ESPN: Poll: Sports fans won't attend games without coronavirus vaccine

Donate To GopherHole
BleedGopher

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
60,868
Reaction score
16,414
Points
113
per ESPN:

The sports world has been at a standstill due to the coronavirus pandemic for roughly a month, and despite the widespread eagerness to restart games, a majority of Americans said in a recent poll they would not attend sporting events in person just yet.

Some 72% of Americans polled said they would not attend if sporting events resumed without a vaccine for the coronavirus. The poll, which had a fairly small sample size of 762 respondents, was released Thursday by Seton Hall University's Stillman School of Business.

When polling respondents who identified as sports fans, 61% said they would not go to a game without a vaccine. The margin of error is plus-or-minus 3.6%.

Only 12% of all respondents said they would go to games if social distancing could be maintained, which would likely lead to a highly reduced number of fans, staff and media at games. For example, fan capacity for a Los Angeles Lakers or LA Clippers game at Staples Center is around 19,000.

The poll shows that the coronavirus pandemic would affect sports for the foreseeable future, even if some resume.

Just 13% of Americans said they would feel comfortable attending games again the way they had in the past.

"This virus has the attention and respect of the nation," said Rick Gentile, director of the Seton Hall Sports Poll. "Those who identify as sports fans, at all levels of interest, line up closely with the general population in regard to their own safety and that of the players."

www.espn.com

Poll: Fans won't attend games without vaccine

A majority of fans in a recent poll said they would not attend games before a vaccine is developed for the coronavirus.
www.espn.com www.espn.com

Go Gophers!!
 


My wife and I were just talking about this earlier this week. I'm out until this thing is a blip on the radar.....unless it's the Rose Bowl:)
 

OddStack said:
My wife and I were just talking about this earlier this week. I'm out until this thing is a blip on the radar.....unless it's the Rose Bowl:)
Click to expand...

So you mean right now? The numbers don't lie.
 

Seton Hall is in the NYC area and this poll was conducted by only by phone, landline and cell phone. So I'm guessing it was mostly of people in that area. 47% said they didn't miss sports, and 46% said they don't follow sports closely in the first place.

Based on those factors, we can totally apply it to the rest of America and know how they feel about attending sports games without a vaccine.
 



UpAndUnder43 said:
So you mean right now? The numbers don't lie.
Click to expand...
More accurately, I should have said in the rearview mirror.

Social distancing is clearly working in this state. We are currently at .2 of a 1 percent of Minnesotans that have tested positive and increasing. New York is .8 of 1 percent and increasing. Let's say the difference is split and we stabilize at half of 1 percent. Do you want to enter a stadium with 40000 other people when science is showing talking can spread it, and "the numbers show" 200 would statistically be carriers? The answer for me....no. To each their own.

edit: added "statistically"
 
Last edited:

FredCoxRocks said:
What percentage said they would go if the elderly (vulnerable) fans couldn't attend, thus allowing them to stand during the entire game without fear of the stink-eye?
Click to expand...
Early clinical trials seem to indicate that standing and drinking provide some measure of defense against the virus.
 

By the time it rolls around I'll be camped out at TCF's gates.

tenor.gif
 




OddStack said:
More accurately, I should have said in the rearview mirror.

Social distancing is clearly working in this state. We are currently at .2 of a 1 percent of Minnesotans that have tested positive and increasing. New York is .8 of 1 percent and increasing. Let's say the difference is split and we stabilize at half of 1 percent. Do you want to enter a stadium with 40000 other people when science is showing talking can spread it, and "the numbers show" 200 would statistically be carriers? The answer for me....no. To each their own.
Click to expand...

You mentioned science now all the tinfoil hats with start countering with their psuedo - science.
 





OddStack said:
More accurately, I should have said in the rearview mirror.

Social distancing is clearly working in this state. We are currently at .2 of a 1 percent of Minnesotans that have tested positive and increasing. New York is .8 of 1 percent and increasing. Let's say the difference is split and we stabilize at half of 1 percent. Do you want to enter a stadium with 40000 other people when science is showing talking can spread it, and "the numbers show" 200 would statistically be carriers? The answer for me....no. To each their own.

edit: added "statistically"
Click to expand...

Valid points. My concern is lack of testing leading to inflated numbers. Think about how many asymptomatic or mild symptom cases there are that aren't/weren't/won't test therefore dramatically skewing the numbers.

If a 1000 people go to get tested because they feel lousy. .2% test positive. There are likely 1000s of others NOT tested who have it. This impacts the assumed spread rate, the mortality rate, etc.

As it stands now, the state of Minnesota, based on current comments and procedures, shouldn't reopen until a vaccine is readily available and whoever wants it, has received it. The Governor wants to keep pushing the peak, which is fine, but current precedents show we shouldn't reopen the state until a vaccine happens. This is a terrible approach as more people will die from the economic impacts of this than from the virus itself.
 



I need either a vaccine or a treatment which improves the chance of survival. But no, I do not need a vaccine to go to the games. I could also see myself going to games if only season ticket holders were allowed in. That way I could "spread out". Additionally, there is also the scenario where there are no cases around at all.
 

UpAndUnder43 said:
Valid points. My concern is lack of testing leading to inflated numbers. Think about how many asymptomatic or mild symptom cases there are that aren't/weren't/won't test therefore dramatically skewing the numbers.

If a 1000 people go to get tested because they feel lousy. .2% test positive. There are likely 1000s of others NOT tested who have it. This impacts the assumed spread rate, the mortality rate, etc.

As it stands now, the state of Minnesota, based on current comments and procedures, shouldn't reopen until a vaccine is readily available and whoever wants it, has received it. The Governor wants to keep pushing the peak, which is fine, but current precedents show we shouldn't reopen the state until a vaccine happens. This is a terrible approach as more people will die from the economic impacts of this than from the virus itself.
Click to expand...

I think the real catch with all of this is folks don't quite get ... "science".

There's an understanding among scientists and some (not all) medical folks that amidst a pandemic that you're dealing with "the data we have now" and there are all sorts of caveats. So they say the data indicates X.

Now if you told a scientist that in a month the data would mean Y they would think "Yeah because the data is different / better..." So no big deal. Everyone including the guy who did the first study expects that.

Other folks don't understand / some skew it and say "OMG THEY DIDN'T KNOW!!!!" or "THEY LIED!" or whatever and draw all sorts of concussions after the fact.

Like no that's not how it works.

That's how we get all the "Study says if you eat carrots you lower your rate of prostate cancer!" when really the folks doing the study were saying "We looked at this data and saw what might be a connection." Maybe they think it warrants further study, or something to keep in mind for the next study. But they didn't tell you to go out and eat carrots... but someone will take that information and run with it.


Anyway I look forward to finding out what they find with this virus a year or two from now, but of course by then rando folks will come out of the woodwork "SEE I TOLD YOU SO!" because they made like a vague dozen predictions based on god knows what and one was kinda maybe close to right --- ish.
 


A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
I think the real catch with all of this is folks don't quite get ... "science".

There's an understanding among scientists and some (not all) medical folks that amidst a pandemic that you're dealing with "the data we have now" and there are all sorts of caveats. So they say the data indicates X.

Now if you told a scientist that in a month the data would mean Y they would think "Yeah because the data is different / better..." So no big deal.

Other folks don't understand / some skew it and say "OMG THEY DIDN'T KNOW!!!!" or "THEY LIED!" or whatever and draw all sorts of concussions after the fact.

Like no that's not how it works.

That's how we get all the "Study says if you eat carrots you lower your rate of prostate cancer!" when really the folks doing the study were saying "We looked at this data and saw what might be a connection." Maybe they think it warrants further study, or something to keep in mind for the next study. But they didn't tell you to go out and eat carrots... but someone will take that information and run with it.


Anyway I look forward to finding out what they find with this virus a year or two from now, but of course by then rando folks will come out of the woodwork "SEE I TOLD YOU SO!" because they made like a vague dozen predictions based on god knows what and one was kinda maybe close to right --- ish.
Click to expand...

Much like football games. Great initial game plans can get foiled as the game goes on and adjustments are made. More data leads to new knowledge of how things can be combatted in both subject matters in this thread.:clap:
 



hail minnesota said:
I'm in my 80's and have respitory problems and I WILL BE AT ALL GAMES. For crying out loud ,we've lived through much worse problems than this! Science is the problem--not the solution. How often has science been totally wrong!
Click to expand...

Thanks for the laugh.

Just remember sire anytime you take a pill to treat any medical issue, science egads, was involved. Same as any doctor or hospital you've ever been treated by.

Science has also been involved with all those neat-o inventions you've seen invented and used during your lifetime.

Nothing is obviously always correct or right; but science gets a lot more right then it does wrong - to argue to the contrary is being an obstinate 8 yr old, not an 81 year old.

Happy Easter and remember smiles are free - go ahead try one on!
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
I think the real catch with all of this is folks don't quite get ... "science".

Now if you told a scientist that in a month the data would mean Y they would think "Yeah because the data is different / better..." So no big deal. Everyone including the guy who did the first study expects that.

Other folks don't understand / some skew it and say "OMG THEY DIDN'T KNOW!!!!" or "THEY LIED!" or whatever and draw all sorts of concussions after the fact.

Like no that's not how it works.

That's how we get all the "Study says if you eat carrots you lower your rate of prostate cancer!" when really the folks doing the study were saying "We looked at this data and saw what might be a connection." Maybe they think it warrants further study, or something to keep in mind for the next study. But they didn't tell you to go out and eat carrots... but someone will take that information and run with it.


Anyway I look forward to finding out what they find with this virus a year or two from now, but of course by then rando folks will come out of the woodwork "SEE I TOLD YOU SO!" because they made like a vague dozen predictions based on god knows what and one was kinda maybe close to right --- ish.
Click to expand...

You nailed it. I will agree with the more, shall we say, willfully ignorant crowd that the media continually misrepresents what researchers are saying and all the caveats, assumptions subject to change, error ranges, confidence intervals make eyes glaze over. Hyping worst case scenarios draws eyeballs but inevitably when the best case scenario occurs instead it makes people distrust scientists.

As far as polls like these on attending mass events, the percentages will be enormously swayed by media reports. If local hospitals are overwhelmed with patients like in NYC, or someone you know is afflicted it will make you think twice. MN right now is clearly a different scenario.

If the best case scenario proves to be true and 15-25% of the population has already had this thing, with a much lower fatality rate most people will be more willing to take risks like rubbing shoulders with stinky old farts at TCF.. Same as the CTE debate. For most players, low risk, not an issue as far as they are concerned. Acceptable risk, acceptable losses for the benefit gained. There will always be hypochondriacs and germophobes that cannot accept even a 1 in a million risk.
 


A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
I think the real catch with all of this is folks don't quite get ... "science".

There's an understanding among scientists and some (not all) medical folks that amidst a pandemic that you're dealing with "the data we have now" and there are all sorts of caveats. So they say the data indicates X.

Now if you told a scientist that in a month the data would mean Y they would think "Yeah because the data is different / better..." So no big deal. Everyone including the guy who did the first study expects that.

Other folks don't understand / some skew it and say "OMG THEY DIDN'T KNOW!!!!" or "THEY LIED!" or whatever and draw all sorts of concussions after the fact.

Like no that's not how it works.

That's how we get all the "Study says if you eat carrots you lower your rate of prostate cancer!" when really the folks doing the study were saying "We looked at this data and saw what might be a connection." Maybe they think it warrants further study, or something to keep in mind for the next study. But they didn't tell you to go out and eat carrots... but someone will take that information and run with it.


Anyway I look forward to finding out what they find with this virus a year or two from now, but of course by then rando folks will come out of the woodwork "SEE I TOLD YOU SO!" because they made like a vague dozen predictions based on god knows what and one was kinda maybe close to right --- ish.
Click to expand...

I think the reactions of the State of MN and others is in line with what you're saying. They are using old data, where the numbers don't match the reaction. What we know now is more valuable than a model from February. But that is being ignored and we are acting as if this virus is what it was WORST feared to be, not what current data implies.

I am curious to see how this time is looked back upon. Maybe I won't be here to see it? dun dun dunnnnn!
 

I wrote yesterday that this won't affect the hard-core fans (especially at the hard-core programs). I think the casual fan probably won't show.
 

The new epidemiological numbers are still subject to enormous change, so...the story on this won’t be written for awhile. Hope and prayers for the best case scenario and effective suppression going forward.
 

UpAndUnder43 said:
I think the reactions of the State of MN and others is in line with what you're saying. They are using old data, where the numbers don't match the reaction. What we know now is more valuable than a model from February. But that is being ignored and we are acting as if this virus is what it was WORST feared to be, not what current data implies.

I am curious to see how this time is looked back upon. Maybe I won't be here to see it? dun dun dunnnnn!
Click to expand...

You work with the data you got. I don't think there's a good / obvious choice out there.

If you change direction every week because last week's preliminary data changed ... I think you risk undoing any risk mitigation you may have achieved.

There's no good answers. People belive what data they're inclined to belive and go all "well obviously you should have done that" but they only base that off of what they're inclined to agree with.

Like if you pick Plan A over B because you like A better and data set X indicates you should, but Y indicates you shouldn't ... that's not a wise decision, that's just personal preference dictating a coin toss call ;)
 

hail minnesota said:
Science is the problem--not the solution. How often has science been totally wrong!
Click to expand...

Science hasn't been wrong nearly as often as right wing morons who watch Fox News to learn what's happening in the world.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom