-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
Are we prepared for no football this fall?
- Thread starter alabamagrizzly
- Start date
Spanky:
In MT, more people have died from the flu this year than from coronavirus. From the last model/prediction I saw, more people in MT will die from the flu this year than the virus. For people who didn't get a flu shot, there would definitely be a greater chance of dying from the flu than the virus? The 2 diseases are from the same family.
Why are you so spooked by the virus? Just curious. We don't live in NYC (where the risks are different).
In MT, more people have died from the flu this year than from coronavirus. From the last model/prediction I saw, more people in MT will die from the flu this year than the virus. For people who didn't get a flu shot, there would definitely be a greater chance of dying from the flu than the virus? The 2 diseases are from the same family.
Why are you so spooked by the virus? Just curious. We don't live in NYC (where the risks are different).
When’s it supposed to start slowing down? To say 5,000 new cases/day and 100 deaths/day? I read that by August there would only be 16,000 more deaths. August is about 100 days away. So an average of just 160 deaths a day between now and then. That sounds impossible considering there are currently about 2000 deaths a day.
In early April the big projection was there would only be 60,000 deaths, but that was way off.
In early April the big projection was there would only be 60,000 deaths, but that was way off.
I am spooked by the virus because of my age. As you know, death is common with older people. Also, I don’t want to give it to my wife who is a senior. It is true there isn’t as much danger living in Montana, but deaths have occurred from the virus. It is concerning when people like Cats take the opposite point of view and minimize the danger.PlayerRep said:
getgrizzy said:
No one can say for sure. I can tell you with 99% assurance, however, that there won't be only 16,000 new deaths between now and August; I'd be shocked if there weren't that many more deaths within the next two weeks (hope I'm wrong of course). We've been averaging between 1,500 - 2,500 deaths per day for just about a month straight, and that has been with intensive mitigation strategies. As states start to open up, there will be a second wave, to some degree or another.
PlayerRep said:
We're lucky Montana has not been hit too hard, relative to other states, but nationwide there have been more COVID-19 deaths in the span of three months than there are across an entire year in a relatively "bad" flu year. That it hasn't hit Montana as hard (yet?) isn't at all surprising, due to population density and where the virus first began community spread; the vast majority of predictive models - despite their understandably wide confidence intervals and need to model a host of different scenarios - have always agreed the infection would hit the coasts hard for a long time before it spread enough to start taking off in the less-dense rocky mountain and northern great plains states. As is, our neighbors to the immediate south (WY) has one of the higher per-capita rates of growth in the country right now.
Saw some chatter that FBS is planning for a season that will start later and be 10 games. All P5-FCS money games will not be played.
ilovethecats
Well-known member
With all due respect, I don't think it should be concerning that I have a different opinion than you do, and that I am of a different age and a different risk. Obviously we all agree that this virus is more dangerous the older you are and the more underlying conditions you may have.Spanky2 said:
I would concede that if anything is dangerous about this is the misinformation out there, and the wild conspiracy theories that seem to be getting legs. There are honestly people that think there isn't a virus and there isn't people dying. To me that is ridiculous and in your words; concerning.
I don't think I'm minimizing anything. The numbers are what the numbers are. We don't know how many people have been infected, but we have a list of people dying, which may or may not be entirely accurate, and even if so is a pretty small number of deaths considering our population.
Where you and I differ in opinion, is I don't think healthy people unafraid of this virus should be forced to not work, not go to school, not be able to live our lives because people are afraid. I'd very much like to keep my rights and those that are afraid should most certainly stay home.
We all are "close" to death one way or another. I may not be old and unhealthy and vulnerable to this disease. But I have lost family members to cancer, lost an older brother to a work-accident and lost a parent to suicide. I'm certainly more concerned with cancer and suicide than others who have never lost someone to these things. But I don't think their deaths were any more special or alarming than any other forms of death. Suicides will kill tens of thousands more than the virus will this year but I would never expect people to complete shut down their lives until the mental health crisis in this country ends....
I think the most concerning thing is that people think it's dangerous for people to have other thoughts and opinions.
For Spanky and Cats,
I posted this from 2 articles/opinion in the other thread today. My view is that we older and unhealthy types need to focus on protecting ourselves, so the younger and healthier crowd, and world, can get back to living their lives, making money, and having fun.
1. From a Wall St. Journal op-ed.
“Henri Leleu, scientific director at Public Health Expertise, a French disease-modeling company, … concluded releasing people under 60 from quarantine eight weeks before older people would save far more lives than keeping everyone under quarantine for an even longer period.”
2. "Coronavirus: Is it time to free the healthy from restrictions?
Our constant focus on the most negative impacts of the epidemic means we have "lost sight" of the fact the virus causes a mild to moderate illness for many, says Dr Amitava Banerjee, of University College London.
In future, we need to stop looking at coronavirus through such a "narrow lens", he says. Instead we should take more account of the indirect costs, such as rising rates of domestic violence in lockdown, mental health problems and the lack of access to health care more generally.
For the non-vulnerable population, coronavirus carries no more risk than a "nasty flu", says Prof Mark Woolhouse, an expert in infectious disease who led the research.
"If it wasn't for the fact that it presents such a high risk of severe disease in vulnerable groups, we would never have taken the steps we have and closed down the country.
"If we can shield the vulnerable really well, there is no reason why we cannot lift many of the restrictions in place for others.
"The lockdown has come at a huge economic, social and health cost."
It is, he says, all about getting the balance of risk right."
BBC News: https://apple.news/A9dtCU960QfSPi_pMmfP6Hw
I posted this from 2 articles/opinion in the other thread today. My view is that we older and unhealthy types need to focus on protecting ourselves, so the younger and healthier crowd, and world, can get back to living their lives, making money, and having fun.
1. From a Wall St. Journal op-ed.
“Henri Leleu, scientific director at Public Health Expertise, a French disease-modeling company, … concluded releasing people under 60 from quarantine eight weeks before older people would save far more lives than keeping everyone under quarantine for an even longer period.”
2. "Coronavirus: Is it time to free the healthy from restrictions?
Our constant focus on the most negative impacts of the epidemic means we have "lost sight" of the fact the virus causes a mild to moderate illness for many, says Dr Amitava Banerjee, of University College London.
In future, we need to stop looking at coronavirus through such a "narrow lens", he says. Instead we should take more account of the indirect costs, such as rising rates of domestic violence in lockdown, mental health problems and the lack of access to health care more generally.
For the non-vulnerable population, coronavirus carries no more risk than a "nasty flu", says Prof Mark Woolhouse, an expert in infectious disease who led the research.
"If it wasn't for the fact that it presents such a high risk of severe disease in vulnerable groups, we would never have taken the steps we have and closed down the country.
"If we can shield the vulnerable really well, there is no reason why we cannot lift many of the restrictions in place for others.
"The lockdown has come at a huge economic, social and health cost."
It is, he says, all about getting the balance of risk right."
BBC News: https://apple.news/A9dtCU960QfSPi_pMmfP6Hw
ilovethecats
Well-known member
PlayerRep said:
Thanks PR. Great info. Pretty much been my opinion all along. Older people, those with compromised health issues, and those simply fearful of the virus should by all means quarantine, shelter in place, social distance, etc. do whatever it takes. But please let the rest of us get on with it before the consequences to us all get worse.
"Coronavirus: Oregon governor announces no sporting events with large crowds 'through September'
"If the highly anticipated Ohio State vs. Oregon college football game is going to take place in Eugene on Sept. 12 as scheduled, it will likely be played without fans.
Gov. Kate Brown announced Thursday that the state of Oregon will take initial steps toward reopening amid the coronavirus pandemic on May 15. At the same time, Brown said the Oregon Health Authority is advising that “any large gathering at least through September should be canceled or modified.”
Brown specifically mentioned sporting events, concerts, conventions and festivals as large gatherings that cannot take place until more reliable treatment for the coronavirus — like a vaccine — is available.
“Restarting events of this size will require a reliable treatment or prevention, like a vaccine, which is many months off. Further guidance on large events will be provided in the coming months,” a news release from the Governor’s office said.
Dr. Dean Sidelinger, Oregon’s health officer and epidemiologist, was asked specifically about football games. He said non-contact sports “like golf or tennis” are more likely to return before football. And whenever football resumes, fans likely won’t be in the stands."
Yahoo Sports: https://apple.news/AZ9DvXsaJRYO04Iu4pBgMcA
"If the highly anticipated Ohio State vs. Oregon college football game is going to take place in Eugene on Sept. 12 as scheduled, it will likely be played without fans.
Gov. Kate Brown announced Thursday that the state of Oregon will take initial steps toward reopening amid the coronavirus pandemic on May 15. At the same time, Brown said the Oregon Health Authority is advising that “any large gathering at least through September should be canceled or modified.”
Brown specifically mentioned sporting events, concerts, conventions and festivals as large gatherings that cannot take place until more reliable treatment for the coronavirus — like a vaccine — is available.
“Restarting events of this size will require a reliable treatment or prevention, like a vaccine, which is many months off. Further guidance on large events will be provided in the coming months,” a news release from the Governor’s office said.
Dr. Dean Sidelinger, Oregon’s health officer and epidemiologist, was asked specifically about football games. He said non-contact sports “like golf or tennis” are more likely to return before football. And whenever football resumes, fans likely won’t be in the stands."
Yahoo Sports: https://apple.news/AZ9DvXsaJRYO04Iu4pBgMcA
WaGriz4life
Well-known member
Kate Brown is bad news. There is no science behind this. Survival rate is now at 99.7%. Average age of death due to COVID 19 is now higher than the average age of death period.PlayerRep said:
WaGriz4life
Well-known member
Kate Brown has also been involved in some very corrupt dealings with Nike.PlayerRep said:
More and more chatter out of the Pac 12 suggesting that they - despite the Oregon governor - plan on playing football, and I think it's safe to say that the Pac is the least gung-ho of the P5 conferences about playing.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/05...-what-happens-if-one-school-refuses-to-play/
Commissioner Larry Scott told the Hotline on Friday that he is increasingly optimistic about the prospects for Pac-12 football in 2020 following a series of developments inside and outside the conference.
Scott cited three reasons he’s “more optimistic this week than I was last week”:
— The NFL’s reveal of its 2020 schedule on Thursday evening and what Scott called the absence of “pushback from government officials” in the states that have NFL teams and Pac-12 campuses.
— The spate of recent announcements by Pac-12 universities that they intend to reopen for the fall with students on campus. Scott called the news “very encouraging” and noted: “We’ve said from the start that if it’s not safe for the students, it’s not safe for the student-athletes.”
— Discussions with the Pac-12’s COVID-19 Medical Advisory Committee, which includes doctors, trainers and health officers. Scott said information provided by the group with regard to necessary levels of testing, tracing and mitigation on campuses left him “feeling like there’s a good chance we’ll get there.”
Scott also addressed the woolly mammoth in the room: The potential for one or more Pac-12 universities to refuse to play this fall.
Would the conference leave someone behind?
Could one school squash the season for the collective?
Might we see the Pac-11 … or the Pac-9?
“We’ll have to cross that bridge when we get there, but I don’t expect that,” he said.
Scott said he has spoken with each president/chancellor individually since the shutdown began and believes there is a commitment to move forward as one.
The schools, he added, were unified in their decision to suspend organized team activities, and he expects uniformity with the decision to ramp back up.
“That’s my impression based on all the conversations so far,” he said.
The comments to the Hotline followed the conference’s annual spring meetings, which were held remotely and included athletic directors, Faculty Athletics Representatives, the student-athlete leadership group, Senior Women’s Administrators, head coaches in football and men’s and women’s basketball, conference executives and medical advisors.
No decisions were made on matters of policy or procedure. The topics included scheduling, officiating, media strategy, the latest on name, image and likeness and transfer legislation.
But one issue dominated the discussion.
“We spent a lot of time on the Covid-19 piece,” said Oregon State athletic director Scott Barnes, the chair of the Pac-12 AD Council.
Scott and Barnes addressed a slew of topics during a 20-minute interview.
*** Barnes on Oregon Gov. Kate Brown’s announcement Thursday that large-gathering sporting events would be canceled or greatly modified, at least through September:
“Five months is a long way away. We’re committed to the health and safety of our students and student athletes. But we have a lot of time, and the best decisions we’ve made are the ones that come later, because you’re more informed. The circumstances with Covid-19 are changing almost daily. We’ll wait as long as we can to make a decision.”
*** Scott on the timing for a decision on the start of Pac-12 training camp:
“The consensus is we need a six-week training camp. We’re very focused on starting on time if it’s possible, if it’s safe. I don’t expect we’ll make decisions until the end of June or early July. That’s enough notice for (coaches and players) to get back for training camp.”
*** Barnes of various modeling scenarios for football:
“Prudence would tell you to put everything on the table. And we’ve modeled a decline in revenue and a decline in revenue based on playing less games. We haven’t modeled not playing at all. Everyone knows what that number will be. But we’ve modeled for the extremes, for playing without fans. And we’re not just doing financial models. We’re using faculty and staff to come up with ways of queuing people up for concessions, seating and getting them into the stadium.”
*** Scott on restart uniformity across the Power Five:
“There’s a lot of focus (among commissioners) on moving forward nationally, and everyone has the goal of playing a full season. I’m expecting a consistent approach as to when we start the season. That said, we could see a difference state-to-state, or even county-to-county, on when facilities can open and that sort of thing. And there could be a difference as to when fans are allowed. We might see a walk-jog-run phrased approach based on social distancing (restrictions). But when it comes to training camp, I think everyone will be on an even field.”
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/05...-what-happens-if-one-school-refuses-to-play/
Commissioner Larry Scott told the Hotline on Friday that he is increasingly optimistic about the prospects for Pac-12 football in 2020 following a series of developments inside and outside the conference.
Scott cited three reasons he’s “more optimistic this week than I was last week”:
— The NFL’s reveal of its 2020 schedule on Thursday evening and what Scott called the absence of “pushback from government officials” in the states that have NFL teams and Pac-12 campuses.
— The spate of recent announcements by Pac-12 universities that they intend to reopen for the fall with students on campus. Scott called the news “very encouraging” and noted: “We’ve said from the start that if it’s not safe for the students, it’s not safe for the student-athletes.”
— Discussions with the Pac-12’s COVID-19 Medical Advisory Committee, which includes doctors, trainers and health officers. Scott said information provided by the group with regard to necessary levels of testing, tracing and mitigation on campuses left him “feeling like there’s a good chance we’ll get there.”
Scott also addressed the woolly mammoth in the room: The potential for one or more Pac-12 universities to refuse to play this fall.
Would the conference leave someone behind?
Could one school squash the season for the collective?
Might we see the Pac-11 … or the Pac-9?
“We’ll have to cross that bridge when we get there, but I don’t expect that,” he said.
Scott said he has spoken with each president/chancellor individually since the shutdown began and believes there is a commitment to move forward as one.
The schools, he added, were unified in their decision to suspend organized team activities, and he expects uniformity with the decision to ramp back up.
“That’s my impression based on all the conversations so far,” he said.
The comments to the Hotline followed the conference’s annual spring meetings, which were held remotely and included athletic directors, Faculty Athletics Representatives, the student-athlete leadership group, Senior Women’s Administrators, head coaches in football and men’s and women’s basketball, conference executives and medical advisors.
No decisions were made on matters of policy or procedure. The topics included scheduling, officiating, media strategy, the latest on name, image and likeness and transfer legislation.
But one issue dominated the discussion.
“We spent a lot of time on the Covid-19 piece,” said Oregon State athletic director Scott Barnes, the chair of the Pac-12 AD Council.
Scott and Barnes addressed a slew of topics during a 20-minute interview.
*** Barnes on Oregon Gov. Kate Brown’s announcement Thursday that large-gathering sporting events would be canceled or greatly modified, at least through September:
“Five months is a long way away. We’re committed to the health and safety of our students and student athletes. But we have a lot of time, and the best decisions we’ve made are the ones that come later, because you’re more informed. The circumstances with Covid-19 are changing almost daily. We’ll wait as long as we can to make a decision.”
*** Scott on the timing for a decision on the start of Pac-12 training camp:
“The consensus is we need a six-week training camp. We’re very focused on starting on time if it’s possible, if it’s safe. I don’t expect we’ll make decisions until the end of June or early July. That’s enough notice for (coaches and players) to get back for training camp.”
*** Barnes of various modeling scenarios for football:
“Prudence would tell you to put everything on the table. And we’ve modeled a decline in revenue and a decline in revenue based on playing less games. We haven’t modeled not playing at all. Everyone knows what that number will be. But we’ve modeled for the extremes, for playing without fans. And we’re not just doing financial models. We’re using faculty and staff to come up with ways of queuing people up for concessions, seating and getting them into the stadium.”
*** Scott on restart uniformity across the Power Five:
“There’s a lot of focus (among commissioners) on moving forward nationally, and everyone has the goal of playing a full season. I’m expecting a consistent approach as to when we start the season. That said, we could see a difference state-to-state, or even county-to-county, on when facilities can open and that sort of thing. And there could be a difference as to when fans are allowed. We might see a walk-jog-run phrased approach based on social distancing (restrictions). But when it comes to training camp, I think everyone will be on an even field.”
