Thoughts on % chance that we can attend 2021 games at TCF, let's see predictions

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
16,544
Reaction score
1,864
Points
113
The on-campus student body of 2,000 had 200+ cases in the seven days before Feb 12. That's 200+ of a total 936 cases since the first recorded case in Feb 2020.

Your point is what? Banning outdoor walks, exercise, interaction is going to reduce transmission? That mandate will almost certainly increase transmission by keeping people confined indoors for a few extra hours per day, bored, more likely to interact out of sight. Similarly, it’s very plausible the Big Ten ban on attendance was actually harmful and led to increased transmission at home watch parties.

There is no evidence of transmission amongst spaced outdoor individuals.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
16,544
Reaction score
1,864
Points
113
Disagree.

It simply isn't going to be possible for this virus to vary itself to the degree where it can completely evade the vaccine and still be virulent. It's one or the other, and the vaccine makers are already working on "tune ups" for the released vaccines that will be fine tuned to the dominant variant.

It would have to be a radically different genetic sequence, to the point where it wouldn't be a coronavirus anymore. It doesn't evolve that fast.

There are evolutionary pressures and selection to become more transmissible which inherently makes it more deadly in absolute terms. Smallpox is/was very transmissible and quite deadly so your quote isn’t necessarily true. I’d say there is evolutionary room for this thing to spread its wings and evolve in ways we don’t like very much. But, what are the odds, and let’s think positive.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
21,915
Reaction score
4,862
Points
113
There are evolutionary pressures and selection to become more transmissible which inherently makes it more deadly in absolute terms. Smallpox is/was very transmissible and quite deadly
My quote did not say "vary itself to the degree where it can become more transmissible and still be virulent".

The vaccine is key difference, and what my post was about.
 

PMWinSTP

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
10,066
Reaction score
960
Points
113
Your point is what? Banning outdoor walks, exercise, interaction is going to reduce transmission? That mandate will almost certainly increase transmission by keeping people confined indoors for a few extra hours per day, bored, more likely to interact out of sight. Similarly, it’s very plausible the Big Ten ban on attendance was actually harmful and led to increased transmission at home watch parties.

There is no evidence of transmission amongst spaced outdoor individuals.

My point was to simply provide details as to why there was a lockdown/quarantine on the campus. The school lifted the outdoor exercise ban.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
16,544
Reaction score
1,864
Points
113
My point was to simply provide details as to why there was a lockdown/quarantine on the campus. The school lifted the outdoor exercise ban.

Did the ban on outdoor activity make sense, in your mind?
 

PMWinSTP

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
10,066
Reaction score
960
Points
113
Did the ban on outdoor activity make sense, in your mind?
When 26% of your total cases for the past year happen in the span of 7 days, you might initially be a little too strict in communicating your point to stay in their rooms.
 

Otis

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
4,322
Reaction score
1,022
Points
113
If "Bat Shit Crazy" Joe gets his wish and vaccinates as many people as he wants in the first 100 days, then there is about an 80% chance of the stadium having fans. The question is, how many will be allowed and what will be the guidelines for admittance.

I'm thinking negative test requirements to attend and 50% capacity or less. Mask mandates which are better enforced than at the Super Bowl.
 

Ski U Mah Gopher

Member of the Tribe
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
6,840
Reaction score
149
Points
63
If "Bat Shit Crazy" Joe gets his wish and vaccinates as many people as he wants in the first 100 days, then there is about an 80% chance of the stadium having fans. The question is, how many will be allowed and what will be the guidelines for admittance.

I'm thinking negative test requirements to attend and 50% capacity or less. Mask mandates which are better enforced than at the Super Bowl.

He is already on a pace for 150 million in the 1st 100 days. And the pace is only going up.

It depends on how fast that the 4 (Pfizer, Moderna, J & J, AstraZenica) companies can get the supply out. I'm saying 60% for OSU, and all the way to 100% for Wisconsin.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
21,915
Reaction score
4,862
Points
113
He is already on a pace for 150 million in the 1st 100 days. And the pace is only going up.

It depends on how fast that the 4 (Pfizer, Moderna, J & J, AstraZenica) companies can get the supply out. I'm saying 60% for OSU, and all the way to 100% for Wisconsin.
There are 250M adults in the country, and only 50% or so have initially indicated (via polling) that they want the vaccine. In other words, 125M people (adults). Obviously, the bulk of that is going to be aged 18-64.

As you indicate, by the end of April (100 days from Jan 20), they're on pace for 150M or so.


But didn't Fauci recently say he was hoping to start offering the vaccine to anyone who wanted it, by April? IE, people younger than 65 and/or non front-line type folks?


Something isn't quite adding up here. They either need to start offering the vaccine to anyone, soonish (early March?), or I think they're going to run up against a real demand problem quicker than they realize.


Unless a significant number of that "no thanks" 50% have started to change their minds. That will happen to some portion of them, but how quickly?
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
16,544
Reaction score
1,864
Points
113
When 26% of your total cases for the past year happen in the span of 7 days, you might initially be a little too strict in communicating your point to stay in their rooms.

You think dishonesty is the best policy here? Do you think most students respected the thought process?

My answer is no to both. Counterproductive, and likely harmful. Thats a crazy policy - glad they got rid of it but too late to salvage credibility.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
16,544
Reaction score
1,864
Points
113
There are 250M adults in the country, and only 50% or so have initially indicated (via polling) that they want the vaccine. In other words, 125M people (adults). Obviously, the bulk of that is going to be aged 18-64.

As you indicate, by the end of April (100 days from Jan 20), they're on pace for 150M or so.


But didn't Fauci recently say he was hoping to start offering the vaccine to anyone who wanted it, by April? IE, people younger than 65 and/or non front-line type folks?


Something isn't quite adding up here. They either need to start offering the vaccine to anyone, soonish (early March?), or I think they're going to run up against a real demand problem quicker than they realize.


Unless a significant number of that "no thanks" 50% have started to change their minds. That will happen to some portion of them, but how quickly?

The demographics of the vaccine hesitant or deniers mostly align with the groups of people that are most likely to already have been infected - millennials and gen zzz, lower income, God is my co-pilot types. There is a group of ultra anxious and neo-liberal anti-vax types that probably won’t take the vaccine and have been hiding out but they aren’t likely to crowd into a football stadium anytime soon. The wild cards seem to be duration and nature of immunity from infection/vaccine, and impact of the South African variant and any others coming down the pike. Too soon to say.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
21,915
Reaction score
4,862
Points
113
The wild cards seem to be duration and nature of immunity from infection/vaccine, and impact of the South African variant and any others coming down the pike. Too soon to say.
As far as if people change their minds on getting the vaccine? Otherwise, I don't understand what this has to do with my post.
 

PMWinSTP

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
10,066
Reaction score
960
Points
113
You think dishonesty is the best policy here? Do you think most students respected the thought process?

My answer is no to both. Counterproductive, and likely harmful. Thats a crazy policy - glad they got rid of it but too late to salvage credibility.
Good grief. Not sure why you are trying to argue with me...
 

PMWinSTP

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
10,066
Reaction score
960
Points
113
Well, you started it...

Correct me if I’m wrong but you seemed to support the policy of banning outdoor activities because of a recent outbreak.
How so? I responded to your post. I merely provided the details for school's reason for the lockdown, which you had not provided.
 

Taji34

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 22, 2015
Messages
2,433
Reaction score
700
Points
113
The demographics of the vaccine hesitant or deniers mostly align with the groups of people that are most likely to already have been infected - millennials and gen zzz, lower income, God is my co-pilot types. There is a group of ultra anxious and neo-liberal anti-vax types that probably won’t take the vaccine and have been hiding out but they aren’t likely to crowd into a football stadium anytime soon. The wild cards seem to be duration and nature of immunity from infection/vaccine, and impact of the South African variant and any others coming down the pike. Too soon to say.
You got any proof for that bud? Anecdotally my interactions say the exact opposite, but I don't think anyone has done any official surveys that indicate one way or the other.
 

denguegopher

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
1,547
Reaction score
50
Points
48
The demographics of the vaccine hesitant or deniers mostly align with the groups of people that are most likely to already have been infected - millennials and gen zzz, lower income, God is my co-pilot types. There is a group of ultra anxious and neo-liberal anti-vax types that probably won’t take the vaccine and have been hiding out but they aren’t likely to crowd into a football stadium anytime soon. The wild cards seem to be duration and nature of immunity from infection/vaccine, and impact of the South African variant and any others coming down the pike. Too soon to say.
I have found this to be an interesting paper. Its more about parent's views of their children being vaccinated. Your description of the vaccine hesitant appears to be accurate but a bit abbreviated. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7595070/
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
16,544
Reaction score
1,864
Points
113
Can you please cite the controlled study that looked at bans on outdoor activities?

The burden is on you to find instances of proven transmission amongst people out for walks, runs, biking, or otherwise keeping appropriate 3-6 foot distancing outdoors. There aren’t any contact tracing events to show this type of transmission. Sure, it could happen in theory, but it’s far more likely the students will have a higher risk cooped up in their dorms and apartments with roommates, walking down halls, hanging out in common spaces instead of being outdoors. Is this sinking in, at all?
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
16,544
Reaction score
1,864
Points
113
How so? I responded to your post. I merely provided the details for school's reason for the lockdown, which you had not provided.

You implied it made sense to ban outdoor activities because Berkeley had a small outbreak - am I wrong?
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
16,544
Reaction score
1,864
Points
113
You got any proof for that bud? Anecdotally my interactions say the exact opposite, but I don't think anyone has done any official surveys that indicate one way or the other.

Sure, the Kaiser Foundation tracks vaccine hesitancy on a monthly basis. There is no group without some hesitancy but some stand out more than others. Multiple reasons, some crazier than others.


CF0EFC2D-D95D-4DF8-A7E0-613DFB83B5DF.png
B5738D45-39F6-4E30-8DC8-9D4C026758C2.png
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
16,544
Reaction score
1,864
Points
113
Fascinating. Only the first has any real legitimacy - likely no significant incidence of long term effects but it’s true, there is no data. The relative risk for most groups... is a no-brainer. How to best approach these folks with irrational fear? Calmly explain the mechanism, low risks of the vaccine versus risks of COVID-19? Ridicule them endlessly? Cash incentives?

Will these incentives and reasoning work with the outdoor exercise ban folks?

D15B346C-DFD9-431C-8DEE-24ACA58863C7.png

 
Top Bottom