Jump to content

Will There Be a 2020 Football Season?


Chances of a 2020 season?   

58 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Undone said:

 

In this sense, LPS' announcement that all students have to wear masks seems like all it will do is fall under the 'you tried' category, which I've been talking about for three weeks. It's about having the best possible defense when they're brought to court by the teachers' union.

 

I have elementary aged kids and so this topic is important for my family.

 

Teach, are you leaning towards pushing for just cancelling the whole year?

 

Do grammar school aged kids really spread the virus?  

Link to post

  • Replies 5.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Question: B1G, are you going to play football this fall?   B1G:

Posted Images

2 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

 

Do grammar school aged kids really spread the virus?  

I would imagine they do.  

 

And kids are all over each other.  There is no such thing as social distancing for them and mask wearing is not going to work for them all day.

Link to post
1 minute ago, Branno said:

 

I think the biggest problem here is that you're focused on a trailing metric and using it to argue against leading metrics.

 

To decrease deaths, we need to decrease infections and reduce the strain on our health care system. Remember, there has been a significant increase in excess deaths that haven't been directly attributed to COVID-19. One reason (among many I assume) is that hospitals are overwhelmed and people cannot receive the treatments they need.

 

Infection rate and hospital utilization are leading metrics. We know that when they decrease, deaths decrease. But it takes several weeks for the death rate metrics to change. 

 

So, please tell me what it matters whether we're focusing on infections rates, death rates, or hospital capacity if all 3 correlate? Does it make sense to talk about 3 week old death rate data or up to the minute infection and hospital capacity data?

 

First off, good post.

 

I totally understand how deaths are tending to lag 3-4 weeks behind infections. This is well documented, so I can't (and wouldn't) argue against that. To answer the last question you asked, I think we should focus on all metrics and not just one. I assume you'd probably agree with that. 

 

We could debate which ones are more important than the others - but let's not do that. 

 

Hospital capacity exhaustion is very important. This is why people should put on masks if there is indeed a second curve to flatten. And hopefully nobody quotes this little section and claims I said there isn't a second curve to flatten; we obviously see are seeing spikes in many regions.

 

I believe the death rate matters because there is mounting evidence that doctors are finding better ways to treat C19. I hope we're talking about the positives there.

 

I was definitely a bit obtuse in my first response to you when I said "Link, please?" If I could have that one back, I probably would have asked you "what is your own definition of 'many hospitals.'" Know what I mean there?

Link to post
1 hour ago, Undone said:

 

Link? Seriously - provide me some evidence to show this is actually a true statement.

 

 

 

The CDC has nationwide and statewide estimates for number of total beds, ICU beds, etc., occupied:

 

https://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/covid19/report-patient-impact.html

 

Texas, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Arizona and Nevada all have over 70% of ICU beds filled currently.

Link to post
9 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

 

Why wouldn't they?

Because, according to the current evidence, they don't. Makes no sense at all but kids under 10 barely vector Covid for whatever reason.  The evidence is sketchier in the 10-18 age. The numbers are out of South Korea and they didn't break it down into smaller groups, but the 10-18 age transmits at a lower rate than the adult population but a higher rate than the almost non existent transmission noted in the under 10 school agers. The thought is that there would be a gradual increase in the transmission as approaches 18, but again, not enough numbers to accurately call it. 

 

Link to post
3 minutes ago, Husker03 said:

Because, according to the current evidence, they don't. Makes no sense at all but kids under 10 barely vector Covid for whatever reason.  The evidence is sketchier in the 10-18 age. The numbers are out of South Korea and they didn't break it down into smaller groups, but the 10-18 age transmits at a lower rate than the adult population but a higher rate than the almost non existent transmission noted in the under 10 school agers. The thought is that there would be a gradual increase in the transmission as approaches 18, but again, not enough numbers to accurately call it. 

 

 

The bold is not true.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/faq.html#Children

 

Not only do they acquire and transmit it, there has been growing evidence that children who have had C19 have developed further complications, including MIS-C.

 

Quote

Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) is a condition where different body parts can become inflamed, including the heart, lungs, kidneys, brain, skin, eyes, or gastrointestinal organs. We do not yet know what causes MIS-C. However, we know that many children with MIS-C had the virus that causes COVID-19, or had been around someone with COVID-19. MIS-C can be serious, even deadly, but most children who were diagnosed with this condition have gotten better with medical care.

 

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
9 minutes ago, Husker03 said:

Because, according to the current evidence, they don't. Makes no sense at all but kids under 10 barely vector Covid for whatever reason.  The evidence is sketchier in the 10-18 age. The numbers are out of South Korea and they didn't break it down into smaller groups, but the 10-18 age transmits at a lower rate than the adult population but a higher rate than the almost non existent transmission noted in the under 10 school agers. The thought is that there would be a gradual increase in the transmission as approaches 18, but again, not enough numbers to accurately call it. 

 

One thing that could influence it is mutations.  There isn't a lot of evidence out yet on differences in transmission between the different mutation, but per this paper published in Nature, the show that the South Korea strain is not the same as the US strain. This paper is focused on Fatality rates, but hopefully a similar paper is in works to show the transmission rates. I think the South Korea strain is pretty close to the original Wuhan outbreak. 

 

Not sure if this means that we could experienced greater transmission among children, but it is just something else to consider.

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s10038-020-0808-9

 

Mutations.jpg

  • Thanks 1
Link to post

Healthy children can spread covid, but thus far are not significant drivers of spread. 

 



In this issue of Pediatrics, Posfay-Barbe et al6 report on the dynamics of COVID-19 within families of children with reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in Geneva, Switzerland. From March 10 to April 10, 2020, all children <16 years of age diagnosed at Geneva University Hospital (N = 40) underwent contact tracing to identify infected household contacts (HHCs). Of 39 evaluable households, in only 3 (8%) was a child the suspected index case, with symptom onset preceding illness in adult HHCs. In all other households, the child developed symptoms after or concurrent with adult HHCs, suggesting that the child was not the source of infection and that children most frequently acquire COVID-19 from adults, rather than transmitting it to them.

These findings are consistent with other recently published HHC investigations in China. Of 68 children with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to Qingdao Women’s and Children’s Hospital from January 20 to February 27, 2020, and with complete epidemiological data, 65 (95.59%) patients were HHCs of previously infected adults.7 Of 10 children hospitalized outside Wuhan, China, in only 1 was there possible child to adult transmission, based on symptom chronology.8 Similarly, transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by children outside household settings seems uncommon, although information is limited.

 

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2020/07/08/peds.2020-004879

  • Plus1 2
Link to post

Maybe we can come to a consensus here (and this post can be moved into the P&R COVID thread if needed), but using Landlord's link I wound up here:

 

https://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/covid19/report-patient-impact.html#anchor_1594392704

 

And this is what I see:
image.png.7859206231705e1e6ca9c653ef633fdc.png

Does anyone else navigate to a different or more helpful & accurate page?

(Note that '95% CI' refers to a Confidence Interval - referring [at a high level] to the perceived degree of accuracy of the data)

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
42 minutes ago, Husker03 said:

Because, according to the current evidence, they don't. Makes no sense at all but kids under 10 barely vector Covid for whatever reason.  The evidence is sketchier in the 10-18 age. The numbers are out of South Korea and they didn't break it down into smaller groups, but the 10-18 age transmits at a lower rate than the adult population but a higher rate than the almost non existent transmission noted in the under 10 school agers. The thought is that there would be a gradual increase in the transmission as approaches 18, but again, not enough numbers to accurately call it. 

 

Lol, just stop or provide the evidence.  Are younger kids more likely to have mild or no symptoms, looking like yes.  But to say they dont get it at all and can't spread it to those more likely to have severe symptoms, think thats a stretch bordering flat out lie.

Link to post
4 minutes ago, Undone said:

Maybe we can come to a consensus here (and this post can be moved into the P&R COVID thread if needed), but using Landlord's link I wound up here:

 

https://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/covid19/report-patient-impact.html#anchor_1594392704

 

And this is what I see:
image.png.7859206231705e1e6ca9c653ef633fdc.png

Does anyone else navigate to a different or more helpful & accurate page?

(Note that '95% CI' refers to a Confidence Interval - referring [at a high level] to the perceived degree of accuracy of the data)

 

 

On a national scale these numbers don't tell us much. If 49 states are way below concern level capacity, but Florida is way in the red, there's going to be a large mortality rate in Florida, but the overall percentage will look OK.

 

The chart below this information is more pertinent. It shows which states are at strained capacity, which by my quick count was five.

 

XWJ0Qxn.png

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
21 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

 

On a national scale these numbers don't tell us much. If 49 states are way below concern level capacity, but Florida is way in the red, there's going to be a large mortality rate in Florida, but the overall percentage will look OK.

 

The chart below this information is more pertinent. It shows which states are at strained capacity, which by my quick count was five.

 

XWJ0Qxn.png

 

 

 

I missed that one - thanks. And it aligns with all of the news of the high case counts in Florida & Arizona, in particular.

 

We would probably have to agree to disagree though here:

 

21 minutes ago, knapplc said:

On a national scale these numbers don't tell us much.

 

Because to me, if I want to know how the U.S. is doing as a whole as it pertains to total hospital capacity due to COVID-19 patients, a piece of data called 'National Estimates' is actually a great reference point. And you'll just have to take my word that I'm not being sarcastic here.

 

But you're right - it doesn't tell us if there are hot spots - which the other link you shared did and is also very important data as well.

Link to post
2 hours ago, Undone said:

 

No; assuming that coroners are properly accounting for deaths actually caused by C19, we already know how many people died from it.

 

It's the denominator in the equation that gets bigger if known cases goes up, thus making the ratio of C19 deaths go down.

If anything, deaths are overstated. People die.  They are counted and reported.  Period.  Only the mysterious disappearances or unknown deaths go unreported.  No doubt covid 19 is credited whether or not it is the cause if any reason is apparent.  

 

Case counts are muddled up with suspect cases (no lab tests at all) plus patients with multiple tests plus patients with positive antibodies tests plus patients who have never been tested but are included in error plus lab reports with 100% positive results when average rate is 9% etc.  

There are without doubt large numbers of people who have had the virus and never knew it.  As known patients run about 85% asymptomatic, it is almost inconceivable that true infection numbers are at least 30 to 40 million already. 

 

This the death rate is well below 1% and not much above flus and pneumonia cases.  Roughly 40% of all covid deaths are nursing home patients and most are above age 60.   

School aged populations seldom die and few get very sick.  

 

Protect the most vulnerable with masks and quarantine. Everybody else - get back to life as normal, except wear masks in public.   

 

 

  • Plus1 2
Link to post

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.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.










×
×
  • Create New...