Who’s renewed their season tix?

[AllWeatherFan]

With all due respect, and while I appreciate Griz fans’ strong support, I would not go into a crowded stadium until and unless there is an effective vaccine. Especially a stadium like they have in Fargo-Moorhead. I like being alive.

No one is asking you to go to the stadium, but some of the rest of us would be excited to go to the stadium. Don't think we need your permission.

Ironically, in your case, no respect is due.

 

[EverettGriz]

No one is asking you to go to the stadium, but some of the rest of us would be excited to go to the stadium. Don't think we need your permission.

Ironically, in your case, no respect is due.

:lol:

 

[Spanky2]

First, they aren't going to have 25,000 in attendance. The number would be closer to half that with season ticket holders, students and parents and no additional tickets. Second, the statement that if half of those in attendance got the virus seems exceptionally high considering masks will be worn, social distancing will be enforced as much as possible, and other cleaning measures are in place. No issue with anything else about your argument.

Agreed. As I stated, the numbers were overly simplistic.

That said, we can't get people to wear masks for a 5 minute visit to Lowes to grab a new toilet plunger. Do we really expect fans at a hot September game to wear them for 4 hours while they scream their lungs out at yet another shitty call from the bsc officials?

As for social distancing, have you been in a WaGriz bathroom??

If the decision is based on a financial consideration, so be it. But there will be new cases of the virus as a result. Deaths?

 

[ilovethecats]

To a large extent, I agree with ILTC's comments. However, his post does ignore the impact of the law of large numbers.

Let's say they hold a game at WaGRIZ with 25,000 people. If half of those in attendance were to contract Covid and using a .62% death rate (I haven't researched to determine the validity of that number), 77 people in the stadium that day would die. Nearly 500 GRIZ fans dead by the end of the season. And of course, a fair percentage more would need to be hospitalized. Still willing to chance it?

Maybe so, but also consider this: If each of those who caught the virus infected 3 more people, we're talking nearly 37,000 cases and 230 deaths from each game.

Now, obviously these numbers are overly simplified. But that was done purposely to highlight the point that while the percentages sound small, when you start talking the death of real people, they get much larger in a hurry.

Don’t dispute that EG. Although, because the 55 and over crowd makes up 90% of the deaths, maybe we take that into account and either not let those people attend, or let them make their own choices and understand the risks.

Though if we would do that with a football game, it’s almost as if we could do it in other parts of life as well.

 

[Spanky2]

What about the people that make up 10% of the deaths?

 

[ilovethecats]

What about the people that make up 10% of the deaths?

Well in EG’s example that’d less than one person. If you round up I guess it’d be a person. It’d be like 3 people over 85, 2 over 75 and 2 over 65. All the rest we’d add together and round up and we’d muster one other person. Can you imagine if we used this same caution with all other aspects of life?!

I’d be curious how many griz fans die from other causes every season?

I think people should see how many people die even in our small towns every day. Maybe it’d offer a different perspective.

 

[PlayerRep]

If the crowd is limited to 15,000, fans are staggered and spaced entering the stadium, there is some spacing of seating, tailgating is either not allowed or very limited, the Canyon is either not open or very limited, the number of people entering bathrooms is limited, temporary bathrooms added, Lysol spray at each porto potty, hand sanitizer all over, and a good amount of people wearing masks, how does the virus spread? Obviously, the event is outdoors.

I'm just asking. Not advocating.

 

[gotgame75]

If the crowd is limited to 15,000, fans are staggered and spaced entering the stadium, there is some spacing of seating, tailgating is either not allowed or very limited, the Canyon is either not open or very limited, the number of people entering bathrooms is limited, temporary bathrooms added, Lysol spray at each porto potty, hand sanitizer all over, and a good amount of people wearing masks, how does the virus spread? Obviously, the event is outdoors.

I'm just asking. Not advocating.

Are you serious or being intentionally daft? I honestly think that even you don't believe half the stuff you say and post it strictly for the sake of argument with strangers on a small time college sports message board. What a fulfilling hobby. :clap:

Any effective viral prevention approach is 100% based on the public's ability to willingly follow protocol, which we can see by the current state of the country is not good. "Not good" is an understatement, it's more aptly described as an epic fail. A good portion of the country won't even accept indisputable science as fact. There is no scenario where WA-Griz is going have 15K fans in it this fall. Sorry. Once again, like Trump, pretty much every single one of your prognostications on this virus has failed.

 

[EverettGriz]

To a large extent, I agree with ILTC's comments. However, his post does ignore the impact of the law of large numbers.

Let's say they hold a game at WaGRIZ with 25,000 people. If half of those in attendance were to contract Covid and using a .62% death rate (I haven't researched to determine the validity of that number), 77 people in the stadium that day would die. Nearly 500 GRIZ fans dead by the end of the season. And of course, a fair percentage more would need to be hospitalized. Still willing to chance it?

Maybe so, but also consider this: If each of those who caught the virus infected 3 more people, we're talking nearly 37,000 cases and 230 deaths from each game.

Now, obviously these numbers are overly simplified. But that was done purposely to highlight the point that while the percentages sound small, when you start talking the death of real people, they get much larger in a hurry.

Don’t dispute that EG. Although, because the 55 and over crowd makes up 90% of the deaths, maybe we take that into account and either not let those people attend, or let them make their own choices and understand the risks.

Though if we would do that with a football game, it’s almost as if we could do it in other parts of life as well.

But even if we bar anyone with known risk factors (incidentally, I’ve seen college football fans. I’m not sure we can easily scrape together 15k of those), won’t many of those who contract the virus have contact with at-risk people almost immediately after leaving the stadium? So, while we’ve managed to not kill anyone on game day, we’ve created a massive spreading event in order to kill people later.

 

[PlayerRep]

If the crowd is limited to 15,000, fans are staggered and spaced entering the stadium, there is some spacing of seating, tailgating is either not allowed or very limited, the Canyon is either not open or very limited, the number of people entering bathrooms is limited, temporary bathrooms added, Lysol spray at each porto potty, hand sanitizer all over, and a good amount of people wearing masks, how does the virus spread? Obviously, the event is outdoors.

I'm just asking. Not advocating.

Are you serious or being intentionally daft? I honestly think that even you don't believe half the stuff you say and post it strictly for the sake of argument with strangers on a small time college sports message board. What a fulfilling hobby. :clap:

Any effective viral prevention approach is 100% based on the public's ability to willingly follow protocol, which we can see by the current state of the country is not good. "Not good" is an understatement, it's more aptly described as an epic fail. A good portion of the country won't even accept indisputable science as fact. There is no scenario where WA-Griz is going have 15K fans in it this fall. Sorry. Once again, like Trump, pretty much every single one of your prognostications on this virus has failed.

It was a question. I see that you were unable to answer it.

“Indisputable science” relating to a new virus and pandemic? Now that’s pretty funny.

I have not been making “prognostications”.Missoula hasn’t had a death for 3.5 months, and it’s not because people were Wearing wearing masks and bars and restaurants were closed. Gallatin county has had only one death.

 

[Spanky2]

What about the people that make up 10% of the deaths?

Well in EG’s example that’d less than one person. If you round up I guess it’d be a person. It’d be like 3 people over 85, 2 over 75 and 2 over 65. All the rest we’d add together and round up and we’d muster one other person. Can you imagine if we used this same caution with all other aspects of life?!

I’d be curious how many griz fans die from other causes every season?

I think people should see how many people die even in our small towns every day. Maybe it’d offer a different perspective.

So are you saying it is acceptable to you that one person will die from the virus as a result of attending a football game?

 

[ilovethecats]

Well in EG’s example that’d less than one person. If you round up I guess it’d be a person. It’d be like 3 people over 85, 2 over 75 and 2 over 65. All the rest we’d add together and round up and we’d muster one other person. Can you imagine if we used this same caution with all other aspects of life?!

I’d be curious how many griz fans die from other causes every season?

I think people should see how many people die even in our small towns every day. Maybe it’d offer a different perspective.

So are you saying it is acceptable to you that one person will die from the virus as a result of attending a football game?

I don’t know. Is it “acceptable” that one person dies from anything? Is it “acceptable” that people get hammered at games and drive home? I haven’t seen anyone talking about banning tailgating or even the games themselves.

 

[ilovethecats]

Don’t dispute that EG. Although, because the 55 and over crowd makes up 90% of the deaths, maybe we take that into account and either not let those people attend, or let them make their own choices and understand the risks.

Though if we would do that with a football game, it’s almost as if we could do it in other parts of life as well.

But even if we bar anyone with known risk factors (incidentally, I’ve seen college football fans. I’m not sure we can easily scrape together 15k of those), won’t many of those who contract the virus have contact with at-risk people almost immediately after leaving the stadium? So, while we’ve managed to not kill anyone on game day, we’ve created a massive spreading event in order to kill people later.

How? Shouldn’t those at-risk folks be staying home? You know how we have all these current stipulations for everyone? Or how we locked down everyone because it works? Why can’t vulnerable people continue doing that? If you’re at risk, how can I be a threat to you if you’re staying home, only going out when absolutely necessary, wearing a mask and washing your hands?

I guess I just don’t understand how vulnerable people are in harms way if they stay home and do all the things we’ve all been forced to do since March.

 

[horribilisfan8184]

What about the people that make up 10% of the deaths?

Well in EG’s example that’d less than one person. If you round up I guess it’d be a person. It’d be like 3 people over 85, 2 over 75 and 2 over 65. All the rest we’d add together and round up and we’d muster one other person. Can you imagine if we used this same caution with all other aspects of life?!

I’d be curious how many griz fans die from other causes every season?

I think people should see how many people die even in our small towns every day. Maybe it’d offer a different perspective.

We'd outlaw tailgating at games if that was the case because of the increased risk of death from overintoxication/MVA/slip and fall/parking lot or barfight/pissed off wife/pissed off girl friend/pissed off wife and girl friend accidentally meeting/any alcohol related death not related to covid.

 

[ilovethecats]

Well in EG’s example that’d less than one person. If you round up I guess it’d be a person. It’d be like 3 people over 85, 2 over 75 and 2 over 65. All the rest we’d add together and round up and we’d muster one other person. Can you imagine if we used this same caution with all other aspects of life?!

I’d be curious how many griz fans die from other causes every season?

I think people should see how many people die even in our small towns every day. Maybe it’d offer a different perspective.

We'd outlaw tailgating at games if that was the case because of the increased risk of death from overintoxication/MVA/slip and fall/parking lot or barfight/pissed off wife/pissed off girl friend/pissed off wife and girl friend accidentally meeting/any alcohol related death not related to covid.

Exactly.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

But even if we bar anyone with known risk factors (incidentally, I’ve seen college football fans. I’m not sure we can easily scrape together 15k of those), won’t many of those who contract the virus have contact with at-risk people almost immediately after leaving the stadium? So, while we’ve managed to not kill anyone on game day, we’ve created a massive spreading event in order to kill people later.

How? Shouldn’t those at-risk folks be staying home? You know how we have all these current stipulations for everyone? Or how we locked down everyone because it works? Why can’t vulnerable people continue doing that? If you’re at risk, how can I be a threat to you if you’re staying home, only going out when absolutely necessary, wearing a mask and washing your hands?

I guess I just don’t understand how vulnerable people are in harms way if they stay home and do all the things we’ve all been forced to do since March.

OK Kanye.

 

[EverettGriz]

But even if we bar anyone with known risk factors (incidentally, I’ve seen college football fans. I’m not sure we can easily scrape together 15k of those), won’t many of those who contract the virus have contact with at-risk people almost immediately after leaving the stadium? So, while we’ve managed to not kill anyone on game day, we’ve created a massive spreading event in order to kill people later.

How? Shouldn’t those at-risk folks be staying home? You know how we have all these current stipulations for everyone? Or how we locked down everyone because it works? Why can’t vulnerable people continue doing that? If you’re at risk, how can I be a threat to you if you’re staying home, only going out when absolutely necessary, wearing a mask and washing your hands?

I guess I just don’t understand how vulnerable people are in harms way if they stay home and do all the things we’ve all been forced to do since March.

Because at-risk people still have family members and friends they live with or visit with. And still need to go to the store. And to the doctor's office. And get their car repaired. And take their kids to school if trump gets his way. Having SOME people stay home really isn't all that beneficial, because it doesn't stop the spread of the virus.

All of which of course ignores the philosophical debate one could have about whether it's morally right to essentially say, "Hey, I'm healthy so lets get on with a normal life and fck those of you who cannot. You can just never leave your house, but let's kick this fcker off!! 'Cause by GOD I want my football!!!!"

 

[AZGrizFan]

TNT I tried responding to your PM, but they dont' seem to be working on here right now.

 

[PlayerRep]

How? Shouldn’t those at-risk folks be staying home? You know how we have all these current stipulations for everyone? Or how we locked down everyone because it works? Why can’t vulnerable people continue doing that? If you’re at risk, how can I be a threat to you if you’re staying home, only going out when absolutely necessary, wearing a mask and washing your hands?

I guess I just don’t understand how vulnerable people are in harms way if they stay home and do all the things we’ve all been forced to do since March.

Because at-risk people still have family members and friends they live with or visit with. And still need to go to the store. And to the doctor's office. And get their car repaired. And take their kids to school if trump gets his way. Having SOME people stay home really isn't all that beneficial, because it doesn't stop the spread of the virus.

All of which of course ignores the philosophical debate one could have about whether it's morally right to essentially say, "Hey, I'm healthy so lets get on with a normal life and fck those of you who cannot. You can just never leave your house, but let's kick this fcker off!! 'Cause by GOD I want my football!!!!"

And those family members and friends should be taking steps and precautions to distance from and protect those more vulnerable. In this case, the others can either not go to the game, or can be careful to distance when they are around their more vulnerable family and friends.

Isn't it better that some leave the house, and some don't, and some carry on with commerce and life, then having everyone stay home and allow commerce to completely collapse?

In my view, it is up to the vulnerable to protect themselves, and their families and friends to protect them, but that doesn't mean that everyone stays home. Obviously, some restrictions are necessary to help enforce distancing.

I don't know if schools like UM can get to a feasible plan for football, with any fans, at this point, but I see no reason not to keep trying to figure out something workable and following the progress of the virus. Football without fans would seem to work for big schools with big tv revenue, but perhaps not for schools like UM.

Barring a huge uptick in the virus, I can't imagine that the SEC and Big Ten won't have some type of season. But, we shall see. By the way, I haven't seen, and can't come up with, a plan for 15,000 in Griz stadium. Nevertheless, I'm still waiting for some of you to tell us, exactly, where/how the spread would occur. I'm actually interested in your specific views. It would help inform mine.

By the way, I have been reading some good articles on how the virus is turning out not to be a deadly as first thought, but it does spread more than some viruses but also much less than some viruses like measles. Also, that treatment is much improved, and there are some helpful drugs in treatment.

"Researchers, initially analyzing data from outbreaks on cruise ships and more recently from surveys of thousands of people in virus hot spots, have now conducted dozens of studies to calculate the infection fatality rate of Covid-19.

That research—examining deaths out of the total number of infections, which includes unreported cases—suggests that Covid-19 kills from around 0.3% to 1.5% of people infected. Most studies put the rate between 0.5% and 1.0%, meaning that for every 1,000 people who get infected, from five to 10 would die on average."

[More deadly than the flu, of course, but not for children and younger people.]

Source: Wall St. Journal, today.

Edit: "The number of people infected with the coronavirus in different parts of the United States was anywhere from two to 13 times higher than the reported rates for those regions, according to data released Tuesday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."

"About 40 percent of infected people do not develop symptoms, but they may still pass the virus on to others. The United States now tests roughly 700,000 people a day.

For example, in Missouri, the prevalence of infections as of May 30 was 2.8 percent or 171,000, 13 times the reported rate of 12,956 cases, suggesting that the state missed most people with the virus who might have contributed to its outsized outbreak."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/21/world/coronavirus-covid-19.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage#link-4924e68b

"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported, based on March data, that Covid-19 hospitalizations rise with age, from about 12 per 100,000 people among those 65 to 74 years old to 17 per 100,000 for those over 85. And a large study from England has reported that patients over 80 are at least 20 times more likely to die than those in their 50s.

While the risk of contracting the new coronavirus appears no higher for people over 65, “once you get an infection, the virus is much nastier,” said Dr. Schaffner, an older adult himself."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/17/health/seniors-coronavirus-reopenings.html?surface=home-living-vi&fellback=false&req_id=5037913&algo=identity&imp_id=987338464&action=click&module=Smarter%20Living&pgtype=Homepage

 

[AZGrizFan]

Because at-risk people still have family members and friends they live with or visit with. And still need to go to the store. And to the doctor's office. And get their car repaired. And take their kids to school if trump gets his way. Having SOME people stay home really isn't all that beneficial, because it doesn't stop the spread of the virus.

All of which of course ignores the philosophical debate one could have about whether it's morally right to essentially say, "Hey, I'm healthy so lets get on with a normal life and fck those of you who cannot. You can just never leave your house, but let's kick this fcker off!! 'Cause by GOD I want my football!!!!"

And those family members and friends should be taking steps and precautions to distance from and protect those more vulnerable. In this case, the others can either not go to the game, or can be careful to distance when they are around their more vulnerable family and friends.

Isn't it better that some leave the house, and some don't, and some carry on with commerce and life, then having everyone stay home and allow commerce to completely collapse?

In my view, it is up to the vulnerable to protect themselves, and their families and friends to protect them, but that doesn't mean that everyone stays home. Obviously, some restrictions are necessary to help enforce distancing.

I don't know if schools like UM can get to a feasible plan for football, with any fans, at this point, but I see no reason not to keep trying to figure out something workable and following the progress of the virus. Football without fans would seem to work for big schools with big tv revenue, but perhaps not for schools like UM.

Barring a huge uptick in the virus, I can't imagine that the SEC and Big Ten won't have some type of season. But, we shall see. By the way, I haven't seen, and can't come up with, a plan for 15,000 in Griz stadium. Nevertheless, I'm still waiting for some of you to tell us, exactly, where/how the spread would occur. I'm actually interested in your specific views. It would help inform mine.

By the way, I have been reading some good articles on how the virus is turning out not to be a deadly as first thought, but it does spread more than some viruses but also much less than some viruses like measles. Also, that treatment is much improved, and there are some helpful drugs in treatment.

"Researchers, initially analyzing data from outbreaks on cruise ships and more recently from surveys of thousands of people in virus hot spots, have now conducted dozens of studies to calculate the infection fatality rate of Covid-19.

That research—examining deaths out of the total number of infections, which includes unreported cases—suggests that Covid-19 kills from around 0.3% to 1.5% of people infected. Most studies put the rate between 0.5% and 1.0%, meaning that for every 1,000 people who get infected, from five to 10 would die on average."

[More deadly than the flu, of course, but not for children and younger people.]

Wall St. Journal, today.

yes, heavily heavily skewed to those aged 65+