Scott Dochterman breaks down why colleges MUST play football this year

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
16,304
Reaction score
1,792
Points
113
" 33 NCAA football players died playing the sport between 2000 and 2016, an average of two per season. Six of those deaths were traumatic, the result of injuries caused by collisions. The rest were non-traumatic, the result of intense exercise. "
Shut down all activities.

Plato’s point is certainly hard to argue In a vacuum. However, no decisions don’t have unintended consequences... if sports don’t happen, Minnesotans are stuck in their homes through the winter, most of us are stuck working from home, no sun, reduced social interaction... How much does SAAD cost in terms of human life? How much does domestic violence increase? Depression? Anxiety? Even obesity is likely to increase which also has a toll... Sports are not more important than human life, but they are a beacon of sunshine and a needed distraction to some.

I myself am a person that rarely feels stress in normal times, but I will say there has been a level of anxiety in recent months that for all I know could be shortening the life of my ticker.
There will be zero unintended consequences. All is well.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
18,762
Reaction score
2,460
Points
113
I think they should anonymously survey the players and coaches separately to get an appraisal of their opinions about playing the season, postponing it to spring, or just cancelling. If the players and coaches aren’t heavily in favor of playing, it’s not going to be worth playing or watching anyway. If only a few players are concerned, give them an extra year of eligibility and let them sit it out.
 

Crosby

Active member
Joined
Dec 18, 2016
Messages
211
Reaction score
191
Points
43
The difference is quite obvious, when you consider the possibility of how many people will suffer/die because they got infected from a person who got infected at tailgating/the game.

When someone dies in a car accident on the way to the game, that doesn't infect someone else.

But someone who gets infected with cv19 at a game, and then infects 25 other people, 8 of which die ....


I think you're forcing yourself to pretend you don't understand the difference.
Your analogy is not the same at all. He said "one person dead" makes it not worth it. Different argument if you are saying "the spread of the disease is so dangerous that 100 more might die" that's a different thing altogether. AND to think that car accidents don;t impact anyone else? Not the case. If I decide to go to the game, get in my car, cross the center line, hit a family of four... you bet it impacts others. You are trying too hard to pretend there is a big difference.
 

PitinoFan

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,167
Reaction score
1,586
Points
113
You know what? That’s a great point. How many people will die in the next year, from a collision with a drunk driver who had attended a sporting event? What should we ban...cars, alcohol, sports, or all of the above? It’s far too dangerous.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
16,304
Reaction score
1,792
Points
113
You know what? That’s a great point. How many people will die in the next year, from a collision with a drunk driver who had attended a sporting event? What should we ban...cars, alcohol, sports, or all of the above? It’s far too dangerous.
Without being too flip, sometimes ignorance truly is bliss. We have the world at our fingertips and information without context is scary and can be misleading. People with serious anxiety will tell you they wish they could turn it off but can’t. COVID-19 is scary enough without piling on with outlier type complications. Let’s try to stick to known facts and risks and probabilities to the extent possible. Maybe COVID-19 results in sterility, acquired immunodeficiency, antibody dependent enhancement complications, early onset Alzheimer’s disease, an unexplainable appreciation of The Last Jedi, whatever’s afflicting Bret Bielema.
 

PitinoFan

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,167
Reaction score
1,586
Points
113
Without being too flip, sometimes ignorance truly is bliss. We have the world at our fingertips and information without context is scary and can be misleading. People with serious anxiety will tell you they wish they could turn it off but can’t. COVID-19 is scary enough without piling on with outlier type complications. Let’s try to stick to known facts and risks and probabilities to the extent possible. Maybe COVID-19 results in sterility, acquired immunodeficiency, antibody dependent enhancement complications, early onset Alzheimer’s disease, an unexplainable appreciation of The Last Jedi, whatever’s afflicting Bret Bielema.
I think a lot of people roll their eyes when they see the outlier claims. The problem is we’ve been lied to far too many times over the last few months. Like this (one of many tweets where he stated they are not effective). Now, he has a fucking mask on in his avatar.

 

matt

Let's get weird
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
3,374
Reaction score
494
Points
83
Student-athletes did not volunteer for public service, the military (as someone alluded to), or to entertain you during a pandemic at an increased risk to their lives (and their friends’ and families’ lives). They volunteered to play a sport and receive free education (some of them). Many of you are absolutely right that this will have huge consequences to athletic departments and universities, but it is not the student-athletes job to pick up that load at an increased risk to their health and their quality of life.

It is ABSOLUTELY a different story in pro sports, where athletes are volunteering to live in a bubble and accept the increased health risk and the lower quality of life in order to receive a 6, 7, or 8 figure pay check. But for any one of us to say that these student-athletes should be subjected to increased health risk, spend months in a bubble away from their families and friends, and play football is either selfish (if your motivation is to be entertained) or short sighted (if it is to balance the budget of the AD).

If the universities think the cross-country, golf, soccer teams, etc. should not be practicing or playing because the risk is too high to students, staff, and fans, then the same should be true for football and basketball. Unless football athletes start getting paid a pay check, they are not obligated to accept increased risk for the sake of the universities’ revenue.
 

PitinoFan

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,167
Reaction score
1,586
Points
113
Student-athletes did not volunteer for public service, the military (as someone alluded to), or to entertain you during a pandemic at an increased risk to their lives (and their friends’ and families’ lives). They volunteered to play a sport and receive free education (some of them). Many of you are absolutely right that this will have huge consequences to athletic departments and universities, but it is not the student-athletes job to pick up that load at an increased risk to their health and their quality of life.

It is ABSOLUTELY a different story in pro sports, where athletes are volunteering to live in a bubble and accept the increased health risk and the lower quality of life in order to receive a 6, 7, or 8 figure pay check. But for any one of us to say that these student-athletes should be subjected to increased health risk, spend months in a bubble away from their families and friends, and play football is either selfish (if your motivation is to be entertained) or short sighted (if it is to balance the budget of the AD).

If the universities think the cross-country, golf, soccer teams, etc. should not be practicing or playing because the risk is too high to students, staff, and fans, then the same should be true for football and basketball. Unless football athletes start getting paid a pay check, they are not obligated to accept increased risk for the sake of the universities’ revenue.
Student athletes have a choice. Nobody is forcing them to participate. Furthermore, several Gophers need to play this season to increase their odds of making it to the next level.
 

PoockItInfor6

Active member
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
907
Reaction score
234
Points
43
Student-athletes did not volunteer for public service, the military (as someone alluded to), or to entertain you during a pandemic at an increased risk to their lives (and their friends’ and families’ lives). They volunteered to play a sport and receive free education (some of them). Many of you are absolutely right that this will have huge consequences to athletic departments and universities, but it is not the student-athletes job to pick up that load at an increased risk to their health and their quality of life.

It is ABSOLUTELY a different story in pro sports, where athletes are volunteering to live in a bubble and accept the increased health risk and the lower quality of life in order to receive a 6, 7, or 8 figure pay check. But for any one of us to say that these student-athletes should be subjected to increased health risk, spend months in a bubble away from their families and friends, and play football is either selfish (if your motivation is to be entertained) or short sighted (if it is to balance the budget of the AD).

If the universities think the cross-country, golf, soccer teams, etc. should not be practicing or playing because the risk is too high to students, staff, and fans, then the same should be true for football and basketball. Unless football athletes start getting paid a pay check, they are not obligated to accept increased risk for the sake of the universities’ revenue.
If the players don’t want to play, I support that. If they are told they cannot play when they want to play... that’s not cool.
 

markiemark09

Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
47
Reaction score
6
Points
8
I'm quoting a public source of information. Is that "shred worthy"?
If you read their site, Johns Hopkins states that their statistics are affected by the amount of testing that is done. The CDC recently estimated that actual mortality rate is 1/10 of what is being reported due to people not being tested because they’re asymptomatic or there was a shortage of tests. So yes, shred worthy.
 

forever a gopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
1,550
Reaction score
514
Points
113
I'm quoting a public source of information. Is that "shred worthy"?
In MN, the mortality rate is currently at 3.6% based on the number of tests completed. But many of the deaths were occurring when we didn’t have the testing capability we do now. With deaths diminishing, and testing as high as it is, that number will go down literally every day. And even that 3.6% number is grossly inflated by the insane number of LTCF deaths. If you don’t happen to live in a nursing home, your mortality rate is 0.7%.

And that is WITHOUT the actual case multiplier that the CDC has stated is most likely (10x). With that, the mortality rates would be 0.36% for all and 0.07% for non-LTCF people.
 
Last edited:

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
16,304
Reaction score
1,792
Points
113
Student-athletes did not volunteer for public service, the military (as someone alluded to), or to entertain you during a pandemic at an increased risk to their lives (and their friends’ and families’ lives). They volunteered to play a sport and receive free education (some of them). Many of you are absolutely right that this will have huge consequences to athletic departments and universities, but it is not the student-athletes job to pick up that load at an increased risk to their health and their quality of life.

It is ABSOLUTELY a different story in pro sports, where athletes are volunteering to live in a bubble and accept the increased health risk and the lower quality of life in order to receive a 6, 7, or 8 figure pay check. But for any one of us to say that these student-athletes should be subjected to increased health risk, spend months in a bubble away from their families and friends, and play football is either selfish (if your motivation is to be entertained) or short sighted (if it is to balance the budget of the AD).

If the universities think the cross-country, golf, soccer teams, etc. should not be practicing or playing because the risk is too high to students, staff, and fans, then the same should be true for football and basketball. Unless football athletes start getting paid a pay check, they are not obligated to accept increased risk for the sake of the universities’ revenue.
Most of us have free agency. Why would anyone go out there if they believed there were serious risk to life or limb? Is this comparable to storming Mount Suribachi?

The athletes are under an arguable amount of risk under normal circumstances with injury, travel risk. This is more about support staff, coaches, other vulnerable in my opinion. The athletes themselves are at little risk, unless you have evidence otherwise?
 

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
8,338
Reaction score
1,612
Points
113
In MN, the mortality rate is currently at 3.6% based on the number of tests completed. But many of the deaths were occurring when we didn’t have the testing capability we do now. With deaths diminishing, and testing as high as it is, that number will go down literally every day. And even that 3.6% number is grossly inflated by the insane number of LTCF deaths. If you don’t happen to live in a nursing home, your mortality rate is 0.7%.

And that is WITHOUT the actual case multiplier that the CDC has stated is most likely (10x). With that, the mortality rates would be 0.36% for all and 0.07% for non-LTCF people.
If .07% was the death rate for non LTCF people and there are 5,500,000 people in Minnesota we would expect a little less than 4000 deaths from non LTCF people in Minnesota if everyone got it.

for some context. About 2700 people in Minnesota died from accidents of all kinds they in 2017
about 9700 people died from cancer in 2017
About 8000 people died from heart disease in 2017



would be awesome if .07% was the death rate for the general population
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
20,142
Reaction score
4,328
Points
113
Do you believe that to be accurate? How did they arrive at 4.5%?
I believe it, if you simply note that it means 4.5 out of every 100 people who tested positive for cv19 so far have died.

It's a very simple statement, that won't help most people because there is such a spread of other factors baked into that single statistic.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
20,142
Reaction score
4,328
Points
113
If .07% was the death rate for non LTCF people and there are 5,500,000 people in Minnesota we would expect a little less than 4000 deaths from non LTCF people in Minnesota if everyone got it.

for some context. About 2700 people in Minnesota died from accidents of all kinds they in 2017
about 9700 people died from cancer in 2017
About 8000 people died from heart disease in 2017



would be awesome if .07% was the death rate for the general population
So you're going to volunteer yourself to get infected, right? Your family too?

I'm not. I'm holding out as long as I can.

Why subject yourself to the risk of all the other horrible anecdotes that have been reported about this virus already, let alone all the stuff we don't know yet?

Think of all the people who worked with asbestos for years. They had no clue. I bet if they could've gone back and done it over again, they wouldn't have done it.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
20,142
Reaction score
4,328
Points
113
Your analogy is not the same at all. He said "one person dead" makes it not worth it. Different argument if you are saying "the spread of the disease is so dangerous that 100 more might die" that's a different thing altogether. AND to think that car accidents don;t impact anyone else? Not the case. If I decide to go to the game, get in my car, cross the center line, hit a family of four... you bet it impacts others. You are trying too hard to pretend there is a big difference.
His point was not meant to be taken literally about the number that die. He was saying, why should anyone have to die from this infection when we could just cancel this one season, lose a little money, and then go back to normal next year.

You and others keep comparing to things that aren't equivalent. There is no vaccine coming for auto accidents, in any reasonably soon number of years (decades).

The whole point is: this might be over by early next year. We don't know yet, but there is reasonable hope of a vaccine coming soon. So if you only have to lose one season, so what?


I didn't say that an auto accident doesn't affect anyone else. I said it doesn't infect anyone else. A bystander who watches the accident, doesn't get infected and also die.


So it's not equivalent. There will always be auto accidents and people who die from them, so long as humans are driving. There is no vaccine coming at the end of the year for that (potentially). So we can't cancel sports until there are only autonomous cars. It's not the same, at all.
 

short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
10,371
Reaction score
1,963
Points
113
On the whole "mental health and anxiety" angle.

I'm a recovering alcoholic. I've been through rehab 3 times. I have also had a heart attack and other heart-related issues. if anyone is going to be anxious, it's me.

My point is that mental health and anxiety is a personal issue. every person will react differently and perceive things differently.

I miss sports, but if there are no games this fall, I will find something else to do. Exercise - talk to my family - read a book - watch a movie - go for a long walk and listen to a podcast on my headphones.
The other day I even scrubbed out my bathtub and shower!!! But the point is I did something. Some days I just get in my car, drive around and listen to music. (which is still allowed).

If you are sitting at home doing nothing and getting anxious - that is not on the virus, the Governor, or the B1G. That is on you.

AND - in all seriousness - if you have a friend or family member whom you are concerned about - reach out to them. with current technology, we are more connected than ever. So talk, text, or skype with someone if you're worried about them.
 

PitinoFan

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,167
Reaction score
1,586
Points
113
I believe it, if you simply note that it means 4.5 out of every 100 people who tested positive for cv19 so far have died.

It's a very simple statement, that won't help most people because there is such a spread of other factors baked into that single statistic.
That’s not what he said. He said “mortality rate.” So, I asked for clarification.
 

PitinoFan

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,167
Reaction score
1,586
Points
113
The true, overall IFR I think it is suspected will be less than 1%.
Yes, I think that has mostly been established through serology testing. Of course, Johns Hopkins knows this, so I’m not sure why they would cite a 4.5% mortality rate. I have a built-in BS filter for everything I read or hear about covid these days.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
20,142
Reaction score
4,328
Points
113
Yes, I think that has mostly been established through serology testing. Of course, Johns Hopkins knows this, so I’m not sure why they would cite a 4.5% mortality rate. I have a built-in BS filter for everything I read or hear about covid these days.
That's fine.

But the combination of "just because you don't die, doesn't mean you aren't likely to suffer some not insignificant health problems later in life because the infection" and "we may have a vaccine for this by the end of the calendar year", means it's not reasonable to propose a good faith argument of "you're less like to die from cv19 than _____, therefore we should open the country back up".


If we get to the end of the year and the vaccine still isn't within sight, then I'll be much more receptive to those types of arguments.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
16,304
Reaction score
1,792
Points
113
That's fine.

But the combination of "just because you don't die, doesn't mean you aren't likely to suffer some not insignificant health problems later in life because the infection" and "we may have a vaccine for this by the end of the calendar year", means it's not reasonable to propose a good faith argument of "you're less like to die from cv19 than _____, therefore we should open the country back up".


If we get to the end of the year and the vaccine still isn't within sight, then I'll be much more receptive to those types of arguments.
The vaccine must be proven to do less harm than good over the long term. This is more complicated than almost everybody realizes. That takes time, which is why there are real vaccine experts explaining a longer timeline than we want to hear or believe.
 
Top Bottom