Apparently 5 Alabama Players Tested Positive for SARS-CoV-2
There's the link to the tweet.
Tested Tuesday, practiced together Wednesday, results Thursday.
How's this going to work now with coaches and mandated isolation?
Football is going to be a slow mo train wreck this year.
7 Players did at Arkansas State and another 3 or 5 at Oklahoma State. All of these players were supposedly asymptomatic.
I'm tempted to just copy and paste what I said on the thread about Oklahoma State played testing positive.
This is why I don't see how a season can happen. What happens between games if a few players test positive on a team? Obviously those kids can't play but Covid will run rampant through everyone. So then that team doesn't play that week? What happens to their opponent? No game? Reschedule? Domino effect happens. I see bad things coming.
'cuz it is just da flu!!!
/s - just in case
I don't agree with one of your steps in logic: "Covid will run rampant through everyone."
If there is weekly testing, it seems possible to control the situation, especially for the summer where the players are more isolated. I can see some teams having outbreaks where there has to be complete shut down for 10-14 days, but don't agree that because a few players have it in the first round of testing means there has to be a major team wide outbreaks.
What happens when all the students are back on campus is a different story. Could be immediate outbreaks right after labor day. But who knows, the situation could look a lot different in 12 weeks.
Given the uncertainty, might as well give it a shot. If it doesn't work it doesn't work. It's really the same argument behind reopening campuses, or even more broadly, retail, restaurants, etc.
IF Covid "runs rampant" through a team what exactly is the concern? Statistically they have very close to zero risk of even getting hospitalized, much less getting any symptoms.
Do people not read the CDC website or other legit sources? They have specific data broken out by age. Out of 100k deaths less than 100 are people under 24. A slightly larger number for people 25-34. Conversely, people over 85 are roughly 1% of the population, but fully 26% of the deaths. Nursing home deaths alone are 40-50% of all deaths. This is a virus mainly dangerous to those over 60, those are the facts.
We can legitimately worry about players spreading it to vulnerable older coaches. But there is close to zero risk to players from Covid-19.
While I agree, I think you're wrong if you're suggesting most schools will adopt that logic.
Disagree.
A friends kid had it and though not on a ventilator he was in the hospital for 10 days. I also know a guy in his 30’s who didn’t need a ventilator and didn’t need to go to the hospital, but was knocked on his ass for a month. Even if the players don’t get hospitalized or die, one asymptotic player could get you [5-6] other players knocked out of commission for a month. Add 14 day quarantines for the asymptomatic players who test positive and you’ve got a mess. The healthier teams might win this year.
Anything is possible but the data says you're wrong right now
OK then what does the CDC say about hospitalizations and other symptoms for people at that age?
I don't know about the CDC, but here's the data for Washtenaw County. Scroll down a bit for the age breakdown of hospitalized patients. Less than 1% have been in the 18-24 age range.
Ugh. Thank you so much. This is what I came here to say.
Shouldn't we instead take this a positive sign that, instead of being a cause for panic and an end to the CFB season, we are learning what other (a few, but prominent) epidemiologists have already said: That this virus is already all over the place, has been here since maybe as early as last November, that maybe 10-50 times more people than the confirmed case count have already been infected, and thus the virus is far less deadly to a vast majority of the population than once believed? Why do we take 5 or 7 or 50 or 5000 asymptomatic carriers as a bad thing, rather than a great thing because dropping the IFR????
No, we should not take 5 bama players testing positive as evidence for anything larger. Not to mention your irrelevant nonsense about any significant COVID spread in the US prior to 2020.
nytimes.com/2020/05/15/us/coronavirus-first-case-snohomish-antibodies.html
Yawn, two residents of Washington state who were sick and hospitalized in December had serology tests and they found coronavirus antibodies. Lots of other stories like this emerging, including confirmed infections in France in mid-December. And the tiny fatality rate in California relative to virtually everywhere else on Earth from Covid-19 is perplexing; it's almost like the place that has by far the most visitors from China (and had an "extreme flu season last fall") might have picked up and circulated the virus far earlier than elsewhere and developed some immunity???
I've seen all of those reports you clown. And whether there was one case in France or a couple in Washington (a) doesn't suggest it was remotely widespread which would have been obvious just like it was in Detroit, LA, or NYC and (b) it's still irrelevant to the current situation or this thread.
It's a just a trivial point you wanted to highlight to demonstrate your perceived intelligence while failing to realize it wasn't remotely insightful or novel.
It’s not perplexing to me. California is 4th lowest in obesity and we get A LOT of vitamin D out here. And, oh yeah, we’re really not that into public transportation out here.
Don't get too excited yet, California is seeing an uptick in new cases, having the #1 most cases in the US each day for the past week. We did great shutting it down early, which helped slow it down, but I think people got a little too confident, and now it seems to be coming back.
More likely the earlier infections were a different and less dangerous strain of the virus. I’ve seen reports that the later infections from Europe were a worse strain.
No, testing in NYC shows that only about 15% have been exposed.
That’s great news! That means that instead of an 8% mortality rate, they are closer to 1-2% fatality. Now, adjust that for age and pre-existing conditions, and we’ve got a football season people!!!
i have to say, you are the most upbeat murderous clown i've ever seen. and fwiw, i share your optimism (but not the murder thing)
How many d1 football teams are there? Say there’s 100 - with 100 guys on a team you’re looking at 10,000 players. If 100 of 100,000 confirmed deaths are kids under 24, and the percentages stay the same, then 10 college football players could die from covid. I love college football, but it’s not worth the risk to a bunch of unpaid kids. Not to me at least
Wait, what? You cannot take those 100 deaths and extrapolate to the CFB playing student population. In fact, virtually all of those 100 dead most ikely had some kind of pre-existing condition that dramatically weakened their immune system. Those folks get detected during exams and don't play CFB, by and large. Also, by that math, the infection fatality rate for the group under 24 would be .1%. But the CDC estimates for everyone under 49 is far lower at .03% to .05%. This means that 3-5 people of 10,000 would die from it, at worst. Now, consider that this group is not only at the young end of the 0-49 range, but also athletically elite and (mostly) playing a few hundred yards from a fine medical institution. You are using the "precautionary principal" to the extreme in this example.
The concern is by the time kids get tested or have symptoms, they’re likely to already have spread it to others. Nowhere did I say the kids would get so sick but my point is a team can’t play a game with 25 kids out for covid. And run the risk of giving it to the other team. So this will mean no game. And the domino effect from that.
You do realize that studies are showing some lung damage and imagining abnormalities in asymptotic patients? 61% of mild cases are showing percentages with liver function issues.
Of course I am on the conservative side of the disease crowd—but the talk about death versus life is simplistic. This isn’t just a respiratory disease, it is vascular and, perhaps, neurological. Again, what we know, too, is that kids can develop PIMS, including 18yos. We don’t know the definitive long term effects even on mold to asymptotic patients because we are still in the short term timeframe of the disease.
Not every college athlete is going to be asymptotic, and if there is a team outbreak you are risking at least one mild to severe case on a team of 100 plus young men, including practice squad.
So they will have to mitigate though much testing and of isolations, which will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Like I said a month or more ago, if one college student dies because they were exposed on campus or playing sports, then it wasn’t worth it to take the risks and it will be sad. If one big names player gets sick and dies then people are going to feign surprise and fake tears.
Just so we know, it won’t be a surprise, statistically, if it does or does not happen. We have to hope it doesn’t happen. But stop pretending that nothing could possibly happen. That’s like saying 15 will be down to 0 in no time.
That's where I'm at. Like sure the death rate might be very low for those under 40 but at the same time this is a NOVEL disease. This isn't something that's just part of the regular human repertoire of diseases (yet). We don't know all the negative effects long term or otherwise of being infected with this virus.
And more and more data is showing that this disease has an infection fatality rate of close to 1%. That is wildly worse than almost any other pathogen that people in this country are exposed to on a regular basis. But as long as people get their football I guess...
This just "feels" like fuzzy math to me.
And per a study from the esteemed University of Michigan this week, Actemra reduces deaths from Covid-19 by 45%. The Chinese knew this months ago and have been buying as much Actemra from Roche as they will sell them. Once the phase III study on Actemra comes out in the US, the panic over this 'epidemic' will subside quickly. And once Actemra is combined with Remdesivir, watch the death rate go to like 0.1%:
You test everyone each day of practice. A player who tests positive goes into quarantine. If you're negative, you play. Think of it like concussion protocol.
Back in March you might have needed to isolate the whole team because tests were limited, but that's no longer the case.
What I find curious here is that Bama needed 48 hours to give them results. That shouldn't still be happening now. A lot of hospitals have labs that can turn around a test within a few hours.
The problem I see here is that the rapid tests have shit accuracy. Using a proper test is going to be both too time consuming and expensive as hell.
I'm not sure what kind of tests you're talking about. Our hospital uses the standard swab test and its lab can get results back within the day. There's no logistical reason why a properly staffed lab can't do that.
yeah. we had one at a local hospital and it took less than an hour to get results.
Huh, I stand corrected. Took my wife a few days to get results. Over a week for the antibody test.
But I was referring to the rapid test that gives results in 15 mins, like the flu test.
So if results take a day, then test them once per week?
Sure, Bama has lots of bucks, but who pays for all of this testing in the lessor programs which won't have fans or much TV money? Plus, it takes 3-7 days post-exposure for a person to flip positive test result. Gonna be quite a task this fall.
Yes, by all means it's a great idea to have super-spreader events just so a bunch of fat old people can make money and watch football.
Yes, by all means it's a great idea to shut down a society and deliberately eliminate the things that release tension from the system, because high pressure systems never lead to over-stressed cops making horrible decisions or people turning peaceful protests into riots...
There's ways to discuss these things without going to extremes, without ad hominem attacks, without all the logical fallacies you'd care to trot out. And it's even possible to have these discussions without assuming that just talking about will cause the end of civilization. More - it's possible that people who want football aren't inherently evil or desirous of people getting sick.
It's possible that the intent of having a season could just be finding things in which people can find some normality - which given the year so far has not happened yet. Sports are supposed to be something that brings people together. Something we can all share in and appreciate.
Is having a season an absolute go? No, if safety issues can't be addressed, there shouldn't be a season, but is it worth having the discussion? TALKING IS NEVER THE PROBLEM.
thank you for "discussing without going to extremes." i especially liked the part where you equated not playing college football with "shutting down society and eliminating the systems that release tension from the system" and oh god i think my eyes just rolled out of my fucking head.
Not to mention inferring that this so-called tense system somehow led stressed-out cops to murder someone.
Poor Derek Chauvin. The no sports made him do it.
This is a stupid ass comment and please try no to pawn it off as humor or sarcasm.
.gif)
Why?! It's obvious sarcasm...
Sorry you all. GoBlueTal posted a reasoned argument that, while I agree with it only somewhat, made reasonable points. And I don't think his point about the "horrible" decisions cops make referred to premeditated killings. I believe he was referring to how cops have handled both peaceful and violent protests. I think if you are reading and posting to MGBlog you are mostly from the privileged part of society. So a little damn humility for opinions that differ from yours. Or the assumption that any position espoused that differs from your version of truth is stupid.
So everyone let's take a breath, STFU and listen for a change. We have a lot to work through but that can only happen if we stop alienating each other at the drop of a hat.
Thank you!! Very well said
Humitly for different opinions, 100%. But for stupid ones? Nah, we good.
People who live in glass houses, my friend.
I mean, I did agree with you!
Wait, you think George Floyd's death is due in some small part to cops in MN not being able to get to watch the Twins play baseball or get psyched for Gopher football? Or is it simply that they couldn't go to Home Depot and buy mulch (instead they had to order it ahead of time)?
I don't think people who want football are evil. I think they're impatient and ignoring reality because it's not convenient. It's sort of like how Florida has quietly jumped into the top 5 nationally for positive COVID-19 infections once they opened back up, or how GA has had a big surge recently, even though all I heard for weeks was "oh yeah, these southern GOP states have it all figured out". Again, if there was an alternate version of the US that handled this outbreak better then maybe football in the fall with minimal danger to participants would be in the cards. But we ain't there, and so it's going to be a slow-but-steady stream of stories like this for some time, then a lull before schools starts, then another series of outbreaks. People are probably going to die, and even if it just chugs along at this plateau we're at now that's about 90k more dead by 9/1. We've all accepted that, apparently, but pointing out that's going to happen and stop trying to ignore that doesn't mean we're trying to piss in your cornflakes.
A game with no fans in the stands shouldn't be a super-spread event. With fans is another story.
Not with 10-15k in the stands. Very little evidence at all of outside spread. Far more evidence of people contracting it in prolonged inside exposure