the chance for survival the further it progresses. The same is true for mammograms and pap smears. Mental health issues have increased with the stresses of the economic downturn. These are not just economic issues but also health issues. Doing no harm in these areas is in direct conflict with some of the decisions made to combat COVID.

The sooner we return to a place that considers all factors that contribute to health and wellness and make decisions that benefit a broad spectrum of health, the better off we will be for the vast majority of us.

So, yes we should have football as it improves well-being for a large group of our population. Of course, we should maximize the safety of this endeavor to promote wellness in all of us. But to say that not having football is much safer may not be true when you look at health holistically.

What are they doing in your part of the world for high school football? Information all over the map here in the great state of Texas. My best guess is that the "pre-season" non-district games won't be played, start district games in October. Heard somewhere that all summer 7 on 7 cancelled.

Who knows what is going on?
Heard high schools may start new year in July. They were supposed to open campuses and return to regular classes. Then hear that online may continue. CSU (affects San Jose St, Fresno St, San Diego St, Cal Poly as well as Humbolt St, Chico St football) schools going online next semester. UC schools ( Cal, UCLA, UC Davis) still discussing what to do.
PG HS got a schedule sent out a couple weeks ago. 1 game is in Temecula (400 miles away) but you have to go through Corona to get there so who knows (Corona, CA is a town in Riverside County not to far from Temecula, CA).

(05-13-2020 01:55 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(05-11-2020 06:02 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 01:59 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(05-07-2020 06:37 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(05-06-2020 07:58 PM)mebehutchi Wrote:  I was intrigued by the answers for "will" so wanted to ask if there should be a FBS or any other level season? Unlike many forums we have an extraordinary number of informed persons to opine on such a subject from a combined scientific, economic, and social perspective -- and I was impressed that it stayed pretty apolitical on the will there be a season thread. It would be nice to see some informed opinions combining these factors. Should there?

Thomas Sowell: "There are no solutions, only trade-offs."

My own less elegant spin on the above is that as long as information remains imperfect (and it is not likely to approach perfection anytime soon), no one, not even a supposed "expert," can give a right answer to the "should" question. The question boils down to how much to err on the side of caution, or how best to strike a balance between "safety" (i.e., physical health) and economic health. In essence that is a guess, and therefore quintessentially a political question about what public policy should be. And everybody's answer to that (even from "experts") is inherently political, because everybody has (or believes they have) an ox in danger of getting gored.

Epidemiologists (sworn to do no harm) are interested in minimizing deaths, period. Healthcare experts want to avoid their system getting "overwhelmed" (as they define it, which is a political question in itself). Economists (and only some of those, I might add) are interested in minimizing socioeconomic damage and the long-term costs associated with prolonging economic constriction. How much cost should be paid to, in essence, protect people in their 70s/80s/90s is something on which reasonable people can disagree and therefore is essentially political.

John Maynard Keynes: "In the long run, we are all dead." So here's my obviously political answer to the "should" question: Let's all pop on masks when around other people, and especially when visiting Grandma, and let's get on with life. And for the love of all that's holy, let's play football!

This is a problem with US healthcare. US healthcare has become increasingly specialized and this fragments "wellness". The problem with "epidemiologists" is that it can focus on only 1 condition. It is impossible to treat COVID as a single cause for disease, morbidity and mortality in a population. In other words, taking measures to control COVID could negatively impact other health conditions and lead to increased morbidity and mortality. We have seen a decrease in access to healthcare during this crisis. Non emergent procedures have been postponed and access to many providers, ancillary tests and treatments has decreased. Increased morbidity and mortality will likely go up in other areas and these effects could not be seen for years. Say someone skips a screening colonoscopy or follow up colonoscopy from a previous history of polyps and has developing colon cancer. The delay in diagnosis and treatment decreases the chance for survival the further it progresses. The same is true for mammograms and pap smears. Mental health issues have increased with the stresses of the economic downturn. These are not just economic issues but also health issues. Doing no harm in these areas is in direct conflict with some of the decisions made to combat COVID.

The sooner we return to a place that considers all factors that contribute to health and wellness and make decisions that benefit a broad spectrum of health, the better off we will be for the vast majority of us.

So, yes we should have football as it improves well-being for a large group of our population. Of course, we should maximize the safety of this endeavor to promote wellness in all of us. But to say that not having football is much safer may not be true when you look at health holistically.

What are they doing in your part of the world for high school football? Information all over the map here in the great state of Texas. My best guess is that the "pre-season" non-district games won't be played, start district games in October. Heard somewhere that all summer 7 on 7 cancelled.

Who knows what is going on?
Heard high schools may start new year in July. They were supposed to open campuses and return to regular classes. Then hear that online may continue. CSU (affects San Jose St, Fresno St, San Diego St, Cal Poly as well as Humbolt St, Chico St football) schools going online next semester. UC schools ( Cal, UCLA, UC Davis) still discussing what to do.
PG HS got a schedule sent out a couple weeks ago. 1 game is in Temecula (400 miles away) but you have to go through Corona to get there so who knows (Corona, CA is a town in Riverside County not to far from Temecula, CA).

Pre-CV, most SoCal folks would say it takes two weeks to get through Corona (it's a traffic congestion point)...