All Things COVID-19 College Football Impact

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
15,609
Reaction score
2,406
Points
113
The post to which I responded stated:
“Your data proves that no person can be infected and hospitalized by an infected college student who doesn't need to be hospitalized?”

My point is that although less, people still end up hospitalized and dead from the flu. You were indicating that 0 hospitalizations is the threshold for COVID. That’s why I am wondering what will make YOU happy.
That’s not what I was indicating. That statement refuted the (silly) idea you were pushing: that so long as there are no hospitalizations among college students, that’s all that matters.

In other words, you’re implying that it shouldn’t matter that an infected college student that doesn’t need hospitalization but then infects someone else who does need it, actually doesn’t matter.

Clearly false, which was the point of my post.


It is possible to die from seasonal flu (apparently, I had never heard of such a thing before covid ... though I highly doubt it is possible without other things contributing to the death), and it is possible that a student-athlete (who didn’t need to go to the hospital for the sickness) infected them.

And, we’ve never shut down athletics because of that possibility. And we never will. And I agree with that.


You argue that it’s exactly the situation here. Of course, that’s absurd. You demand an exact quantification of the probability difference. And I will continue to refuse to give it to you. 1) because it’s impossible to calculate, and 2) because it would be an exercise in futility anyway. Each side would just claim that the number, whatever it actually is, does or doesn’t prove that their worldview regarding the pandemic response is correct.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
8,101
Reaction score
511
Points
113
I know. All these dipshits whining about not having college football games to watch. Disgusting. You'd think they might have listened to the experts so we would have had a game this Saturday. But, no! They're either too vain or too insecure of their toughness to wear a frick'n mask.
LOL, how is MLB, WNBA, NBA, NHL working out?
We will see about the NFL and the SEC, ACC and Big 12.

Do you think wearing a mask is a panacea and therefore rioters who wear masks can group up, March and destroy with no worries, but a person playing football is at grace peril?

Can you and the regressive left be anymore hypocritical? (The answer is an obvious Yes. I suspect we only see the tip of the iceberg regarding hypocrisy.)
 

PoockItInfor6

Active member
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
822
Reaction score
170
Points
43
That’s not what I was indicating. That statement refuted the (silly) idea you were pushing: that so long as there are no hospitalizations among college students, that’s all that matters.

In other words, you’re implying that it shouldn’t matter that an infected college student that doesn’t need hospitalization but then infects someone else who does need it, actually doesn’t matter.

Clearly false, which was the point of my post.


It is possible to die from seasonal flu (apparently, I had never heard of such a thing before covid ... though I highly doubt it is possible without other things contributing to the death), and it is possible that a student-athlete (who didn’t need to go to the hospital for the sickness) infected them.

And, we’ve never shut down athletics because of that possibility. And we never will. And I agree with that.


You argue that it’s exactly the situation here. Of course, that’s absurd. You demand an exact quantification of the probability difference. And I will continue to refuse to give it to you. 1) because it’s impossible to calculate, and 2) because it would be an exercise in futility anyway. Each side would just claim that the number, whatever it actually is, does or doesn’t prove that their worldview regarding the pandemic response is correct.
I’d imagine we both generally agree that the death rate of COVID is 2x - 3x higher than the flu (which you just noted you never even realized had a death rate because it wasn’t ever something that was reported). COVID is also very likely to infect double the population that a normal flu infects. So in total, likely close to 5x people will die relative to a normal flu... very heavily concentrated from the 85+ age bracket.

Where you and I (and apparently it’s a political issue so the right and left) fundamentally disagree is here:

I was completely onboard with a total shut down when the death rate was believed to be 3-5%. But at the rates that are now believed (and have been since May)... the calculus has changed. Those that have known risk factors should continue to make every effort to avoid infection. Those that don’t should still take the minimum steps of wearing masks in appropriate situations and avoiding situations where they are putting elderly and others at risk. But the risks that were initially in play of overrunning hospitals and needing to flatten the curve have run their course. So the only reason any continued “shut down” would make sense is if you believed that less people would ultimately be infected (which doesn’t seem likely IMO given how transmissible this appears), and the lives prolonged would need to outweigh the unintended consequences of continued shut down. The increases to suicides, homicides, the jobs lost, depression, and the widening gap of education in our youth... in my opinion FAR outweigh any benefit in prolonging a few lives (who would potentially still get COVID a few months out anyways).
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
1,134
Reaction score
288
Points
83
I’d imagine we both generally agree that the death rate of COVID is 2x - 3x higher than the flu (which you just noted you never even realized had a death rate because it wasn’t ever something that was reported). COVID is also very likely to infect double the population that a normal flu infects. So in total, likely close to 5x people will die relative to a normal flu... very heavily concentrated from the 85+ age bracket.

Where you and I (and apparently it’s a political issue so the right and left) fundamentally disagree is here:

I was completely onboard with a total shut down when the death rate was believed to be 3-5%. But at the rates that are now believed (and have been since May)... the calculus has changed. Those that have known risk factors should continue to make every effort to avoid infection. Those that don’t should still take the minimum steps of wearing masks in appropriate situations and avoiding situations where they are putting elderly and others at risk. But the risks that were initially in play of overrunning hospitals and needing to flatten the curve have run their course. So the only reason any continued “shut down” would make sense is if you believed that less people would ultimately be infected (which doesn’t seem likely IMO given how transmissible this appears), and the lives prolonged would need to outweigh the unintended consequences of continued shut down. The increases to suicides, homicides, the jobs lost, depression, and the widening gap of education in our youth... in my opinion FAR outweigh any benefit in prolonging a few lives (who would potentially still get COVID a few months out anyways).
I basically agree, I would also like to see a push for everyone to wear N95 or KN95 masks, masks that really work.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
15,609
Reaction score
2,406
Points
113
I’d imagine we both generally agree that the death rate of COVID is 2x - 3x higher than the flu (which you just noted you never even realized had a death rate because it wasn’t ever something that was reported). COVID is also very likely to infect double the population that a normal flu infects. So in total, likely close to 5x people will die relative to a normal flu... very heavily concentrated from the 85+ age bracket.

Where you and I (and apparently it’s a political issue so the right and left) fundamentally disagree is here:

I was completely onboard with a total shut down when the death rate was believed to be 3-5%. But at the rates that are now believed (and have been since May)... the calculus has changed. Those that have known risk factors should continue to make every effort to avoid infection. Those that don’t should still take the minimum steps of wearing masks in appropriate situations and avoiding situations where they are putting elderly and others at risk. But the risks that were initially in play of overrunning hospitals and needing to flatten the curve have run their course. So the only reason any continued “shut down” would make sense is if you believed that less people would ultimately be infected (which doesn’t seem likely IMO given how transmissible this appears), and the lives prolonged would need to outweigh the unintended consequences of continued shut down. The increases to suicides, homicides, the jobs lost, depression, and the widening gap of education in our youth... in my opinion FAR outweigh any benefit in prolonging a few lives (who would potentially still get COVID a few months out anyways).
If there was never any hope of a vaccine, it would be easier to accept the idea that social restrictions are just delaying the inevitable. That we should just get on with it now, and deal with whatever the inevitable outcome is.

But the fact is that vaccines are just around the corner. Thus, delay is meaningful.

We don’t know what the total burden of long term symptoms will end up being. But we already know that covid’s are far worse than the flu’s. No regular person dreads the flu. At worst, it’s an annoyance. It puts you down for a few days, and then it’s gone and you do t think about it again. Not so with covid.

Overall, this points to the realistic probability that by preventing a significant number of people from ever being infected, we are saving a huge amount of healthcare cost/burden on society.

Will that savings offset the very real costs we are incurring to the economy and will probably incur as a result of higher than normal mental health issues crop up down the road? Impossible to say. Impossible to precisely quantify. And each side would just decree that the actual numbers support their position.



Deaths alone is clearly a false analysis. And that said, a vast majority of those who have died from covid, would’ve had significant time left, which was stolen from them by the disease. Not “a couple months”.
 
Last edited:

PMWinSTP

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
9,288
Reaction score
581
Points
113
I’d imagine we both generally agree that the death rate of COVID is 2x - 3x higher than the flu (which you just noted you never even realized had a death rate because it wasn’t ever something that was reported). COVID is also very likely to infect double the population that a normal flu infects. So in total, likely close to 5x people will die relative to a normal flu... very heavily concentrated from the 85+ age bracket.

Where you and I (and apparently it’s a political issue so the right and left) fundamentally disagree is here:

I was completely onboard with a total shut down when the death rate was believed to be 3-5%. But at the rates that are now believed (and have been since May)... the calculus has changed. Those that have known risk factors should continue to make every effort to avoid infection. Those that don’t should still take the minimum steps of wearing masks in appropriate situations and avoiding situations where they are putting elderly and others at risk. But the risks that were initially in play of overrunning hospitals and needing to flatten the curve have run their course. So the only reason any continued “shut down” would make sense is if you believed that less people would ultimately be infected (which doesn’t seem likely IMO given how transmissible this appears), and the lives prolonged would need to outweigh the unintended consequences of continued shut down. The increases to suicides, homicides, the jobs lost, depression, and the widening gap of education in our youth... in my opinion FAR outweigh any benefit in prolonging a few lives (who would potentially still get COVID a few months out anyways).
US Covid deaths are at more than 3X the highest number of annual deaths from influenza in the past 10 years.
 

Plato

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2019
Messages
539
Reaction score
329
Points
63
Ladies and gentlemen, the people hired and paid to be in charge of the BIG universities made a 11/3 decision not to have fall sports despite engendering animosities among many folks and each taking about a 100 million $ hit.
It is over and done.
It may come a terrible shock to some but all the time you have wasted discussing this is not going to change that decision.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
41,465
Reaction score
2,740
Points
113
US Covid deaths are at more than 3X the highest number of annual deaths from influenza in the past 10 years.
That is incorrect. Flu deaths, as with covid deaths are estimations based on multiple comorbidities. Estimates on the 2018 flu run as high as 90,000. If estimates for the flu included the extremely wide sweeping parameters that the covid death count does (for political reasons) flu deaths would have a much higher count. Mortality for Covid 19 if you are under age 65 is well below that of flu. If you get covid and are under 65 your chances of dying are around .00053. In Minnesota there has been 1 death in over 21,000 known cases for the age group of 5-24.

College sports can be played safely. We are currently being played.
 

PMWinSTP

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
9,288
Reaction score
581
Points
113
That is incorrect. Flu deaths, as with covid deaths are estimations based on multiple comorbidities. Estimates on the 2018 flu run as high as 90,000. If estimates for the flu included the extremely wide sweeping parameters that the covid death count does (for political reasons) flu deaths would have a much higher count. Mortality for Covid 19 if you are under age 65 is well below that of flu. If you get covid and are under 65 your chances of dying are around .00053. In Minnesota there has been 1 death in over 21,000 known cases for the age group of 5-24.

College sports can be played safely. We are currently being played.
I used the CDC, which reported 61,099 for 2017-18. It is the highest CDC has reported in the last 10 years.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
15,609
Reaction score
2,406
Points
113
That is incorrect. Flu deaths, as with covid deaths are estimations based on multiple comorbidities. Estimates on the 2018 flu run as high as 90,000. If estimates for the flu included the extremely wide sweeping parameters that the covid death count does (for political reasons) flu deaths would have a much higher count. Mortality for Covid 19 if you are under age 65 is well below that of flu. If you get covid and are under 65 your chances of dying are around .00053. In Minnesota there has been 1 death in over 21,000 known cases for the age group of 5-24.

College sports can be played safely. We are currently being played.
one bald-faced lie, after another, from a cult member.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
15,609
Reaction score
2,406
Points
113
I used the CDC, which reported 61,099 for 2017-18. It is the highest CDC has reported in the last 10 years.
Obviously CDC didn’t include all the extraneous deaths for flu that they’re including for covid.

Isn’t that obvious? I believe it, so it is obvious to me.

Can I prove any of it? Of course not. And that just strengthens my belief that it’s true!
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
41,465
Reaction score
2,740
Points
113
I used the CDC, which reported 61,099 for 2017-18. It is the highest CDC has reported in the last 10 years.
It doesn't matter what you used, it is an estimate. Here is the CDC saying that 80,000 died in that same season: https://www.usnews.com/news/health-care-news/articles/2018-09-27/cdc-80-000-people-died-of-flu-complications-last-season-in-us#:~:text=An estimated 80,000 people died,interview with the Associated Press.

It is quite likely that many of our flu season deaths were counted as covid this year.

Covid is just not as deadly as advertised (for political reasons). The testing is inaccurate. (False positives at least 25% of the time if not more). The people dying have an average of 2+ comorbidity factors and are old and usually obese. If a person dies of a heart attack and shows positive for corona virus they are a corona virus death. They would have died anyway...but the hospitals get paid more for it so... why not classify it as a covid death!!?
If 25% plus of tests are false positives and people dying of other causes are classified covid - then the death toll for covid may well be way too high.

Bottom line- it is over hyped and it just is not a risk for people under age 65. Play ball!
 
Last edited:

GopherWeatherGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
7,712
Reaction score
1,061
Points
113
Deaths in the US are currently running 11% above normal YTD. The vast majority of that 11% comes from LTC facilities and the NYC area. This percentage has fallen, and will continue to fall as COVID deaths continue to decrease.

The 11% also includes, homicides, suicides, and deaths from other causes due to a lack of treatment, which are all way up.

79% of US COVID deaths are 65+.

Yet this is the reason we need to keep things shutdown, can't play high school and college sports, etc? It's insane.

 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
15,609
Reaction score
2,406
Points
113
Deaths in the US are currently running 11% above normal YTD. The vast majority of that 11% comes from LTC facilities and the NYC area. This percentage has fallen, and will continue to fall as COVID deaths continue to decrease.

The 11% also includes, homicides, suicides, and deaths from other causes due to a lack of treatment, which are all way up.

79% of US COVID deaths are 65+.

Yet this is the reason we need to keep things shutdown, can't play high school and college sports, etc? It's insane.

Purposefully trying to hide that probably only 10-15% of the population has been infected and that non-death symptoms and chronic disease have real costs.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
15,609
Reaction score
2,406
Points
113
Just the same old, dishonest, fake analysis, over and over and over and over.

You’d think these people were getting paid by the post, to spew this stuff.
 

Taji34

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 22, 2015
Messages
2,129
Reaction score
425
Points
83
The comments earlier in this thread said people were saying it was “impossible”, “invincible”, “won’t die from this”. If the posters had said “almost impossible”, “probably won’t die from this” etc that would be a truer statement.

Golden rodents said close to zero, and probably underestimates risk so agreed on that. I think everyone realizes there is risk. Some are more comfortable with it than others, and different people have different beliefs on their actual risk that may not reflect reality as at least one recent poll has demonstrated. Fair enough. From earlier in the thread:
Actually, twice GopherRodent explicitly said that an athlete death wouldn't happen (which were in my original response):
So what? They all will be fine. Suit up the freshman.
So what? Every single one of the football players will recover. Healthy young people bounce back quickly from this. Do we shut down the country for the flu?

This is the weakness of your argument. Why pretend this is a terminal or chronic disease. It's not for healthy young people. And most of the deaths are among those close to death.

So hide the aged and infirm and let the rest of us live.

Just like Sweden and South Dakota.
So yes, someone DID say it would not happen. He also said phrases like "practically zero risk", "almost nil", "microscopic", "virtually zero", and "1 in a million", which are *technically* different than saying impossible. But lets take a moment and think about what situations you would use those phrases. I don't know about you, but personally when I use a phrase like that what I am really saying is "I think this won't happen, but I'll say it has "near-impossible" odds of happening instead just in case". Which, after analysis, is basically saying the same thing.

So no, the earlier posters were not making anything up. The were claims of "impossible" (which "But I thought it was impossible... Crickets from the peanut gallery" and ".Another straw man bravely chopped down." are referencing) as well as "near impossible" (which "The whole argument has been that young people really won't die from this - especially athletes. So what now?" was referencing).
 

PMWinSTP

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
9,288
Reaction score
581
Points
113
It doesn't matter what you used, it is an estimate. Here is the CDC saying that 80,000 died in that same season: https://www.usnews.com/news/health-care-news/articles/2018-09-27/cdc-80-000-people-died-of-flu-complications-last-season-in-us#:~:text=An estimated 80,000 people died,interview with the Associated Press.

It is quite likely that many of our flu season deaths were counted as covid this year.

Covid is just not as deadly as advertised (for political reasons). The testing is inaccurate. (False positives at least 25% of the time if not more). The people dying have an average of 2+ comorbidity factors and are old and usually obese. If a person dies of a heart attack and shows positive for corona virus they are a corona virus death. They would have died anyway...but the hospitals get paid more for it so... why not classify it as a covid death!!?
If 25% plus of tests are false positives and people dying of other causes are classified covid - then the death toll for covid may well be way too high.

Bottom line- it is over hyped and it just is not a risk for people under age 65. Play ball!
Good grief.

 

Mulligan

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 12, 2009
Messages
3,302
Reaction score
361
Points
83
Of most interest to me out of what Day said: "However, we still have an opportunity to give our young men what they have worked so hard for: a chance to safely compete for a national championship this fall."
 

GopherWeatherGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
7,712
Reaction score
1,061
Points
113
Of most interest to me out of what Day said: "However, we still have an opportunity to give our young men what they have worked so hard for: a chance to safely compete for a national championship this fall."
He also mentioned the B1G medical subcommittee has done an excellent job of creating a safe pathway towards returning to play in mid-October.

I have little doubt there will be a B1G season that starts in late Oct or Nov. They have to play a fall season because a spring season is unrealistic and won't happen.
 

PMWinSTP

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
9,288
Reaction score
581
Points
113
Day does realize OSU can get pretty much any HC it wants, right?
 

Block M

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2009
Messages
1,369
Reaction score
406
Points
83
There is some desperate data misrepresentation/misinterpretation in this thread.
That is incorrect. Flu deaths, as with covid deaths are estimations based on multiple comorbidities. Estimates on the 2018 flu run as high as 90,000. If estimates for the flu included the extremely wide sweeping parameters that the covid death count does (for political reasons) flu deaths would have a much higher count. Mortality for Covid 19 if you are under age 65 is well below that of flu. If you get covid and are under 65 your chances of dying are around .00053. In Minnesota there has been 1 death in over 21,000 known cases for the age group of 5-24.

College sports can be played safely. We are currently being played.
Flu is not a reportable disease and flu incidence (and deaths) are very hard to estimate. BTW, your assertions run counter to those of just about every epidemiologist or public health expert, not to mention docs on the frontlines.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
15,387
Reaction score
1,331
Points
113
Actually, twice GopherRodent explicitly said that an athlete death wouldn't happen (which were in my original response):



So yes, someone DID say it would not happen. He also said phrases like "practically zero risk", "almost nil", "microscopic", "virtually zero", and "1 in a million", which are *technically* different than saying impossible. But lets take a moment and think about what situations you would use those phrases. I don't know about you, but personally when I use a phrase like that what I am really saying is "I think this won't happen, but I'll say it has "near-impossible" odds of happening instead just in case". Which, after analysis, is basically saying the same thing.

So no, the earlier posters were not making anything up. The were claims of "impossible" (which "But I thought it was impossible... Crickets from the peanut gallery" and ".Another straw man bravely chopped down." are referencing) as well as "near impossible" (which "The whole argument has been that young people really won't die from this - especially athletes. So what now?" was referencing).
The preponderance of listed quotes supports the non-zero narrative. Congratulations, I concede he did indicate zero risk in 2/7 posts AND I confess I didn’t read that far after the first 4/5. Shame on me. You did found a solitary poster that indicated in 5/7 posts there was a low risk, no risk in 2/7.

I think most people understand there is risk of complications with any infectious disease including children, young healthy adults. However, I can find many people that overstate the risk (in this specific group). A recent public poll supported this distorted risk perception. One person I can recall in particular wondered how many deaths before Alabama calls it quits on the season...

None of this means we shouldn’t be testing the players frequently, practicing social distancing, good hygiene. Slow the spread. Tough sell in the college crowd.
 

John Galt

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
9,481
Reaction score
785
Points
113
Well, quite sure we're going to be having BIG football soon because Kurt Daudt and Paul Gazelka wish it so. A used car salesman's and insurance salesman's understanding of the medical issues will certainly impress the decision makers more than the doctors and scientists at major research universities. And some of you didn't believe Mr. Yacht.
Take a mulligan, again.

Doctors and scientists aren’t elected officials who get to make policy. They provide input in one area. Our elected officials have to make the tough calls and weigh all aspects of society. Deflecting this responsibility to the medical community is a cop out.
 

Great Plains Gopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
5,372
Reaction score
60
Points
48
Was it Penn State that found cardiac problems in a third of infected players? It is a common side effect of the illness. This will probably sink any Big Ten play until a vaccine is available.
 
Top Bottom