SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6406
Reg: 11-22-04
|
10-20-20 02:10 PM - Post#315142
In response to TheLine
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: 6406
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Hmmm
10-20-20 02:16 PM - Post#315143
In response to mrjames
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
Age: 64
Loc: New York City
Reg: 12-14-09
|
Re: Hmmm
10-20-20 04:34 PM - Post#315149
In response to SomeGuy
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
Reg: 11-23-04
|
10-20-20 05:30 PM - Post#315152
In response to weinhauers_ghost
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
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
10-20-20 07:19 PM - Post#315153
In response to Old Bear
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
Age: 64
Loc: New York City
Reg: 12-14-09
|
10-20-20 10:24 PM - Post#315156
In response to mrjames
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
Reg: 12-02-04
|
10-21-20 04:11 PM - Post#315175
In response to weinhauers_ghost
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
Reg: 11-21-04
|
10-21-20 06:39 PM - Post#315184
In response to penn nation
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
Reg: 07-28-07
|
10-21-20 06:41 PM - Post#315186
In response to palestra38
Because if the HYP axis doesn't want it, it ain't happening
|
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2691
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
10-21-20 07:31 PM - Post#315188
In response to SteveChop
Why have a 4 week season?
For all sports?
Only athletes allowed onto otherwise closed or limited campuses?
Priorities?
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32803
Reg: 11-21-04
|
10-21-20 09:43 PM - Post#315191
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
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
Loc: Cornwall, PA
Reg: 11-20-06
|
10-21-20 10:22 PM - Post#315194
In response to palestra38
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
Reg: 12-02-04
|
10-21-20 10:36 PM - Post#315195
In response to UPIA1968
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
Reg: 11-22-04
|
10-21-20 10:44 PM - Post#315196
In response to penn nation
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
Reg: 11-21-04
|
10-22-20 05:38 AM - Post#315200
In response to Jeff2sf
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: 8221
Loc: NW Philadelphia
Reg: 11-21-04
|
10-22-20 09:18 AM - Post#315204
In response to UPIA1968
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
Age: 60
Reg: 07-07-09
|
It’s hard being a Pennfan right now
10-22-20 09:28 AM - Post#315209
In response to Streamers
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.
Edited by TheLine on 10-22-20 09:33 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
10-22-20 11:26 AM - Post#315221
In response to TheLine
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
Reg: 11-21-04
|
10-22-20 11:47 AM - Post#315223
In response to Jeff2sf
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
Age: 60
Reg: 07-07-09
|
10-22-20 11:47 AM - Post#315224
In response to Jeff2sf
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.
|
