Fall football

Submitted by dearbornpeds on April 30th, 2020 at 2:21 PM

Didn't see it yet on the board but Texas A&M and UT expect to open in the fall and A&M says it will play football.  This is from the Texas Tribune dated April 30.

Carpetbagger

April 30th, 2020 at 3:36 PM ^

Cases are going up because more people are being tested. I think it's pretty obvious things are under control at this point.

And as far as counting deaths, I don't know if anyone believes the numbers they put out anymore except the media. They may very well have been missing deaths in the beginning as they were overwhelmed, but now the emphasis seems to be to count anything they can to make sure the initial over-reaction doesn't look so bad in retrospect.

OwenGoBlue

April 30th, 2020 at 3:49 PM ^

There's enough arguing on this but we're likely undercounting if you look at state mortality data vs years past and those numbers will all still rise for March/April due to inherent reporting lag

Barring some other cause we haven't yet identified (which is possible) your math conspiracy would have to mean "they" are either reporting deaths that flat aren't happening or outright murdering people. 

blue in dc

April 30th, 2020 at 4:59 PM ^

There are also states looking to count as few deaths as possible.   The politics on counting goes both ways.    That having been said, I think the argument that there is an undercount is much stronger.   When all you are counting is people in hospitals with positive tests, clearly you are missing so e people.

blue in dc

April 30th, 2020 at 6:42 PM ^

When by definition at one point (and still in many cases) you are only counting cases that test positive and are in the hospital, there is a pretty good chance you are undercounting.   I don’t believe that I used the word “widespread”.   All I said was “I think the argument that there is an undercount is much stronger.”

But, we could look at what happened with the 2009/2010 Swine Flu

”Researchers retrospectively calculate overall deaths from a pandemic by studying excess deaths year-to-year in a given region. But that’s a difficult figure to gauge until a pandemic is over.

Previous studies of other recent virus outbreaks suggest the actual number of COVID-19 deaths to date is very likely dramatically higher than the more than 60,000 deaths currently reported.

A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) analysis of the H1N1 swine flu virus outbreak in the U.S. in 2009 and 2010 concluded two years later that the actual tally was likely 15 times higher than the officially recorded figures. A 2013 study by the U.S. National Institutes of Health determined the figure was seven times higher than the official count.”

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/accurate-us-coronavirus-death-count-experts-off-tens/story?id=70385359

Or at what happens with the flu

‘Even for routine illnesses like the flu, the national count based on death certificates is always an underestimate. The CDC uses a model that adjusts for the real toll of flu deaths every year, “

https://www.propublica.org/article/theres-been-a-spike-in-people-dying-at-home-in-several-cities-that-suggests-coronavirus-deaths-are-higher-than-reported

Or what CDC data currently says about excess deaths

‘Total deaths in seven states that have been hard hit by the coronavirus pandemic are nearly 50 percent higher than normal for the five weeks from March 8 through April 11, according to new death statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That is 9,000 more deaths than were reported as of April 11 in official counts of deaths from the coronavirus.”

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/28/us/coronavirus-death-toll-total.html

 

awill76

April 30th, 2020 at 3:37 PM ^

Cases in Michigan are rising of late with increasing testing but I was talking about nationally.  And even with dramatically increased testing in Michigan and nationally there will continue to be a consistant and unmistable decline in all cases.  For example, the situation in NYC has improved dramatically.  Deaths are a lagging indicator.  The good news comes with dropping cases and the ability to treat new cases more effectively.  

awill76

April 30th, 2020 at 5:05 PM ^

New cases as a percentage of those tested are certainly in an unmistakable decline.  New cases requiring hospitalization are certainly in an unmistakable decline.  New testing taking place now doesn't, in many places, even require reported symptoms in order to be tested..  So a lot of the new cases are very mild.  It's the more serious cases, those requiring hospitalization, which are most important of course.  We're now learning that infections are much more widespread than initially thought.  The good news is that it means that the virus is much more mild than initially thought...  unless you are elderly or have some serious underlying medical condition, or obese (esp. with diabetes).  

Increased testing is very important.  Important to finding out more about the virus itself, and very important to identifying any further flare-ups so that they can be stamped out quickly. 

J.

April 30th, 2020 at 3:03 PM ^

Zero chance a real football season is happening before Spring.

Why are all of you wasting your time machines and/or perfect psychic prescience on college athletics?

To claim that there is "zero chance" is absurd.  The situation is changing daily.  Nobody knows, myself included, what life will look like in September.

Personally, I choose to be an optimist, because the implications of not having a football season are disastrous.  But even if I were a pessimist, it would be silly to be certain about much of anything.

ijohnb

April 30th, 2020 at 3:05 PM ^

Last time I checked nobody nominated or elected doctors and scientists in their professional capacity to act as public servants to represent their communities, states, countries.  They render opinions, they don’t call the shots.

FauxMo

April 30th, 2020 at 3:25 PM ^

Wait, which "science and health professionals" are being ignored? The one who said masks are useless, or the one who said we must now all wear masks at all times? The one who said we are "a long way off" from herd immunity, the one who said we may not build-up any immunity from this virus, or the one who said we will soon have "immunity cards" indicating complete immunity? The one who said vaccines were 6 months off, 12 months off, 18 months off, or typically only realized after 10.7 years? 

This virus is very serious and it should be taken seriously, but to suggest that the "science and health professionals" community is speaking with one voice is laughable. When you consider the audience (i.e. the skeptical, freedom-loving American people), it only feeds arguments that this whole thing is not to be taken seriously. 

L'Carpetron Do…

April 30th, 2020 at 4:35 PM ^

Well, ijohnb suggested that they shouldn't have so much influence over public health policy decisions. And of course, many individuals, including elected officials at the state and federal levels have disregarded their advice and downplayed their warnings or suggestions (freedom-loving Americans you call them).

These people are scientists and doctors who have an influential position in our government for a reason: their knowledge and expertise in the field of epidemiology. They're not infallible, omnipotent oracles who can see into the future. No one said they're all-knowing and everything they say would be 100% right. They make predictions and recommendations based on science and the data they have, which is often changing and fluid.

And - for the most part they've been right. They said stay home, avoid contact with others, only go out for essentials and wash your hands thoroughly. This would have an effect on flattening the curve. And it has. Most the initial estimates said a vaccine could be available in 12-18 months and that, of course, could still turn out to be the case.  

The failure doesn't lie with the scientific community - it lies with the politicians who didn't heed their advice. 

J.

April 30th, 2020 at 6:07 PM ^

I mean, maybe? There's little proof that homemade masks do much of anything except make people think they're helping.

Besides, at the time, we were told (correctly, IMO) that there's no way to stop the virus, and that the distancing measures were needed to "flatten the curve."  Everybody kept forwarding the 1918 graph as though it would be immediately applicable.  (Hint: Technology, communication, and even transportation are much better in 2020 than they were in 1918).

It's only when it became obvious that the measures had only really been helpful in a couple of small pockets of the country -- NYC and maybe Detroit -- that they pivoted to "social distancing will stop the spread."  Which... seems dubious, at best, considering that we've been locked down as a country for 6 weeks now and the spread hasn't stopped.

If you take the position that the viral spread is inevitable, and if the hospitals were not going to be overrun, then none of these lockdown measures, mask requirements, or anything else are doing a thing except prolonging the agony.

awill76

April 30th, 2020 at 6:31 PM ^

I don't think the masks make that much difference either, maybe marginal in the case of infecting others, but we're being told now that they are essential in closed spaces.  Heck they're now mandatory in Michigan, indoors.  But in March they were just for fools. "Don't Buy Them Or Wear Them!"  That's a lot of whiplash from science and the experts. 

FauxMo

April 30th, 2020 at 6:06 PM ^

"And - for the most part they've been right. They said stay home, avoid contact with others, only go out for essentials and wash your hands thoroughly. This would have an effect on flattening the curve. And it has..."  

Here is my question: Are you 100% sure social distancing is working? 6 days ago, we recorded our largest single day increase in new cases. You will reply, "ah, that's only because we are doing so much more testing!" Oh, OK, so how do we know it's working? Well, we know because it would be way worse without social distancing. Um, OK? But as we do more and more testing won't we then find more and more cases, and then all be told we need to stay inside longer and longer because, while social distancing is DEFINITELY WORKING, we have way too many new cases to stop now? 

Also, weren't we supposed to peak in deaths two weeks ago with social distancing, yet recorded two of our five worst days in total deaths the last two days? Well, yes, but that's only because we are much better at identifying people who died of COVID-19! Um, OK, sure, but even with better techniques at identifying deaths, shouldn't they be on a steeper decline with a "flattened curve" after 5+ weeks? Yes, but it is much worse than we thought, and would be MUCH WORSE without social distancing! Um, OK, I guess? 

All of this reminds me of a philosophy of science class I took many years ago and the importance of a falsifiable hypothesis. The effectiveness of social distancing seems, to me, to be an unfalsifiable hypothesis... 

Swayze Howell Sheen

April 30th, 2020 at 6:19 PM ^

it's not unfalsifiable. you'd just need to do A/B tests. In this state, do nothing. In this other state, do extreme social distancing. Compare the results.

But, you'd have to be some kind of nutcase to want to do it in a way that's amenable to science, esp. if one way kills a lot of people (or might do so).

 

NittanyFan

April 30th, 2020 at 8:52 PM ^

Even Turkey is becoming a control group.  If you look at Turkey, they have completely half-assed their lockdown. 

They announced a weekend lockdown for the weekend of April 11-12: they decided to announce that at 10 PM on Friday April 10.  You can imagine the public reaction to that.  Ever since then, there have been a couple more weekend lockdowns but the week itself has been wide-open.

As for their numbers?  To the degree that you believe them, their death rate is rather low despite their case rate being relatively high, on par with countries like Denmark and Canada.

awill76

May 1st, 2020 at 12:39 AM ^

Yes, not only have they half-assed their lockdown(s) but they also are lying about their numbers, esp. the dead numbers.  While it's true that deaths are a lagging indicator (as it takes time for the disease to worsen and terminate after intubation, the present regime in Turkey headed by criminal Erdogan is 'managing' the numbers to minimize how bad it is there.  The main outbreak was/is in the largest city Istanbul and intelligent observers there noted that reported deaths in the city far exceeded reported deaths in previous years.  I think it was 3x higher even though Erdogan's lie machinery keeps spinning out the same 100 or so deaths across the country per day.  The lying is meant to protect the image of Turkey and Erdogan, plus protect the image of a safe tourist destination (hugely important to their economy), and protect the image of a modern, effective medical system which is also important to medical tourism which has become bigger there in recent years. It's from the same playbook as with strongman dictator types everywhere; Keep repeating the lie(s) until people just accept it as truth.  Oh, and lock up journalists and anyone else who challenges the lies.  

One more thing about Covid-19 and Turkey.  Erdogan's criminal regime has imprisoned tens of thousands for political dissent, connections with Kurdish activism (automatically labled "terrorism", connections with so-called Gulenism from the FETO conspiracy, and murky "Deep State" enemies.  You can bet that you'll easily fall into one of those categories if you criticize or resist Erdogan's dictates.  Hell, people are being sentenced to stiff prison terms for "insulting" Erdogan.  This post would be plenty enough for me to be imprisoned if I lived in Turkey.  His henchmen patrol social media regularly. 

But here's the kicker:  Because of the Covid pandemic, even Turkey is releasing prisoners by the thousands to ensure that they not die in prison outbreaks of the disease.  Mafia men, murderers, child-molesters, rapists, down to embezzlers and all the rest.  EXCEPT NO POLITICAL PRISONERS ARE TO BE RELEASED.  None.. Anyone against Erdogan in the slightest way stays put and at the mercy of a raging Covid outbreak in prison. And you can bet there will be little if any medical care for those who are infected. That is Erdogan''s bottom line; No Political Opposition no matter what.

For those interested in learning more, I highly recommend Ahval News online which reports fairly and in depth on Turkish affairs.  Of course they are based outside of Turkey.  

L'Carpetron Do…

April 30th, 2020 at 6:50 PM ^

I'm a bit dismayed the downslope of the curve hasn't been sharper, especially because it's been so long at this at point and there are still not-insignificant numbers of new cases coming in. But yes, widespread social distancing has worked. 

I watch Gov. Cuomo's press conference everyday and I recommend it. I was never a fan, but he does a great job of breaking down the data and provides useful info and charts.  NY has peaked and is on the back half of the curve now. It avoided a total collapse of the health care system although it did come very close to getting overwhelmed. But NY's decrease in cases and deaths over the last few weeks looks largely to be the result of its lockdown measures. Even the hard hit areas (NYC boroughs, LI, Westchester counties) have been seeing steady improvement. 

Of course there's no way to prove what would've happened without the lockdown measures but you have to imagine that every hospital in downstate NY would've been swamped and thousands more people would've died. The shutdowns haven't totally smothered the virus but they likely greatly reduced its spread.

I live in a state where the governor was very hesitant to enact any kind of safety measure and she never really issued a stay at home order. And now she's opening up several counties starting Saturday ( I'm for allowing certain rural areas to get back to normal). BUT, we've had several bad outbreaks in rural areas the past few weeks and our total has increased by roughly 500 new cases a day for the last week. Opening up at this point doesn't even comply with the WH/CDC's guidelines.  To me it seems like a massive missed opportunity - all we had to do was be cautious - and we weren't. Now we're turning into one of the country's new hot spots (also - our state did nothing to protect certain key rural areas and therefore important parts of the food supply. Oh well). 

J.

April 30th, 2020 at 7:21 PM ^

Of course there's no way to prove what would've happened without the lockdown measures but you have to imagine that every hospital in downstate NY would've been swamped and thousands more people would've died. The shutdowns haven't totally smothered the virus but they likely greatly reduced its spread.

I don't have to imagine that, and, in fact, I don't.  The lockdown measures were put in place very late; possibly too late to have had much of an effect at all.  But given that the Javits and the hospital ship were both basically empty, I don't buy the argument that the situation was as close to overwhelming the hospitals as stated.

I'm not trying to deny the toll that the virus is taking.  It's just that if you take the "flatten the curve" people at their original word, the goal was never to reduce the number of infected people (because that wasn't possible); it was just to slow down the infection rate so it wouldn't overwhelm the hospitals.

To me it seems like a massive missed opportunity - all we had to do was be cautious - and we weren't. Now we're turning into one of the country's new hot spots

Again, judging this solely on the "flatten the curve" crowd, there's nothing wrong with being a hotspot as long as your hospitals aren't overrun, because people were going to get infected anyway.  What "flattening the curve" was supposed to do was let somebody get sick in May instead of March.  That's all.

By that logic, you want your hospitals operating at, say, 90% capacity, because that way you get through all of the infections as soon as possible.  If they're operating at 15%, you're going to be in misery for six times as long.

The problem is, this isn't a very hopeful message: "There's nothing we can do except pray."  But it may very well be the truth, in which case we're not accomplishing anything by locking people at home except crashing the economy.

L'Carpetron Do…

April 30th, 2020 at 8:22 PM ^

Those actions were put in place because of the projections of the spread and expected demand on the health care system. It was better to have the Javits beds and the Mercy and not need them than to need them and not have them. Part of the reason they weren't overwhelmed was because the shutdowns seem to have worked, which thank god (but you seem to think the lockdowns have had no affect whatsoever). The other day Cuomo said something like 1300 beds at Javits (of 2500) were in use. This is not necessarily an indication that there wasn't serious stress on the city's hospitals. In fact, Cuomo noted that this was actually pretty significant. I think you're  drawing the wrong conclusions from that. In fact, there are a lot of stories about nurses/doctors getting sick, lack of PPE and borderline chaos in NYC hospitals (a top doctor killed herself the other day which I consider to be one of the most tragic stories of this crisis).

Being a hotspot in May, in a rural, small state with an un-dense population that provides 10% of the country's food supply is a problem considering we had a roughly 2-3 month headstart. I think my state should've gotten out ahead of it so it could flatten its curve sooner rather than later. But instead, we sort of hoped it wouldn't come here. I have no doubt covid was coming here one way or another; but we basically did nothing when doing nothing wasn't an option. 

blue in dc

April 30th, 2020 at 8:50 PM ^

That’s also not the way exponential growth works.   In Albany Georgia, it took two days to fill up all their ICU beds.    Because it was isolated to a small area, they could use other capacity.   If, without stay at home orders other areas nearby had been hard hit, that wouldn’t have worked.  If, in New York, cases had increased, they would have needed the Javits Center.   Yes, if your belief is that stay at home orders don’t do much, you don’t believe the health impacts would have been worse and you don’t believe that hospitals would have been over run, it makes sense to argue that the policies were a waste.

Stay at home orders were also supposed to help buy time so that we could increase testing, so that we’d have a much more economic way to slow the spread.   Unfortunately we have not progressed as far on that as one might hope.

Since we fundamentally disagree on the impact of shutdown orders, it is not surprising we disagree on everything that flows from that.   I look at NYC and see a place that put shutdown orders in place a bit too late, but still managed to avert utter catastrophe.   You see a place that would not have been much different without the shutdown orders.   I see a country that would have had many places looking like NYC or worse without shutdown orders, you don’t.

it is pointless to argue about the next step in the chain when our argument is really about the first step in the chain.

 

J.

May 1st, 2020 at 1:18 AM ^

I'm guessing that this board post has run its course, but I owe you the courtesy of a reply, so I'll write one even if it's never read.

Exponential growth is, indeed, the problem.  And, the exponent is greatly influenced by the number of people with whom you interact on a daily basis: hence, the logic for stay-at-home orders.  But, what works in NYC -- the highest population density in the country -- may be overkill elsewhere.  Instead, we have all manners of governors one-upping each other.

Do you honestly believe that Iron County, Michigan, needed a lockdown order?  Even granting that rural hospital care may involve transfer to the nearest large city, your average day just involves so many fewer contacts than the average New Yorker's.

But, here's the rub: you asked about the 18-month strawman, stating that nobody is actually saying they want to shut the economy down for 18 months. Au contraire, Gavin Newsome seems to think that it's a good idea to keep large events shuttered in California "until" there is an effective treatment. Why?  Easy: exponential growth.  As soon as we try to go back to normal, the exponential growth can begin anew.  There are absolutely going to be people who will say "not until there's a vaccine" as if science will obey a timeline.

Stay at home orders were also supposed to help buy time so that we could increase testing, so that we’d have a much more economic way to slow the spread.   Unfortunately we have not progressed as far on that as one might hope

This feels like ex post facto reasoning to me.  I don't remember anyone suggesting that up front; I may have missed it, though.  Regardless, I'm of the opinion that this virus is too widespread already for test/trace/quarantine to be effective.  Even if we're willing to give up all of our civil rights and let the government take responsibility for our every waking moment, I don't think it's tractable.  The entire economy might have to be devoted to nothing but contact tracing.

I look at NYC and see a place that put shutdown orders in place a bit too late, but still managed to avert utter catastrophe.   You see a place that would not have been much different without the shutdown orders

NYC is the one place I'd be willing to bend.  I just don't think it's representative due to the population density, prevalence of mass transit, etc.

I see a country that would have had many places looking like NYC or worse without shutdown orders, you don’t.

Agreed.  And if the population prevalence statistics that we're seeing even approach accurate -- I'm talking about the New York and USC studies, with better methodology, not the Bakersfield or Stanford ones -- then I'll double down on my statement.  I've believed from day 1 that this virus has been in the US since December or January.  There's a ton of travel between China and the US, and given the virus's increasingly-well-known propensity to spread asymptomatically, it would have been more amazing if it weren't here than if it were.

If community spread was already present throughout February, that suggests that the virus does not spread nearly as virulently as it was thought, and therefore it reduces the R factor to be expected, and hence the exponent in the exponential growth.

It only makes sense to invest in slowing the spread if it saves more lives than we're losing by shutting down the economy.  I remain unconvinced, which makes me doubly upset about the civil liberties issue.  Now I end up feeling like I'm sacrificing my rights to help.. almost nobody*, in the end.

* There's a nonzero value in slowing the spread of any deadly disease, even if the same number of people eventually die; the extra time that they get is absolutely worth something.

ijohnb

April 30th, 2020 at 8:32 PM ^

The reality is there are factions that will, and are, destroying the country and countless lives and livelihoods to try to an election and a lot of people supporting them because they would rather stay home and get paid by the government than go to work (jobs, economy, child development, schools, rights, access to health care all be damned).  It will backfire spectacularly in November (and is already starting to) but they are certainly going all in, that is for sure.  And they should truly be ashamed of themselves.

blue in dc

April 30th, 2020 at 11:54 PM ^

I 100% agree that a faction has been screwing around with the covid response thinking it would help win in November.   I also agree that it probably win’t work.   But I suspect we don’t entirely agree on which faction it is.

blue in dc

April 30th, 2020 at 11:54 PM ^

I 100% agree that a faction has been screwing around with the covid response thinking it would help win in November.   I also agree that it probably win’t work.   But I suspect we don’t entirely agree on which faction it is.

IndyVictor

April 30th, 2020 at 3:02 PM ^

As someone who has flight tickets and hotels booked for the Washington game.....Im expecting this to be a vacation void of football but would love to be surprised

FauxMo

April 30th, 2020 at 3:05 PM ^

I think as long as the players wear masks and do really poorly executed arm tackles that fail to end the play, social distancing will be followed and we can have a season! 

M Go Cue

April 30th, 2020 at 3:14 PM ^

UGA announced the same yesterday and will be phasing in their on campus opening over the summer with the plan on fully opening for the fall. I heard today from a colleague that Ohio State plans on making their on campus decision in June.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out with some schools opening up and others not, depending on their individual situations.  Happy to see some institutions getting the ball rolling.