Back to Post
| Username | Post: It’s hard being a Pennfan right now | |
|---|---|---|
|
barryw Sophomore Posts 122 |
10-19-20 03:00 PM - Post#315058
Although I never went to Penn, I have been a fan all my life- I’m 74 and have season tickets every year. It is really hard to see all the major conference schools scheduling games and nothing from Penn. Villanova announced that they will still play Temple, LaSalle and St Joe as usual. Of course, Penn will be left out unless it happens after the new year when conference games are being played. Why does the Ivy League have to always go the opposite direction from big time schools? |
|
|
palestra38 Professor Posts 32803 |
10-19-20 03:08 PM - Post#315060
Public health. And the fact that our players are part of the student body. You can't say in an Ivy institution that there are different rules for athletes than for all other students. If students are not permitted on campus, how can they play basketball on campus. I miss Penn basketball every bit as much as you, but there would be something hyperhypocritical (to invent a word) to play ball unless students return to campus. |
|
|
mrjames Professor Posts 6062 |
10-19-20 03:29 PM - Post#315065
While I have differences at times with many on these boards, what I share is a love of Ivy basketball. And while I have differences with the presidents on their policy choices at times, what I share is their concern for public health and the health of not just our student-athletes but their communities as a whole. I was very proud of the league in March for doing the right thing for safety. That it led all sports is a fun footnote but isn't a reason for pride. It will do the right thing for safety this time around too and shouldn't be judged in the context of whether other conferences follow suit or the outcomes that those other leagues achieve. |
|
|
PennFan10 Postdoc Posts 3584 |
10-19-20 03:43 PM - Post#315066
Hmmmm. With a less than 1% death rate from the pandemic and plenty of others figuring out how to go about their business, what does "safety" and "public health" really mean? To be clear, I am not for blindly opening everything up, neither am I for isolating everyone indefinitely. I think we can protect the vulnerable and figure out a way to go about our normal lives. If Ivies can lead the shut down, they can certainly lead the return to living effort. |
|
|
palestra38 Professor Posts 32803 |
10-19-20 03:49 PM - Post#315068
The issue is the incredible communicability of the virus, especially indoors. The NBA was unable to continue without a bubble. You can't do a bubble for the NCAA, absent a tournament format. Now if they wanted to do a national tournament with all teams in a bubble setting, I'm all for it. If the Ivies want to do a tournament in a bubble setting, I'm all for it. But otherwise, the risk is intolerable. |
|
|
Jeff2sf Postdoc Posts 4466 |
10-19-20 04:04 PM - Post#315069
Absent a bubble, I don't see how to exert oneself indoors and be safe given I don't think basketball and mask wearing go well together. (and i sure as hell wouldn't be 74 wanting to go see a basketball game indoors). But I do think we should be trying for school. Alternatively, I'd like to see a larger tuition rebate. |
|
|
mrjames Professor Posts 6062 |
10-19-20 04:18 PM - Post#315070
The thing that people seem to miss about this virus is that it is NOT inevitable that everyone gets it. In fact, with a highly efficacious vaccine that could be ubiquitous within six months, it's more likely than not that everyone does NOT have to get this virus. The close indoor contact from sports and the gathering of teams increases the number of vectors of the virus. Increasing the number of vectors increases the likelihood of further spread and ultimately death. That risk is acceptable in some instances - people returning to jobs, younger kids returning to schools - but less acceptable in more "optional" situations like college athletics. I'm not for locking everything down either, but as much as I love Ivy athletics, it's not a necessary activity that should be engaged in at the risk of propagating more vectors of the virus. And, it's important to note, that a recent CDC Morbidity and Mortality weekly report had a study on how spikes in college communities started with 18-22 year olds when they returned to school and were followed by a spike amongst older age groups in that community a few weeks later. It's very difficult to keep these vectors isolated to the college-aged kids in these communities. |
|
|
palestra38 Professor Posts 32803 |
10-19-20 04:18 PM - Post#315072
Agreed on both of your points. And Guttmann should take a pay cut---for appearances sake, if nothing else. |
|
|
TheLine Professor Posts 5597 |
10-19-20 04:24 PM - Post#315074
Given what happened to the Yale hockey team, the number of cases in football (an outdoor sport, mind you), and the fact that the Ivy Presidents (whatever we think of them) do have some of the world's best epidemiologists at their disposal, maybe it's OK to give them some benefit of the doubt in their decision? They certainly got it right in March. Just saying. |
|
|
palestra38 Professor Posts 32803 |
10-19-20 04:31 PM - Post#315075
I was agreeing with that point of view, not disagreeing. |
|
|
TheLine Professor Posts 5597 |
10-19-20 04:40 PM - Post#315076
I know. That comment was in agreement with you, Mike and Jeff. Because this board has no rep feature.
Sports are the reward of a functional society
|
|
|
PennFan10 Postdoc Posts 3584 |
10-19-20 04:48 PM - Post#315077
The issue is the incredible communicability of the virus, especially indoors. The NBA was unable to continue without a bubble. You can't do a bubble for the NCAA, absent a tournament format. Now if they wanted to do a national tournament with all teams in a bubble setting, I'm all for it. If the Ivies want to do a tournament in a bubble setting, I'm all for it. But otherwise, the risk is intolerable. P38: Risk of what? No fans and a bunch of 18-22 yr olds who get tested in advance seems like a tolerable outcome. European basketball is happening, with testing and contact tracing. Also, viruses (ALL Viruses) are incredibly communicable and spread indoors more easily. We don't shut down economies and lives because of that. The Ivies don't have exclusive access to the world's leading doctors so that's not a coherent excuse. MrJ brings up some valid points on this. Do you have a link to the CDC report you reference? I am not predisposed in my thinking on this, I am weighing the arguments on both sides. Right now I see enough people figuring out the safety and public health concerns to move forward at some level. That may change, but Covid Hysteria can't rule forever can it? |
|
|
palestra38 Professor Posts 32803 |
10-19-20 05:02 PM - Post#315078
I didn't say I had a CDC study, but here's one from Harvard. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news ... The problem is that if you don't go bubble, the players are constantly exposed and in basketball, they will inevitably expose others. While that may not result in death, it will mean the possibility of not being able to field a team if 5-6 players come down with it--you saw that baseball had to go to a 60 player roster to survive a season with strict protocols but no bubble. And, of course, if they are spreading the virus among themselves, they are spreading it to others who are more disposed to poor consequences. |
|
|
hoopsfan Masters Student Posts 644 |
10-19-20 05:13 PM - Post#315079
As much as I will deeply miss hoops if the season is cancelled, for reasons of public safety I'd understand. I think that is the position all of us will take. Whatever the decision is I hope it is a deeply considered one. For instance I periodically check the Covid dashboards for universities in my area. Harvard in the last 7 days has tested 16,000+ and has a positivity rate of .08. Northeastern tests every other day and by now has tested nearly 300,00 times. Their positivity rate for the last 7 days is .04. Northeastern has had all its students on campus and has been extremely aggressive about testing, tracing and isolating when called for. They are also planning to play a conference only schedule and on their twitter site you can see videos of their guys shooting in the gym with masks on. OTOH we know the Ivies are mostly sans students totally sans competition. It will be very interesting to see if they indeed can have a safe and full season. Only time will tell. And if they do, will it be because in general they set their goals on managing for Covid in all aspects? And if the Ivies do not try, will it be because of whatever set of variables, they have set a context of greater caution overall? I am not saying there is a right or wrong approach. But what is clear are is that there are different approaches being tried which in some ways will become a real-time experiment in public health management. |
|
|
mrjames Professor Posts 6062 |
10-19-20 05:15 PM - Post#315080
I’ll have to go back and dig it up. You might be able to find it faster through google, but I want to say it was in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality report from a couple weeks ago. |
|
|
TheLine Professor Posts 5597 |
10-19-20 05:20 PM - Post#315083
Perhaps this one? https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm 6939e4.ht... |
|
|
Silver Maple Postdoc Posts 3770 |
10-19-20 05:37 PM - Post#315086
I agree that not playing intercollegiate sports will be regrettable, but if the conference concludes that, for the sake of the health of the public, the participants, and the spectators it is the prudent thing to do, I'm with them. And there's another consideration: intercollegiate athletics is one of the most visible activities in which a university engages. As such, like it or not, it's how those institutions set an example. It is important for institutions of higher learning to model responsible behavior. |
|
|
PennFan10 Postdoc Posts 3584 |
10-19-20 05:37 PM - Post#315087
That looks like it. Thanks |
|
|
PennFan10 Postdoc Posts 3584 |
10-19-20 05:54 PM - Post#315088
Here's the one that references later dates for older/at risk groups: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm 6941e1.ht... |
|
|
mrjames Professor Posts 6062 |
10-19-20 07:18 PM - Post#315090
I knew there’d be faster sleuthing here. I read a lot of these, so I can never quite keep track. Not something I should be doing given that this stuff all gives me tremendous anxiety but have to stay on top of this stuff. |
|
|
HARVARDDADGRAD Postdoc Posts 2691 |
10-19-20 09:34 PM - Post#315093
If I'm an Ivy administrator, where sports aren't a revenue generator, it's an easy call to sit these seasons out. We were already right once (in March). Harvard - likely due to familiarity occasioned by the Biogen superspreader conference - was ahead of the curve and forced cancellation of 2020 spring sports. What I'm thinking is that Harvard's leadership in this instance is scarily indicative of another canary in the coal mine. On the other hand, it could just be a ratification of Harvard's priorities. If the strategy is to send students home before Thanksgiving and hope to bring them back at the start of February, then winter sports aren't even a possibility - unless you want to open the campus to a limited group of athletes. Correctly, Harvard - and likely other Ivies - aren't that hypocritical and shortsighted. Our collective eyes need to be on the endgame, not short term preferences. There's a reason the top 25 states in positivity rates are pretty much all RED states. Oh, for what it's worth, I'm cringing waiting to see Jeffrey Toobin (former Crimson sportswriter) explained by Qanon zealots. |
|
|
penn nation Professor Posts 21193 |
10-19-20 09:55 PM - Post#315094
I think Thanksgiving has the potential to be the mother of all super spreaders if our country is not careful. We won't be having our family shindig this year (and normally we host it), that's for sure. |
|
|
Jeff2sf Postdoc Posts 4466 |
10-19-20 09:58 PM - Post#315097
I will say there's something a little off putting about taking the decision out of the players hands (even as I'm totally against selling tickets for any game) |
|
|
section110 Masters Student Posts 847 |
10-19-20 10:07 PM - Post#315099
I don't see any possibility of having fans at the games, at smaller indoor venues, even if there is some form of a season. |
|
|
PennFan10 Postdoc Posts 3584 |
10-19-20 10:36 PM - Post#315100
European basketball is in season, with limited fans. If they can figure it out, IL (with access to the best doctors in the world) certainly can. If there are not students on campus there can't be games. If they figure out how to have students, they should figure out how to have sports safely as well. |
|
|
HARVARDDADGRAD Postdoc Posts 2691 |
10-19-20 10:36 PM - Post#315101
Leaving it up to the players is sort of like asking a gym owner if there should be any COVID precautions or allowing an orange guy holding a political rally to determine his own rules .... |
|
|
Jeff2sf Postdoc Posts 4466 |
10-19-20 10:51 PM - Post#315102
no i don't think it is like that at all for two reasons: 1. the gym owner is trying to make money off his clients. in this analogy he would be Penn administration insisting the players play in front of crowds. 2. the orange guy is 70+ years old and obese. The Penn basketball players are among the least at risk of any in the country. no pre-existing conditions, super healthy, young, etc. I don't have hard opinions on this so I don't want to be seen as advocating for a specific decision. i'm just saying the players wanting to play (do they?) and being at little risk doesn't seem to be taken into account. Like for all this stuff about COVID diagnoses on college campus and outbreaks on teams, are enough college students having dramatically bad outcomes to warrant shutting down school? Maybe? |
|
|
penn nation Professor Posts 21193 |
10-19-20 11:02 PM - Post#315103
The major risk is passing the virus onto others who may be far more vulnerable. That's why a bubble is imperative. |
|
|
PennFan10 Postdoc Posts 3584 |
10-19-20 11:41 PM - Post#315105
If they are in school, they are in a “bubble†of sorts in that if students are attending classes the school has figured it out. Sports should be an easy add from that point without adding a lot more risk. |
|
|
palestra38 Professor Posts 32803 |
10-20-20 05:45 AM - Post#315107
Small liberal arts colleges out in the woods are in a bubble. I have 2 nephews in college. One is at Bates in Maine--they are in school and going to classes. 3 cases. https://www.bates.edu/academic-year-2020-21 /covid-... The other is at Emory in Atlanta. All virtual, but the students are in a City and going to parties. There have been almost 200 cases there. https://www.emory.edu/forward/dashboard/ind ex.html Emory's situation is much like Penn---Bates is not. Dartmouth and perhaps Cornell could create a bubble. None of the other Ivies are likely to be able to do so. |
|
|
PennFan10 Postdoc Posts 3584 |
10-20-20 08:31 AM - Post#315109
You don't need a true bubble, you need robust testing and contact tracing and some good habits. All of that is available to IL schools. |
|
|
penn nation Professor Posts 21193 |
10-20-20 08:42 AM - Post#315110
“Good habits†is far too vague. The stringencies required to make it work in an urban environment demand much more than that. Otherwise, contact tracing becomes too vast of an enterprise to be workable. |
|
|
AsiaSunset Postdoc Posts 4358 |
10-20-20 08:53 AM - Post#315111
What about the Ivy League pretense that it treats all students the same. Does moving forward with athletics mean all school recognized extra curricular activities not involving athletics must be allowed the same liberties? Perhaps the pandemic creates an opportunity for League Presidents to rethink previous positions. |
|
|
mrjames Professor Posts 6062 |
10-20-20 09:25 AM - Post#315114
The problem, more than anything, is that as the likelihood of an athlete getting the virus from NON-ATHLETIC-RELATED activity increases, the odds of team activities or a game becoming a super-spreader event increase. If the season were to get played (it's almost certainly not, despite the admirable, but quixotic, efforts of some coaches), it would be played under the constant threat of the hammer getting dropped. Your point about the resources at the league's disposal is absolutely correct. We have some of the nation's best medical schools that could likely devise a plan to make playing sports as safe as possible. But the league's charter was founded on the notion that athletics are an important part, but not THE MOST important part of a university's mission (as may be becoming increasingly the case at other institutions). While the most important part - the academic community - is still in flux and strife, I can't imagine how it would make sense for the league to prioritize athletics in such a way. |
|
|
palestra38 Professor Posts 32803 |
10-20-20 09:56 AM - Post#315118
I don't understand, however, why the Ivies cannot over the extra long winter break, have a Bubble and double round robin tournament for the League's NCAA spot. |
|
|
mrjames Professor Posts 6062 |
10-20-20 10:05 AM - Post#315121
That thought has, indeed, crossed my mind. While Princeton has finally joined the rest of the world, pretty sure the D Plan still wouldn't align though... |
|
|
Quakers03 Professor Posts 12530 |
10-20-20 10:49 AM - Post#315127
European basketball is in season, with limited fans. If they can figure it out, IL (with access to the best doctors in the world) certainly can. We are far different from Europe, sadly. |
|
|
TheLine Professor Posts 5597 |
10-20-20 11:34 AM - Post#315129
I think PennFan10 has a point. As long as this issue is not about us as fans, but rather about the players missing out on an opportunity, it's OK IMO to try to figure out how to make an abbreviated season work. It would involve the players buying into following strict protocols/habits, contact tracing if there are any cases, and no fans. Even then, the season may need to be terminated at any point as there's not much room for rescheduling anything if things go bad. My daughter is attending a private high school that has gone through great lengths to stay open. There have been a small number of cases, all involving members of sports teams. Contact tracing has been key, as has been thinking hard about how the athletic program is run. It has involved a lot of angst along with some sacrifice - for example I haven't visited my father since school started since we may all get through a case of covid but he wouldn't. Not that I have any interest in having anyone in my direct family getting covid because even 'mild' cases can be nasty. |
|
|
penn nation Professor Posts 21193 |
10-20-20 11:57 AM - Post#315130
My kids are also at a private high school that is operating in person and the protocols are very extensive. So far, knock on wood, no cases but everyone's realistic that at some point this may change. But that's a different type of scenario. Kids are in a controlled environment all day on campus and go straight home (and I am their personal transportation to and from school). So there are a limited number of variables in operation. College is a different ballgame, especially on an urban campus. |
|
|
TheLine Professor Posts 5597 |
10-20-20 12:17 PM - Post#315132
Yes, that's why I said it would involve the players buying into following strict protocols/habits. Add in frequent testing - probably daily - to identify and immediately identify cases, and then start contact tracing. The reward is that it could be possible to have a season. The flip side if strict protocols aren't followed is that the plug could be pulled at any time. There are no simple answers. I don't envy the people who have to decide how to navigate this given our societal fractures. |
|
|
SomeGuy Professor Posts 6404 |
10-20-20 02:10 PM - Post#315142
Interesting. My son is a freshman in college at a relatively isolated school (at least compared to Penn). Same experience—no outbreaks (knock on wood) in the general student body, but multiple outbreaks on multiple sports teams. They seem to be keeping the athletes more or less away from everyone else; it is kind of miraculous that the outbreaks have thus far been entirely confined to sports teams. |
|
|
SomeGuy Professor Posts 6404 |
10-20-20 02:16 PM - Post#315143
While ultimately I want what is safest for the largest number of people, I am hopeful that circumstances will allow the quixotic coaches to win the day and somehow play safely. How about Cornell and Dartmouth playing a best of 7 series for the league’s NCAA bid? |
|
|
weinhauers_ghost Postdoc Posts 2137 |
10-20-20 04:34 PM - Post#315149
How about Cornell and Dartmouth playing a best of 7 series for the league’s NCAA bid? That idea just triggered a fresh round of projectile vomiting in Cambridge, New Haven, central New Jersey and Philly. |
|
|
Old Bear Postdoc Posts 3992 |
10-20-20 05:30 PM - Post#315152
I’m sure I’m in the minority here, for a couple of reasons, but it seems to me that none of the eight schools have publicly said they are not playing in January. I think it’s up in the air whether all 8 will play, but I’m not giving up yet that, at least, some will. |
|
|
mrjames Professor Posts 6062 |
10-20-20 07:19 PM - Post#315153
I don’t know if any have gone fully public (though Zags has been pretty clear about Harvard). I don’t see Harvard or Yale playing at this point pretty much regardless. I also don’t see a presidents decision that isn’t 8-0. The “play†teams are still pushing hard. We’ll see. |
|
|
weinhauers_ghost Postdoc Posts 2137 |
10-20-20 10:24 PM - Post#315156
IIRC, Yale has six or seven players who are taking at least this semester off. Atkinson has entered the transfer portal, will graduate and then play as a grad transfer. |
|
|
penn nation Professor Posts 21193 |
10-21-20 04:11 PM - Post#315175
So the University of Michigan just announced a stay at home order for all of its own students. Oh, but athletes are exempt and the upcoming football game goes on. I like the Ivy League fine just the way it is, thank you very much. Pretender "public Ivies" have no place in our league. |
|
|
palestra38 Professor Posts 32803 |
10-21-20 06:39 PM - Post#315184
I see absolutely no reason why they can't have a 4 week bubble season during the intersession, which is extra long this year. |
|
|
SteveChop PhD Student Posts 1154 |
10-21-20 06:41 PM - Post#315186
Because if the HYP axis doesn't want it, it ain't happening |
|
|
HARVARDDADGRAD Postdoc Posts 2691 |
10-21-20 07:31 PM - Post#315188
Why have a 4 week season? For all sports? Only athletes allowed onto otherwise closed or limited campuses? Priorities? |
|
|
palestra38 Professor Posts 32803 |
10-21-20 09:43 PM - Post#315191
No one is on campus---this is a BUBBLE. Say, at Cornell. During winter intersession. Nothing at all contrary to Ivy ideals (I am teetering but will resist the typical hypocrisy of a Harvard fan spouting Ivy ideals while it spends more than any other school chasing an Ivy title--wait, I said it). Every school is finishing at Thanksgiving and not returning until mid-late January. So the basketball teams could just go to one of the secluded schools, play a season and have a champion without risking Covid or endangering our precious Ivy ideals. |
|
|
UPIA1968 PhD Student Posts 1120 
|
10-21-20 10:22 PM - Post#315194
The science has know for a long time now that young people seldom get seriously sick from this virus. The latest news is that infected young people seldom infect their vulnerable elders. Tell me again the argument for restricting school activities. |
|
|
penn nation Professor Posts 21193 |
10-21-20 10:36 PM - Post#315195
The science has know for a long time now that young people seldom get seriously sick from this virus. The latest news is that infected young people seldom infect their vulnerable elders. Tell me again the argument for restricting school activities. This kind of post is why this country is in the predicament it's in. This is not what the scientific evidence is telling us at all. |
|
|
Jeff2sf Postdoc Posts 4466 |
10-21-20 10:44 PM - Post#315196
which part isn't? because it sure does seem obvious about the first part (young people rarely get seriously sick. which isn't to say never) https://www.npr.org/2020/10/16/924396576/ what-heal... |
|
|
palestra38 Professor Posts 32803 |
10-22-20 05:38 AM - Post#315200
It's not at all true that college age people do not infect their more vulnerable elders https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/10/21/l... |
|
|
Streamers Professor Posts 8220 
|
10-22-20 09:18 AM - Post#315204
The latest news is that infected young people seldom infect their vulnerable elders. Where the hell did that come from? All the available data indicates that young people are very effective spreaders. The only difference is that their window of contagion tends to be shorter. Moreover, when did the small percentage of kids to become ill and/or have permanent damage become expendable? |
|
|
TheLine Professor Posts 5597 |
10-22-20 09:28 AM - Post#315209
Not sure if it the absolute latest, but is the most recent I can find. https://www.npr.org/2020/09/24/916413737/ data-sugg... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/24/health/cor onavi... https://people.com/health/cdc-report-say s-young-pe... If young people can spread it among themselves, what is the science that prevents covid from being spread to people who are older? This isn't a good argument for playing basketball this year. PS - I have no interest in leading the conversation down this direction. But let's get facts straight, then move on in a more positive direction. |
|
|
Jeff2sf Postdoc Posts 4466 |
10-22-20 11:26 AM - Post#315221
we can agree that people under the age of 30 are at very low risk for serious complications, can we not? To be as transparent as possible and not try to lead anyone down a path they don't wish to go. I'm pretty sure I don't support the playing of any indoor sports this year absent a bubble and I certainly don't support fans attending them. |
|
|
palestra38 Professor Posts 32803 |
10-22-20 11:47 AM - Post#315223
People under the age of 30 with no other health conditions, for as the CDC released yesterday: Adults of any age with the following conditions are at increased risk of severe illness from the virus that causes COVID-19: Cancer Chronic kidney disease COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) Heart conditions, such as heart failure, coronary artery disease, or cardiomyopathies Immunocompromised state (weakened immune system) from solid organ transplant Obesity (body mass index [BMI] of 30 kg/m2 or higher but < 40 kg/m2) Severe Obesity (BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2) Sickle cell disease Smoking Type 2 diabetes mellitus |
|
|
TheLine Professor Posts 5597 |
10-22-20 11:47 AM - Post#315224
The science is rather clear that people with underlying existing conditions are more vulnerable to serious complications. Younger people in good health tend to not have underlying existing conditions. Older people tend to have underlying conditions and are more vulnerable. It's also become much clearer that the amount of virus one is infected by is also a factor, which is why good hygiene habits like washing frequently, social distancing and wearing masks are all effective. I've seen absolutely nothing credible that supports the idea that transmission of covid has anything to do with age of the transmitter or receiver. |
|
|
Jeff2sf Postdoc Posts 4466 |
10-22-20 11:52 AM - Post#315225
I didn't say transmission. I said what happens to the persons. The outcomes are indisputable. Young people have good outcomes. It's why they aren't afraid of it (and frankly why they have helped keep this raging in our communities, but I'll come back to that.) But we need to start with, this isn't bad for young people. |
|
|
palestra38 Professor Posts 32803 |
10-22-20 11:53 AM - Post#315226
The main reason they aren't afraid of it is because partying and getting laid is so important to them. I don't think most of them even consider the risks. |
|
|
TheLine Professor Posts 5597 |
10-22-20 11:59 AM - Post#315227
The reason we (or at least I) went down this rabbit hole was this statement.
The latest news is that infected young people seldom infect their vulnerable elders. I have found no evidence to support it. It's not necessarily a reason to cancel the season, but would be a reason to ban spectators since the average age of fans at a Palestra game is 74 if you subtract the band. |
|
|
Jeff2sf Postdoc Posts 4466 |
10-22-20 12:01 PM - Post#315228
maybe/maybe not (if nothing else, the next time a young person preaches to me about global warming and how i've ruined their lives, I'm going to tell them to kindly get stuffed and I vote only for candidates that want to strengthen environmental standards). But they can justifiably not care because it's not going to be bad for them. Like we hear about all these outbreaks for different athletic teams and at different colleges. Are they having bad outcomes? It's not. And don't give me one story about one athlete. Look at the numbers, they are miniscule. Look, I put my kids in two masks and a face shield when they go to school. They look ridiculous and they tell me they're the only ones in their class that do that. So I'm taking this seriously, but I also don't want to get over our skis in terms of what the science does and doesn't say. |
|
|
Streamers Professor Posts 8220
|
10-22-20 12:18 PM - Post#315229
we can agree that people under the age of 30 are at very low risk for serious complications, can we not? I have two issues with this: One is that there is evidence that younger people who recover quickly can develop complications over time - we just don't know enough yet. The other is that even very low risk may well be more than is acceptable for amateur athletes to take on. The issue for me is who gets to make that call? I honestly don't know. The intersession bubble idea is intriguing, but is it fair to the other sports to make an exception for basketball? |
|
|
mrjames Professor Posts 6062 |
10-22-20 12:21 PM - Post#315230
Public health isn't about the health of the individual. It's about the health of the public overall. There are TWO potential negatives to getting this disease. The first is the impact that it has on you. The second is the future impact it will have on any people for whom you were a vector. It is seemingly unconscionable that as a country we are so focused on the first piece with minimal consideration for the second. The notion of "isolating the at risk" is quaint and comforting in theory, but has proven difficult and deadly in practice. The only way to protect public health is to reduce the number of vectors overall, and a key part of that is to have people do everything they can to avoid being vectors regardless of the likelihood of it having an adverse impact on them, personally. My cursory understanding of the research is that there is much dispute about whether elementary aged children and below can catch this disease and infect adults, but at ages older than that (say 10), the research seems to be quite clear that kids/young adults can infect adults at the same rate as other adults. Listen, we've already seen across other sports that once the team catches it, coaches catch it too, administrators catch it, and so on. It's not like it just stays within the team, 14 days pass and it's back to business. This league isn't going to put up with that. The tough part for everyone to take, I'm sure, will be if Moderna does get across the finish line in early December, and vaccines are decently publicly available in January, which is entirely possible. A short season in Feb/Mar might have been possible... but again, in that world, I'll be thankful enough that the pandemic's days would be numbered not to worry about missing a year of Ivy basketball. |
|
|
HARVARDDADGRAD Postdoc Posts 2691 |
10-22-20 12:33 PM - Post#315231
For what it's worth, just saw this article about a 24 year old's experience with COVID: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/ 2020... This impacts and can be transmitted by everyone, regardless of age. There is no legitimate scientific debate on this. Of course mortality rates differ based on the victim's health, which is impacted by age. Just like school, this impacts the adults who could be exposed as well. Global Warming/Climate Change has/will affect everyone. A utilitarian approach to economics is one thing, but if people's health and lives are being marginalized? Thought we learned a lesson from Flint, Michigan. |
|
|
palestra38 Professor Posts 32803 |
10-22-20 12:51 PM - Post#315232
Basketball is not the same as other sports--if they will have an NCAA tournament, it is bad policy not to do whatever it takes to have a league champion. |
|
|
penn nation Professor Posts 21193 |
10-22-20 01:35 PM - Post#315233
As an addendum to your post, take a look at the CDC's just announced new guidelines for what is considered to be a "close contact". Much more stringent and this should give a lot of folks serious pause. https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus- live-upda... |
|
|
Jeff2sf Postdoc Posts 4466 |
10-22-20 01:38 PM - Post#315234
For what it's worth, just saw this article about a 24 year old's experience with COVID: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/ 2020... This impacts and can be transmitted by everyone, regardless of age. There is no legitimate scientific debate on this. Of course mortality rates differ based on the victim's health, which is impacted by age. Just like school, this impacts the adults who could be exposed as well. Global Warming/Climate Change has/will affect everyone. A utilitarian approach to economics is one thing, but if people's health and lives are being marginalized? Thought we learned a lesson from Flint, Michigan. I'm not going to click on one person's story. i'm just not. It's weak sauce. Stop doing that. If you want to post articles on science of populations, please do. But we are living in a society here and we have to make decisions at the societal level. Honestly it really p!sses me off that I specifically said don't post one story. It's not persuasive and it's frankly fear mongering. Now as for the rest, mike does lay out a mostly convincing case. We don't NEED basketball. I submit we definitely need in-person school for "young kids" the issue is where you draw the line on young kids. My 8th grader seemed to be doing ok academically on zoom. My 2nd grader was drowning. Given the 2nd grader, who does have a preexisting condition, is under the age of 10, I feel it's a no brainer to have him in school if community numbers support it. Unfortunately, the time will soon be approaching my county where the community numbers do not support it (that time may have already arrived). I'm as much frustrated that we screwed around in september when kids could have been in school and it was clearly safer because of fear mongering. Arguably now, it's not safe but we're still in school. As for the environment quip, I was simply saying I could do without the preaching from young people (where in this example, I'm the choir) about me ruining things for their generation when I put the responsibility for the community spread from this summer squarely on their shoulders. edit: i think it's kind of pointless to keep debating because ultimately I'm on the side of most of the people I'm debating with. I'd ask you to avoid overreach in your statements as they do nothing to help with getting folks on board with "the science" and may arguably hurt it. I feel both sides (and I hate both sides-ism) seem to quote the CDC when it supports their world view and don't when it doesn't. oh, and while i'm here. Europe is in a world of hurt right now too, so I'm not sure we should follow the leagues playing basketball indoors there. |
|
|
palestra38 Professor Posts 32803 |
10-22-20 01:48 PM - Post#315235
I agree with you that many kids, especially younger ones, do not do well with remote learning. Some do, but those that do not are losing a year or more at a very important time. Thing is that the risk to the teachers is not at all insignificant. And that always takes me back to late January, when the President was told of the coming pandemic and its risks and did nothing. So South Korea, which saw it at the same time, has a miniscule infection rate compared to the US and has essentially normal life. I see no normal life here until there is a vaccine because we are a nation of i.diots and jerks. |
|
|
mrjames Professor Posts 6062 |
10-22-20 01:55 PM - Post#315238
I just wonder how people would be approaching this disease if the death rate were the same but the outcomes were more randomly distributed across all demographics. I've been shocked by the "what's the most I can get away with approach" versus a "what's the most I can do to help stop the spread," and I can only think that's because of the heavy skew of the risk toward certain groups that are a tiny minority of our overall populace. To me, living in a society means adopting whatever is necessary to protect the most at risk individuals, because they would do the same for us in situations where a particular characteristic would put us in the minority (for me personally, maybe something that affected tall people disproportionately disadvantageously). Americans need to get their "wants" and "needs" straight, because the laundry list of needs we've all created during this pandemic makes us look, as a nation, quite selfish considering the gravity of the situation. |
|
|
rbg Postdoc Posts 3050 |
10-22-20 02:00 PM - Post#315239
I was watching Brian Williams' show two nights ago when the founder of a COVID survivor support group was interviewed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qy2u-0IvmeY It seems that her organization is doing a good job collecting information from "long-haulers" and holding webinars with experts to discuss the long term implications of this disease. As she noted to Brian Williams, this is as much a vascular disease, as much as its a respiratory disease. https://www.survivorcorps.com/ There is still so much we still don't know about this disease that it seems dangerous to continue to put people in harms way for non-essential activities. If there was an incredible push for basketball from the league presidents (which I find hard to believe), it would seem that the bubble is the best way to go. However, I do agree that other sports would certainly have a problem with giving preferential consideration to men's and women's hoops (men's and women's hockey, where Cornell finished last year with the #1 teams in the country immediately come to mind). |
|
|
penn nation Professor Posts 21193 |
10-22-20 02:04 PM - Post#315240
Agree with you Mike. Sadly, in this country, there are still folks/politicians who don't want to send federal aid if a disaster happens in some other part of the country. Of course, they're then first in line begging for aid if they get hit with something. The whole country could use a basic civics lesson and why it's better for everyone if there is government than if every individual has to go it alone. |
|
|
Jeff2sf Postdoc Posts 4466 |
10-22-20 02:06 PM - Post#315241
Mike, the one part I don't like about the way you phrase things it seems like any opting for anything that's not in your world view is selfish. And that's fine if I have exactly your worldview (which oddly enough I think I mostly do!) but not if I don't. The schools thing for example - I said my 2nd grader was drowning. But the reality is, he'll probably be fine. I'm doing a really solid C- (that's a B+ at Princeton!) level job at work right now because I'm supporting my kids through a weird educational journey. And the reality is, I'll be fine. But the reality ALSO is that a lot of kids AREN'T doing fine. They don't have parents who can support them while the parent works from home. And the parents may well be downshifting out of their career (women especially). And I see a lot of people, and frankly too many teachers and unions for my taste, try to talk about "...if one kid gets COVID, my god, we're a bunch of monsters". And to that I say no. You're the smartest guy on this board so I'm not going to try to preach risk reward or short term risks vs. long term risks but I think with respect to the school debate, we operated from a "COVID is in front of us and a real risk vs. women leaving the workforce or kids being behind in school as some short term risk" and I hated that we were so short sighted. |
|
|
TheLine Professor Posts 5597 |
10-22-20 02:12 PM - Post#315242
I just wonder how people would be approaching this disease if the death rate were the same but the outcomes were more randomly distributed across all demographics. This is a very good point. I also wonder how it would be if we lived in a society that valued peer reviewed science vs. trying to find any random scientist or doctor (qualified or not) who confirmed personal bias. |
|
|
mrjames Professor Posts 6062 |
10-22-20 04:10 PM - Post#315250
Yeah, I probably didn't write that well if you're taking it as anything not in my worldview is selfish, which is certainly how what I wrote could be taken. I'm probably not going to do any better the second time around either, but here goes... There are a lot of folks who have been hammered by the pandemic. Their needs are real, and those needs require them to put themselves in harm's way, potentially being a vector, to keep their families alive. Leaving the discussion of governmental support out of this, those are real needs, and I don't think becoming a vector in trying to meet those needs is selfish. I guess what I'm reacting to are the people who "need" absolute freedom to do what they want however they want. That the "need" to not wear a mask or to attend a large indoor gathering is not based on a real need (a medical condition that makes mask wearing dangerous or a sustaining job that involves necessarily being at large indoor gatherings) but a privileged reading of what it means to be free in this country. There are certainly families that need kids in schools for the parents to be able to work (again, leaving discussions of childcare in this country out of this), and for many, many of those families, working is not a choice for/against more income, but for/against the income required to live. The decision to want to send kids back to school is not selfish in the latter case. I just see too many "needs" that aren't really needs but privileged wants, but I accept that my take on want vs. need is indeed subjective... |
|
|
palestra38 Professor Posts 32803 |
10-22-20 04:17 PM - Post#315254
Agreed, that's what I meant by saying there are far too many Americans who are i.diots and jerks. That being said, I see no harm in having a bubble tournament that puts no one in harm's way. |
|
|
Jeff2sf Postdoc Posts 4466 |
10-22-20 04:21 PM - Post#315257
ok, that's fair and you're mostly right. I do have some concerns about people making the decision for athletes not to play instead of the athletes themselves but i take your point about the way they then become vectors to other people. |
|
|
TheLine Professor Posts 5597 |
10-22-20 05:01 PM - Post#315264
It's refreshing to have a thoughtful and respectful conversation with different viewpoints on a complex topic like this. Except with close friends and family, it has been few and far between for me. |
|
|
penn nation Professor Posts 21193 |
10-22-20 05:12 PM - Post#315268
That being said, I see no harm in having a bubble tournament that puts no one in harm's way. From a public health perspective, there shouldn't be any issues. But, as has been pointed out, why privilege athletics over every other type of non-academic activity and, even within the realm of athletics, why privilege basketball over all other sports? |
|
|
penn nation Professor Posts 21193 |
10-22-20 05:40 PM - Post#315271
I just wonder how people would be approaching this disease if the death rate were the same but the outcomes were more randomly distributed across all demographics. Today according to the WaPo count, we're already over 70,000 new daily cases. Prior to today, we went over 70,000 only four other times. As I'm sure you know, the current areas with the highest per capita rates are in more rural parts of the country where many facilities are already taxed to the limit. Up until now, some of these areas had not been significantly impacted by COVID. Overall, of course, there's no question that the effects up until now have been more concentrated among certain demographics. |
|
|
Jeff2sf Postdoc Posts 4466 |
10-22-20 05:43 PM - Post#315272
I just wonder how people would be approaching this disease if the death rate were the same but the outcomes were more randomly distributed across all demographics. Today according to the WaPo count, we're already over 70,000 new daily cases. Prior to today, we went over 70,000 only four other times. As I'm sure you know, the current areas with the highest per capita rates are in more rural parts of the country where many facilities are already taxed to the limit. Up until now, some of these areas had not been significantly impacted by COVID. PN, I object to this. The only reason we have only had 4 days of 70k is because we didn't have enough tests to count those. Now, of course, some people in bad faith will write off 70k positives and say "but we're testing more". I will not do it. Things are getting bad. But the 70k number is deceptive and you know it's deceptive. Don't over-reach. |
|
|
Old Bear Postdoc Posts 3992 |
10-22-20 05:53 PM - Post#315274
Can we move this over to the Covid bored? |
|
|
Jeff2sf Postdoc Posts 4466 |
10-22-20 05:56 PM - Post#315275
I mean, I'd hear you more on that OB if there wasn't a lack of a season meaning there's no basketball to talk about! |
|
|
penn nation Professor Posts 21193 |
10-22-20 06:09 PM - Post#315276
Last comment and the rest can go on OTB. The rise in number of daily tests does not fully account for the rise in daily cases. The per capita rates in any number of these more rural states are an all time high. Moreover, in just about every state now the positive rates (7 day average) are over 1%. The virus has never been as widespread in this country as it is at this very moment. |
|
|
Jeff2sf Postdoc Posts 4466 |
10-22-20 06:11 PM - Post#315277
yes, rise in tests does not account - things are in a bad way. still you need to do better in how you phrase things. your last paragraph above is fair. |
|
|
mrjames Professor Posts 6062 |
10-22-20 08:14 PM - Post#315281
Sorry - just to clarify, what I mean is that if deaths weren’t heavily skewed toward older and certain medical conditions but rather deaths were completely random across age, gender, medical history, etc. If everyone that got it had an equal chance to die, I’m curious if people would approach it differently. |
|
|
penn nation Professor Posts 21193 |
10-22-20 08:38 PM - Post#315282
I got what you said and meant. Older males (and non-Caucasian ones in particular), particularly those with pre-existing conditions/co-morbidities , have been the biggest losers to date. For the first few months, geography was also a determining factor. At this point, it no longer is. |
|
|
Quakers03 Professor Posts 12530 |
10-23-20 12:11 PM - Post#315297
But the reality ALSO is that a lot of kids AREN'T doing fine. They don't have parents who can support them while the parent works from home. And the parents may well be downshifting out of their career (women especially). I hate to say it, but this isn't much different than in non-COVID times. The students with support at home do well and others struggle. As for being short-sighted, to me short-sighted is just writing off the long-term effects of something we still know very little about. Short sighted is when 80% of parents in my district (many of them stay at home parents who just want their kids back in school) are choosing to send their students back to school in the beginning of November, right as this is about to explode again. While I hear your argument that they could have potentially opened in September and October, again I blame our national leadership. Had we used those months (both early when he hid it and then all summer when we saw what was coming) to plan, we could have come up with solutions like outside lessons or other actions that would have made all of us feel safer. As someone with a wife who teaches 4th grade, I had NO interest in her going back. Maybe that makes me selfish, but I tend to think choosing health isn't exactly selfish. Certainly not like those who still won't wear masks. |
|
|
rbg Postdoc Posts 3050 |
10-23-20 03:39 PM - Post#315326
With respect to long-haulers, the NYT has an article from yesterday (updated this afternoon) that focuses on teens with long term effects. The article has interviews with people age 12, 14, and 19. The 19 year old is a member of the Johns Hopkins Cross County and Track & Field teams. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/well/famil y/cor... |
|
|
Jeff2sf Postdoc Posts 4466 |
10-23-20 03:50 PM - Post#315329
An N of 3 doesn't really tell us much does it? |
|
|
rbg Postdoc Posts 3050 |
10-23-20 04:02 PM - Post#315330
Yes, but I think the important thing (as a society and as people curious about the resumption of athletics this winter) is to see if the number of these cases become more than anecdotal. |
|
|
Jeff2sf Postdoc Posts 4466 |
10-23-20 04:14 PM - Post#315331
great so find those articles. to me the NYT article is just fear porn. |
|
|
13otto Masters Student Posts 779 
|
10-23-20 04:34 PM - Post#315333
This coronavirus is the strangest virus I've ever heard of. It's very dangerous the way it spreads. It is so mysterious the way it lurks in schools, but then dies at Home Depot. It can wreak havoc in churches; praying people are exceptionally vulnerable! Although it’s mind-boggling how it vanishes when people stand close together holding signs, destroying businesses, homes, property, monuments, etc. Yet, standing to watch a marathon or a concert triggers its wrath. It is sneaky. It can spread when buying clothes at Kohl's but not at Target. It is non-alcoholic. It can't spread when you are buying beer. It lives for two days on Amazon boxes, you must wait 48 hours to touch them but It can't survive on Dunkin Donuts coffee cups, so enjoying a hot cup of joe is safe. It is the most curious thing, how it lives on basketballs, baseball bats and ballet bars, but dies on WWE ropes and Walmart shopping carts. It is spread by hair stylists, dog groomers, and dentists, but not by bank tellers, cashiers, and fast food workers. It's so smart. It won’t bother the first 10 people but it knows when the 11th person shows up so be careful if that’s you. It even knows what you want vs what you need. If you want a massage or your nails done it is very actively on the prowl and not even a mask can stop it but If you need a plumber, it is weak, and a mask will keep it away. It also seems to be most dangerous after 10:00 pm so restaurants and bars must close alcohol sales before the virus comes out and wreaks havoc upon the populations. Whoever heard of such a smart sneaky virus?!
|
|
|
mrjames Professor Posts 6062 |
10-23-20 05:20 PM - Post#315336
::facepalm:: |
|
|
Jeff2sf Postdoc Posts 4466 |
10-24-20 07:43 AM - Post#315344
Much almost like politics with the virus deniers and the lock down lovers, there seems to be almost no room for nuance so let me just add here for posterity that I believe the next 3 months are going to be awful. My only hope is that we reach some sort of equilibrium (not exactly herd immunity) where just enough folks distance and wear masks to reverse this because I don’t believe there’s any will for a lockdown. But unless the ivy presidents are gonna do a bubble (they aren’t), there is absolutely zero chance the conditions in Jan feb will support playing. There will be 2x more virus at least in the community at that time. I don’t know if equilibrium is the right word but somehow Arizona and Florida beat back their summer peak with little government intervention. I have no idea how though |
|
|
Streamers Professor Posts 8220
|
10-24-20 08:48 AM - Post#315346
I agree with you. I also think the only way to achieve this ‘equilibrium’ state is for (1) leadership from the WH, and sadly (2) enough of the holdouts are impacted personally by losing friends and loved ones to get the message. We are hundreds of thousands of additional deaths from there as the health systems in many areas collapse. |
|
|
LocalTiger Masters Student Posts 430 |
10-24-20 08:58 AM - Post#315348
Potion took the Iona job? Do you think that pays more than Penn State? |
|
|
LocalTiger Masters Student Posts 430 |
10-24-20 08:59 AM - Post#315349
Pitino |
|
|
UPIA1968 PhD Student Posts 1120
|
10-24-20 09:22 AM - Post#315350
The prohibition of Penn Basketball is based on a set of generic assumptions, the same assumptions that have been used to justify a host of limitations on American social interactions. They are: 1. All Americans are at grave risks of death from the COVID virus. 2. Interactions, such as basketball practice increase that risk. 3. Even if a person survives his or her infection from the virus they become a risk to the rest of us. Let’s examine those generalizations in the specifics of Ivy League basketball. 1- Ivy League basketball players are at grave risks of death from the COVID virus. The facts show that young, healthy people are not at grave risk of death from the COVID virus. The virus has killed less than .00007% of Americans in that category. Check that number if you like. You will find a very small result whatever source and assumptions you use. Ivy League basketball players are not at a grave risk of death from the COVID virus. 2- Basketball participation increase the risk of grave health effects from the COVID virus. Despite the suspension of the program, the players are still are playing pickup basketball, interacting with their friends, going to the store, living with their families, and kissing their significant others. In addition, participation in well-supervised basketball practice, with access to good medical care, should reduce the risk of infection and serious health effects. Ivy League basketball participation does not increase a grave risk of death to its participants. It is more likely to reduce that risk. 3- Ivy League basketball players are a risk to the rest of us. Ivy League basketball players already interact with us regularly. If anything, the lives of Division One athletes reduces their contact with the rest of us, given the time in practice, film study and simple exhaustion. Moreover, participation in an organized program will include regular testing. For the first time, then, the athlete will know if they are a transmission risk and will be given proper counseling on what to do until they are no longer a risk to others. Ivy League basketball will decrease the risk of its players infecting the rest of us What have I missed here? Yes, the COVID contagion is a troubling event requiring a significant response from our health care system and targeted management of interactions according to the specific risks of those interactions. Giving free tickets to retirement village residents to the Palestra would be foolish. Cancelling the entire basketball season because a player might visit one of those facilities is equally foolish. Actually, this discussion should be about the larger limitations on the University. There are many aspects of Penn life and academics that are shut down. This same logic applies to them. |
|
|
Jeff2sf Postdoc Posts 4466 |
10-24-20 09:25 AM - Post#315351
I don’t know, I truly don’t but I really don’t think you need White House to reach this equilibrium*. The south tried virtually nothing and still got there in the summer. * - this is not to be confused with a good thing. To reach equilibrium is frankly shameful. We shouldn’t want to reach this step and if we had real leadership, we wouldn’t. I’m merely saying there may well be a place before herd immunity where this stops and isn’t just a hockey stick moving up and to the right. Otherwise explain Florida and other southern states. Weather isn’t it. It was hot as the cases rose and as the cases went down |
|
|
Streamers Professor Posts 8220
|
10-24-20 12:22 PM - Post#315352
I don’t know, I truly don’t but I really don’t think you need White House to reach this equilibrium*. The south tried virtually nothing and still got there in the summer. I just took a look at the recent state by state trends. In the South, Florida has not seen the second wave yet, along with GA and a few others. Arkansas and Alabama are there now, along with most of the midwest. Mid-Atlantic is interesting. PA and DE are definitely there, the result of the weather and some complacency after a quiet summer. NY, CT and NJ (sort of) less so due to better testing/tracing and quick fingers on the restrictions trigger. In short, we are nowhere near any equilibrium and tracking toward 300,000+ deaths (under counted for sure, especially in states like FL where they are cooking the books) by year end. This is going to make the spring look good from a hospital mortality perspective even if the mortality rate remains low. Set this for US states to follow the trends |
|
|
mrjames Professor Posts 6062 |
10-24-20 01:18 PM - Post#315353
So, I obviously don’t come at this problem from the angle of an epidemiologist. About the biological specifics of the virus, I only know what I read. At the same time, I’ve spent a lot of time with the data on outcomes, so I do have some perspective on that piece from a data science angle. From March until schools reopened around Labor Day, the pattern in different localities was for the virus to take hold and explode relatively unchecked until the locality hit 20-25% antibody rates. That’s what we saw in NYC. It’s what we saw in FL. And so on. You could think of 20-25% as “herd immunity at that behavior level.†That being said, as behavior changed with some kids going back to schools and some colleges opening, we will likely need a new, higher antibody rate to be “herd immunity at that new behavior level.†That’s why we’re seeing the true spikes in the localities that didn’t previously have one (they need to get all the way up to that behavior-adjusted herd immunity level to begin with) and persistent, concerning-but-not-quite- spiking rises in daily cases in states that previously hit that 20-25% antibody rate but now need a higher antibody rate as more people expose themselves by engaging in behavior that they didn’t prior to Labor Day. Now, many will argue: “That’s just cases.†The thing is that on a macro level, cases and deaths track pretty well with each other. While I agree with the notion that death rates are trivially different from zero among the college-aged population, the Case Fatality Rate has tended to be a little under 2% since the virus caught the NE off guard and threw off huge CFR numbers. That consistent CFR has debunked this notion that cases among younger folks are irrelevant - along with the shifts in a state like FL, which did indeed have a strong decline in the median age during the early part of its spike only to have the median age bounce right back up on a lag. The notion that you can let the virus run wild among one group of people and have it not escape to impact other groups doesn’t seem realistic from the data. I want to be clear, though. The Ivy League *could* play a basketball season safely. We have some of the best resources in the world at our disposal. We could probably figure this out. I also think that if we hit that new “herd immunity at that behavior level†threshold quickly, we may be in another case lull by January with few remaining localities in our country that haven’t experienced an outbreak. But that’s a much different question than where is the Ivy League presidents’ threshold for risk, and what are they likely to do... |
|
|
palestra38 Professor Posts 32803 |
10-24-20 01:50 PM - Post#315354
By "risk", you mean actuarial legal liability risk. That's what they care about. The Power Conferences are making their players sign waivers--whether or not they are enforceable, Ivy Presidents are unlikely to be willing to require them and insurers probably insist on them. In my opinion, that's the real sticking point. |
|
|
mrjames Professor Posts 6062 |
10-24-20 02:14 PM - Post#315355
I didn’t necessarily mean that, though that may very well be the more important risk (add not a lawyer to not an epidemiologist). I just meant that the risk of there being an outbreak during the season would be too much optically for them to handle, though the legal risk could indeed be more of a non-starter... |
|
|
Jeff2sf Postdoc Posts 4466 |
10-24-20 02:23 PM - Post#315356
When I was referring to equilibrium, I meant “herd immunity at a behavioral level†but I’ve seen epidemiologists get really salty when you use herd immunity for not actual herd immunity. Mike have you seen any papers on this? Also I was banking on a pull back of behavior (but not lockdown to getting us to where 25% or whatever is ok. |
|
|
mrjames Professor Posts 6062 |
10-24-20 03:51 PM - Post#315357
Papers, no. But I have scripts that pull in all of the data from the COVID Tracking Project and other sources, and many of those states include their antibody testing results in there. FL started to come back down to earth when their marginal antibody positive rate touched 20%. NYC reported a 25% antibody positive rate just after the wave had passed the city. TX hasn't quite hit that antibody level yet (~15%) and perhaps unsurprisingly, they haven't been able to keep the positive rate down during this current wave (now back up near 10%). Nowhere near all states report antibodies, but 20-25% seems to be the number for those that did (at least at the behavior level over the summer). Then, you get into all of the scientist stuff of how long antibodies last and whether they confer full protection and other stuff that I don't know... |
|
|
OldBig5 Masters Student Posts 639 |
10-24-20 07:12 PM - Post#315358
"1. All Americans are at grave risks of death from the COVID virus" No one is saying that at all. Older and those with other diseases are the most vulnerable. They sometimes catch it from younger folks who have no or minor symptoms. That's the issue. It's a very contagious virus. And it puts a strain on our health care system which includes those who do not die. Hospitalizations from COVID 19 are up in most states. I don't have a major issue with the Ivy league playing basketball but you have really twisted the issue. |
|
|
UPIA1968 PhD Student Posts 1120
|
10-24-20 09:09 PM - Post#315359
People including the CDC were saying that COVID put us all at grave risk. They don't day it now because they were wrong. |
|
|
OldBig5 Masters Student Posts 639 |
10-25-20 12:57 AM - Post#315360
Amazing that the scientists have learned more about a new disease as time has gone on. Also amazing that public health officials would want to err on the side of caution as people were dying from a new disease they knew little about. LOL. This is like saying well back in March they told me a mask would not help much so I will not wear one now. (BTW, I wore a mask from the start because it is common sense). They also didn't realize at the start that having patients lie on their stomachs would help with breathing. |
|
|
Penndemonium PhD Student Posts 1896 |
10-25-20 02:30 AM - Post#315361
Please, let's keep this about Penn Basketball. This newsgroup is a retreat for me from all the other things happening in the world and with me individually. I disagree with some of you, which is clear since we have the polar ends covered here. I don't even want to say which view I take here. I'd rather just enjoy Penn basketball news and conjecture here. Period. |
|
|
Kwaequer Postdoc Posts 3084 |
10-25-20 09:25 PM - Post#315380
Come on man. |
|
|
Jeff2sf Postdoc Posts 4466 |
10-26-20 08:44 AM - Post#315383
this is the kinda anecdotal garbage that just drives me nuts and makes me think journalists are stoking fear: https://sports.yahoo.com/nfl-ryquell-armstead- jagu... I'm very sorry that Ryquell is struggling so much with COVID. But to cite this case as evidence that you were right and the NFL shouldn't play... how paternalistic/maternalist ic this is to tell 25 year olds they can't earn in excess of half a million dollars just because you might have a long term illness? And of course that presupposes that 25 year olds are going to sit at home ensconced in a bubble when of course all evidence points to that not happening. It's infuriating... |
|
|
Penndemonium PhD Student Posts 1896 |
10-26-20 03:16 PM - Post#315419
Off topic board, please. Nothing Quaker basketball related here at all. I have too many places in life to debate covid, but only one to debate Penn basketball... |
|
|
Jeff2sf Postdoc Posts 4466 |
10-26-20 03:27 PM - Post#315423
Nahhh, just don't come into this thread. When basketball resumes, I'll be more OT respectful. |
|
|
OldBig5 Masters Student Posts 639 |
10-28-20 01:39 PM - Post#315608
Please, let's keep this about Penn Basketball. This newsgroup is a retreat for me from all the other things happening in the world and with me individually. I disagree with some of you, which is clear since we have the polar ends covered here. I don't even want to say which view I take here. I'd rather just enjoy Penn basketball news and conjecture here. Period. Agree. But I only have one post in this thread out of 115. |
|
|
 |
|
| Copyright © 2004-2012 Basketball U. Terms of Use for our Site and Privacy Policy are applicable to you. All rights reserved. Basketball U. and its subsidiaries are not affiliated in any way with any NCAA athletic conference or member institution. |
|