ACC medical expert says fall football season can be played safely

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/29639609/acc-medical-expert-says-fall-football-season-played-safely

The chair of the ACC medical advisory group believes a fall season can be played safely, which is one of the biggest reasons the league remains on course to start the season in September.

Dr. Cameron Wolfe, a Duke infectious disease specialist, told Sports Business Daily that doctors have learned enough over the past six months to manage the risk....

....But Wolfe has also told commissioner John Swofford and league athletic directors that there is no way to cut the risk to zero and that they have to be comfortable with some level of risk tolerance.

"You can't tell me that running onto a football field is supposed to be a zero-risk environment," Wolfe continued. "Look at all of the regular sporting injuries that we accept as a certain level of risk as part and parcel of football. Now the reality is that we have to accept a little bit of COVID risk to be a part of that."

speaking of covid and football....

DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.

Comments

"You can't tell me that running onto a football field is supposed to be a zero-risk environment," Wolfe continued. "Look at all of the regular sporting injuries that we accept as a certain level of risk as part and parcel of football. Now the reality is that we have to accept a little bit of COVID risk to be a part of that."

BOOM. This is what I've been screaming about since March.

Leonard. Duh.

The problem with this is that a torn ACL can't spread through the locker room, can't spread at parties, and doesn't have any possibility of killing older members of the surrounding community. If they think they can do it safely, great. I'd love for there to be football. But it's a bad analogy.

If it's spreading at parties and the surrounding community, I think it's safe to say we're adding OTHER unsafe practices in addition to playing football.

Sure. But they're college athletes. They're not going to have the athletics without the college. That's the system we've built. We have to work in that real world, not some imaginary one where they're in an athletics bubble or whatever.

I think what you mean is that we're not living in an imaginary one where college aged kids aren't getting together with other college aged kids.

If anything, segregating college athletes and giving them frequent testing and a reason not to get sick lowers their chances of COVID exposure.

They're in a low-risk group anyway. The problem is when they mix with people other age/risk groups.

Yeah, this seems mostly right. The second bit I take a little issue with, I'm guessing it's less likely that folks at their parents' house get/spread COVID than folks on a college campus, but either way it's their capacity as spreaders, and not necessarily as victims that seems like the bigger problem.

This is true, but is there a lower risk of Covid transmission with no sports this fall, and student athletes going home all over the country and/or continuing to socialize and party because of the lack of sports? I think this argument that playing football would be about the same risk if not safer for the student athletes is really what people are trying to say.

The options aren't either they play football like normal or they go home? They're still students. They'd still be involved with the team. I hate this talking point so much, I truly don't understand how it's caught on.

Also, it's naive as hell to assume that they only situation that they'd be partying in is the one where football is cancelled. Let's instead assume that some of them are going to parties anyway (I assume everyone who went to Tech saw football players out and about at one time or another). Now we're adding another spread vector to an already iffy situation.

I truly don't understand how it's caught on.

I do believe you can thank Trevor Lawrence for popularizing that one.

Joffrey, Cersei, Ilyn Payne, the Hound, Jeff Jagodzinski, Paul Johnson, Pat Narduzzi.

You're swerving into a good point here, my brother.

When the college football debate started in earnest, it was pointed out (I was one of the pointer-outers) that there was no way that college football was going to happen if the regular students were not on campus. College presidents could in no way justify football players reporting, while their fellow students were online only.

Now, you have regular students showing up on campus all across the nation. How can you rationalize not having football, but it's ok to take full tuition money from John Q to attend in-person. If it's not safe to play football, then it shouldn't be safe to go to college at all.

Leonard. Duh.

"If it's not safe to run into each other for sixty minutes, while intentionally being within inches of another person's unmasked face, how could we possibly find a way to run a classroom safely?"

Can't argue with that logic.

Yes because college kids are spend alot of time social distanced from each other as well. Hell there is hardly 6 feet between each bed in the dorms and apartments where kids are crammed into places like sardines and classes are over booked.

Directions from Blacksburg to whoville, go north till you smell it then go east until you step in it

This is what I've been screaming about since March.

lol

#38-0

lol, indeed.

Leonard. Duh.

All risk is not the same....

"We believe we can mitigate it down to a level that makes everyone safe," Wolfe told The Daily. "Can we safely have two teams meet on the field? I would say yes. Will it be tough? Yes. Will it be expensive and hard and lots of work? For sure. But I do believe you can sufficiently mitigate the risk of bringing COVID onto the football field or into the training room at a level that's no different than living as a student on campus."

And this is what we've been saying. You shouldn't just "accept the risk" and go back to normal. You need to work to mitigate that risk and put controls and safeguards in place. The question isn't whether the ACC will accept full risk or no risk, but whether they cant put controls in place to get the risk to an acceptable level.

There's always a lighthouse. There's always a man. There's always a city.

I think the challenge is the medical advisory board is thinking like a bunch of doctors, but college athletes, as some have pointed out, will be partaking in college activities. There will be partying, dating and swapping of bodily fluids, etc. etc. Mitigating the risk is assuming a certain level of responsibility on the athletes, and the question is will the athletes accept that responsibility. It just takes one dumbass to get it and hide symptoms because he wants to play/not ruin his shot at the NFL to royally fuck up the mitigation. I guess this circles back to the whole debate we had about honor court and how responsible teenagers are and how good their decisions are.

And before you question hiding symptoms, I heard a lot about people taking fever reducers to be able to get on planes out of China early on. There's also cough drops, other over-the-counter medicines, and other things I'm sure people could do to hide symptoms. Will they test every athlete and every member of the staff before every practice? It seems like a lot of risk to me. Having said that, I hope they find a way to be safe and ALL the athletes stay safe for each others' sakes because I want them to be safe but also have a football season!!!

have learned enough over the past six months to manage the risk

there is no way to cut the risk to zero and that they have to be comfortable with some level of risk tolerance.

This is basically the logic that apply to everything I do now a days: Do I feel like know the risk, and am I comfortable with that level of risk? It's good to see people in power apply this methodology.

Twitter me

It's about damn time, honestly.

I think the key line in the article is this.

"What Wolfe cannot do is predict risk tolerance among administrators, athletes and fans. For there to be a season, there must be some acceptance of risk"

This is the difficult part. How does one lead in such a way as to get all parties on the same page? I'm still extremely skeptical any conference is going to be able to pull that off.

You'll never know until you try.

~Everyone's Dad

Leonard. Duh.

Cool, so what's the plan? The whole point of #wewanttoplay is to make sure there was a system in place, and this doctor from Duke says we can do it - just doesn't say how.

It sounds like he has been advising the ACC on the "how". ESPN isn't known for their full and thorough reporting.

The whole fallacy of saying "well there's risk in playing football right?" or some other type of statement in order to justify playing football is is that it's equating the risks as one and the same.

First of all, it's ADDED risk. You're playing football (with risks) AND interacting with students and generally an unsafe environment (ANOTHER set of risks). It's akin to saying let's go skiing and we might as well ski in a minefield since we're taking the risk of skiing in the first place.

Also, $5 says there will be a waiver saying that ACC / NCAA / School can't be sued if you get Covid-19 during this process. So yes, let them get paid and let's put common folks at risk. Sounds like a great plan.

Lol, I don't mean to start a war here, but literally people have been hiding behind the medical experts for months. Now when one prominent one disagrees with the narrative, suddenly he's spewing logical fallacies.

Bam. There is risk in everything in life. Everyone is waiting on a golden solution, well if there was one every City in the US would have enacted it by now and we would be inthe clear. Everybody put a smile on bc it looks like we will have football, even if only for a bit.

Masks aren't a golden solution, but they're pretty good and look at how many people actively fight that one. Then there's all the people who say they won't get a vaccine even if they develop one. I'd say one of the biggest solutions is "people need to stop being dumbasses," but they seem intent on it, aggressively so in many cases.

A lot on here are probably too young for a world full of seat belt deniers.

There's a certain subset of people that are going to listen to authority and do whatever they say, there's a certain subset of people who are going to buck whatever authority says, and there's a subset that will look at all the information and make an informed decision.

Just seems like we're getting fewer and fewer people into that third subset. That's the sweet spot to making these things work.

Am I crazy for not wanting to be one of the first people to get the vaccine?

I'm far from anti vaxx but the thought of a panic driven vaccine being injected in my body gives me the heebiegeebies.

No. I feel the same way.

But the anti-vaxxers are going to rally around your perfectly normal caution and push their nonsense.

Somebody has to go first, I just want it to be somebody who isn't me.

I think it's more likely that because of production limits, the first vaccines will be offered to those who are older or immunosuppressed.

No way. Vaccines will almost certainly go to healthcare workers first. That's the population most at risk of exposure AND most critical to fighting the disease. Immunosuppressed probably comes next, and I don't think the elderly are as high up the pecking order, despite greater risk, simply because there's greater utility in immunizing those who will live longer. Which is dark, and it sucks, but I'd put my money on that being the calculus used.

No worries, Putin already injected his daughter so we know the vaccine will be totally safe... 🤔🤣

I can imagine no more rewarding a career. And any man who may be asked in this century what he did to make his life worthwhile, I think can respond with a good deal of pride and satisfaction:
“I served in the United States Navy"

KCCO

Yes...but which daughter? The one he likes or the other one?

We put the K in Kwality

I'm not talking about people who don't want to be first. I get that. These are people who just won't get it, whether it's because they (apparently honestly) believe the vaccines will have microchips in them or because it infringes on their personal liberties if they're told to get it (never mind if it ACTUALLY keeps them safer, like masks), or some other idiotic reason.

Edit: Not sure why I got the downvote. Let me clarify - a guy I know on Facebook has 4,000+ friends/followers - he's appeared on TV a number of times. He is one of those people who, once the "lockdown" in VA ended, said he wasn't going to give his business to places that required masks. He actually polled people about whether they would get a vaccine if they developed one. The response, overwhelmingly, was flat-out "NO." Not "I don't want to be first," just "NO" (and yes, a lot of them used all caps to express it).

*looks at just about every other industrialized country*

well...

Hokies United l Ut Prosim

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that the expert is incorrect - there is a way to minimize but inherently there will be risk - that is correct. The fallacy is stating "well just because there's risk in football means there's risk in general, and therefore we should just go ahead and play football anyways". In fact, the Dr said what i'm saying here:

"You can't tell me that running onto a football field is supposed to be a zero-risk environment," Wolfe continued. "Look at all of the regular sporting injuries that we accept as a certain level of risk as part and parcel of football. Now the reality is that we have to accept a little bit of COVID risk to be a part of that."

There is risk that's put ONTOP of the risk of playing football. It's not one of the same risk.

Yep, but if we can effectively mitigate that risk to where it's not significantly more than not playing, we should forge ahead with appropriate measures. We can't cancel everything until the risk is nil, because it likely never will be. Covid is here to stay, and we have learned better how to mitigate and live with it. Meanwhile, life needs to carry on.

Yep, but if we can effectively mitigate that risk to where it's not significantly more than not playing

Then the argument becomes "what is the risk when we're not playing", which turns into an argument of online classes vs in-person. I'm very much in the camp of online classes for students, but that's a whole different thread.

And, with the death rate being what it is, and we're up to, what, 5 million dead in the country already, it's ridiculous to think "well we might as well live with it because we'll never get rid of it" in the sense that we should expose ourselves anyways. Life needs to carry on, but certainly not in the same manner where we don't prioritize being safe.

Guys, it's only football. If we do this right, football will be back next year. If someone dies, they won't be.

It's only football is key there. Not having fall sports will have long-lasting financial and economic impacts. Some schools will likely never recover. Some businesses will be forced to close. Jobs will be lost. There is a ton at stake for not playing, and it's not so easy to say it will simply come back next year. If myocarditis and myriad other unknowns about the virus persist, there is likely never a point in the near future where we can move forward.

If myocarditis and myriad other unknowns about the virus persist, there is likely never a point in the near future where we can move forward.

Then tough decisions need to be made on how to move forward. It's a poor argument to say "these people need to die so that I or others don't lose a job".

Can't upvote this enough

In the long run deaths resulting from fear of Covid infection will far outnumber deaths from Covid infection. Just one small example...

Cancer diagnoses in the UK are down 50% (can't remember if that was a particular month or for 2020, need to go find the article again). But over some time period, down 50%. That doesn't mean there is 50% less cancer, it means the cancer is not being found in standard health screenings, because people are not going to the doctor near as much. Whatever the time period was, it was 30,000 diagnoses are typical, down to 15,000. So that is 15,000 people who do not realize they have cancer; their diagnosis is being delayed, which significantly reduces their chances of survival. That is just the UK and just talking about Cancer.

The idea that we have to eliminate every Covid death at any cost is absurd. Proper risk balance analysis needs to be made, and the fear of Covid and unwillingness to look at proper risk balance is way more deadly than Covid.

None of the athletes are being forced to play, for those that wish to persist and understand the risks, let them play. Its not as cut and dry as youre making it out to be.

The is just not true. For many of the players, they have to show up and play or they are not given education, meals, stipends, etc. Most cannot afford to refuse to pay. Colorado State is a perfect example of shut up and play...don't report sickness or even think about sitting out.

We put the K in Kwality

But Farley and many other players have opted-out, and hasn't VT said they would honor the scholarship of any student-athlete that wanted to opt-out of their sport this year?

I think there are likely some instances like the one you describe. I'm not familiar with the Colorado St situation. But I would expect most schools would honor the scholarship.

Thats not being FORCED. Thats just the deal, i dont get paid if i dont go to work, im not forced to go to work, i choose to because i want the benefits of going. The athletes can still go to school without a scholarship, i did.

I think the point is that some of the kids (not sure how many) might not be able to pay for college if they didn't have their scholarships. If playing football is how they're trying to pay for college so they can get a good job (because plenty of them realize they're not going pro), maybe they DO feel compelled to play.

You're getting numbers confused. 5 million is number of US cases. US deaths are at 163K, and only 737K death worldwide.

Link to stats on Google

You are right. Thanks for the correction.

My point is still that deaths are 163k, but the various long-term impacts are still pretty horrific in itself.

The various long-term impacts are still unknown, being studied, and likely won't be fully realized for many years. So let's cancel everything until we know with absolute certainty in the next decade or so.

Let's live completely stressful, mentally and emotionally unhealthy and unfulfilling lives indefinitely as a society until we find the solution for living life entirely safely. Talking about logical fallacies.

The various long-term impacts are still unknown, being studied, and likely won't be fully realized for many years. So let's cancel everything until we know with absolute certainty in the next decade or so.

the immediate long-term effects are already being felt and known. I would have to dig up the stats to verify, but for the 163k deaths, there are so many more (hundreds of thousands?) of other health impacts as well that impact everyone who gets Covid and lives!

Let's live completely stressful, mentally and emotionally unhealthy and unfulfilling lives indefinitely as a society until we find the solution for living life entirely safely.

I think those are your own life issues and choices if you think a life without football are all of this lol.

I don't think it's just football. Church, concerts, any significant social gatherings, in person classes, civic activities, etc. People are social creatures. It's unhealthy to continue indefinitely in a period of closure or highly restricted activity until we can sanitize life fully. It's wrong and will lead to worse consequences than the cure in the long term, which likely will never be fully effective.

Yeah, that's why we need to pursue reasonable health guidelines such as masks, invest heavily to ensure testing is widely available, accurate, and with rapid results, and establish robust contact tracing to react to outbreaks. Then we can reopen safely until a vaccine is distributed.

...you know, all the stuff we should have been doing in the spring.

There's always a lighthouse. There's always a man. There's always a city.

There is absolutely a way to be social without having to put ourselves at risk. Its certainly not ideal, but we're not being asked to be in a room with no windows for an entire year. This is first-world problems we're talking about and it's sad that it seems to be that case.

And what are we talking about really? If we weren't so stubborn and got angry like 10 year olds when we were asked to isolate for 3 months and wear masks then we would be able to have all the nice things we want right now. If NZ can do it then so can we. But no, we couldn't survive even 3 months of that and now well - here we are.

Yes. Exactly this. Except one comment:

got angry like 10 year olds when we were asked to isolate for 3 months and wear masks

At first it was only 14 days. And some people didn't follow it and some localities didn't want to enact it, so it became a month. So on, so forth. And, well, now we're approaching 5 months.

Well, since we're talking hindsight, we locked down entire regions of the country where almost nobody had it.

So people's businesses closed down and people lost their jobs when they didn't even know anyone who had gotten it.

So two months later, when things opened back up, people may not have really been in the right frame of mind to be as careful as they should have been.

I think we all get that mistakes were made on almost all sides of this. We were unprepared.

But now we have a better (not complete, but better) understanding of this.

To be fair, 14 days was NEVER going to cut it. And the people proposing that course of action knew it. They were trying to avoid overwhelming our ICUs - they weren't thinking they were going to stop the spread.

Well, since we're talking hindsight, we locked down entire regions of the country where almost nobody had it.

We're talking about a viral pandemic. These things spread like wildfire (case in point, look at the reality today). So i don't care if Montana had zero cases and NYC had all of them. We ALL need to lock down. To think only one area can or not is completely childish.

I think we all get that mistakes were made on almost all sides of this. We were unprepared.

Lol no. There was no mistake on one side of this. The only mistake were the idiots who didn't listen and didn't isolate. Those idiots are probably the same ones who continuously don't wear a mask now. Don't use revisionist history to say "that there were mistakes on all sides".

To be fair, 14 days was NEVER going to cut it. And the people proposing that course of action knew it. They were trying to avoid overwhelming our ICUs - they weren't thinking they were going to stop the spread.

I disagree on that argument, but it shows how asinine people are if they can't even stop for 14 days to think about their country and society as a whole.

The shutdown was an attempt at not letting our hospital systems get overrun. In those terms, it was a success. I was explaining why people were a bit frustrated when it was over, and why they pushed back.

It's clear that you're not following what I'm saying. I'll take the blame for that. But rather than prolong the pain, I'll let you have the last word.

In those terms, it was a success. I was explaining why people were a bit frustrated when it was over, and why they pushed back.

There was absolutely no success. We're still being overwhelmed by the sheer number of cases ramping up around the country.

I'm clearly following what you're saying. I refuse to let you try and spin this for revisionist history-sake at all.

When I say the goal was to prevent the health care system from being "overwhelmed", I mean to the degree that ICU beds are so overloaded that they have to turn away folks who would have survived with medical intervention. This actually happened in Italy.

The shutdown was designed to prevent that. Not to stop the coronavirus completely.

To my knowledge, that didn't happen anywhere in the U.S., and in those terms, the shutdown accomplished what it set out to do.

I think it happened in NYC. I don't remember the specific details, but I seem to recall people being turned away at hospitals.

When I say the goal was to prevent the health care system from being "overwhelmed", I mean to the degree that ICU beds are so overloaded that they have to turn away folks who would have survived with medical intervention. This actually happened in Italy.

Absolutely not.

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/patient-flow/our-backs-are-to-the-...

https://www.texastribune.org/2020/07/10/houston-coronavirus-emergency-ro...

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/19/nyregion/new-york-new-jersey-coronavi...

Further, due to the overwhelmed hospitals, people with non-Covid issues are being turned away. So they absolutely are being overwhelmed in one way or another

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-california/cal...

The facts are just that. Facts.

It just seems that you think anyone is in a position to stop for 14 days. A significant portion of America does not have any savings at all, and live week to week and day to day. So a lot of the people that did not isolate were simply trying to survive, just like they do every day, because if they stop then their families do not get fed, do not have a roof over their head, and do not have shoes on their feet. With how much was unknown at the beginning those individuals were not going to risk losing their job because there was an unknown virus. They were simply trying to do what was right for their family on that day. And you just called those people idiots.

I'm sorry, but your view of this just seems very unrealistic.

II just seems that you think anyone is in a position to stop for 14 days

I'm not under that light at all. That's why we should've locked down and given more than just the shitty stimulus check we have been given to the workers who need it and not to the billionaires and large corporations. Give it directly to the people and more of it so they can survive until we weather this out together.

you literally said it though, whether you fully meant it or not.

but it shows how asinine people are if they can't even stop for 14 days to think about their country and society as a whole.

inaccurate.

USA was not "locked down" anywhere other than NYC. What you may think was a lock down pales in comparison to what lock downs that were effective in other countries were.

So two months later, when things opened back up, people may not have really been in the right frame of mind to be as careful as they should have been.

This was not because of the "lock down". This was because there was zero public policy until about month 4 in USA, and that policy was and still is laughable.

But now we have a better (not complete, but better) understanding of this.

Unless there has been some announcement of widespread, highly organized centrally controlled national response managed by non-politically biased scientists and health professionals then no, USA does not have a better understanding of this.

14 days was NEVER a standard for any lock down measure. It was an early recommended time of quarantine for suspected cases. These are not the same things.

I do agree with you here. The overall cluster of misinformation from the federal and state governments early on is entirely to blame for the situation we are in now. You have the federal govt preaching two weeks to flatten the curve and not everyone needs to wear masks in March, just so hospitals have time to ramp up, get supplies and prepare for the surge. But it was not made clear that this was the motivation for it. The dialogue coming from Fauci, Birx, and other federal officials has been inconsistent and is a large reason why many people don't know who or what to believe at this point.

The states utterly failed in not making a serious enough attempt at a lock down. VA's "lock down" allowed everyone to still galavant freely to Lowe's and other "essential" businesses such as ABC stores and WalMart. Also because they don't want to miss out on the state revenue, state parks remained open and were crammed to the gills with people trying to do any and everything they legally could.

It was a piss poor overall response and effort. Had we shut things down seriously for 6-8 weeks or so in March and slowly opened up from there, we may be in a totally different situation.

this is extremely accurate

The Cascades were closed and locked with no access for quite a while.

Cascades is located within National Forest, which did close pretty much all recreation at the fed level. State parks were still crammed with people and never closed.

But it was not made clear that this was the motivation for it.

It was absolutely clear this was the motivation for it. There's a reason everyone was preaching "flatten the curve".

I would recommend you check your news source if you think you were misled on the reasons for this.

The dialogue coming from Fauci, Birx, and other federal officials has been inconsistent and is a large reason why many people don't know who or what to believe at this point.

More revisionist history - certainly on the part of your accusation on Fauci. Don't try to throw him under the bus for your own ignorance.

just between us, flatten the curve was more of a talking point than a strategy.

certainly on the part of your accusation on Fauci. Don't try to throw him under the bus for your own ignorance.

I didn't take it as throwing any of them under the bus. Here's my perspective on Fauci, Brix and Redfield garnered from all this. All are, IMO, very very smart people trying to fix this problem with every fiber of their being but each of them have strings attached to them that they report to. Fauci less than, Brix falls in the middle, Redfield has the most strings. So what they say and how much they say is unfortunately not ALL they can say or want to say. They deserve A LOT of respect but those strings have led to inconsistent messaging from time to time.

just between us, flatten the curve was more of a talking point than a strategy.

Disagree.

And I won't comment on Brix and Redfield, but for Fauci, a guy who has served over multiple presidential terms faithfully and accurately, and to then try and attack his character is laughable. The only inconsistent message Fauci said I can think of was to say initially a mask is not neccessary (when there was a shortage and hospitals needed them the most). He since has admitted to his error, apologized, and has been hammering the same message of needed to not socialize, isolate, WEAR a mask, and to be cautious.

I'm moving comments to CV thread but lets just say I might have first hand knowledge of these things.

Can you please indicate where I or anyone here attacked Fauci's character? He is a consummate professional, but it's fair to say the overall coordinated message from the federal experts has been inconsistent and unclear at best.

The U.S. WAS locked down. Many businesses were closed - mostly gyms, nail salons, and restaurants. Many will never re-open.

Sure, it wasn't what some other countries did. Every country's lock down reflected their respective culture and their government's powers. We live in a country where powers are spread between the Federal government and state and local governments. As such, it doesn't look like a kingdom.

The U.S. has a certain form of government that doesn't grant the Federal government certain powers. I see that as a good thing.

But you don't get to define "lock down".

But you don't get to define "lock down".

He's certainly allowed to explain the differences between why other country's lockdowns worked and ours did not at dramatically reducing the spread of the virus. Such as Italy who have less than 1k/cases per day since [May] 12th (in a country of 60 million people), and why we have 50-60k new cases per day.

Don't have to define it. Simply applying effective lock down measures to the USA "lock down" which are not nearly the same. Those that were effective set the standard. USA was not locked down.

Every country had it's own set of parameters.

China was drill-sealing old people into their houses and miscounting deaths. They also halted domestic flights from Wuhan while allowing international ones. And to my knowledge, the international community hasn't been permitted to look into the fact that the virus originated in humans 200 meters from the lab in Wuhan where bat coronaviruses were being studied.

Yeah, you're right. We didn't do it like that.

lol. hyperbole, the last refuse of a failed argument.

I've been very open about my disdain for China's response to the virus as it broke out and spread. However their management of it now is VERY good. If you don't like China look to the Taiwan, Singapore, New Zealand and Australia prior to last 2 weeks. All had effective lock downs. Italy was a good model of lock down response during surging numbers.

What's amazing is that nothing in my last comment was hyperbole.

It hyperbole when you only reference one example of effective lock down measures because it was extreme. there are others that are just as easily referenced.

You know there is a range of responses among countries between the US and China that still have managed to handle this pandemic far better than the US without authoritarian dystopia that some folks fear.

There's always a lighthouse. There's always a man. There's always a city.

To his point, NC had stay at home order issued on 3/26 I believe. The first death in NC was on 3/23. But many counties in NC were completely untouched by the virus at this point and had zero cases. So after 1.5 months of "lock down", many counties still had extremely low case counts and zero deaths. So I think his point was that the state went into Phase 1 and Phase 2 reopening when many counties had not even begun to see an initial wave of the virus.

Thanks. That's a better explanation of what I was trying to say.

I should have stated. Yes i understand your point and this highlights the "lock down" issue in USA.

Did the state close it's borders? were the airports still open? what percentage of it's citizens were tested? what percentage were and are still contact traced? how free were you able to leave your home and go to supermarkets, parks, etc during the stay at home? Did the neighboring States have as strict regulation or less?

there is the American lock down and then there were effective lock downs. Big difference unfortunately.

I'm glad to live in a country where the government has limited powers.

For me, the benefits of that outweigh the costs.

hahahaha....wow, really reaching now .

I'm also glad government has limited powers.

Reality check: One of the powers it IS granted is to centrally control pandemic response which had been planned for and installed prior to this administration and subsequently eliminated for no reason by this administration. Funny thing when government fails to do what they are empowered to do people also suffer.

For me, a government that uses the powers bestowed on it correctly the benefits outweigh the costs.

For me, a government that uses the powers bestowed on it correctly the benefits outweigh the costs.

This statement I agree with.

But it doesn't mean what you're trying to imply it means. You're saying it means a harder shut down. I'm not completely convinced of that. I think a regional strategy would have worked better. And we've somewhat come up with a version of that at this point.

Frankly, had we used the powers the way you're saying you want them used, there's a cost to the economy which you don't seem to be admitting.

For me, apart from the hyperbole of the media, our response hasn't been all that bad. I mean, we're even now debating whether we should have sports. And there are opinions on all sides.

But it's OUR choice.

economic question then. Which is more costly to the US economy:

Scenario A) the existing scenario where there was no centralized response, disparate measures State to State whereby the US has been in a constant will it, won't it start back up stage for over 6 months and no end in sight.

Scenario B) A hard stop, centralized control of 3 months mandatory lock down for the whole country with testing, contact tracing and rigorous control of travel into the country.

I would argue Scenario A is costing the US a hell of a lot more than Scenario B would have. disagree?

Guys, respectfully, there is a whole other garbage thread for this crap. Keep it on topic. I'm sorry I know I'm not a moderator but Jesus this is getting old.

ESPN. The coverage is excellent, you'd be surprised at how much you can pick up.

It's to the point where I'm considering closing this thread as it has just become another Coronavirus thread.

apologies moderators

Your insight and inside information on this subject is very much appreciated by the community, but for the sake of containing the discussion we need it to occur in the Coronavirus discussion thread. We are in a truly unique time for our lifetimes and this isn't the first and won't be the last time another thread will devolve into this. I'm just trying to get it into one place to make it easier to moderate, and so that TKP'ers who are not interested in seeing discourse about the coronavirus while browsing TKP can avoid it by avoiding the CV discussion thread.

completely reasonable. I'll keep things on target to the thread they are in and thanks for the kind words.

Not surprisingly, I do disagree.

Because most of the businesses we lost were small businesses. Many of which don't come back if you close them for any length of time and pay their employees a premium over their salary to stay home. We weren't going to save those no matter what we did.

Most medium to large businesses have continued to operate fairly well under the soft shutdown that we managed to do.

I'd love to have the coronavirus down to levels where testing and contact tracing would control it. To get to that, we'd have needed to have shown tremendous insight initially, and to have over-responded with flight shutdowns to China (Over the shouts of "THAT'S RACIST!"), and to have quarantined Americans coming back from overseas locations (again, to accusations of "how can you treat Americans like that?" and "that's racist!")

You're making the assumption that we had the capacities and planning of a South Korea before the coronavirus struck. They had developed some good capability after their SARS scare. We didn't have that capacity, and were woefully unprepared in spite of any window dressing some may suggest we had. And we lost valuable time when the FDA screwed around with testing (standard procedure) and contaminated the first go-rounds of tests. Usually being independent serves us well. Didn't in this case.

We're always a lot better prepared for the previous tragedy than we ever are for the future one that we haven't encountered. The good news is that we'll be a lot better prepared for the next one.

I do find it interesting that everything that seems to have been centrally planned by government has been generally a failed response over the years, from FEMA responses to hurricanes and disasters to now this pandemic. Maybe that's part of the problem too? In that I mean that there is a perception by state and local governments that there is always a sound federal plan, but when something happens and the plan needs to be enacted, the curtain is opened and the wizard is revealed.

Fernley, I very much like hearing your input on these things. My only comment is about that central pandemic response team that was disbanded. This is true to some extent, misleading to some, and possibly part of the problem as well. The news was that the pandemic response team was disbanded by the President. There was a pandemic response team that was part of the White House Staff that was disbanded. That part is accurate. What is left out is that both DHS and CDC have pandemic response responsibilities at the national level. That was 3 different groups that had responsibility for it. Maybe the White House one would have been in charge of it overall, but that's not the sense I get.

Background: In DHS there's a headquarters component called "Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction." There used to be a separate group responsible for pandemic response, but it was merged with CWMD, presumably because they are also responsible for dealing with bioterrorism and pandemics were similar in scope (my guess). My wife works in that organization under the Chief Medical Officer and they have a lot of responsibility related to response to the pandemic and coordinating with state and local governments in their responses. One of the concerns was that the CDC appeared to be trying to get information out as quickly as possible, even if it didn't have a lot of support behind it, whereas DHS was gathering information, looking to make sure it had support/had a study with at least a little rigor behind it/seemed like it was quality information before releasing it. Then there's also the Surgeon General giving out information. Basically I'm not sure that, even had the White House Task Force been around if the government would have been any better about having a central message and always providing good, coordinated, non-political information.

great point, let's move it to the CV thread. happy to reply there.

Not only has this turned into another CV thread, but this comment right here is 100% political, from start to finish. It's literally just your opinion on governmental power.

Stop.

Hey, sorry, I responded to Fernley before I saw your request to stop. I'm done.

I totally get what you're saying. It's hard to know what the future will hold - what if they do come up with a vaccine and we just have to be safer than normal for like 6 more months?

The challenge is not everybody can just accept the risk. I am pretty darn healthy apart from being out of shape, but my parents and wife all have issues, including heart and immune issues that put them at MUCH greater risk. I've been thinking a lot about what it would mean if this continues on indefinitely. Some things are still do-able, especially outdoor activities like hiking, fishing, camping, etc. While it's not the same, some social activities can be done online - video chatting is available. There are some churches that have online video.

The thing that will make it much more difficult for people who have serious medical issues that are probably much more careful is once everyone else decides they're going to accept the risk and go to church, concerts, big social gatherings, etc. and the cases go really widespread, it makes it harder for us to go out when we NEED to. And if the answer is masks, that's great and all, except for the people who pull them down to talk to the guy in the deli, or answer their phone, or just have them under their noses, etc.

Sorry for the stream of consciousness, but just saying that there are people (probably more than many would realize) that are at greater risk than just "old people." And unless a vaccine or some very effective treatment comes out, things probably will be MUCH different for them for the foreseeable future.

And there's the rub.

Because a vaccine isn't a 100% cure or preventative. We'll be estatic with a vaccine that's 75% effective, as it would seriously slow the spread.

In other words, those vulnerable people will still be somewhat at risk, even with good vaccines.

Edit: Not sure why this is collecting downvotes. Feel free to disagree with an actual statement if you want.

1) The coronavirus is endemic. Meaning it's not going away. A vaccine slows the transmission but not a cure. I don't think COVID 19 will be 100% eradicated by it.

2) the FDA will approve a vaccine that's a minimum of 50% effective, as something is better than nothing.

3) Vulnerable people will still be at risk, even with a vaccine. Even if they've HAD the vaccine. A vaccine slows transmission and reduces risk, but doesn't eliminate it.

Edit: Not sure why this is collecting downvotes. Feel free to disagree with an actual statement if you want.

Don't feel free to do this. I asked you and everyone else to stop, and you posted this after I had already asked to move all these back to the CV thread. Now you're inviting more responses? Nope.

Covid is here to stay, and we have learned better how to mitigate and live with it.

Why are we the only fucking country who talks like this? Literally everyone else successfully has it controlled (sans India and Brazil - real bastions of public health) and yet we Americans are like "well, this is the best we can do. Fuck it, PLAY BALL!"

#38-0

Amen to that!

Saying that there are risks in football and that risks add up aren't fallacies.

And yes, everyone should sign a waiver when they participate in activities acknowledging that they understand that they understand that there are risks involved, that COVID exists, and they're assuming responsibility for their own decisions.

Saying that there are risks in football and that risks add up aren't fallacies.

um...are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me? I'm saying the fallacy is saying the risk is one and the same. It isn't, it's more risk.

And yes, everyone should sign a waiver when they participate in activities acknowledging that they understand that they understand that there are risks involved, that COVID exists, and they're assuming responsibility for their own decisions.

That's exactly what they'll demand when they should be saying "No, we shouldn't do this", all while shamelessly running after the dollar.

It is who we are this century. Profits before people.

I'm pretty sure he's not saying that there is no additional risk.

What's he's saying is that risks are there, regardless. That's it's not binary.

And "profits vs. people" isn't really what's being debated here. At least not for many of the people debating the idea.

?

Are you talking about yourself and your post? Its yours I was confused by.

Edit: Regarding economic impact not being the debate - That is the debate i'm seeing. Job losses and economic impacts is the ONLY reason the ACC wants to continue playing games. What other reason is there?

I think you're misinterpreting what Dr. Wolfe was saying. He didn't say there is no additional risk. He's just saying that there are risks inherent in playing football to begin with, and that you'll never get them to zero. The same is true of COVID. Add them together.

And the ACC wants to play football for profits, for the fans, for the staff, AND for the student athletes. Not necessarily in that order, but they're all important considerations.

I don't think I am. One risk is not the same as the other. You're adding risk together for a higher risk posture.

And the ACC wants to play football for profits, for the fans, for the staff, AND for the student athletes. Not necessarily in that order, but they're all important considerations.

Ha! Sorry, nothing personal to you, but NCAA / ACC is all about money grabbing. They have no vested interest in our safety other than to not get sued. They are a corporation, after all.

I'm out.

I've actually owned businesses and know the ups and downs of it. But for me to refute you as to why corporations (and specifically the NCAA and acc) can be bad, then it will get political, so I'll stop.

Good luck guys. I'm out for a bit.

STAHP

If students at VT are going to ignore masking, social distancing, etc- then no matter the football precautions you take, it won't matter. If VT students ARE going to be held to very strict guidelines, and limited gatherings, etc. then football adds no ADDITIONAL covid risks.

That may be an oversimplification of the situation because it requires VT to do everything right for the next 3 months, which won't be easy + all the other ACC teams and the plus one's also following protocol.

Would you say that if VT students ignore masking, social distancing, etc

They'd be "Infecting the Future"? /s

VT Marketing Class of 2009
Current Roanoke-Hokie
Go Hokies!

It really scares me when actual medical professionals use completely false equivalencies, because we are supposed to trust their reason and capacity for rational thought.

Equating sports injuries to communicable disease is just plain irresponsible. You can't contract a high ankle sprain from your suite mate. You can't catch a broken collarbone hugging your son after a game. (& don't hug him in the first place he's got a broken collarbone for chrissakes.) You can't infect others with your pinched nerve. It's not the same thing. It's not even the same planet. Chalking it up to "hey football is dangerous anyway" is just... obtuse. It is actively ignoring the societal impact outbreaks have. It ignores the impact they've already had. I live in the NYC area and my whole family contracted (& recovered from) covid. Things were scary here. They still are. And with schools trying to reconvene and the colleges trying to squeeze out a football season at all costs because "hey, 2020 already sucks enough - we can't NOT have football", things will get scary again.

Could kids spread covid at home? Sure. But the answer to that should absolutely not be "so let's get them all to campuses - some of which aren't allowing regular students! - and trust they'll all do the right thing". Some will. But some won't. And that isn't good enough if we're talking about actually curtailing the spread. It's like calling something "almost airtight": it either is, or it isn't.

I want football. We all want football. So bad. And I believe this guy when he says that we can do it safely. But that would be if everything goes right. If everyone follows protocol. If no one screws up. Look at how many moving parts all have to work perfectly for this to happen. I don't trust everyone to do the right thing all the time because human beings. Because life. And people that are comfortable with calling covid just another 'hazard of the game' need to ask themselves: how many positive cases among players are too many? How many hospitalizations among coaches, staff, maintenance, or janitorial folks are enough? Kids' parents could die. Their grandparents. Sure, they could catch covid in dozens of ways - so why add football to the list?

You're the only ones that I can talk to about this, you guys.

Exactly, I definitely think it's feasible with the right plan in place (university wise as well as athletic team) and I want that to be the course that they take. But if the plan is going to be "send them out there and hope for the best" then they should just go ahead and cancel now.

Of course we know how to manage the risks and deal with this safely. Look at the NHL and NBA. They're doing it. The problem is, can the ACC do those things to manage risk?

There's always a lighthouse. There's always a man. There's always a city.

Put up entire school football teams (and their staff) in Disneyworld and have their teams play there?

Don't look at the NHL and NBA. They're doing it in a manner that the NFL and CFB WON'T do.

My point is they are doing it safely. It is possible. The question is what measures the ACC is willing to do to play football safely, and at what point do they trade safety vs. logistics.

There's always a lighthouse. There's always a man. There's always a city.

Put unpaid student athletes in a bubble for months and make them take all their classes online?

That reeks of "profit over academics"

I'm not saying its what will happen. I'm saying it is the safest way to do sports, and that it is possible to do so, as evidenced by other sports. The ACC is obviously unwilling to do so, for the reasons you listed and more.

Though I will point out playing college football during a pandemic is also quite clearly profit over academics, regardless of the logistics.

There's always a lighthouse. There's always a man. There's always a city.

It's clearly your perspective that people are motivated solely by greed. So what if we cancel football and hundreds of thousands of small business are forced to close, unemployment skyrockets and families across the country struggle to pay their bills and put food on the table, many universities across the country are forced to cut sports and positions across the board because of a multi million dollar hole in budgets, athletes across the country lose their chance to pursue professional athletics or lose a scholarship and must return home, altering their lives forever, and on and on. So if 95 percent of the players and staff want to play if it can be done responsibly, you're claiming the moral high ground here and calling everyone else greedy when there is clearly a ton more at stake to so many than corporate profit.

I want what this guy's having

Hopefully, it's college football.

Lolwut?

I'm saying that it is entirely possible to play sports with little to no Covid risk, but that they are unable to do so for a multitude of reasons. So it's up to the ACC to either implement plans that they feel minimize the risk as best as possible, or postpone, or cancel. And I do think its very real that they cancel because they can't find a balance between minimizing risk and logistics/costs.

There's always a lighthouse. There's always a man. There's always a city.

There is just NO way to rebuke this comment without getting political....

You've got people literally asserting this is all profit over people, and I'm the one who's getting political? Got it. I'm done here.

Why is "profit over people" political? It sounds like economics/morality/capitalism to me. The only part where this conversation veered into the political realm was when you went off on a diatribe about the economy as a whole and lumped playing college football into it all.

But you're right: you are absolutely the victim here.

It wasn't political when it was about their economics, but when I brought my economics into it, it became political?

Both of you please do not continue this tangent.

There's still a risk to doing it in a bubble.

You and your friends can hide from a rattlesnake inside a box, but if that rattlesnake finds a way inside that box, you guys are fucked.

Leonard. Duh.

Yes, there is, but its about as minimal as the current world allows. I'm not saying anything about whether it should be done, just that it can be and has been done.

There's always a lighthouse. There's always a man. There's always a city.

You could be right, I don't know.

I do know that non-bubble NFL training camps have been in session for a couple of weeks, and nobody is talking about it at all.

Could it be because they aren't having problematic case counts?

Leonard. Duh.

I'm not so sure about that. At one point I made the mistake of telling Facebook that I like the Steelers, and now it seems every few days I'm seeing a "suggested" post from their official page saying that so-and-so has either been added to or removed from the "Reserve/COVID-19" list. And I'm not sure if I saw it here or elsewhere that Logan Thomas was also added to and later removed from that same list by the Washington Football Team.

I find it interesting that the one conference that had infectious disease and public health advisors not affiliated with any athletic departments or universities (Pac-12) voted unanimously to postpone the fall season while an ACC school's infectious disease specialist is saying that the ACC is good to go.

/ducks

It may well be that different people have different opinions. Even in the face of similar facts.

Yeah, the ACC and SEC are going to come out of this looking bad. The medical teams they assembled are associated with the universities in one way or another. There are conflicts of interest across the board.

School: "It's okay. [Insert said school's doctor/medical analyst/etc., here] said we are good to play. They will not benefit from saying that in any way, so they can be trusted."

Let's get real. It doesn't matter which medical team you use.

The analysis should look pretty much the same, and it's going to come down to a judgment call and your procedures in the end.

There are risks to playing. How are you going to mitigate those risks?

big difference between "it doesn't matter" and "it shouldn't matter"

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

I dont think he's saying they're good to go though.

My read of the article was him saying it's possible with the right controls and mitgations in place. It's up to the ACC to put those controls and mitigations in place, or to just say they accept the elevated risk, or to not have the season.

There's always a lighthouse. There's always a man. There's always a city.

Well, Dr Wolfe has a pretty impeccable record, advises the Duke Health system on infectious diseases, and is Australian, so I highly doubt his motivations are to an athletic conference.

It's a fact that people with accents are smarter! Too bad he's not British, we could add 10 more IQ points. And 10 more if he wore glasses.

[Before anyone takes offense, this is just a joke based off of a Dilbert cartoon from a long time ago - and I'm pretty sure he stole it from a stand-up routine.]

Wait, what?

One minute people are saying lets wait for Duke to say what they say, then they actually say something and now people are this guys being influenced. I know little about any of these doctors but a Duke doctor of infectious diseases wouldnt be a bad place for an opinion.

Directions from Blacksburg to whoville, go north till you smell it then go east until you step in it

Duke is only one of the best medical schools in the U.S., but sure, for appearances they should have looked elsewhere.

I've heard good things about their non-infectious disease centers and I've actually been trying to get my mom to switch from going to Johns Hopkins and instead go to Duke for her Scleroderma treatment.

VT Marketing Class of 2009
Current Roanoke-Hokie
Go Hokies!

Reply for this and the other comments below this.

Duke Medical and Dr Wolfe are impeccable, extremely intelligent people. I've only heard the guy speak on a teleconference before and he sounds exceptionally smart. But what I find in the US is that medical institutions are now dividing into two groups, those that believe in stricter control measures to get the virus under control and those that believe stricter controls are either socially or economically not possible and believe risk is manageable. More and more these views are tending to sway in the political direction of the State they are in. Pretty much anything in the US right now regarding the virus is similar. When this happens I like to apply what I am hearing from the professionals in whole as well as those that are from other countries. And as I said below, I find Dr Wolfe's view on Covid-19 to be in the minority of the health/disease experts I deal with.

But to more directly answer your question let me change it around for you.

Does this finding mean Dr Wolfe is unduly influenced, certainly not. I don't have an evidence of that and I think he very much believes what he believes. However, for a Commissioner with as many skeletons in the closet as Swofford it is perhaps MUCH more likely the case that the ACC found the doctor that they "needed" who believed in the view they wanted.

wink wink, nose touch, #sauces

I don't think the Mayo Clinic has a football team...

Leonard. Duh.

As a lurker, I've read enough to know that you and I will not see eye to eye on the subject as a whole, Leonard, but...

If #PhDs want to seem #notpolitical and talk about the #facts, maybe they shouldn't include divisive #hashtags like #RefuseToFear.

I don't care how smart and/or well informed someone is or how much I agree with them, throwing in crap like that will make people like me instantly disregard anything you have to say. It's like holding a huge sign saying, "I'm not really impartial and will use only the facts that fit to my narrative!"

At least 10 Big Ten football players have myocarditis. This is why the Big 10 shut down right here.

article

Is it possible? Yes.

Is it probable? No.

There are way too many moving parts and associated variables that have to go just right to pull it off at just one university. Now multiply that by the numbers of institutions involved, including the families of the players, coaches. support staff, janitorial staff, etc. and the local businesses and their families supporting each university and it gets out of hand really quickly.

"Sooner or later, if man is ever to be worthy of his destiny, we must fill our heart with tolerance."
-Stan Lee

"Never half-ass two things. Whole-ass one thing."
-Ron Swanson

"11-0, bro"
-Hunter Carpenter (probably)

As much as it pains me to ask, what are the UNC doctors saying? UNC is a much better Public Health/Epidemiology school than Duke.

My wife, an MPA from VT with a concentration in Public Health didn't consider Duke when considering Ph.D. programs because they do not have the same clout.

Never Forget #1 Overall Seed UVA 54, #64 UMBC 74

I agree with the Duke doc. Sounds a little hypocritical to say it's safe enough to have students on-campus, but no organized sports. I think it can be done safely. If you're not comfortable playing until there is no risk at all, you might be waiting a little longer than just one sports season, partner. And to play a full season in the Spring is a pretty ridiculous proposal IMHO. If you're going to cancel Fall ball, just cancel it until 2021, and when there are still more lingering COVID cases, cancel it again. Probably safer on the football field than an excursion to your local Walmart.

"That man was violating a city ordinance, and I was just doing my duty to enforce it." - Mike Curtis

You know what. I'm so proud of TKP during this really shitty time. Unlike TSL which has turn into a shitfeast of talking shit about the party you support to each other. We may not agree with each other political views but at the end of day we are hokies and that's the only thing that matters😃

YEAH HERE WE GO
JUST WATCH HOW WILD IT GETS

I support the fight for your right to party.

Have been on conference calls with Dr Wolfe several times. His opinions on Covid-19 are not consistent to the overall vast majority of doctors and infectious disease experts I have spoken to. Personally I would not let me child play under his advice.

take that for what its worth, which may be nothing to you

You should write a book.

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

Edit: too many brews. I hope we see football

"What are you going to do, stab me? - Quote from Man Stabbed

If we do play, this at least cuts to the point:

Spurrier Gets It

VT Marketing Class of 2009
Current Roanoke-Hokie
Go Hokies!

Forgetting Covid for a minute...if ACC and SEC play, is it possible that elite players could transfer out of Pac-12, B1G, to an ACC/SEC school to play in the 2020 season? Would the NCAA grant them immediate eligibility?

Has anyone been discussing this?

I was wondering the same thing. I bet Justin Fields is wishing he had stayed in the SEC.

At this stage in the game, not without causing a huge racket at whichever school unceremoniously dumps players off their roster to admit the transfers.

Also, it's too late for that on the academic side.

No, I *don't* want to go to the SEC. Why do you ask?

We don't love dem Hoos.

Angry mask-hater: "Masks aren't effective at keeping you from catching Covid."
Reality: Wearing a mask is not about protecting you, its to keep the disease from spreading to other people and throughout society.

Send the kids back to school advocate: "Kids are the most resilient group in society, it's safe for them to go back to school."
Reality: It's not about whether kids have high survival rates from Covid, it's about spreading the disease throughout society.

LetThemPlay advocate: "The risk to the football players is a reasonable trade off. They really want to play (and more importantly I really want to watch football)."
Reality: It's not about the safety of the players, it's about keeping the virus from spreading throughout society.

Until as a country we accept that we have to control, then contain, then eliminate the virus, we're unfortunately going to continue to have a handicapped economy, it won't be safe for kids to go to school, and we're not going to have sports in any sort of normal capacity. Short of a vaccine that is at least 80-90% effective (which may never happen), we're going to suffer as a country.

No one wants to hear this, but we should be more concerned about there being a 2021 season than there being a 2020 season.

The doll's trying to kill me and the toaster's been laughing at me.