Seems to open up the door for those schools and states that want to play football to do so. Those intending to should start working on a plan. Who's in?

Quote:"These are localized decisions," Emmert said Tuesday. "Local campuses have to decide: Are we opening up, and are we bringing students back to play sports? The NCAA doesn't mandate that, nor should it. The schools themselves have to make those choices."

USC vs Alabama May Not Happened


Bama And TCU Talking About Playing On the 5th In Case USC/California Cancels


I still do not see why the rush to get everything open again. The safety and health of the athletes will be in jeopardy when the Rona flares ugly in these other states not named California.

(05-13-2020 07:45 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  The safety and health of the athletes will be in jeopardy when the Rona flares ugly in these other states not named California.

Love your slang. DavidSt would be a good rapper.

CDC (UT AD) seems really really confident in football being played this fall. I'm sure the rest of the big 12 schools will follow. AZ is also announcing it's ready for Major league sports to return after this friday. Gonna be a fun ride til the fall to see who's all in

(05-13-2020 07:45 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  USC vs Alabama May Not Happened


Bama And TCU Talking About Playing On the 5th In Case USC/California Cancels


I still do not see why the rush to get everything open again. The safety and health of the athletes will be in jeopardy when the Rona flares ugly in these other states not named California.

The mortality risks from CV19 to 20 year olds without underlying health conditions are vanishingly small. For a typical infected 20 year old it is about 1 in 4000. And that is overstated because it includes those with underlying health issues. If you are 20 and don't have diabetes or asthma or something similar, your death risk is so small as to not be worth worrying about.

https://medium.com/wintoncentre/how-much...39118e1196

Nevertheless, the media and politics of this is clearly running the other way, so I expect no football this fall anywhere.

(05-13-2020 09:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-13-2020 07:45 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  USC vs Alabama May Not Happened


Bama And TCU Talking About Playing On the 5th In Case USC/California Cancels


I still do not see why the rush to get everything open again. The safety and health of the athletes will be in jeopardy when the Rona flares ugly in these other states not named California.

The mortality risks from CV19 to 20 year olds without underlying health conditions are vanishingly small. For a typical infected 20 year old it is about 1 in 4000. And that is overstated because it includes those with underlying health issues. If you are 20 and don't have diabetes or asthma or something similar, your death risk is so small as to not be worth worrying about.

https://medium.com/wintoncentre/how-much...39118e1196

Nevertheless, the media and politics of this is clearly running the other way, so I expect no football this fall anywhere.

I agree that the media and politics are clearly running the other way, Quo. However, I believe what we will inevitably end up seeing is a number of states (many of whom that have already opened) will end up having open schools this Fall, and committing to doing football (and other sports as well). When states/schools see the negative blowback (and, more importantly, loss of $$$) headed their way (not to mention the likelihood mass exodus of populations to open states), there will be tremendous pressures to open (with guidelines, of course).

You said it, but the mortality rates of young and healthy people is vastly low (even lower than your 1/4000 rate).

Southern states have opened the door. I'm betting many more end up walking through it.

We are rapidly approaching the date at which schools and conferences are going to have to decide what their plan is for the fall so that those who want to still play can figure out their schedules.

If the PAC 12 isn’t going to play OOC games then they need to announce it now so their opponents can schedule alternative arrangements.

I, for one, hope that the P5 take the field, even if it’s empty stadiums, so the schools can at least take in media revenue and give fans something to watch.

(05-13-2020 10:11 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(05-13-2020 09:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-13-2020 07:45 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  USC vs Alabama May Not Happened


Bama And TCU Talking About Playing On the 5th In Case USC/California Cancels


I still do not see why the rush to get everything open again. The safety and health of the athletes will be in jeopardy when the Rona flares ugly in these other states not named California.

The mortality risks from CV19 to 20 year olds without underlying health conditions are vanishingly small. For a typical infected 20 year old it is about 1 in 4000. And that is overstated because it includes those with underlying health issues. If you are 20 and don't have diabetes or asthma or something similar, your death risk is so small as to not be worth worrying about.

https://medium.com/wintoncentre/how-much...39118e1196

Nevertheless, the media and politics of this is clearly running the other way, so I expect no football this fall anywhere.

I agree that the media and politics are clearly running the other way, Quo. However, I believe what we will inevitably end up seeing is a number of states (many of whom that have already opened) will end up having open schools this Fall, and committing to doing football (and other sports as well). When states/schools see the negative blowback (and, more importantly, loss of $$$) headed their way (not to mention the likelihood mass exodus of populations to open states), there will be tremendous pressures to open (with guidelines, of course).

You said it, but the mortality rates of young and healthy people is vastly low (even lower than your 1/4000 rate).

Southern states have opened the door. I'm betting many more end up walking through it.

Interesting. I see it more likely to go the other way: there will be schools that push to open campuses in the fall, there invariably will end up being an outbreak on a campus somewhere, and then the pressure (probably more legal and parental than political) will be for them to close again.

Even with the mortality rate of young people being low, this doesn't account for the fact that you need professors, coaches, facilities staff and other employees in order to open up a college campus and many of those people *are* in the risk group.

So, it would be one thing if the players could just play a pickup game on a random field with no one else involved. However, that's not how it works. In reality, you need to account for the risk to everyone that would need to be on a college campus, which is a much broader age range. Plus, that's not even taking into account parents, grandparents and everyone else that those students come into contact with on a regular basis.

I've stated this elsewhere, but a lot of people are focusing too much on the decisions of politicians and they aren't focusing on the legal and practical issues. I work for a very large company with offices in pretty much every major city in every country. Our presence ranges from countries and states with politicians that are pressing full speed ahead with opening up to countries and states where the politicians are still in lockdown mode. The upshot for us: what the politicians say is completely irrelevant. Until *we* feel it's safe for our people to go back to their offices, then we're not sending them back. This isn't an easy decision since our revenue is definitely getting hammered due to the inability to get in front of customers in this environment. However, it's not only the right thing to do in terms of health safety, but it's the right thing to do when you balance the legal risk versus whatever financial gain that we'd hope to achieve. The push to open earlier without a firm scientific basis to do so is a classic case of "penny wise, pound foolish" thinking.

Unfortunately, I have a sad anecdote to all of this since I know someone in his early-30s that was perfectly healthy but recently died after contracting COVID-19. He had all of the characteristics of someone that should *not* have died from this disease, yet it still happened. It's an absolutely horrible situation.

So, we can sit here and say that the risk is relatively low for young healthy people, but that's sort of like saying the risk is relatively low for someone dying from a game of Russian roulette. Why take that risk in the first place? As a result, my company isn't even going to attempt to participate in that Russian roulette game at all and my guess is that's how a lot of other businesses and colleges are going to approach it, as well.

Now, I believe that widespread regular testing can address many of the issues that I've noted above, so it doesn't mean that we need to close down for years while we wait for a vaccine. However, simply stating that the younger population has a lower mortality rate as a reason why we can move forward isn't sufficient in and of itself.

(05-13-2020 01:45 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-13-2020 10:11 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(05-13-2020 09:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-13-2020 07:45 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  USC vs Alabama May Not Happened


Bama And TCU Talking About Playing On the 5th In Case USC/California Cancels


I still do not see why the rush to get everything open again. The safety and health of the athletes will be in jeopardy when the Rona flares ugly in these other states not named California.

The mortality risks from CV19 to 20 year olds without underlying health conditions are vanishingly small. For a typical infected 20 year old it is about 1 in 4000. And that is overstated because it includes those with underlying health issues. If you are 20 and don't have diabetes or asthma or something similar, your death risk is so small as to not be worth worrying about.

https://medium.com/wintoncentre/how-much...39118e1196

Nevertheless, the media and politics of this is clearly running the other way, so I expect no football this fall anywhere.

I agree that the media and politics are clearly running the other way, Quo. However, I believe what we will inevitably end up seeing is a number of states (many of whom that have already opened) will end up having open schools this Fall, and committing to doing football (and other sports as well). When states/schools see the negative blowback (and, more importantly, loss of $$$) headed their way (not to mention the likelihood mass exodus of populations to open states), there will be tremendous pressures to open (with guidelines, of course).

You said it, but the mortality rates of young and healthy people is vastly low (even lower than your 1/4000 rate).

Southern states have opened the door. I'm betting many more end up walking through it.

Interesting. I see it more likely to go the other way: there will be schools that push to open campuses in the fall, there invariably will end up being an outbreak on a campus somewhere, and then the pressure (probably more legal and parental than political) will be for them to close again.

Even with the mortality rate of young people being low, this doesn't account for the fact that you need professors, coaches, facilities staff and other employees in order to open up a college campus and many of those people *are* in the risk group.

So, it would be one thing if the players could just play a pickup game on a random field with no one else involved. However, that's not how it works. In reality, you need to account for the risk to everyone that would need to be on a college campus, which is a much broader age range. Plus, that's not even taking into account parents, grandparents and everyone else that those students come into contact with on a regular basis.

I've stated this elsewhere, but a lot of people are focusing too much on the decisions of politicians and they aren't focusing on the legal and practical issues. I work for a very large company with offices in pretty much every major city in every country. Our presence ranges from countries and states with politicians that are pressing full speed ahead with opening up to countries and states where the politicians are still in lockdown mode. The upshot for us: what the politicians say is completely irrelevant. Until *we* feel it's safe for our people to go back to their offices, then we're not sending them back. This isn't an easy decision since our revenue is definitely getting hammered due to the inability to get in front of customers in this environment. However, it's not only the right thing to do in terms of health safety, but it's the right thing to do when you balance the legal risk versus whatever financial gain that we'd hope to achieve. The push to open earlier without a firm scientific basis to do so is a classic case of "penny wise, pound foolish" thinking.

Unfortunately, I have a sad anecdote to all of this since I know someone in his early-30s that was perfectly healthy but recently died after contracting COVID-19. He had all of the characteristics of someone that should *not* have died from this disease, yet it still happened. It's an absolutely horrible situation.

So, we can sit here and say that the risk is relatively low for young healthy people, but that's sort of like saying the risk is relatively low for someone dying from a game of Russian roulette. Why take that risk in the first place? As a result, my company isn't even going to attempt to participate in that Russian roulette game at all and my guess is that's how a lot of other businesses and colleges are going to approach it, as well.

Now, I believe that widespread regular testing can address many of the issues that I've noted above, so it doesn't mean that we need to close down for years while we wait for a vaccine. However, simply stating that the younger population has a lower mortality rate as a reason why we can move forward isn't sufficient in and of itself.

There will always be anecdotal cases like that tradgic death of a young person.

I have one as well. I had a 40 year old nephew die from the flu in Feb 2018. Relatively young and otherwise healthy. The nation, the world does not shut down and create an economic disaster to avoid deaths from the flu or other commmunicable diseases, and there are thousands of deaths from the flu every year.

You're probably right though since societies around the world have been sufficiently frightened. And you are also right that no one will want to be responsible for another breakout.

I have to ask though, do people expect to wait for a vaccine, which likely won't be as effective as we would like? That could take a long time and the virus will be mutating as viruses do. The virus is not going to disappear and people will, at some point, need to get on with their lives.

Yeah I'm all for a season but even the "cool" states that are opening up in the south will be on lawsuit watch as soon as a kid gets infected and hospitalized. I hear the numbers about young people but c'mon.. a 6'2 320 lb athlete isn't the best metric to use as healthy. And just because you survive it doesn't mean it's not bad. Tony Boseli's son got Covid too and he says it was like being hit by a truck.. was out for a couple weeks. Next thing you'll know is CFB fans calling TLaw a pansy for not suiting up because of a little infection.

This is gonna be a interesting time

(05-13-2020 02:04 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(05-13-2020 01:45 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-13-2020 10:11 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(05-13-2020 09:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-13-2020 07:45 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  USC vs Alabama May Not Happened


Bama And TCU Talking About Playing On the 5th In Case USC/California Cancels


I still do not see why the rush to get everything open again. The safety and health of the athletes will be in jeopardy when the Rona flares ugly in these other states not named California.

The mortality risks from CV19 to 20 year olds without underlying health conditions are vanishingly small. For a typical infected 20 year old it is about 1 in 4000. And that is overstated because it includes those with underlying health issues. If you are 20 and don't have diabetes or asthma or something similar, your death risk is so small as to not be worth worrying about.

https://medium.com/wintoncentre/how-much...39118e1196

Nevertheless, the media and politics of this is clearly running the other way, so I expect no football this fall anywhere.

I agree that the media and politics are clearly running the other way, Quo. However, I believe what we will inevitably end up seeing is a number of states (many of whom that have already opened) will end up having open schools this Fall, and committing to doing football (and other sports as well). When states/schools see the negative blowback (and, more importantly, loss of $$$) headed their way (not to mention the likelihood mass exodus of populations to open states), there will be tremendous pressures to open (with guidelines, of course).

You said it, but the mortality rates of young and healthy people is vastly low (even lower than your 1/4000 rate).

Southern states have opened the door. I'm betting many more end up walking through it.

Interesting. I see it more likely to go the other way: there will be schools that push to open campuses in the fall, there invariably will end up being an outbreak on a campus somewhere, and then the pressure (probably more legal and parental than political) will be for them to close again.

Even with the mortality rate of young people being low, this doesn't account for the fact that you need professors, coaches, facilities staff and other employees in order to open up a college campus and many of those people *are* in the risk group.

So, it would be one thing if the players could just play a pickup game on a random field with no one else involved. However, that's not how it works. In reality, you need to account for the risk to everyone that would need to be on a college campus, which is a much broader age range. Plus, that's not even taking into account parents, grandparents and everyone else that those students come into contact with on a regular basis.

I've stated this elsewhere, but a lot of people are focusing too much on the decisions of politicians and they aren't focusing on the legal and practical issues. I work for a very large company with offices in pretty much every major city in every country. Our presence ranges from countries and states with politicians that are pressing full speed ahead with opening up to countries and states where the politicians are still in lockdown mode. The upshot for us: what the politicians say is completely irrelevant. Until *we* feel it's safe for our people to go back to their offices, then we're not sending them back. This isn't an easy decision since our revenue is definitely getting hammered due to the inability to get in front of customers in this environment. However, it's not only the right thing to do in terms of health safety, but it's the right thing to do when you balance the legal risk versus whatever financial gain that we'd hope to achieve. The push to open earlier without a firm scientific basis to do so is a classic case of "penny wise, pound foolish" thinking.

Unfortunately, I have a sad anecdote to all of this since I know someone in his early-30s that was perfectly healthy but recently died after contracting COVID-19. He had all of the characteristics of someone that should *not* have died from this disease, yet it still happened. It's an absolutely horrible situation.

So, we can sit here and say that the risk is relatively low for young healthy people, but that's sort of like saying the risk is relatively low for someone dying from a game of Russian roulette. Why take that risk in the first place? As a result, my company isn't even going to attempt to participate in that Russian roulette game at all and my guess is that's how a lot of other businesses and colleges are going to approach it, as well.

Now, I believe that widespread regular testing can address many of the issues that I've noted above, so it doesn't mean that we need to close down for years while we wait for a vaccine. However, simply stating that the younger population has a lower mortality rate as a reason why we can move forward isn't sufficient in and of itself.

There will always be anecdotal cases like that tradgic death of a young person.

I have one as well. I had a 40 year old nephew die from the flu in Feb 2018. Relatively young and otherwise healthy. The nation, the world does not shut down and create an economic disaster to avoid deaths from the flu or other commmunicable diseases, and there are thousands of deaths from the flu every year.

You're probably right though since societies around the world have been sufficiently frightened. And you are also right that no one will want to be responsible for another breakout.

I have to ask though, do people expect to wait for a vaccine, which likely won't be as effective as we would like? That could take a long time and the virus will be mutating as viruses do. The virus is not going to disappear and people will, at some point, need to get on with their lives.

At a high level, I don't think we can expect people to wait for a vaccine because you're correct that it could take a long time to develop (e.g. years) and who knows how effective it will be.

That being said, the approach of declaring that we need to open up again without an actual process in place to mitigate future outbreaks isn't going to work, either. A lot of politicians just seem to be parroting, "We need to open up again!" And look, from a personal standpoint, I get it. I have multiple friends that have lost jobs, my own job security seems to be thrown up in the air, and my long-term security in my 401(k) certainly took a total beating that may take years to recover from. However, simply declaring that things need to open again without some type of testing process and the ability to trace cases could end up just turning back the clock to mid-March and we need to do this shutdown all over again, which would be exponentially worse.

It goes back to what I've said elsewhere: the public health crisis is what is causing our economy collapse, NOT government orders one way or the other. Until the public health crisis is *truly* addressed (which in my mind means some widespread combination of testing, tracing cases, and at least an effective treatment for symptoms until a vaccine is available), then the economy isn't going to recover no matter how much the politicians might wish otherwise.

(05-13-2020 02:21 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-13-2020 02:04 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(05-13-2020 01:45 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-13-2020 10:11 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(05-13-2020 09:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The mortality risks from CV19 to 20 year olds without underlying health conditions are vanishingly small. For a typical infected 20 year old it is about 1 in 4000. And that is overstated because it includes those with underlying health issues. If you are 20 and don't have diabetes or asthma or something similar, your death risk is so small as to not be worth worrying about.

https://medium.com/wintoncentre/how-much...39118e1196

Nevertheless, the media and politics of this is clearly running the other way, so I expect no football this fall anywhere.

I agree that the media and politics are clearly running the other way, Quo. However, I believe what we will inevitably end up seeing is a number of states (many of whom that have already opened) will end up having open schools this Fall, and committing to doing football (and other sports as well). When states/schools see the negative blowback (and, more importantly, loss of $$$) headed their way (not to mention the likelihood mass exodus of populations to open states), there will be tremendous pressures to open (with guidelines, of course).

You said it, but the mortality rates of young and healthy people is vastly low (even lower than your 1/4000 rate).

Southern states have opened the door. I'm betting many more end up walking through it.

Interesting. I see it more likely to go the other way: there will be schools that push to open campuses in the fall, there invariably will end up being an outbreak on a campus somewhere, and then the pressure (probably more legal and parental than political) will be for them to close again.

Even with the mortality rate of young people being low, this doesn't account for the fact that you need professors, coaches, facilities staff and other employees in order to open up a college campus and many of those people *are* in the risk group.

So, it would be one thing if the players could just play a pickup game on a random field with no one else involved. However, that's not how it works. In reality, you need to account for the risk to everyone that would need to be on a college campus, which is a much broader age range. Plus, that's not even taking into account parents, grandparents and everyone else that those students come into contact with on a regular basis.

I've stated this elsewhere, but a lot of people are focusing too much on the decisions of politicians and they aren't focusing on the legal and practical issues. I work for a very large company with offices in pretty much every major city in every country. Our presence ranges from countries and states with politicians that are pressing full speed ahead with opening up to countries and states where the politicians are still in lockdown mode. The upshot for us: what the politicians say is completely irrelevant. Until *we* feel it's safe for our people to go back to their offices, then we're not sending them back. This isn't an easy decision since our revenue is definitely getting hammered due to the inability to get in front of customers in this environment. However, it's not only the right thing to do in terms of health safety, but it's the right thing to do when you balance the legal risk versus whatever financial gain that we'd hope to achieve. The push to open earlier without a firm scientific basis to do so is a classic case of "penny wise, pound foolish" thinking.

Unfortunately, I have a sad anecdote to all of this since I know someone in his early-30s that was perfectly healthy but recently died after contracting COVID-19. He had all of the characteristics of someone that should *not* have died from this disease, yet it still happened. It's an absolutely horrible situation.

So, we can sit here and say that the risk is relatively low for young healthy people, but that's sort of like saying the risk is relatively low for someone dying from a game of Russian roulette. Why take that risk in the first place? As a result, my company isn't even going to attempt to participate in that Russian roulette game at all and my guess is that's how a lot of other businesses and colleges are going to approach it, as well.

Now, I believe that widespread regular testing can address many of the issues that I've noted above, so it doesn't mean that we need to close down for years while we wait for a vaccine. However, simply stating that the younger population has a lower mortality rate as a reason why we can move forward isn't sufficient in and of itself.

There will always be anecdotal cases like that tradgic death of a young person.

I have one as well. I had a 40 year old nephew die from the flu in Feb 2018. Relatively young and otherwise healthy. The nation, the world does not shut down and create an economic disaster to avoid deaths from the flu or other commmunicable diseases, and there are thousands of deaths from the flu every year.

You're probably right though since societies around the world have been sufficiently frightened. And you are also right that no one will want to be responsible for another breakout.

I have to ask though, do people expect to wait for a vaccine, which likely won't be as effective as we would like? That could take a long time and the virus will be mutating as viruses do. The virus is not going to disappear and people will, at some point, need to get on with their lives.

At a high level, I don't think we can expect people to wait for a vaccine because you're correct that it could take a long time to develop (e.g. years) and who knows how effective it will be.

That being said, the approach of declaring that we need to open up again without an actual process in place to mitigate future outbreaks isn't going to work, either. A lot of politicians just seem to be parroting, "We need to open up again!" And look, from a personal standpoint, I get it. I have multiple friends that have lost jobs, my own job security seems to be thrown up in the air, and my long-term security in my 401(k) certainly took a total beating that may take years to recover from. However, simply declaring that things need to open again without some type of testing process and the ability to trace cases could end up just turning back the clock to mid-March and we need to do this shutdown all over again, which would be exponentially worse.

It goes back to what I've said elsewhere: the public health crisis is what is causing our economy collapse, NOT government orders one way or the other. Until the public health crisis is *truly* addressed (which in my mind means some widespread combination of testing, tracing cases, and at least an effective treatment for symptoms until a vaccine is available), then the economy isn't going to recover no matter how much the politicians might wish otherwise.

My spouse works for a big company and its still going to be a while before anyone goes back in the office and probably 2021 before the bulk do.

I expect colleges to open, but I would still be surprised to see football in the fall. Or any college sports. For big football schools, donations and tickets are a bigger factor than TV. So they will want big crowds and ticket sales. That doesn't happen in the fall regardless of whether they fully open up or not. Maybe they go with spring football, but I don't see fall football.

And as Frank says, there are liability issues. There are a lot of tort lawyers who haven't had anything to do that are salivating at the possibilities.

I expect the P5 to get together and decide when to play.

Universities: "NCAA, you formed with the express intent and mission to organize college sports and to help prevent the headaches and confusion that come from the dealings of dozens of conferences and hundreds of schools! So surely you'll help during this time of intense confusion and uncertainty!"

NCAA:

I don't see it happening. Maybe in the spring?

(05-13-2020 01:45 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  So, we can sit here and say that the risk is relatively low for young healthy people, but that's sort of like saying the risk is relatively low for someone dying from a game of Russian roulette. Why take that risk in the first place?

Well assuming you're using a six-shooter, the risk of dying from one spin of Russian roulette is 16%. That's a whole lot more risk than 1 in 5000. Truth is, we take *all sorts* of risks that are in that range, we'd have to be hermits not to. I mean, the lifetime risk of dying in a car accident is about 1 in 100, and we all climb in to cars every day.

I say re-open campuses, with social distancing for those over 60 or critical medical conditions, like diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. But obviously I'm not in charge and risk-averse admins aren't going to do this.

(05-13-2020 11:25 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  We are rapidly approaching the date at which schools and conferences are going to have to decide what their plan is for the fall so that those who want to still play can figure out their schedules.

You're an Ohio State fan? So I'm sure they have already made their plans definite and crystal clear, right? I haven't seen them, so please post a link to Ohio State's public announcement of their plans for the fall.

[align=justify]
A realistic possibility of a vaccine for late fall early winter. Move the entire season to spring and start figuring it out with spring sports going on at the same time. Late feb thru early may. If it turns out the vaccine is not available in time then abort. I don't think it will work with Texas playing in the fall while the deep south starts in oct and scedules are changed and partial. Do a whole season, everyone together. Otherwise it's chaos.

Just some math to illustrate how widespread testing is problematic:
330 million people in the U.S.. If less than half agree to regular testing, that's 160 million people. To be truly effective you'd have to test people every day or 2 (never going to happen). Let's do the math for every 2 weeks (the limit of the presumed incubation period). To test 160 million people every 2 weeks would mean approximately 11.4 million tests a day (an average of over 220,000 per state per day). I think this illustrates that widespread testing to limit spread is not possible.

You could selectively test at risk populations at an acceptable frequency. You definitely should aggressively test hot spots. Those exposed and infected need to be aggressively (and if needed punitively) quarantined. But you cannot have "widespread testing" at a level that will be effective, not with 330 million people.

We have flattened the curve, too well. Our hospitals are struggling. Medical personal are being furloughed and laid off. It's time to open up with precautions and get a sizeable portion of the population exposed and hopefully immune. Honestly, we can't even say for sure that + antibodies = immunity.

If we wait for a vaccine, we will be in a second great depression. Protect the vulnerable. Open businesses with precautions. Make sick people stay home. Hope for the best. If we stay closed hoping for a manufactured solution, we may stay closed til it no longer matters.

(05-13-2020 06:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-13-2020 01:45 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  So, we can sit here and say that the risk is relatively low for young healthy people, but that's sort of like saying the risk is relatively low for someone dying from a game of Russian roulette. Why take that risk in the first place?

Well assuming you're using a six-shooter, the risk of dying from one spin of Russian roulette is 16%. That's a whole lot more risk than 1 in 5000. Truth is, we take *all sorts* of risks that are in that range, we'd have to be hermits not to. I mean, the lifetime risk of dying in a car accident is about 1 in 100, and we all climb in to cars every day.

I say re-open campuses, with social distancing for those over 60 or critical medical conditions, like diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. But obviously I'm not in charge and risk-averse admins aren't going to do this.

I don't think there's any reputable source that would put the coronavirus mortality rate at 1 in 5000. In the latest Worldmeter figures, the mortality rate for people under age 40 has been 1 in 500 (0.2%). We're just talking about the young people on that front - it's much higher as you go up in age.

If this was some type of disease that wasn't easily spread or not very communicable, such as SARS from the early-2000s by comparison, then that mortality rate may not be that concerning. However, that's a *very* high rate for a disease that has shown that it spreads unabated with minimal contact. It's exponentially worse than the normal flu or strains like H1N1 (and the fact that I still see people debating this makes me think that we're going to have a mass number of people "winning" the Darwin Awards this year).

So, it's very hard for me to understand when I see people taking comfort in a supposedly "low" mortality rate. This isn't a low mortality rate at all for such an easily transmittable disease, which is the part that I don't understand how people are glossing over. It's "mortality rate plus transmission rate" that makes COVID-19 such a unique danger compared to anything that we've seen in our lifetimes as opposed to the mortality rate itself.

Think about applying that 1 in 500 mortality rate figure for younger people when it comes to the close-knit nature of a college campus. A college dorm is basically the best petri dish that you can imagine for a super spreader situation with multiple people in rooms and communal bathrooms where social distancing and constant cleaning/disinfecting is logistically impossible.

At least in the dorm that I lived in while I was in college, there were around 1000 people living in our dorm and there were multiple more buildings just like that on our campus. Are we really cool with saying that it's a "low" enough mortality rate that, statistically speaking, "only" 2 people in my dorm building would die if there's an outbreak in an environment that's custom-made for outbreaks... and that's just one dorm building? What if we multiply that by a dozen dorm buildings like that across campus? What if we start counting in people that don't die yet still need to go to the hospital and/or suffer lifelong damage to their bodies? Are parents going to be cool with that reasoning? Are tort lawyers going to be cool with that reasoning? Are insurance companies going to be cool with that reasoning? Are the two-faced politicians that are complaining about government orders today in May going to be willing to face the music if that happens in September?

Look - I understand the all of the arguments from an economic perspective. No one wants to see unemployment numbers that have only been seen during the Great Depression. However, I have a really hard time seeing how the pretty basic risk that I just outlined regarding college campuses indicates that it's going to be safe to have anything close to normal on-campus housing even when accounting for the lower mortality rate for younger people. If you can't have normal on-campus housing, then it's pretty difficult to have on-campus classes at all logistically. There might be a few schools with enough open hotel rooms in their cities that they could conceivably spread more students out over more locations, but that's going to be the exception.