Big Ten Commissioner Reportedly Wants Spring Season
The Big Ten has an upcoming What The Hell Are We Doing call, and some news just prior to it:
Going into the call, the sources were told Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren preferred a spring football season, although no decision had been made.
The MAC has already canned the fall season and hopes to play in spring.
News that the commissioner of the Big Ten doesn't want to play this fall seems like a strong indicator that Big Ten football will not be played this fall. There is no content after the jump.
August 9th, 2020 at 11:26 AM ^
Dude, you're not applying your own logic. It seems pretty clear that a lot of people are making the same risk calculation you are. You just don't like their answers and are arguing for everyone else to come to your own conclusion.
Policy makers don’t see it, though, or are so dug in that reversing course is not political palatable. Democrats in particular are now co-opting other issues to fit under the Covid “umbrella” to wield it as a weapon on public opinion. It could not be more transparent.
That is the issue. People are done dealing with Covid like it is the end of the world. Those who remain in the close schools, close sports, camp etc. are an extreme minority. They are just extremely vocal. People want to assume the risk at this point, but in a lot of cases there are criminal penalties for doing so and closures to prevent it. And it is against the actual will of a huge majority of people. It is the will of the few over the will of the many. I think you will see what I mean in November.
Sure dude, the “extreme minority” is calling all the shots because...reasons? Does that make you part of the “silent majority”? Give me a break, Q.
I’m sorry, but you are delusional and your incessant whining is so exhausting. I know you think you’re in the right here, but you’re not. So please leave the blog and take a vacation from the internet. We’ve talked about this before... Don’t you ever get tired of coming on here every day to spout BS? Give it a rest!
August 12th, 2020 at 1:10 AM ^
I'm willing to be very large sums of money that there will be a ton more in the "close schools" camp in a few weeks or so.
Could you provide a cite for those CDC numbers. Tried to track them down and closest I could find was table 4 (page 20) https://www.nber.org/papers/w27597.pdf. It’s numbers were a good bit higher. 0.7% for 55 to 64. The numbers for 35 to 44 were .04 and 45 to 54 were 0.2. Both of those seem to make the .0082 seem low (for 0 to 34 the number in this paper cited to National Center for Health Statistics - which I think is CDC was 0.01). Maybe the paper I’m seeing is using older numbers?
The 0.65% overall was from a CDC study I looked up yesterday that I would have to track down. It was looking at projected deaths under 5 scenarios with the 0.65% number currently listed as the best estimate. I could not find an age breakdown estimate from the CDC but I did find this lancet paper from July 14
https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/laninf/PIIS1473-3099(20)30584-3.pdf
That is where I got the age numbers.
I very much appreciate you taking the time to respond, I will note that those numbers are from Geneva Switzerland, not CDC numbers. I’m pretty sure the numbers I cited are from the CDC and they are substantially higher at lower age ranges than the numbers you’d suggested.
August 8th, 2020 at 10:44 PM ^
I am suspect of the higher numbers you have from the CDC. Currently in the US there have been 165,070 deaths and 5,149,723 confirmed cases. That gives a death rate of 3.2%.
This CDC study from July says that actual cases are between 6 and 24 times higher than the confirmed number of cases. https://www.statnews.com/2020/07/21/cdc-study-actual-covid-19-cases/
If actual cases are at 6 times the number of confirmed cases that would put the current death rate at 0.53%. This is in the ballpark of the 0.65% IFR shown in the CDC planning scenario document under scenario 5. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html
According to the footnote the CDC sourced their IFR estimate from Meyerowitz-Katz, G., & Merone, L. (2020). A systematic review and meta-analysis of published research data on COVID-19 infection-fatality rates. medRxiv.
If we go with the (I would agree much more unlikely scenario) that the actual number of cases is 24 times higher the overall death rate is only 0.13%. It would also mean that 1/3 of the population has already been infected and this thing will be over in a few months.
So, based on this we have a total IFR in the 0.5% to 0.7% range. We also know that close to 80% of the deaths have occurred in individuals 65 and older. If that is the case it seems highly unlikely that the IFR for people 55 to 64 would be 0.7%. I suppose if we used the percentage of the population 55 to 64 and the percentage over 65 we could model out the likelihood of this being the case but that is getting to the point where it makes my brain hurt.
August 9th, 2020 at 12:48 AM ^
https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf
percentages from 2010. 62 and over is 16% of the population under 45 is about 60% of the population. Over 62 has probably grown while. Under 45 has probably shrunk. Say 55% under 45 and 20% over 62. Your numbers suggest over half the population under 0.01, and over 80% of the population at under 0.12. To get to a whole population number of between 0.5 and 0.7 seems challenging. These population distributions seem quite consistent with an IFR in the 0.5 to 0.7 range snd the numbers broken out by age in the document I previously linked citing CDC numbers.
I see your point. Another sanity check would be to get the number of detected cases in people under 65, multiply that by 6 and then dived 20 percent of the death total into it. That should give a ballpark IFR. A project for the morning
So, I was able to find the data breaking down known positive cases by age group for California. I could not find it for all of the US but 500k cases is a good sample to extrapolate from.
If we apply the percentage of cases by age group to the total number of know cases in the US and then divide that into the death by age group reported to the CDC we get the following. Overall IFR would be 2.92%.
<5 is 0.024%
5 to 17 is 0.025%
18 to 34 is 0.68%
35 to 49 is .494%
50 to 59 is 1.721%
60 to 64 is 3.339%
65 and over is 21.479%
We know that the actual number of cases is well above the number of detected cases. Latest CDC study puts this number at between 6 and 24 times the known cases. Using the 6 times number we get an IFR of 0.49%. That’s lower but in the range of the CDC current best estimate of 0.65%. There are many active cases yet to resolve which will push the final IFR up a bit though the current data also has all the deaths from early in the Pandemic when treatment was less effective – this would push things down a bit. If we apply the 6 times actual vs. known CDC estimate to the current case and death data we get the following:
<5 is 0.0040%
5 to 17 is 0.0042%
18 to 34 is 0.0114%
35 to 49 is 0.0823%
50 to 59 is .2868%
60 to 64 is .5564%
65 and over is 3.5789%
This gives a mixed bag comparing the Lancet study to the CDC numbers. The CDC numbers you were using have higher death rates for younger people and look accurate – though still very low. For the 55 to 64 group the data seems to show its below 0.7% probably in the 0.5% range with a pretty steep upswing as you move from 55 to 64. Note the current data indicating 50 to 59 around 0.3%.
If we use these numbers 100% infection of every k-12 student in Michigan would result in 65 deaths. 100% infection of all Students at U of M would result in 5 deaths. 100% infection of every employee at the University of Michigan would result in 60 deaths.
why can’t member schools take a vote instead of letting a commissioner to make such decisions
Because they want someone else to communicate and be responsible for unpopular news
January to March Season - 10 games per team
7 games each weekend
3 sites - Indy, Detroit, Minneapolis - all domes
2 games at one site and 3 at the 3rd - unless there is another dome I am missing and then you can go 2 games per site max
August 8th, 2020 at 10:42 PM ^
This might work, but schools aren't gonna do it.
So the invective data from programs must be very negative. The MAC has cancelled so the number of players going out must be very high.
Spring football ain’t happening either as who the fuck wants to play in Feb at minus 5 degrees in snow storms. Spring doesn’t happen in the Midwest until April. For Michigan, school ends April 29.
B1G football will not have a spring season. I say, just go with the schedule in place and see how it goes. I still think there should have been more built in bye weeks. If COVID spreads after the first couple of weeks, then just shutdown the season.
So the Big Ten released a schedule and in the same week the commissioner wants to move it to Spring....
This is clearly where everything is headed. Did you see Barry Alvarez’s comments yesterday?
This could mean guys playing 24+ games in 2021. I know that they're young and quick to recuperate, but that seems like asking too much.
August 8th, 2020 at 10:40 PM ^
ignore
I would actually like to see a strong commitment to a spring season now. Hard to organize this though. Need to get other conferences (likely PAC12) to make commitment at same time, maybe need to find venues for early season, and try to get NFL draft and maybe signing day pushed back.
Not sure why they would push it back. Do they know something about changes between now and the future that we don’t?
August 10th, 2020 at 10:50 AM ^
I think focusing on the spring is what is best here, focus on the season you have the best chance of even playing
Comments