If games are played this fall, would you go to the Big House or not?
This sort of plays off the post below regarding who would be allowed to go if there were socially distanced/partial capacity crowds allowed at games.
As I mentioned in that thread, IF (big if) crowds are allowed, more than likely they will be partial capacity for social distancing purposes. Maybe we'll see 25,000 or 33,000 but certainly not sell out/over 100,000 fans (Good bye consecutive over 100,000 fans streak unfortunately). What I suspect is that the Athletic Department would do two things (1) not bother with single game sales and (2) allow season ticket holders who want to defer their ticket payments to 2021.
So the question is, would you defer or would you go to games and under what conditions would you feel safe enough to go (social distancing etc). Truthfully I'm struggling with this. As badly as I want to go to games (and its badly, as it has been for the 20 years I've been a season ticket holder), I'm the parent of young kids who rely on me and I can't help but think they're priority #1 and I shouldn't risk my health for a football game.
I agree, and didn’t mean to imply that I feel like the people who would go to a game and those doing a great job of representing themselves at the capitol (/s) are inherently one in the same.
The goalposts do indeed keep moving.
Appreciate your level-headed response.
I've attended at least one game each year since 2002, other than a break 2007-2008. I've resigned myself to the reality that I will not be attending a game this year. I live out of state so the risk between flying and attending the game is likely too high. Even though I'm young, I have a health condition that may or may not be a comorbidity (it's rare enough that there hasn't been enough research yet, though I am being on the more cautious side). And I would hate to spread it to one of the numerous people I know with more serious conditions (including my parents). It's an unfortunate situation but I am ok skipping a year and looking ahead to next year.
Hell yes I'd go. I've missed my annual game the last 3 seasons due to various craziness. I'm going this year if they play. And I'll go in a mask or bubble wrapped with scuba gear for air if they demand it. I'll do it!
no.
again - if it's not safe for students to be on campus, the odds that the university will say "sure, but football, because rah rah rah" are, in my opinion, extremely small.
we all laugh about the ncaa's use of the phrase "student athletes," and rightfully so. that said, u-m regents, in my opinion, take that phrase very seriously, or at least more seriously than many universities. i highly doubt that they would sign off on football players on a campus with no students.
and before you say "well, this won't be up to the regents to decide" - whether that's 'correct' or not is immaterial. the regents and university administration will almost certainly come to some sort of consensus. there's no way schlissel would do something on his own without board of regents input.
Per CDC numbers from just a week ago, the odds of someone age 24 and under dying from covid 19 is one and one million.
Great. I'm sure they will never be around anyone over that age, like say coaches, trainers, educators, groundskeepers, administrators, drivers/transportation. Nor will they be at any risk of serious long term health risks or pose any risk to their immediate family or the families of their teammates, coaches, etc.
In reality social distancing will be impossible in the weight room/locker room/on the field/ and there's a good chance we'll likely need to potentially quarantine players from their family/friends/social life to make this work, plus potentially risk of cancelling/forfeiting games if/when someone on a team gets sick. I'm not saying we can't have football, just it's going to be a massive amount of work (and liability concerns) do do so.
The point is for a large portion of society this isn't even remotely dangerous. That's a fact not an opinion. This is important information to have.
This isn't going anywhere for a while. We're going have to live to find a way to deal with it moving forward.
The world as we use to know it has changed and may never go back to way it was. For many it's a way riskier place than it's ever been but for others it's not. Not sure why that offends anyone. Sooner we start talking about how to fix this the better.
Probably.
But really, here's the logic flow I feel every company/institution should be following right now:
1 - Is your work able to be performed from home?
> If yes, employees work from home.
> If no, employees vote whether to open work location or not. Threshold of "yes" votes needed to actually open work is dependent on the nature of the work (i.e. what is worthwhile for the business/institution). If "yes" threshold is not reached, then temporary layoffs or other determined temporary compensation initiated for all employees. If threshold of "yes" votes is reached, work location is opened. Others who still choose not to work are temporary laid off or other temporary compensation initiated.
2 - If company/institution is opened, customers have a choice whether to utilize services or not.
> If services are limited in capacity at a given time, all those willing to utilize are selected randomly.
I would apply the logic above to football stadiums. Item #1 above is determined by the university - particularly the stadium operators in this case. For item #2, the customers are fans.
Bottom line: Everyone has a choice. Let them make their choice. Don't force a decision for someone in any way! (It's YOUR choice if you want to expose yourself to risk or not! Hospitals follow the same logic flow above as well!)
Please define “temporary compensation”. Because most people would love a summer off if we get paid!
Yes without hesitation. They require a mask I'll wear a mask. I'm planning to go if it's an option.
Will you be required to wear a mask?
I cannot imagine that masks would not be required. The yelling, cheering, close quarters, eating, drinking... spittle flying, high-fiving, ref-cursing, marshmallow throwing (hur) etc. Even if it wasn't required, it would be pretty foolish to not wear one. Even in the era of the Spanish Flu 100 years ago it was common sense.
Yes!
I wouldn't go this year. If social distancing is still needed, there doesn't seem to be a good way to do that in a stadium. Also, I have a good seat from my chair.
I'd go to a game tomorrow if I could.
But I am also of the Testing on a scale needed for a nationwide testing regime is a LONG way away and a Vaccine may as well be fairy dust, so we need to figure out how to live with this mindset. Hell the mask my mom sewed me(Yes I am in my 40's and with a family of my own, it doesn't mean my mom doesn't A) love me or B) Enjoy sewing) is even really cool looking and blue, so it would be at least be in the needed color scheme.
Legit concern for the Canadian fans is actually a) crossing the border and b) actually getting back in...
These realities are very unclear at a federal level here and impact you as a season ticket holder (it's quite an issue to have to lay out $3k USD plus with no certainty you could even use the tickets, let alone enter/exit the country).
As a health care clinician I worry as well about the inexact science currently behind transition. So much "I heard it's less likely" related to outdoors but the vectors have not really been isolated precisely at all. It's really a difficult situation because who doesn't enjoy the tailgates, the downtown, campus, the band, the Michigan Cancer Society tailgate (I'll advocate for it). Basically all of it.
So much uncertainty.
With no fear....
Short answer Hail Yes I would go!
More considered long answer gets into risk assessment. Despite what the rhetoric has morphed into, the flattening the curve effort WAS NOT about stopping the virus, just slowing transmission so health resources would not be swamped. The underlying recognition (if anyone paid attention to it) was that the virus was now pretty much going to be a fact of life and would spread throughout the population. Waiting on a vaccine to make changes is foolish (ask Tony Fauci and his 30 year quest for the white whale of AIDS vaccine). Given the emerging information on outside environment acting as an impediment to transmission, and the extra 3 months of reductions in presence, I could think of nothing better than sharing a fine September afternoon in the hole that Yost dug.
Just as I said a couple weeks ago in a similar thread, I would do everything I can to at least make it to a game or two whenever the season is played. Once inside The Big House, though, I'd look to socially distance myself to the max by looking for empty seats in the upper corners if necessary.
But it's extremely likely no road games for me for the first time in many many seasons. I had months ago started preliminary planning for a trip to the game at Washington; this idea went out the window several weeks ago.
For sure.
No, but it would have nothing to do with the silly COVID-19 hysteria.
If nothing else, the responses to this question has certainly pointed out how many sheep there are in this society. Baaaahhhhhhh...baaaahhhhh.
So many sheeple, they have the degree but can’t think logically for themselves. Thank god we have steel workers, construction, mine workers and soldiers that understand there’s risk in everything and people are gonna die but we keep working and we keep our country from becoming a third world country because we can
Nothing says third world country like 100,000+ dead from a disease that was largely preventable (cf Korea, Australia, Germany, New Zealand for the counterpoint).
We lose way more people every year to “preventable” deaths. Alcohol , drugs, cancer from smoking, I could go on and on but yet we’re not a third world country yet . But destroying out economy over a virus that kills less then 1% of people will do it quickly. And guess what ? It’s all preventable .
The things you mentioned are largely personal choices that affect primarily the individual choosing to do those things, but even then we only lose 88,000 people per year in the US to alcohol related deaths, and that’s with a massive formal and informal management infrastructure built up over decades that includes infringements on your ‘rights’ such as police checkpoints on NYE to prevent drunk driving, not being able to buy a beer after the 7th inning, health insurance covered testing and treatment, employment restrictions, widespread police powers, regulations and civil penalties.
If you die of alcoholism, it’s a tragedy. But if you hurt me or my family via drunk driving you’re subject to massive criminal and civil penalties. We’ve had 80,000 deaths in 8 weeks with this virus, and under your same argument here, we should be applying similar police and civil penalties to people gathering in large groups and endangering others. I actually agree with that, so thanks for making that point.
We lose on average 2.8 million in the US every year by all recorded causes...some who would die of old age, heart attack, diabetes, and in some states suicide bus accident alcohol poisoning are dying by Coivd...so at the end of the year we will have a better idea the real damage.
You concerned about the possibility of one million dead in India from starvation due to economy cause of covid shutdowns?
I think third world countries with incompetent, corrupt, and highly partisan governments are going to experience extremely negative outcomes no matter what. The ‘successful’ outliers in India like Kerala, show that’s it’s not a choice between lockdowns or starvation but in any event, Brazil, India and other third world nations shouldn’t be our comparisons, when we’re the richest/ strongest/ smartest country in the world.
In the past we also would have been considered the best governed nation, but I think this crisis in particular shows how incredibly incompetent we have become as a nation at the federal level, where much of the necessary power resides (think testing at airports, ie international borders, or potential lockdowns between states which only the federal government is capabale of).
At some point you have to ask yourself the question: If all the people “with degrees” (of different backgrounds, demographics, etc.) are generally agreeing on one position, and a smaller number of “logically thinking” farmers, steelworkers, etc. are holding another opinion whom should we trust? Well, if it’s how to work super hard, the correct timing to fertilize crops (based on years of practical experience), etc. I would certainty be interested in the latter’s position. However, in this case, I’ll take the people that sit in a lab and do research on infectious diseases.
If that makes me a sheeple to the folks parading around the capitol like a bunch of *ssholes, then so be it.
-All the best.
No, you only think all the “smart people” are saying the same thing. That’s because you only listen to the ones that agree with you. When Dr’s come out and say this is way overblown and that actually being inside is bad for everyone you dismiss it, you only listen to Dr’s that say were all doomed unless we shelter in place. All your so-called experts have been wrong every single step of the way . Yet because you’re a sheep you continue to listen even though what they say changes everyday. You think your smart because you listen to experts when it’s the “experts” that got us into this mess.
So I live in BC. We have a great doctor, Dr Bonnie Henry, running our health initiatives, even in America she'll show up in twitter and make headlines because she says things like 'You're probably alright to go for a run, and 'when you walk by other people on the street, give them space, but smile.'
We've also had a strict work from home/lockdown for 90% of people, while still allowing some construction and critical work to happen. I live in a tourist city, and the loss of the cruise lines for the season are going to majorly impact our local economy (our #1 industry is tourism). So none of this good news, but we're extremely lucky. We had a limited outbreak, have largely contained it via compliance with stay-at-home orders, and as a result will be opening up slowly from May 19th. We're not 'sheep' because we complied with the orders, we've been successful and can successfully reopen because of it. Even then, we know our success here is incredibly tenuous. If we open up too quickly and don't maintain social distancing, our projections go from this:
To this:
Listening to experts and not being stupid is how we get out of this successfully. It means we may not have a tourist season this year (and yes we're going to lose a shitload of jobs and tax money as a result), but we will probably be able to have a return to some normality in June and school in a semi-normal way this fall.
That's what winning looks like.
All you did was delay the spread of the virus. So you wiped out several businesses in your region and kept the virus at bay but just like the Flu the virus will be back as soon as you loosen up . So then what? Shut everything down again? You could have accomplished almost the same thing by keeping commerce rolling and keep older more vulnerable people protected. This isn’t gonna disappear especially in a global economy. Better to have a better plan then shut everything down.
Maybe? But the moment ‘super flu which kills 10x more people than regular flu’ became a pandemic, lockdown or no the cruise industry and the airline industry were dead for the year. The shutdowns either allowed bailouts (airlines) or recapitalization (carnival) that will allow these industries to survive for a year plus, even with minimal demand. No govt intervention means you get all of the deaths and a very slow painful grind down as demand destruction mounts. (Lockdown or no, how many 50+year olds are cruising this year?)
Suppression via lockdown lets us minimize deaths and return to a managed level of economic normalcy, far above what we’ve had in a massive die off (speaking of which, I’m guess you’re not planning on a vacation or business expansion to Brazil right? I just wrote off our entire forecast that country for the year. Chile (in lockdown now) is still likely to hit 40-50% of target for us this year).
With the lockdown, it’s looking like we’ll at least get some level of domestic tourism back this year, and if the US could get its shit together, we might even have a ski season in whistler. Suppression and risk minimization is what gets you there until a vaccine happens.
Absolutely.
Heck no I wouldn't go. I believe we can open up almost everything except for concerts, festivals and fans at sporting events. Why contribute to a super spreader event at this point?
Yes.
100% yes. Without hesitation.
This is a joke, right? Not a chance and I'll be screening people to find out if they have been to events with 100,000 people. If they have they are off my list of people i will get closer than 6 feet to. Y'all saying you will go are friggin nuts. Move to Alabama and root for the Crimson Tide if semi-pro football in college team colors is that important to you.
25 - this is a silly position. While we can certainly agree that the overall risk to humanity is increased by mass gatherings, that’s because of the sheer volume. A person who attends a game with 100,000 people is no more likely to get COVID than a person who goes to a party with 20 close friends. At the party you’ll have contact with all 20.
How many people do you have close contact with at a football game? A person on either side... the 3 directly behind and in front of you... the person in front/behind you when entering/exiting... and IF everyone was wearing a mask... and it’s outdoors...
But sure, screen the people who attend and avoid them like the plague. But make sure you also avoid everyone that may have come in contact with someone from the stadium. And then everyone that THEY came in contact with. And so on.
You can run, but you can’t hide!
Have you ever walked in with the band from Revelli Hall by the MGoBus. Or stood waiting there (while supporting the Ann Arbor Cancer Tailgate) with thousands? Or tailgated in any of the blue lots? I could go on...
I would definitely go. I am more worried about no football than catching the virus. I am up in age and a lost season could be my last. If something bad happens, I can’t think of a better way to go. I would rather die, trying to get my life back than hide under my bed for the rest of it because Whitmer dictates it.
Wow. I respect your choice, and if you really believe that I'd highly recommend you think about the people around you and discuss that risk with them as well.
My father and I attended at least one game a year every year until he passed away due to age and advanced Leukemia. While I appreciate every moment i spent with him at those games, if there was a chance that attending one would shorten his life span, I would never have gone with him. And while I'd respect his choice, I'd have been shattered if he'd wanted to risk it.
Yes I would.
Yes. I will go the big house. Sans mask
Yes. No reservations. Live Life.
Of course I’m going. I don’t view the world through the eyes of a naive child.
I know I'm not in the majority, but this, and the combination of longer games, louder sound systems, amazing televisions and just getting older... I'm probably done with in-person sporting events.
Plus, having recently moved to Ohio, I can't say there's as much value in going to an event only to root against the home team. I'm a UM lifer in terms of fan interest. That's not going away.