Jump to content

College Football in 2020 in danger?


The_Great_Hornsby

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

And those cancellations will do nothing to stop the covid spread on college campuses.  

The problem is though, like last semester, if the campuses start ramping up infected numbers, they have to shut the universities down again, and by 99% of campus policies, athletes cannot be on campus. That will be the end of the college football season.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Yeah.  Don’t let anyone out and do anything is as dumb as let’s pretend there’s no virus at all.  My hesitation is these are amateur athletes that people are making a lot of money on.  


But here at the home of B1G headquarters every single hospital in the city has had its C19 unit closed for months now and patios are jam packed with people boozing.  I guessed the virus is weaker in summer, as in it still spreads but hospitalizations would be way down.  That educated guess seems to be correct but you don’t hear much about that on any news channel, left or right.  


I was a trip the last few weeks and one of the guys along was a vet. He wondered (since these diseases have been prevalent in animals for a long time) if the longer the virus lives, the more diluted or weaker it becomes. That was his experience in dealing with other coronavirus in animals. As a doctor, does this even seem plausible? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Newy25 said:


I was a trip the last few weeks and one of the guys along was a vet. He wondered (since these diseases have been prevalent in animals for a long time) if the longer the virus lives, the more diluted or weaker it becomes. That was his experience in dealing with other coronavirus in animals. As a doctor, does this even seem plausible? 

It’s 100% true.  If you’re a virus you want to be less deadly so you can propagate.  They obviously don’t consciously ‘think’ shit but strains that kill less spread more my man.  A tale as old as time   

You won’t hear that on Fox or CNN.  

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

It’s 100% true.  If you’re a virus you want to be less deadly so you can propagate.  They obviously don’t consciously ‘think’ shit but strains that kill less spread more my man.  A tale as old as time   

You won’t hear that on Fox or CNN.  


Thanks for the feedback. I’m wondering if this is part of the reason we are not seeing any of these college kids go to the hospital. There was also a NYT article recently around if the threshold for viral load on these PCR tests was too low creating a large number of positive cases that shouldn’t be. It’s relevant for football considering it might to lead to isolating players we shouldn’t be isolating. 
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.amp.html


 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, MirrOlure said:


We don’t know for sure with 100% certainty what each and every negative effect it has on each and every person in the world who tested positive so we all need to stay home and not go anywhere until that is figured out.

I'm paid to take the risk and go out of my home and go back to the office. I could go hermit if I wanted, eventually probably losing my job, but I won't. I like my job. And I like money and have uses for it. And I'm no longer a college student, visiting (or being visited) friends randomly, occassionally going to parties. So my risk is one I'm paid to take, and my risk is fairly low because I just don't have the social life of a typical college student.

So the statement that we know something, or nothing, about the long term effects of asymptomatic infected is particularly relevant. These kids aren't paid. A whole lot of people are making a whole lot of money off of their efforts. And they are college students - most probably doing what most college students do. What all of the rest of us should do, well that's something rather different because of the context.

 

On a side note, wasn't there some trash talking in this thread earlier about how TCU was trying to avoid a loss to SMU? Texas State must have taken that personally or something. Tied at the half 14 - 14 as of this post.

Edited by ouflak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, phdhorn said:

The problem is though, like last semester, if the campuses start ramping up infected numbers, they have to shut the universities down again, and by 99% of campus policies, athletes cannot be on campus. That will be the end of the college football season.

I'll believe that when the Us refund tuition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ChiTownDoc said:

It’s 100% true.  If you’re a virus you want to be less deadly so you can propagate.  They obviously don’t consciously ‘think’ shit but strains that kill less spread more my man.  A tale as old as time   

You won’t hear that on Fox or CNN.  

This, it’s why Ebola is simultaneously fucking terrifying and not that big of a deal globally 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Newy25 said:


I was a trip the last few weeks and one of the guys along was a vet. He wondered (since these diseases have been prevalent in animals for a long time) if the longer the virus lives, the more diluted or weaker it becomes. That was his experience in dealing with other coronavirus in animals. As a doctor, does this even seem plausible? 

Virus mutation is constantly happening and it goes all different directions.  When a mutation selects for more deadly, it kills its host and dies with it since the host can’t keep going out spreading that version.  
the ideal selection is becoming highly infectious while also causing few or no symptoms, highest chance for survival by spreading rapidly and unchecked.  
 

Im guessing the version that spread through San Marcos this summer was not the same that hit NY so hard this spring, daughter and >20 of her friend group all got it, none had any symptoms.  They only got tested because they did their own version of contact tracing. There were a few who tested negative, but most of who they thought were exposed did actually test positive.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, phdhorn said:

The problem is though, like last semester, if the campuses start ramping up infected numbers, they have to shut the universities down again, and by 99% of campus policies, athletes cannot be on campus. That will be the end of the college football season.

New thought/recommendation is to no longer send kids home. It being best to keep them on one place rather then sending them home and spreading it more. That's at least Fauci's new recommendation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

New thought/recommendation is to no longer send kids home. It being best to keep them on one place rather then sending them home and spreading it more. That's at least Fauci's new recommendation.

Right. It's not a fait accompli anymore that the entire world needs to shut down and hide whenever the virus is detected. We have learned since March that it's not nearly as dangerous as we thought and we know how to treat it more effectively. Hopefully soon people will start seeing it as the "just another respiratory virus" as it is for most people. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Valmy77 said:

No shit. No matter how seemingly non-political something is it eventually becomes partisan. I am looking forward to my political beliefs dictating what laundry detergent I use and whether I shower in the morning or at night.

I am constantly mystified by how few people in a land that prides itself on individualism actually think for themselves (and that goes for both ends of the political spectrum). Jesus, people, if you don't piss off your own side as much as you piss off the other side, you're not an individual, you're a cog.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Newy25 said:


Thanks for the feedback. I’m wondering if this is part of the reason we are not seeing any of these college kids go to the hospital. There was also a NYT article recently around if the threshold for viral load on these PCR tests was too low creating a large number of positive cases that shouldn’t be. It’s relevant for football considering it might to lead to isolating players we shouldn’t be isolating. 
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.amp.html


 

 

The vast majority of deaths (not all) were in individuals with such significant co-morbidities that their mortality risk was extremely high without COVID. Deaths seen in patients with terminal cancer or on hospice contributed to those numbers. Probably not many college student-athletes or even student-non athletes have that level of preexisting health burden. It’s  not the number who test positive, it’s the number that get sick, particularly those that require hospitalization and drain healthcare resources. 

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, jTower said:

The vast majority of deaths (not all) were in individuals with such significant co-morbidities that their mortality risk was extremely high without COVID. Deaths seen in patients with terminal cancer or on hospice contributed to those numbers. Probably not many college student-athletes or even student-non athletes have that level of preexisting health burden. It’s  not the number who test positive, it’s the number that get sick, particularly those that require hospitalization and drain healthcare resources. 

 

 


Agreed. The NYT article focused mainly on the high volume of cases that many doctors do not think need to be “positive” since resources need to be allocated to contact trace. The idea was to raise the threshold on what is a positive case since most of these are not highly contagious and/or likely to make anyone sick at the low levels of detection. I did not realize that if you kept replicating cells in a test sample enough you would find that nearly every American would likely test positive. 

What I learned from that article is that it’s not as clear cut as you have it or you don’t.  And our threshold for testing might be creating so many of these asymptomatic cases as opposed to some unique behavior in the virus. 

Edited by Newy25
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, jTower said:

The vast majority of deaths (not all) were in individuals with such significant co-morbidities that their mortality risk was extremely high without COVID. Deaths seen in patients with terminal cancer or on hospice contributed to those numbers. Probably not many college student-athletes or even student-non athletes have that level of preexisting health burden. It’s  not the number who test positive, it’s the number that get sick, particularly those that require hospitalization and drain healthcare resources. 

 

 

If ya got diabetes, hypertension, elderly and/or obesity, take extra precautions.  In my hospital the avg weight of a covid patient is around 100 kg (and not tall people)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Walden Ponderer said:

I am constantly mystified by how few people in a land that prides itself on individualism actually think for themselves (and that goes for both ends of the political spectrum). Jesus, people, if you don't piss off your own side as much as you piss off the other side, you're not an individual, you're a cog.

I must be in great shape, I currently have long term friends from both sides of the political fence that are no longer talking to me! One friend is apparently pissed at me because I dared to say that "watching 3 YouTube videos and reading 3 google articles doesn't put you on par with a Virologist that has spent 30 years in the field". Another was offended when I mentioned I was a Bio major at UT at one point and learned enough to have some grip on how much I don't know. Oh, and then I pointed out that he was RTF.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, ouflak said:

I'm paid to take the risk and go out of my home and go back to the office. I could go hermit if I wanted, eventually probably losing my job, but I won't. I like my job. And I like money and have uses for it. And I'm no longer a college student, visiting (or being visited) friends randomly, occassionally going to parties. So my risk is one I'm paid to take, and my risk is fairly low because I just don't have the social life of a typical college student.

So the statement that we know something, or nothing, about the long term effects of asymptomatic infected is particularly relevant. These kids aren't paid. A whole lot of people are making a whole lot of money off of their efforts. And they are college students - most probably doing what most college students do. What all of the rest of us should do, well that's something rather different because of the context.

 

On a side note, wasn't there some trash talking in this thread earlier about how TCU was trying to avoid a loss to SMU? Texas State must have taken that personally or something. Tied at the half 14 - 14 as of this post.


I’m torn on this subject. I definitely think that in some cases student athletes are not paid their fair market value but they absolutely are getting compensated. With how much education costs have gone up in the last 10 years, the scholarship is compensation. You cannot tell me that a female gymnast from Stanford that earns an education worth 250k or more is not compensated. In fact, as an 18-22 year old I would argue that is better compensation that she could get anywhere else in the market. A male tennis player at Texas is definitely getting above market compensation for his talents by getting a free education. On the other hand, I’m quite certain Trevor Lawrence is not getting full market value by not being allowed to sign an endorsement deal. Like most topics there is probably not a one answer for all student athletes on this subject.. 

The NCAA decision to allow people to opt in or out voluntarily without any lost eligibility was the right answer. One of very few correct decisions they have made in recent years. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Newy25 said:


I’m torn on this subject. I definitely think that in some cases student athletes are not paid their fair market value but they absolutely are getting compensated. With how much education costs have gone up in the last 10 years, the scholarship is compensation. You cannot tell me that a female gymnast from Stanford that earns an education worth 250k or more is not compensated. In fact, as an 18-22 year old I would argue that is better compensation that she could get anywhere else in the market. A male tennis player at Texas is definitely getting above market compensation for his talents by getting a free education. On the other hand, I’m quite certain Trevor Lawrence is not getting full market value by not being allowed to sign an endorsement deal. Like most topics there is probably not a one answer for all student athletes on this subject.. 

The NCAA decision to allow people to opt in or out voluntarily without any lost eligibility was the right answer. One of very few correct decisions they have made in recent years. 

I always enjoy the argument that education costs have skyrocketed, so they should be happy with the scholarship value, instead of thinking that maybe we should take action to make education more affordable for everyone, and then we could bitch less that players would like to have a greater share of the revenue they generate 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Newy25 said:


... but they absolutely are getting compensated. With how much education costs ...

But the schools set that price don't they? This is why the NCAA and the universities have special exemptions from following state and federal labor laws and complying with anti-trust laws. Because if companies could just pay people in whatever-currency-they-like of their own making (be it education, housing, etc...) without actually paying any money, they could have free labor and enslave their employees' by simply threatening them with losing everything if they don't accept whatever the employee. Money, actually legal currency, allows people the freedom to participate in our economy as they see fit. That's why we have those laws. That's why the NCAA and universities are afraid of unions, and why the NCAA has tried to sneak in permanent exemption from anti-trust laws when suggesting that congress pass a federal law regarding student compensation. They all want to continue to pay nothing except for an education for which the universities themselves set the 'value' for.

Edited by ouflak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ouflak said:

But the schools set that price don't they? This is why the NCAA and the universities have special exemptions from following state and federal labor laws and complying with anti-trust laws. Because if companies could just pay people in whatever-currency-they-like of their own making (be it education, housing, etc...) without actually paying any money, they could have free labor and enslave their employees' by simply threatening them with losing everything if they don't accept whatever the employee. Money, actually legal currency, allows people the freedom to participate in our economy as they see fit. That's why we have those laws. That's why the NCAA and universities are afraid of unions, and why the NCAA has tried to sneak in permanent exemption from anti-trust laws when suggesting that congress pass a federal law regarding student compensation. They all want to continue to pay nothing except for an education for which the universities themselves set the 'value' for.


If you are an 18 year old tennis player or gymnast and not good enough to play professionally or compete in the Olympics, I’m quite certain a free education is far more than anything you can get in the open market for you playing the sport. Considering your other market opportunity to get paid to play is, well nothing a scholarship, even though not technically currency is above market value for what you are bringing. For most student athletes, the value proposition is skewed heavily in favor of the student athlete. 

Edited by Newy25
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Newy25 said:


If you are a.18 year old tennis player or gymnast and not good enough to play professionally or compete in the Olympics, I’m quite certain a free education is far more than anything you can get in the open market for you playing the sport. Considering your other market opportunity to get paid to play is, well nothing a scholarship, even though not technically currency is above market value for what you are bringing. For most student athletes, the value proposition is skewed heavily in favor of the student athlete. 

Just read an article on Tennis comp the other day. The only people making enough money to live are top 100 in the world and top 60 in doubles. That’s also not likely to be a living wage- just keep you from absolutely drowning in debt. 
so, yeah- the best player in the NCAA would likely be making a large amount of negative money (IE racking up huge debts)  in the professional world. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, westexhorn said:

If ya got diabetes, hypertension, elderly and/or obesity, take extra precautions.  In my hospital the avg weight of a covid patient is around 100 kg (and not tall people)

My father has all of those. If he gets the rona, he’s dead. Not to mention he’s smoked for 50 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, westexhorn said:

If ya got diabetes, hypertension, elderly and/or obesity, take extra precautions.  In my hospital the avg weight of a covid patient is around 100 kg (and not tall people)

Quote

My father has all of those. If he gets the rona, he’s dead. Not to mention he’s smoked for 50 years.

My brother has diabetes and had bronchitis and went right into coronavirus.  He said the bronchitis was ten times worse.  He also smoked dope for 40 years, so no such thing as "an automatic death sentence" from coronavirus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Cornfusion said:

I volunteer at a local homeless shelter.  When this whole coronavirus panic started, I asked the night chaplain there what the shelter planned on changing due to the coronavirus.  He looked at me with a deadpan expression and said,

"You know, in the 20 some years that I have been here, I have  been exposed to HIV, full blown AIDS, Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, ...not Hepatitis E yet..., drug resistant tuberculosis, MRSA, and an airborne staph infection that I didn't even know was a thing.  Plus head lice and bedbugs.  Coronavirus doesn't even make my top ten."

 

We provided physician services to a homeless shelter during residency.  The biggest issue is mental illness.  Really sad.  
And I’m sure your chaplain there is saying that tongue in cheek but half those patients he mentions would need no isolation at all, much less strict isolation like with C19.  And if he truly was ‘exposed’ to full blown AIDS I don’t wanna know what he was doing.  

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Cornfusion said:

I volunteer at a local homeless shelter.  When this whole coronavirus panic started, I asked the night chaplain there what the shelter planned on changing due to the coronavirus.  He looked at me with a deadpan expression and said,

"You know, in the 20 some years that I have been here, I have  been exposed to HIV, full blown AIDS, Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, ...not Hepatitis E yet..., drug resistant tuberculosis, MRSA, and an airborne staph infection that I didn't even know was a thing.  Plus head lice and bedbugs.  Coronavirus doesn't even make my top ten."

 

All I know, is come Christmas time, I hope to not be singing "It's beginning to look alot like syphilis..." 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:
10 hours ago, Cornfusion said:

"You know, in the 20 some years that I have been here, I have  been exposed to HIV, full blown AIDS, Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, ...not Hepatitis E yet..., drug resistant tuberculosis, MRSA, and an airborne staph infection that I didn't even know was a thing.  Plus head lice and bedbugs.  Coronavirus doesn't even make my top ten."

And if he truly was ‘exposed’ to full blown AIDS I don’t wanna know what he was doing.  

"The Aristocrats!"

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Cornfusion said:

I volunteer at a local homeless shelter.  When this whole coronavirus panic started, I asked the night chaplain there what the shelter planned on changing due to the coronavirus.  He looked at me with a deadpan expression and said,

"You know, in the 20 some years that I have been here, I have  been exposed to HIV, full blown AIDS, Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, ...not Hepatitis E yet..., drug resistant tuberculosis, MRSA, and an airborne staph infection that I didn't even know was a thing.  Plus head lice and bedbugs.  Coronavirus doesn't even make my top ten."

 

That chaplain likes to party 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 And if he truly was ‘exposed’ to full blown AIDS I don’t wanna know what he was doing.  

Cleaning up blood.  The guy slashed his own throat just after breakfast.  Like somebody said, the mental illness dwarfs the physical problems.

I always said that Chaplain should write a book when he retires.

Edited by Cornfusion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If ya got diabetes, hypertension, elderly and/or obesity, take extra precautions.  In my hospital the avg weight of a covid patient is around 100 kg (and not tall people)

I'm philosophically opposed to negging but I'm also philosophically opposed to the metric system so I'm not really sure what to do here.
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/4/2020 at 12:33 PM, Newy25 said:

That is a nice sentiment but it would be even better if it were grounded in some scientific basis. Every argument used to say this has been a player safety issue so far has been refuted or even found to be untrue so far. 

Im glad I was off the grid the last few weeks to miss watching the Big 10 shit all of itself and wipe its hand on the mirrors with their Covid/player safety platform. 

It is specifically because we don't have the complete how this disease affects people longitudinally that caution should be encouraged. And don't say there's no scientific basis. I'm not going to your research for you, but there's plenty of data out there already that would cause any reasonable person to pause. One year of college football to save lives, lungs, hearts, and careers? That's a trade you should take every day. But it's not your kid so roll the dice. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...