|
|
Post by fkaboneyard on Jun 25, 2020 10:56:40 GMT -6
I don't know what the answer is and I'm glad that I will be deer hunting this fall instead of coaching. But a couple thoughts -
1 - I think we've all had teams where one kid gets the stomach flu and it spreads like wildfire through the team. I coached on a team where it happened, kids were squirting mud like a goose on the bus ride to the game, we ended up forfeiting. So a mass infection among teammates can certainly happen, I think.
2 - As far as being an older coach and being around sick players - I always marveled that coaches don't seem to catch stuff from the kids. Even in the above example we didn't. And we're in close contact with the kids, demonstrating drills, holding bags, DRINKING FROM THE SAME WATER BOTTLES, etc. After practice there was always a procession of players walking by the coaches and shaking hands. Those hands were covered in sweat, snot, some blood... and I expect a fair amount of feces and ball cheese.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachklee on Jun 25, 2020 12:30:33 GMT -6
Maybe I'm just blending the two in my head then. I'm just very alarmed that so many people are being so selfish. I agree with the above poster that this has been a great discussion with a variety of perspectives.... IMO it is ok for some to believe that we should not have sports or other activities that they deem are high risk (football included) I also believe it is ok for some to believe that the risk of not having sports or other activities (football included) may have greater consequences to people and society then the virus. I'm not choosing a side but certainly not assuming that one side is "too soft" or the other side is "uncaring for other humans and selfish" The reality is none of us know what the "RIGHT" thing to do is, heck the medical experts seemingly don't know at this time, if there was a simplistic solution (well known working vaccine readily available) we would all do it however, there isn't and won't be anytime soon. States, Political Leaders, and individual people will make these decisions on a day to day basis and it will continue to change. In future decades we will be able to look back and decide which ones were the correct ones and which ones had a negative impact. Until then, I'm going to sit back and take in information and hold off judgement regardless of what others opinions are. Well said. |
|
|
|
Post by kylem56 on Jun 25, 2020 13:13:16 GMT -6
I agree with the above poster that this has been a great discussion with a variety of perspectives.... IMO it is ok for some to believe that we should not have sports or other activities that they deem are high risk (football included) I also believe it is ok for some to believe that the risk of not having sports or other activities (football included) may have greater consequences to people and society then the virus. I'm not choosing a side but certainly not assuming that one side is "too soft" or the other side is "uncaring for other humans and selfish" The reality is none of us know what the "RIGHT" thing to do is, heck the medical experts seemingly don't know at this time, if there was a simplistic solution (well known working vaccine readily available) we would all do it however, there isn't and won't be anytime soon. States, Political Leaders, and individual people will make these decisions on a day to day basis and it will continue to change. In future decades we will be able to look back and decide which ones were the correct ones and which ones had a negative impact. Until then, I'm going to sit back and take in information and hold off judgement regardless of what others opinions are. Well said. Agreed. Alot of armchair doctors and lawyers out there right now. I will leave out all the political crap going on. Thank God my son is too young to read stuff on the internet, it is a depressing time to turn on the news or read it online. I can tell you from my day to day experience, our 60+ kids who we do outdoor workouts with, following protcols, have directly said they would rather be doing sprints in the June heat than sitting home quarantined again. They want to be in school and realize they took so much for granted. For us as coaches, this is a great time to model the belief "only focus on what you can control in life" because right now not a single one of us can control this stuff, but we can model to our kids what we CAN do and be grateful for what we CAN do. This is "how will you respond to adversity" for everyone... |
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jun 25, 2020 13:47:15 GMT -6
To the extent that happens, that's a good thing, reducing demand at the hot spot and helping spread the virus (along with immunity to it) rapidly across the globe. Unfortunately the people who would most want to do that are those who are sick and in no condition to drive. However, relocating them to another center would be a way to deal with the overflow. Bob..you do realize that in order to achieve "herd" immunity you keep espousing, EXPERTS (not chemists/youth football coaches) say that over 70% of the population would need to be infected. If only half of one percent of those who test positive (1 out of every 200 positive cases) die, that would be over 1,000,000 deaths in United States. We are not even close to those levels, and will not be barring a catastrophic health event. Based on the current US data, which I agree has some issues... right now about 5% of the positive cases have resulted in death. It won't even be 0.5%. The main reason a high percentage of known infections have died is that, except for a few studies, the only people who've been tested have been those who were sick. If you get infected but not sick, you get the immunity and no chance of dying (from that; you could still get run over, of course). The percentage of those who die out of those getting infected keeps being revised downward, and nobody now thinks it'll come out as high as 0.5% in the general population. Another reason the death rate was higher initially is that some treatments were tried on severe cases that we now know to have been counterproductive, like use of a respirator. Respirators are hardly ever life-saving in pneumonias, and probably killed some people who would've otherwise recovered. But even if getting there did kill a million, do you have an alternative that kills fewer? Now that SARS-CoV2 isn't so new any more, we're not learning new things about it as quickly as before, so a medical breakthru is increasingly unlikely. And I do consider myself an expert in this subject area, not just a biochemist and youth football coach. I've been more than halfway thru medical school, been a hemodialysis tech, and have worked on medical devices. Lately a lot of my work has been in virology and immunology. And I know enough to know that the percentage of the population who need to be individually immune to produce herd immunity is unknown in the case of SARS-CoV2; 70% is a rough guess. It would be most important to achieve immunity among those who have the most, and most intimate, personal contacts, such as schoolchildren, armed forces, and health workers. The older the average person in the population, the fewer contacts they tend to have, and therefore the fewer of them need to be immune to break epidemics. Anyway, we don't know what percentage of the population is already immune. It's likely that one of the reasons transmission has slowed down in places like the New York metro area is that a large enough number of those with many contacts have already been infected there to get them close to complete herd immunity. Herd immunity isn't an all-or-nothing proposition. |
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jun 25, 2020 13:53:37 GMT -6
I am wondering how many HCs are thinking about what if we DO have games from a coaching stand point this fall. What happens if the HC tests positive or one of the coordinators? What happens if a trainer or a manager tests positive? If one of the players test positive? Do you test or quarantine the entire team and forfeit the next week or two? Have you cross trained your staff? We are back to team conditioning but I just can’t see how this works out to having a season. I am now of the mindset that there won’t be a season but since it hasn’t been canceled the ruling body feels we need to prepare for it even though the chances of playing this season are slim at best. Here is a list of college teams that have had athlete test positive for Covid www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2020/06/21/coronavirus-college-sports-schools-reporting-positive-covid-tests-among-athletes/3231509001/Interesting, thanks. The article reported for a few of the colleges how many had symptoms, and in those reports the great majority had none. And symptoms could be just the sniffles. This is very good news. This virus has the characteristics of one that, by 20th Century standards, could've been a vaccine! Not a great vaccine, but one that would've been pretty good to give to young people to prevent a serious illness late in life. Of course it would've come with a warning not to use on debilitated persons. |
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Jun 25, 2020 14:21:05 GMT -6
Bob..you do realize that in order to achieve "herd" immunity you keep espousing, EXPERTS (not chemists/youth football coaches) say that over 70% of the population would need to be infected. If only half of one percent of those who test positive (1 out of every 200 positive cases) die, that would be over 1,000,000 deaths in United States. We are not even close to those levels, and will not be barring a catastrophic health event. Based on the current US data, which I agree has some issues... right now about 5% of the positive cases have resulted in death. It won't even be 0.5%. The main reason a high percentage of known infections have died is that, except for a few studies, the only people who've been tested have been those who were sick. If you get infected but not sick, you get the immunity and no chance of dying (from that; you could still get run over, of course). The percentage of those who die out of those getting infected keeps being revised downward, and nobody now thinks it'll come out as high as 0.5% in the general population. Another reason the death rate was higher initially is that some treatments were tried on severe cases that we now know to have been counterproductive, like use of a respirator. Respirators are hardly ever life-saving in pneumonias, and probably killed some people who would've otherwise recovered. But even if getting there did kill a million, do you have an alternative that kills fewer? Now that SARS-CoV2 isn't so new any more, we're not learning new things about it as quickly as before, so a medical breakthru is increasingly unlikely. And I do consider myself an expert in this subject area, not just a biochemist and youth football coach. I've been more than halfway thru medical school, been a hemodialysis tech, and have worked on medical devices. Lately a lot of my work has been in virology and immunology. And I know enough to know that the percentage of the population who need to be individually immune to produce herd immunity is unknown in the case of SARS-CoV2; 70% is a rough guess. It would be most important to achieve immunity among those who have the most, and most intimate, personal contacts, such as schoolchildren, armed forces, and health workers. The older the average person in the population, the fewer contacts they tend to have, and therefore the fewer of them need to be immune to break epidemics. Anyway, we don't know what percentage of the population is already immune. It's likely that one of the reasons transmission has slowed down in places like the New York metro area is that a large enough number of those with many contacts have already been infected there to get them close to complete herd immunity. Herd immunity isn't an all-or-nothing proposition. Fairly prescient timing. CDC just announced that they estimate (based on antibody testing) that the total number of Americans to have had Covid -19 is 10x higher than the number of known cases: www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/06/25/coronavirus-update-record-new-cases-florida-california-texas-trump/3254119001/Which, if true, moves the mortality rate to about 0.5% |
|
|
|
Really?
Jun 25, 2020 16:18:44 GMT -6
Mav likes this
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 25, 2020 16:18:44 GMT -6
Bob..you do realize that in order to achieve "herd" immunity you keep espousing, EXPERTS (not chemists/youth football coaches) say that over 70% of the population would need to be infected. If only half of one percent of those who test positive (1 out of every 200 positive cases) die, that would be over 1,000,000 deaths in United States. We are not even close to those levels, and will not be barring a catastrophic health event. Based on the current US data, which I agree has some issues... right now about 5% of the positive cases have resulted in death. And I do consider myself an expert in this subject area, not just a biochemist and youth football coach. I've been more than halfway thru medical school, been a hemodialysis tech, and have worked on medical devices. Lately a lot of my work has been in virology and immunology. So then, what would you call someone who went ALL the way through medical school instead of partial attendance, and spent the vast majority if not all of their career as opposed to "lately lots of my work" dealing with virology and epidemiology? Like the people helping advice policy on this? Would they be "super duper" experts? I appreciate the hopeful optimism, but you do realize you come off here like the guy who played HS ball and coached a little league team saying that the Varsity coach doesn't know what he is doing.. |
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jun 25, 2020 18:17:36 GMT -6
And I do consider myself an expert in this subject area, not just a biochemist and youth football coach. I've been more than halfway thru medical school, been a hemodialysis tech, and have worked on medical devices. Lately a lot of my work has been in virology and immunology. So then, what would you call someone who went ALL the way through medical school instead of partial attendance, and spent the vast majority if not all of their career as opposed to "lately lots of my work" dealing with virology and epidemiology? Like the people helping advice policy on this? Would they be "super duper" experts? I appreciate the hopeful optimism, but you do realize you come off here like the guy who played HS ball and coached a little league team saying that the Varsity coach doesn't know what he is doing.. No, I'm the guy who played school ball and coached Little League saying somebody telling me what he read in the newspaper that the varsity coach said doesn't know the subject as well as me. If we were together at a conference on the subject, I'm the one who'd know the pertinent questions to ask the presenters, and then you'd get a better idea of the subject. Not only that, but I've attended some conferences on this subject virtually, and I know the experts don't all agree on their projections and recommendations. Plus, I know there's a built-in bias presenters have collectively, which is to overestimate the importance of whatever it is they're presenting. Doesn't matter whether it's football or medicine, that tilt is operating -- not in every case, but on average. On top of that, there's the fact that only one question at a time gets asked, only one area of expertise gets put in play at a time. You ask someone about contagion, they'll tell you the truth, which is that you, as an individual, can't catch a contagious disease if you isolate yourself. You can only increase your risk by exposing yourself more. And some people will die from some other cause if they can just delay long enough catching this virus. So if that's the only question being asked, you'll never get an answer other than isolation (forever). But you didn't ask them about what's best for society, or even for your health overall, because they're not experts on that. You didn't ask how long you'll need to be isolated, because they can't answer that, they know only that to not catch a virus now, you've got to stay away from people now. Ask them later, they'll tell you the same. |
|
|
|
Really?
Jun 25, 2020 18:26:22 GMT -6
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 25, 2020 18:26:22 GMT -6
So then, what would you call someone who went ALL the way through medical school instead of partial attendance, and spent the vast majority if not all of their career as opposed to "lately lots of my work" dealing with virology and epidemiology? Like the people helping advice policy on this? Would they be "super duper" experts? I appreciate the hopeful optimism, but you do realize you come off here like the guy who played HS ball and coached a little league team saying that the Varsity coach doesn't know what he is doing.. No, I'm the guy who played school ball and coached Little League saying somebody telling me what he read in the newspaper that the varsity coach said doesn't know the subject as well as me. If we were together at a conference on the subject, I'm the one who'd know the pertinent questions to ask the presenters, and then you'd get a better idea of the subject. Not only that, but I've attended some conferences on this subject virtually, and I know the experts don't all agree on their projections and recommendations. Plus, I know there's a built-in bias presenters have collectively, which is to overestimate the importance of whatever it is they're presenting. Doesn't matter whether it's football or medicine, that tilt is operating -- not in every case, but on average. On top of that, there's the fact that only one question at a time gets asked, only one area of expertise gets put in play at a time. You ask someone about contagion, they'll tell you the truth, which is that you, as an individual, can't catch a contagious disease if you isolate yourself. You can only increase your risk by exposing yourself more. And some people will die from some other cause if they can just delay long enough catching this virus. So if that's the only question being asked, you'll never get an answer other than isolation (forever). But you didn't ask them about what's best for society, or even for your health overall, because they're not experts on that. You didn't ask how long you'll need to be isolated, because they can't answer that, they know only that to not catch a virus now, you've got to stay away from people now. Ask them later, they'll tell you the same. Point of fact. You are saying that the information directly quoted from the Varsity Coach, and Advice being given, statements being made by the varsity coach...isn't as knowledgeable on the subject as you are. I don't disagree with the supposition that the problem is much more complex, and that a medical viewpoint is only one viewpoint. Nor am I suggesting that this viewpoint is best for society. I am saying that the people who went through medical school and spent their careers in virology and epidemiology are the ones saying 70% infections to start realizing herd immunity, as opposed to your opinion on the subject. |
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on Jun 25, 2020 19:21:45 GMT -6
Yes it should be an option to go to school... yes it should be an option to participate in sports... yes it should be an option to do neither...
Consequences to both... entire generation of young people losing 10% or maybe more of their educations and people losing jobs/businesses will have consequences on our society in the long-term. Poverty, unstable surroundings, and lack of positive social interaction will cause all kinds of issues.
Living life and understanding that we are not exempt from the laws of nature, so trying to go "ostrich" and bury our heads in the sand every time something is kinda scary isn't something I'm gonna do. If parents want their kids to miss out on a year of their childhood then let them do it. I don't want my 2 kids to miss out on life. If I have to go and that gets my kids 1 more year of their life... i'm all for it.
|
|
|
|
Really?
Jun 25, 2020 21:22:39 GMT -6
Post by bobgoodman on Jun 25, 2020 21:22:39 GMT -6
Point of fact. You are saying that the information directly quoted from the Varsity Coach, and Advice being given, statements being made by the varsity coach...isn't as knowledgeable on the subject as you are. Thirdhand info gets distorted and lacks context, especially when the messengers don't understand the material like the speaker does. "The people" -- like you know them all and they're unanimous. You probably never even heard of "herd immunity" until recently. I learned about it in med school Microbiology in the 1970s, and I think I have a better understanding of it than you. I know enough to know that it's a continuous function of the fraction of the population who are immune; it has some effect even when only a small percentage is immune. There is no such thing as something called "herd immunity" that a population either has or doesn't have. It's a matter of degree. Herd immunity came up, as the word implies, initially in animal husbandry. It came into (human) medical usage when vaccines started to be produced and administered that were only partially effective in individuals. Of course no vaccine is 100% effective in any individual, but many of them were so close to 100% effective that individual immunity is all the protection someone needed with them. Get immunized by such means, and it doesn't matter whether the people around you are immune, you're still safe. But what if a vaccine is only partly effective? As more and more vaccines for more and more diseases have been created, we're getting less and less effective ones on the market. (The old ones are as effective as ever.) If it's administered to a "herd", then the protection of any individual in that herd is better than the effectiveness of the vaccine on individuals would imply, because there'd be less of the infectious agent going around. But this is true even if only some in the herd are immunized. I've seen experts quoted with opinions re the herd immunization effect of Covid-19 ranging from 30% to 70% of the population as being needed to eventually stop the virus from circulating -- though it would slow down somewhat as more people are infected even short of that percentage. That is, 70% is the highest of the expert estimates I've heard. These are all based on simulations whereby M% of people are expected to have X number of contacts, N% to have Y number, etc., and on assumptions regarding how easy the virus is to transmit. Regardless, how does this number, which you now seem to regard as important, affect the consideration of whether it's good or bad to encourage the spread of SARS-CoV2 in the general population? Whatever the number is, it will eventually be attained (unless we slow down transmission so much that it circulates forever, because more people are born as fast as they contract it, or it develops a major animal reservoir), and I'm saying it'd be good to attain it sooner rather than later -- and of course because herd immunity is a continuous function, rather than yes-or-no, it is good to increase the percentage at any rate. |
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Jun 25, 2020 21:30:51 GMT -6
Yes it should be an option to go to school... yes it should be an option to participate in sports... yes it should be an option to do neither... Consequences to both... entire generation of young people losing 10% or maybe more of their educations and people losing jobs/businesses will have consequences on our society in the long-term. Poverty, unstable surroundings, and lack of positive social interaction will cause all kinds of issues. Living life and understanding that we are not exempt from the laws of nature, so trying to go "ostrich" and bury our heads in the sand every time something is kinda scary isn't something I'm gonna do. If parents want their kids to miss out on a year of their childhood then let them do it. I don't want my 2 kids to miss out on life. If I have to go and that gets my kids 1 more year of their life... i'm all for it. I'm not electing my kid to miss out on "life." Just football. There are are plenty of other social, fun activities that he could engage in that are not nearly as unsafe in this environment as football. Fall baseball is still a sport, and far less risky than spending two hours a day breathing and snotting all over some other kid he's leaning on in drills or in a game. Football is pretty much the least socially-distancing activity that you can engage in. It's the exact opposite of everything we've been advised to do. We spent 3 months working from home and exercising caution for what? To get spit and blood in his face for two hours a day while the pandemic still rages on? Seems kinda dumb to me, and would feel like we wasted the last 3 months we sacrificed Being careful, just because "FOOTALL RULZ!!! Let's goooooo BABY! Stick someone out there!!!" I dont know. Maybe I'm just soft now. But I sure as hell care more about my family's safety than participating in some game. BTW- our state just announced today that our East-West All-Star Game that was scheduled for Aug is cancelled. First shots have already been fired it looks like. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Really?
Jun 25, 2020 21:36:58 GMT -6
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2020 21:36:58 GMT -6
Yes it should be an option to go to school... yes it should be an option to participate in sports... yes it should be an option to do neither... Consequences to both... entire generation of young people losing 10% or maybe more of their educations and people losing jobs/businesses will have consequences on our society in the long-term. Poverty, unstable surroundings, and lack of positive social interaction will cause all kinds of issues. Living life and understanding that we are not exempt from the laws of nature, so trying to go "ostrich" and bury our heads in the sand every time something is kinda scary isn't something I'm gonna do. If parents want their kids to miss out on a year of their childhood then let them do it. I don't want my 2 kids to miss out on life. If I have to go and that gets my kids 1 more year of their life... i'm all for it. I'm not electing my kid to miss out on "life." Just football. There are are plenty of other social, fun activities that he could engage in that are not nearly as unsafe in this environment as football. Fall baseball is still a sport, and far less risky than spending two hours a day breathing and snotting all over some other kid he's leaning on in drills or in a game. Football is pretty much the least socially-distancing activity that you can engage in. It's the exact opposite of everything we've been advised to do. We spent 3 months working from home and exercising caution for what? To get spit and blood in his face for two hours a day while the pandemic still rages on? Seems kinda dumb to me, and would feel like we wasted the last 3 months we sacrificed Being careful, just because "FOOTALL RULZ!!! Let's goooooo BABY! Stick someone out there!!!" I dont know. Maybe I'm just soft now. But I sure as hell care more about my family's safety than participating in some game. BTW- our state just announced today that our East-West All-Star Game that was scheduled for Aug is cancelled. First shots have already been fired it looks like. You are not going to be doing a whole lot with 6ft and a mask. |
|
|
|
Really?
Jun 25, 2020 21:40:34 GMT -6
Post by lochness on Jun 25, 2020 21:40:34 GMT -6
I'm not electing my kid to miss out on "life." Just football. There are are plenty of other social, fun activities that he could engage in that are not nearly as unsafe in this environment as football. Fall baseball is still a sport, and far less risky than spending two hours a day breathing and snotting all over some other kid he's leaning on in drills or in a game. Football is pretty much the least socially-distancing activity that you can engage in. It's the exact opposite of everything we've been advised to do. We spent 3 months working from home and exercising caution for what? To get spit and blood in his face for two hours a day while the pandemic still rages on? Seems kinda dumb to me, and would feel like we wasted the last 3 months we sacrificed Being careful, just because "FOOTALL RULZ!!! Let's goooooo BABY! Stick someone out there!!!" I dont know. Maybe I'm just soft now. But I sure as hell care more about my family's safety than participating in some game. BTW- our state just announced today that our East-West All-Star Game that was scheduled for Aug is cancelled. First shots have already been fired it looks like. You are not going to be doing a whole lot with 6ft and a mask. Not sure what this is supposed to mean. |
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Jun 25, 2020 22:05:11 GMT -6
If I get your meaning.......
This isn't an "all or nothing" argument. There are a massive amount of activities that are far safer and less risky than what football demands when it comes to Covid. People acting like the "no football" decision means the end of all socialization and physical activities can't possibly be that obtuse. C'mon. It's a matter of degrees. And football is an extreme. Our love for it doesn't change facts or risks suddenly.
Just this summer- we've done fishing, hiking, canoeing, laser tag, nerf guns, swimming, and little league baseball. Any of those are completely reasonable and active social activities, and infinitely better alternatives to what is necessary for football.
I can't see why we'd want to play football in these conditions, other than because of our own self-importance or other selfish reasons.
I don't like it either...but it's just reality as I see it. My heart and my emotions don't really matter when it comes to logic and reality. "DEM BOYZ NEED US AND NEED TEH FOOTBALL AND THEY WORKED SO DANG HARD" just doesn't seem to cut it for me as a rational, logical excuse for throwing caution to the wind so carelessly.
Again, maybe I'm just soft and uneducated.
Know what? I can live with that.
But can we live with knowing that we soldiered on in the glorious name of football, and some kid's whole family all got sick? Parents had to self-quarantine from a job that doesn't allow working from home and lost income? Grandparents got dangerously ill? 15 kids on my team all got sick, and...oh yeah....15 kids on each of our last two opponents teams did too? And now the school is completely shut down again and everyone is back home, doing remote learning and the parents have to figure all that out again? Because that's what will happen if 65 frigging kids that breathe on each other every day for 2 hours straight get exposed to this frigging thing.
Why? Because we wanted to see how awesome our Cover Blue scheme works with all the studs we have coming back in the secondary this season?
I don't know dudes.....I really don't.
Like I said, I'm happy to be the unpopular a-hole of the board on this topic. I get it. But I hope it causes us to think a little about what we're really fighting for.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2020 23:07:00 GMT -6
If I get your meaning....... This isn't an "all or nothing" argument. There are a massive amount of activities that are far safer and less risky than what football demands when it comes to Covid. People acting like the "no football" decision means the end of all socialization and physical activities can't possibly be that obtuse. C'mon. It's a matter of degrees. And football is an extreme. Our love for it doesn't change facts or risks suddenly. Just this summer- we've done fishing, hiking, canoeing, laser tag, nerf guns, swimming, and little league baseball. Any of those are completely reasonable and active social activities, and infinitely better alternatives to what is necessary for football. I can't see why we'd want to play football in these conditions, other than because of our own self-importance or other selfish reasons. I don't like it either...but it's just reality as I see it. My heart and my emotions don't really matter when it comes to logic and reality. "DEM BOYZ NEED US AND NEED TEH FOOTBALL AND THEY WORKED SO DANG HARD" just doesn't seem to cut it for me as a rational, logical excuse for throwing caution to the wind so carelessly. Again, maybe I'm just soft and uneducated. Know what? I can live with that. But can we live with knowing that we soldiered on in the glorious name of football, and some kid's whole family all got sick? Parents had to self-quarantine from a job that doesn't allow working from home and lost income? Grandparents got dangerously ill? 15 kids on my team all got sick, and...oh yeah....15 kids on each of our last two opponents teams did too? And now the school is completely shut down again and everyone is back home, doing remote learning and the parents have to figure all that out again? Because that's what will happen if 65 frigging kids that breathe on each other every day for 2 hours straight get exposed to this frigging thing. Why? Because we wanted to see how awesome our Cover Blue scheme works with all the studs we have coming back in the secondary this season? I don't know dudes.....I really don't. Like I said, I'm happy to be the unpopular a-hole of the board on this topic. I get it. But I hope it causes us to think a little about what we're really fighting for. Baseball violates 6 ft and safety, my guess is laser tag does as well. The virus came from water part areas so fishing and swimming isnt exactly risk free. And none of your activities are safe if we dont know the cause or how its transmitted. And we dont. if it was just about football, that is one thing. Shut it down. But this is way beyond football. You dont who used what facilities, what they are touching, who is touching what....so by logic and reason, you are endangering your family, friend and society. So when do you want to go back to living? What if there is no vaccine? By logic and reason we are duty bound to stop activities. Not that it will happen though. Has nothing to do with being soft or hard or educated or uneducated. It is as you said logic and reason. |
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Jun 25, 2020 23:34:58 GMT -6
Yes it should be an option to go to school... yes it should be an option to participate in sports... yes it should be an option to do neither... Consequences to both... entire generation of young people losing 10% or maybe more of their educations and people losing jobs/businesses will have consequences on our society in the long-term. Poverty, unstable surroundings, and lack of positive social interaction will cause all kinds of issues. Living life and understanding that we are not exempt from the laws of nature, so trying to go "ostrich" and bury our heads in the sand every time something is kinda scary isn't something I'm gonna do. If parents want their kids to miss out on a year of their childhood then let them do it. I don't want my 2 kids to miss out on life. If I have to go and that gets my kids 1 more year of their life... i'm all for it. I agree that people should have a choice, the issue is there are many people who feel we shouldnt have a choice because this is a highly communicable disease. And, in their opinion, your unwillingness to self-isolate put others at risk. |
|
|
|
Post by CS on Jun 26, 2020 3:26:22 GMT -6
If I get your meaning....... This isn't an "all or nothing" argument. There are a massive amount of activities that are far safer and less risky than what football demands when it comes to Covid. People acting like the "no football" decision means the end of all socialization and physical activities can't possibly be that obtuse. C'mon. It's a matter of degrees. And football is an extreme. Our love for it doesn't change facts or risks suddenly. Just this summer- we've done fishing, hiking, canoeing, laser tag, nerf guns, swimming, and little league baseball. Any of those are completely reasonable and active social activities, and infinitely better alternatives to what is necessary for football. I can't see why we'd want to play football in these conditions, other than because of our own self-importance or other selfish reasons. I don't like it either...but it's just reality as I see it. My heart and my emotions don't really matter when it comes to logic and reality. "DEM BOYZ NEED US AND NEED TEH FOOTBALL AND THEY WORKED SO DANG HARD" just doesn't seem to cut it for me as a rational, logical excuse for throwing caution to the wind so carelessly. Again, maybe I'm just soft and uneducated. Know what? I can live with that. But can we live with knowing that we soldiered on in the glorious name of football, and some kid's whole family all got sick? Parents had to self-quarantine from a job that doesn't allow working from home and lost income? Grandparents got dangerously ill? 15 kids on my team all got sick, and...oh yeah....15 kids on each of our last two opponents teams did too? And now the school is completely shut down again and everyone is back home, doing remote learning and the parents have to figure all that out again? Because that's what will happen if 65 frigging kids that breathe on each other every day for 2 hours straight get exposed to this frigging thing. Why? Because we wanted to see how awesome our Cover Blue scheme works with all the studs we have coming back in the secondary this season? I don't know dudes.....I really don't. Like I said, I'm happy to be the unpopular a-hole of the board on this topic. I get it. But I hope it causes us to think a little about what we're really fighting for. Baseball violates 6 ft and safety, my guess is laser tag does as well. The virus came from water part areas so fishing and swimming isnt exactly risk free. And none of your activities are safe if we dont know the cause or how its transmitted. And we dont. if it was just about football, that is one thing. Shut it down. But this is way beyond football. You dont who used what facilities, what they are touching, who is touching what....so by logic and reason, you are endangering your family, friend and society. So when do you want to go back to living? What if there is no vaccine? By logic and reason we are duty bound to stop activities. Not that it will happen though. Has nothing to do with being soft or hard or educated or uneducated. It is as you said logic and reason. You’re a fuking anomaly to me. You make 200 posts that make no sense and 1 that is really well thought out. Never seen it. Good post |
|
|
|
Really?
Jun 26, 2020 4:28:30 GMT -6
Post by coachjm on Jun 26, 2020 4:28:30 GMT -6
I am saying that the people who went through medical school and spent their careers in virology and epidemiology are the ones saying 70% infections to start realizing herd immunity, as opposed to your opinion on the subject. Here is an article that states herd immunity may be achieved at a lower rate. I'm not an expert but I do appreciate Bobgoodman because although he may not have the credentials of Dr. Fauci he does have greater knowledge them me on the topic. Also I appreciate the other thoughts and opposing views on this board as ultimately, there are very important decisions that will be made by many individuals. To make the decision to play football during a pandemic could lead to further outbreak and additional death. It could also be a minimal risk with a mostly low risk population. In addition to this their may be spread in this low risk population that helps us get closer to herd immunity which if a vaccine becomes available allows us to utilize the majority of the doses on high risk and high exposure populations that likely will be vaccinated prior to our low risk population does(this will happen no matter what). Certainly not the only option and being in a state (Michigan) who has had the most restrictive stay at home orders in the Country and us still having an uptick in cases it does make me believe that the mitigation methods we are utilizing will NOT have a long term benefit only prolong the time it takes for us reach herd immunity (after a vaccine) and in turn potentially cause more death as it will yield more time for our most vulnerable to be exposed to the disease. I also believe that many people including our most vulnerable only have so much tolerance for the self isolation which not only adds to other health issues but also leads this population to greater exposure as they are fed up. Bobgoodmans views have altered my perspective on this topic.... Originally, my view was, I don't know, lets not make any decisions on this until August as things have changed so much month to month... Now I'm leaning with his perspective... Certainly someone else could make some very sound arguments that get me to lean the other way. However, no matter my view it likely will have zero impact on the final decisions for football in the fall and I'm thankful for that because it isn't an easy decision as their are risks for any final outcome. |
|
|
|
Post by wingtol on Jun 26, 2020 6:50:49 GMT -6
Few things I have seen in the last few days here:
They did a study at our sewage treatment plant and said the results show there should be about 24,000 cases in our city/county or whatever area poops and it ends up there. We have 100 right now. So....
Our school district is planning on being open every day for every student....with options to stay home or come whenever. And we are going to follow guidelines from CDC I believe in the schools. We bus a TON of kids to school every day. Now we are limited to like 20 kids on a bus. So like 15 HS kids in a room who don't leave that room all day. In a school of 1800 kids. In the inner-city. So basically in-person cyber school for the HS kids at this point. So...
With all this I find it hard to believe that in about a months time we are going to be told "Alright strap 'em up and start hitting!!!" The district I teach in hasn't even approved a return to sports policy yet even though state association said it's okay. Who knows how long that will be "in legal being looked at" as people have been told.
Don't hold your breath on a season as much as I want one. Just saw school in Houston area shutting down S/C till July 13th or so now.
|
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Jun 26, 2020 7:05:46 GMT -6
If I get your meaning....... This isn't an "all or nothing" argument. There are a massive amount of activities that are far safer and less risky than what football demands when it comes to Covid. People acting like the "no football" decision means the end of all socialization and physical activities can't possibly be that obtuse. C'mon. It's a matter of degrees. And football is an extreme. Our love for it doesn't change facts or risks suddenly. Just this summer- we've done fishing, hiking, canoeing, laser tag, nerf guns, swimming, and little league baseball. Any of those are completely reasonable and active social activities, and infinitely better alternatives to what is necessary for football. I can't see why we'd want to play football in these conditions, other than because of our own self-importance or other selfish reasons. I don't like it either...but it's just reality as I see it. My heart and my emotions don't really matter when it comes to logic and reality. "DEM BOYZ NEED US AND NEED TEH FOOTBALL AND THEY WORKED SO DANG HARD" just doesn't seem to cut it for me as a rational, logical excuse for throwing caution to the wind so carelessly. Again, maybe I'm just soft and uneducated. Know what? I can live with that. But can we live with knowing that we soldiered on in the glorious name of football, and some kid's whole family all got sick? Parents had to self-quarantine from a job that doesn't allow working from home and lost income? Grandparents got dangerously ill? 15 kids on my team all got sick, and...oh yeah....15 kids on each of our last two opponents teams did too? And now the school is completely shut down again and everyone is back home, doing remote learning and the parents have to figure all that out again? Because that's what will happen if 65 frigging kids that breathe on each other every day for 2 hours straight get exposed to this frigging thing. Why? Because we wanted to see how awesome our Cover Blue scheme works with all the studs we have coming back in the secondary this season? I don't know dudes.....I really don't. Like I said, I'm happy to be the unpopular a-hole of the board on this topic. I get it. But I hope it causes us to think a little about what we're really fighting for. Baseball violates 6 ft and safety, my guess is laser tag does as well. The virus came from water part areas so fishing and swimming isnt exactly risk free. And none of your activities are safe if we dont know the cause or how its transmitted. And we dont. if it was just about football, that is one thing. Shut it down. But this is way beyond football. You dont who used what facilities, what they are touching, who is touching what....so by logic and reason, you are endangering your family, friend and society. So when do you want to go back to living? What if there is no vaccine? By logic and reason we are duty bound to stop activities. Not that it will happen though. Has nothing to do with being soft or hard or educated or uneducated. It is as you said logic and reason. Are you really trying to compare fishing, laser tag and baseball with football in terms of the degree of risk associated with an activity? I opened my post by saying that this is about degrees of severity. S#it, any activity is risky. I suppose I could be incurring risk going to get the mail. But that's not my point, I'm quite sure you know it, and I think I've made my point pretty clear: football is about the riskiest activity you can engage in right now. Anyone who doesn't see that is purposefully blinding themselves for their own purposes. You ask: "When do you want to go back to living?" I'm trying not to laugh at that. We are living. Leaving football out of our lives for one year in the name of doing what's prudent doesn't equate to a fate worse than death, at least not for me. In fact, it's a laughable concept. I can see it isnt so for some, though. But heck, let's strap them up! I don't wanna be bored this fall, and we have the chance of having a special group this year |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Really?
Jun 26, 2020 7:09:53 GMT -6
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2020 7:09:53 GMT -6
Baseball violates 6 ft and safety, my guess is laser tag does as well. The virus came from water part areas so fishing and swimming isnt exactly risk free. And none of your activities are safe if we dont know the cause or how its transmitted. And we dont. if it was just about football, that is one thing. Shut it down. But this is way beyond football. You dont who used what facilities, what they are touching, who is touching what....so by logic and reason, you are endangering your family, friend and society. So when do you want to go back to living? What if there is no vaccine? By logic and reason we are duty bound to stop activities. Not that it will happen though. Has nothing to do with being soft or hard or educated or uneducated. It is as you said logic and reason. Are you really trying to compare fishing, laser tag and baseball with football in terms of the degree of risk associated with an activity? I opened my post by saying that this is about degrees of severity. S#it, any activity is risky. I suppose I could be incurring risk going to get the mail. But that's not my point, I'm quite sure you know it, and I think I've made my point pretty clear: football is about the riskiest activity you can engage in right now. Anyone who doesn't see that is purposefully blinding themselves for their own purposes. You ask: "When do you want to go back to living?" I'm trying not to laugh at that. We are living. Leaving football out of our lives for one year in the name of doing what's prudent doesn't equate to a fate worse than death, at least not for me. In fact, it's a laughable concept. I can see it isnt so for some, though. I am not comparing anything to anything....your logic and reason, football or not, is faulty. I watch current events and can see football is off the table. And I am not sure we are getting football back. Doesn’t take a lot. |
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Jun 26, 2020 7:29:58 GMT -6
Are you really trying to compare fishing, laser tag and baseball with football in terms of the degree of risk associated with an activity? I opened my post by saying that this is about degrees of severity. S#it, any activity is risky. I suppose I could be incurring risk going to get the mail. But that's not my point, I'm quite sure you know it, and I think I've made my point pretty clear: football is about the riskiest activity you can engage in right now. Anyone who doesn't see that is purposefully blinding themselves for their own purposes. You ask: "When do you want to go back to living?" I'm trying not to laugh at that. We are living. Leaving football out of our lives for one year in the name of doing what's prudent doesn't equate to a fate worse than death, at least not for me. In fact, it's a laughable concept. I can see it isnt so for some, though. I am not comparing anything to anything....your logic and reason, football or not, is faulty. I watch current events and can see football is off the table. And I am not sure we are getting football back. Doesn’t take a lot. How is it faulty? How is the risk associated with fishing and baseball anywhere NEAR the same risk associated with football? I admit that we don't know everything about this virus, but I fail to see how going out with me and or a friend and dropping a line in the pond puts my son at greater risk of catching the virus than say, a blocking drill. Give me a frigging break. Little League Baseball (which is the most risky thing I listed as an activity) 9 - 11 kids social distance rules in dugout strictly enforced practices in small pods, kids 7 feet apart if lines are required for drill etc. fielding positions completely spread out. No locker room no shared equipment no away games (town has 8 teams, play each other) 20-30 fans maybe only risks are: batter near catcher, close plays against a runner (hardly ever happen in little league) HS Football: 40-70 kids on a team huddles (for those who huddle, of which there are many) 4-6 varieties of tackling technique drills 2-3 varieties of block destruction drills endless varieties of blocking drills OL vs DL breathing in each other's faces as you slam into each other and strive to maintain close contact for as long as a play lasts for 2 hours straight. Handoff/mesh drills with a RB Game speed hitting and tackling Cramped, {censored} locker rooms typically busses to away games 100's and 1000's of fans I admittedly didn't major in philosophy in college, but I'm still missing where the "flawed logic" is. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Really?
Jun 26, 2020 7:53:16 GMT -6
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2020 7:53:16 GMT -6
I am not comparing anything to anything....your logic and reason, football or not, is faulty. I watch current events and can see football is off the table. And I am not sure we are getting football back. Doesn’t take a lot. How is it faulty? How is the risk associated with fishing and baseball anywhere NEAR the same risk associated with football? I admit that we don't know everything about this virus, I'm still missing where the "flawed logic" is.
the cdc clearly doesnt know anything
Nor does anybody else.
but yet stop any “risky activity”
Clearly nobody has a problem with kids running the streets.
But lets not have church services
Or god forbid play football
or hold campaign rallies.
Your precious cdc guidelines are violated in every activity. You are endangering everybody all the time. This whole thing started in a port and you think fishing is safe? The first baseman holding a runner is a violation. you are transmitting potentially by sharing a ball. You are within six feet if you tag a runner at home plate. Catcher, batter are with in 6 feet. You hug your kids, Within 6 feet. Have family dinner, more than likely within 6 feet, go to grocery store, bar, beach, restaurant .....its insanity. |
|
|
|
Really?
Jun 26, 2020 8:48:00 GMT -6
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 26, 2020 8:48:00 GMT -6
I am saying that the people who went through medical school and spent their careers in virology and epidemiology are the ones saying 70% infections to start realizing herd immunity, as opposed to your opinion on the subject. Here is an article that states herd immunity may be achieved at a lower rate. I'm not an expert but I do appreciate Bobgoodman because although he may not have the credentials of Dr. Fauci he does have greater knowledge them me on the topic. Also I appreciate the other thoughts and opposing views on this board as ultimately, there are very important decisions that will be made by many individuals. To make the decision to play football during a pandemic could lead to further outbreak and additional death. It could also be a minimal risk with a mostly low risk population. In addition to this their may be spread in this low risk population that helps us get closer to herd immunity which if a vaccine becomes available allows us to utilize the majority of the doses on high risk and high exposure populations that likely will be vaccinated prior to our low risk population does(this will happen no matter what). Certainly not the only option and being in a state (Michigan) who has had the most restrictive stay at home orders in the Country and us still having an uptick in cases it does make me believe that the mitigation methods we are utilizing will NOT have a long term benefit only prolong the time it takes for us reach herd immunity (after a vaccine) and in turn potentially cause more death as it will yield more time for our most vulnerable to be exposed to the disease. I also believe that many people including our most vulnerable only have so much tolerance for the self isolation which not only adds to other health issues but also leads this population to greater exposure as they are fed up. Bobgoodmans views have altered my perspective on this topic.... Originally, my view was, I don't know, lets not make any decisions on this until August as things have changed so much month to month... Now I'm leaning with his perspective... Certainly someone else could make some very sound arguments that get me to lean the other way. However, no matter my view it likely will have zero impact on the final decisions for football in the fall and I'm thankful for that because it isn't an easy decision as their are risks for any final outcome. First - The study you linked, wasn't really "study" as much as a mathematical model. It was not conducted by epidemiologists, but by mathematicians. Essentially it was based on age and social activity, the underlying assumption being that if less people are socially active, not as many need to be infected. But it is a theory, and thinking outside the box is never a bad thing. I also share Bob's somewhat fatalistic but logical viewpoint on this. After reading the Louisiana Dept of Education's guidelines to opening, the first thing that popped into my mind was "nothing has materially changed since mid March. Reading this makes one think the implied message is 'oops, yeah, we kind of freaked out in the spring and overreacted' " I was just pointing out to Bob that talking about "herd immunity" as a good thing doesn't necessarily seem like an appropriate viewpoint, or a rational solution unless one believes in the "survival of the fittest, so sad for the collateral damage" plan. |
|
|
|
Really?
Jun 26, 2020 8:55:33 GMT -6
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 26, 2020 8:55:33 GMT -6
How is it faulty? How is the risk associated with fishing and baseball anywhere NEAR the same risk associated with football? I admit that we don't know everything about this virus, I'm still missing where the "flawed logic" is.
the cdc clearly doesnt know anything
Nor does anybody else.
but yet stop any “risky activity”
Clearly nobody has a problem with kids running the streets.
But lets not have church services
Or god forbid play football
or hold campaign rallies.
Your precious cdc guidelines are violated in every activity. You are endangering everybody all the time. This whole thing started in a port and you think fishing is safe? The first baseman holding a runner is a violation. you are transmitting potentially by sharing a ball. You are within six feet if you tag a runner at home plate. Catcher, batter are with in 6 feet. You hug your kids, Within 6 feet. Have family dinner, more than likely within 6 feet, go to grocery store, bar, beach, restaurant .....its insanity. Coach, you do realize that guidelines are just best practices based on current information. Not Ironclad safeguards leading to immortality. I don't think comparing one close play at home, to the constant contact of Noseguard vs Center play is a fair one, or any football play to any baseball play. |
|
|
|
Really?
Jun 26, 2020 9:16:49 GMT -6
Post by flacoach10 on Jun 26, 2020 9:16:49 GMT -6
Here in Texas we were excited to get strength and conditioning workouts started a few weeks ago. We ended up having a couple of cases with kids who were exposed outside of our camp. Both were asymptomatic which makes it tough. That coupled with the rising cases in our area caused us to pause now for at least two weeks. Initially, I was more worried about players spreading it to older relatives, etc. as so many young people have minimal issues if they do get it. But, our first case ended up in the hospital this week two weeks after exposure, one week after testing positive. He went from asymptomatic to the ER with a serious condition in 24 hours. Definitely scary and made it more real when it hit so close to home. There is just so much unknown about this thing still. There is also a lot of responsibility on us as coaches with taking temps, checking health forms and trying to keep them socially distanced. I just wonder how it is going to progress and if there is a season what it will look like. If it's a slew of delays, cancellations and so watered down that it's nowhere near normal you start to wonder if it's worth it. Being such a big deal and money maker in our state though I'm inclined to think they will decide to move forward and at least try it.
|
|
|
|
Really?
Jun 26, 2020 9:22:39 GMT -6
Post by fantom on Jun 26, 2020 9:22:39 GMT -6
don't know everything about this virus, winner winner chicken dinner!
the cdc clearly doesnt know anything
Nor does anybody else.
but yet stop any “risky activity”
Clearly nobody has a problem with kids running the streets.
But lets not have church services
Or god forbid play football
or hold campaign rallies.
Your precious cdc guidelines are violated in every activity. You are endangering everybody all the time. This whole thing started in a port and you think fishing is safe? The first baseman holding a runner is a violation. you are transmitting potentially by sharing a ball. You are within six feet if you tag a runner at home plate. Catcher, batter are with in 6 feet. You hug your kids, Within 6 feet. Have family dinner, more than likely within 6 feet, go to grocery store, bar, beach, restaurant .....its insanity. Coach, you do realize that guidelines are just best practices based on current information. Not Ironclad safeguards leading to immortality. I don't think comparing one close play at home, to the constant contact of Noseguard vs Center play is a fair one, or any football play to any baseball play. Not to mention this: >>> The virus came from water part areas so fishing and swimming isnt exactly risk free.<< |
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jun 26, 2020 12:44:05 GMT -6
I am not comparing anything to anything....your logic and reason, football or not, is faulty. I watch current events and can see football is off the table. And I am not sure we are getting football back. Doesn’t take a lot. How is it faulty? How is the risk associated with fishing and baseball anywhere NEAR the same risk associated with football? I admit that we don't know everything about this virus, but I fail to see how going out with me and or a friend and dropping a line in the pond puts my son at greater risk of catching the virus than say, a blocking drill. Give me a frigging break. And rugby or wrestling would involve even closer contact. But as to coachpithy's point, I wouldn't worry. Football will be back even if it takes 5 years off -- which would not be out of the question if you go by some people's thinking. Sports have survived wars and refugee flight. Football (or rugby or wrestling) would have to disappear for a generation or more before people forgot about it. |
|
|
|
Really?
Jun 26, 2020 12:51:09 GMT -6
Post by bobgoodman on Jun 26, 2020 12:51:09 GMT -6
You hug your kids, Within 6 feet. How are people carrying on or beginning romantic relationships with people outside their household? It's been a few months now, so are we seeing more intrafamily dating? Does "safe sex" now mean incest? |
|
