The CardBoard
MBB vs. Cal 6pm (Pac-12 Tournament R1) - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: MBB vs. Cal 6pm (Pac-12 Tournament R1) (/thread-19084.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

RE: MBB vs. Cal 6pm (Pac-12 Tournament R1) - chrisk - 03-12-2020

(03-12-2020, 09:14 AM)magnus Wrote:  Big Ten, SEC and AAC cancel conference tournaments.  If only the Pac12 had done the same thing,  then we wouldn't have to have last night in our memories.
Big Ten played uts first round yesterday as well.
Big East is the one conference still playing.
Edit: Big East shuts down at halftime.

RE: MBB vs. Cal 6pm (Pac-12 Tournament R1) - winflop - 03-12-2020

(03-12-2020, 09:05 AM)SamuelMcF Wrote:  
(03-12-2020, 04:18 AM)winflop Wrote:  I think it's time to start questioning Muir as well. He's supposedly a basketball guy, but he kept Dawkins around for way too long and much as I'd like to see a new HC I highly doubt he's going to replace Haase.

I'm kind of surprised it took you this long...

Well, I did call his judgment into question when he hung onto Dawkins for so long, but it was one data point. Now we've had two coaches that can't get the job done. More data, stronger argument.

His record over the last 4 years elsewhere has been mixed as well.

RE: MBB vs. Cal 6pm (Pac-12 Tournament R1) - BostonCard - 03-12-2020

(03-11-2020, 09:17 PM)76lsjumb Wrote:  
(03-11-2020, 09:01 PM)Treebound Wrote:  Coaching - we don't have it.  Dawkins was not very good and neither is Haase.   This team had a shot at the Dance and they didn't show up - pathetic.    I put it on the coaches and I put it on the team as well.   Muir, who is a basketball guy, needs to get someone in here that can rebuild this program.  The urgency, the desire, the grit were not there when a place at the table was on the line.  I tip my hat to the weenies.   They brought it and we played like the corona kids versus the cardinal.  What a waste.     Time for some baseball!

Ummm, baseball is 5-11.
Maybe you mean the Giants.  Oh, never mind...

MLB is expected to suspend its operations indefinitely.

I think we are rapidly heading to the position where all organized sporting events are suspended for the time being.

BC

RE: MBB vs. Cal 6pm (Pac-12 Tournament R1) - teejers1 - 03-12-2020

(03-12-2020, 10:22 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  MLB is expected to suspend its operations indefinitely.

I think we are rapidly heading to the position where all organized sporting events are suspended for the time being.

BC

Okay, so Rudy is diagnosed with the virus - pretty obvious why NBA freaks out and suspends games (though I don't expect any NBAers to be severely affected by the virus - i.e., do you expect any players to die?  Get really sick, as opposed to being asymptomatic or having milder symptoms?).  There is a lot of body contact/banging/bodily fluids all over everywhere, etc.  Why risk spread to other players and refs and coaches?

But I heard an immunologist on ESPN say that the fan ban is a social distancing thing - there is no real risk of transmission from competitors to fans . . . which makes some intuitive sense.  So the fan ban is all about keeping large groups from congregating in tight quarters.  I get it.

So if you test all NBA players over reasonable period and they all come up negative, is it acceptable to play those games and televise them?  Before no fans?  Before an acceptably low number of fans spaced out?  Is the reason for canceling due to fear of transmission in getting teams from A to B (though they all have charter flights, right?).  Is it fear of transmission from teams staying in hotels?  From going to clubs?  I assume it's all the stuff associated with teams going from A to B and competing.  And f so, then isn't the ultimate conclusion: everyone just stay home and do nothing?

It's a surrender monkey mentality - to use a well-worn term on Stanford fan boards - but perhaps that is what is required.  It strikes me as pretty extreme, but I'm looking for a principle here.  Is it stay home and do nothing? I have been going to Safeway and Costco to do my daily/weekly shopping.  Why isn't the prudent thing to just forego all that, too?

P.S.  Baseball is even more curious.  The sport itself has way less contact; it's outdoors; and in many venues the attendance is really bad.  Hard to see what the principle here is.  Maybe the pro sports' principle is this:  'we don't want to play in front of no one; therefore, we're suspending things for now.'

RE: MBB vs. Cal 6pm (Pac-12 Tournament R1) - BostonCard - 03-12-2020

Teejers, remember that what we are seeing now is between 5 and 14 days behind what is going on out there, and with the shortage of tests, for every positive test, there are probably 4 hidden ones (based on the hospitalization and death rate).

The only way to respond to this pandemic is to "over-respond".  China and Italy have had to implement a complete and total shutdown, so if we can't get on top of it immediately, that's the sort of response we are going to have to implement.

Here's a good description of why (I posted it on the main Covid thread):

https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-people-will-die-f4d3d9cd99ca

His recommendations:

So the question becomes: What are the tradeoffs we could be making to lower the R? This is the menu that Italy has put in front of all of us:
The alternative is to "ride it out".  Under standard epidemic modeling scenarios most of the US population eventually contracts Covid-19, 10's of millions of people are sick enough to require a hospitalization, maybe 10 - 20 million people require ICU care and a ventilator (that we don't have enough of) and millions of people die.

Social distancing works.  It flattens the peak and reduces the totals, dramatically.  But for social distancing to work, it has to be enforced, and that means that even seemingly trivial stuff that is not important has to be cancelled or postponed.

BC
PS One other thing.  Rudy was the first diagnosed.  A second Jazz player has since tested positive.  It is safe to assume that the entire Jazz team has been exposed and most will test positive sometime in the next two weeks.  Recent Jazz opponents have been exposed. Over the next few weeks more players will turn positive.  And if you do nothing, the entire league will be infected.

BC
[tweet]https://twitter.com/jasonvanschoor/status/1237142891077697538?s=20[/tweet]

If the prospect of orthopods and pathologists taking care of you in the ICU doesn't scare the s#it out of you, I don't know what would.  Keep inmind that two weeks ago Northern Italy was looking like Washington looks now.

BC

RE: MBB vs. Cal 6pm (Pac-12 Tournament R1) - French Rage - 03-12-2020

Yet another year without Haase making the tournament!

RE: MBB vs. Cal 6pm (Pac-12 Tournament R1) - ColoradoTree - 03-12-2020

(03-12-2020, 01:59 PM)French Rage Wrote:  Yet another year without Haase making the tournament!

Or, this is the first year of a new streak of not missing the tournament! Stanford wasn't left out of the field, after all, if there is no field.

RE: MBB vs. Cal 6pm (Pac-12 Tournament R1) - teejers1 - 03-12-2020

(03-12-2020, 11:01 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  Social distancing works.  It flattens the peak and reduces the totals, dramatically.  But for social distancing to work, it has to be enforced, and that means that even seemingly trivial stuff that is not important has to be cancelled or postponed.

BC

So how does playing a college baseball game in front of no fans undermine social distancing?  Softball games?  Swim meets?

Are college sports teams still practicing, even if their formal competitions have been canceled?  I presume the answer is yes - at least for a large segment of those teams.  If so, why is that allowed to happen?  Are there not social distancing concerns there, too?

Fishing for a principle that is hard to find, other than no restriction may be questioned.  
Maybe we should call it the Dean Wormer Principle!  

We're all on Double Secret Probation, and "No more fun of any kind!!"

RE: MBB vs. Cal 6pm (Pac-12 Tournament R1) - BostonCard - 03-12-2020

My wife and I were talking about my son playing golf for his high school team.  At its face, golf would be the last sport you would think would put someone at risk of transmission.  But after every match, of course, what do the kids do?  They take off their hat, run their fingers through their hair, and then shake hands with their opponent, so a great chance at transmission.

Softball games, the dugout is a great chance for transmission.  Swim meets you have to worry about the locker room.

The s*it is hitting the fan.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/sarahkliff/status/1238189977198002176?s=20[/tweet]

The worst part is that what we are seeing today reflects transmissions that happened a week ago; in coronavirus terms that's an eternity.  You either enforce near draconian measures now, or in two weeks you are looking at doctors having to ration ventilators.

[Image: ES7wXLwXkAA0nhZ?format=png&name=medium]

BC

RE: MBB vs. Cal 6pm (Pac-12 Tournament R1) - 76lsjumb - 03-12-2020

(03-12-2020, 04:06 PM)teejers1 Wrote:  Are college sports teams still practicing, even if their formal competitions have been canceled?  I presume the answer is yes - at least for a large segment of those teams.  If so, why is that allowed to happen?  Are there not social distancing concerns there, too?

If you're talking about Stanford, the only practicing is presumably being done online. Time to break out those VR goggles...

As I understand it, dorms and facilities have been [or are shortly being] closed indefinitely.

Now, if you're talking about SEC spring football practice, who knows...?  :-)

RE: MBB vs. Cal 6pm (Pac-12 Tournament R1) - teejers1 - 03-13-2020

(03-12-2020, 04:45 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  My wife and I were talking about my son playing golf for his high school team.  At its face, golf would be the last sport you would think would put someone at risk of transmission.  But after every match, of course, what do the kids do?  They take off their hat, run their fingers through their hair, and then shake hands with their opponent, so a great chance at transmission.

Softball games, the dugout is a great chance for transmission.  Swim meets you have to worry about the locker room.

The s*it is hitting the fan.

So rather than having kid play golf and instructing them not to take off hat, rub hand through hair and shake opponents hand, the directive is "shut it down."  Wow . . . 

The locker room means cancel all swim meets (as opposed to, you know, come to the meet in your suit, warm up at socially acceptable distance, and compete, and go home).  Again . . . wow.

The dugout . . . the classroom.  (And I'm smh at why schools have been open and remain open).

Admit it, BC, you think everyone should just stay home and limit all interaction.  That's okay.  Hell, that may be "the prudent" thing to do.  
But it's hard for me to accept that total shutdown is a good societal move, for a variety of reasons, including the overall meltdown that such reactions generate.

RE: MBB vs. Cal 6pm (Pac-12 Tournament R1) - Treebound - 03-13-2020

TJ, 
The decision has already been made, first by Stanford, then by the Ivies and now by the NCAA.  I have one child still on campus finishing up dead week (this week) and then finals.   Trying to decide if she's going to take a break for Spring, since Stanford is telling the kids not to come back after Spring Break.   

Given what we are hearing about Italy and France right now, I do think it's the prudent thing to do.  Some schools, like Miami, are not telling the kids to stay home.   Interesting choice, probably made due to economics.   As others have pointed out, the dorms, locker rooms, etc... all present opportunities for this to spread given close proximities (take a cruise anyone?).  

Stay healthy, my friends!

RE: MBB vs. Cal 6pm (Pac-12 Tournament R1) - teejers1 - 03-13-2020

(03-13-2020, 11:13 AM)Treebound Wrote:  TJ, 
The decision has already been made, first by Stanford, then by the Ivies and now by the NCAA.  I have one child still on campus finishing up dead week (this week) and then finals.   Trying to decide if she's going to take a break for Spring, since Stanford is telling the kids not to come back after Spring Break.   

Given what we are hearing about Italy and France right now, I do think it's the prudent thing to do.  Some schools, like Miami, are not telling the kids to stay home.   Interesting choice, probably made due to economics.   As others have pointed out, the dorms, locker rooms, etc... all present opportunities for this to spread given close proximities (take a cruise anyone?).  

Stay healthy, my friends!

I wasn't disputing school shutdown; rather, wondering why public schools have remained open (finally Palo Alto said kids would stay home starting Monday through Spring Break, at least).  But outside of mass (or semi-mass gatherings) - playing golf and swimming are prime examples - I'm thinking a little reasonable thinking can go a long way.  [In fact, in addition to streaming businesses, I think golf courses will see an uptick of users as people "staying home" look for safe and fun things to do, especially outdoors].  And just swung by club for lunch - the adult swimmers who get exercise that way were out doing their laps in all lanes, which strikes me as entirely reasonable.

RE: MBB vs. Cal 6pm (Pac-12 Tournament R1) - fullmetal - 03-13-2020

One of the reasons why you're seeing differences in when various entities are closing down is that no central authority really exists outside the state to mandate such a thing.  The state itself doesn't have enough real data to understand the situation (thanks to lack of tests), and so it's up to the local entities to determine when things are going to get bad.

The exponential increase in cases compounded by the fact that most transmission occurs within the first five days of symptoms (before you really start feeling it) means that most transmission occurs before you know you're infected.  Shutting down everything is painful on many levels, but it's the only real way to check the spread before it overwhelms our local healthcare systems.

At one hospital in nearby, there is no mandatory PPE protocol in place for suspected C19 patients (because they'd run out of PPE really quickly with the current numbers).  However, one confirmed positive C19 patient did end up coming through that hospital ER (probably admitted), and suddenly over half the respiratory therapists on staff are in mandatory quarantine, as are several of the physicians/nurses for being in contact with a known case.  We're not even to the point where C19 is widespread, and half the RT staff is out of commission...

Oh, and there are reports of medical staff just not showing up to work or calling in for fear that they'll be exposed and then have to self-quarantine.  I can see this happening with single mothers or sole breadwinners...it's not a great choice.  And again, this leaves hospitals short-staffed, decreasing quality of care and reducing the likelihood that patients will survive.

We as a society must do everything to ensure that we don't become a patient.  Take care of the allied healthcare providers you know.  If not already, they will soon be put to the test.

RE: MBB vs. Cal 6pm (Pac-12 Tournament R1) - BostonCard - 03-14-2020

(03-13-2020, 11:03 AM)teejers1 Wrote:  
(03-12-2020, 04:45 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  My wife and I were talking about my son playing golf for his high school team.  At its face, golf would be the last sport you would think would put someone at risk of transmission.  But after every match, of course, what do the kids do?  They take off their hat, run their fingers through their hair, and then shake hands with their opponent, so a great chance at transmission.

Softball games, the dugout is a great chance for transmission.  Swim meets you have to worry about the locker room.

The s*it is hitting the fan.

So rather than having kid play golf and instructing them not to take off hat, rub hand through hair and shake opponents hand, the directive is "shut it down."  Wow . . . 

The locker room means cancel all swim meets (as opposed to, you know, come to the meet in your suit, warm up at socially acceptable distance, and compete, and go home).  Again . . . wow.

The dugout . . . the classroom.  (And I'm smh at why schools have been open and remain open).

Admit it, BC, you think everyone should just stay home and limit all interaction.  That's okay.  Hell, that may be "the prudent" thing to do.  
But it's hard for me to accept that total shutdown is a good societal move, for a variety of reasons, including the overall meltdown that such reactions generate.

Doesn’t matter, his school was shut down and all activities shelved, from the school play to athletics.  I don’t have an issue with individuals pursuing individual athletic endevours.  My father in law’s golf club shut down the lockers, clubhouse, and restaurant, but the course remains open to members so I don’t have a problem with him playing a round.  My father bikes, and I’m more concerned that he’ll wipe out in the rain than I am that he will get COVID-19 doing so.  I’ve taken to taking walks outside in the neighborhood to avoid going stir crazy.  So, yeah, I do agree with you that the toll of complete isolation will be too much for society.

But I do think communal gatherings, team sports, and anything that puts many people together should be out.  The larger the group, the larger the probability that at least one person is infected and the larger the number of susceptible individuals who could get infected.  Imagine that 1 in 1000 people are infected with the virus.  If you get together for a round of golf with three friends, the likelihood that one of you is infected is 1 in 250, and at most that person can infect three others.  Now imagine you are involved in a 250 person wedding; the chances that at least one person is infected are 4% or so, and one infection puts 249 others at risk.

The larger the fraction of infected people, the smaller a gathering has to be so that at least one person is infected, so as the infection progresses, you will need to be more and more restrictive.  At its peak, you will pretty much have to shut everything down for a few weeks, as first China, then Italy, and now Spain have been doing.

BC

RE: MBB vs. Cal 6pm (Pac-12 Tournament R1) - cardcrimson - 03-14-2020

(03-13-2020, 01:05 PM)teejers1 Wrote:  
(03-13-2020, 11:13 AM)Treebound Wrote:  TJ, 
The decision has already been made, first by Stanford, then by the Ivies and now by the NCAA.  I have one child still on campus finishing up dead week (this week) and then finals.   Trying to decide if she's going to take a break for Spring, since Stanford is telling the kids not to come back after Spring Break.   

Given what we are hearing about Italy and France right now, I do think it's the prudent thing to do.  Some schools, like Miami, are not telling the kids to stay home.   Interesting choice, probably made due to economics.   As others have pointed out, the dorms, locker rooms, etc... all present opportunities for this to spread given close proximities (take a cruise anyone?).  

Stay healthy, my friends!

I wasn't disputing school shutdown; rather, wondering why public schools have remained open (finally Palo Alto said kids would stay home starting Monday through Spring Break, at least).  But outside of mass (or semi-mass gatherings) - playing golf and swimming are prime examples - I'm thinking a little reasonable thinking can go a long way.  [In fact, in addition to streaming businesses, I think golf courses will see an uptick of users as people "staying home" look for safe and fun things to do, especially outdoors].  And just swung by club for lunch - the adult swimmers who get exercise that way were out doing their laps in all lanes, which strikes me as entirely reasonable.

In our part of the East Bay, most of the club (competitive/year round) swimming is shut down. Same with water polo.

RE: MBB vs. Cal 6pm (Pac-12 Tournament R1) - teejers1 - 03-14-2020

(03-14-2020, 02:54 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  
(03-13-2020, 11:03 AM)teejers1 Wrote:  
(03-12-2020, 04:45 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  My wife and I were talking about my son playing golf for his high school team.  At its face, golf would be the last sport you would think would put someone at risk of transmission.  But after every match, of course, what do the kids do?  They take off their hat, run their fingers through their hair, and then shake hands with their opponent, so a great chance at transmission.

Softball games, the dugout is a great chance for transmission.  Swim meets you have to worry about the locker room.

The s*it is hitting the fan.

So rather than having kid play golf and instructing them not to take off hat, rub hand through hair and shake opponents hand, the directive is "shut it down."  Wow . . . 

The locker room means cancel all swim meets (as opposed to, you know, come to the meet in your suit, warm up at socially acceptable distance, and compete, and go home).  Again . . . wow.

The dugout . . . the classroom.  (And I'm smh at why schools have been open and remain open).

Admit it, BC, you think everyone should just stay home and limit all interaction.  That's okay.  Hell, that may be "the prudent" thing to do.  
But it's hard for me to accept that total shutdown is a good societal move, for a variety of reasons, including the overall meltdown that such reactions generate.

Doesn’t matter, his school was shut down and all activities shelved, from the school play to athletics.  I don’t have an issue with individuals pursuing individual athletic endevours.  My father in law’s golf club shut down the lockers, clubhouse, and restaurant, but the course remains open to members so I don’t have a problem with him playing a round.  My father bikes, and I’m more concerned that he’ll wipe out in the rain than I am that he will get COVID-19 doing so.  I’ve taken to taking walks outside in the neighborhood to avoid going stir crazy.  So, yeah, I do agree with you that the toll of complete isolation will be too much for society.

But I do think communal gatherings, team sports, and anything that puts many people together should be out.  The larger the group, the larger the probability that at least one person is infected and the larger the number of susceptible individuals who could get infected.  Imagine that 1 in 1000 people are infected with the virus.  If you get together for a round of golf with three friends, the likelihood that one of you is infected is 1 in 250, and at most that person can infect three others.  Now imagine you are involved in a 250 person wedding; the chances that at least one person is infected are 4% or so, and one infection puts 249 others at risk.

The larger the fraction of infected people, the smaller a gathering has to be so that at least one person is infected, so as the infection progresses, you will need to be more and more restrictive.  At its peak, you will pretty much have to shut everything down for a few weeks, as first China, then Italy, and now Spain have been doing.

BC

Last comment - because we're talking in circles and largely concur:  doesn't it matter what the people are doing at "the gathering" (as in no direct physical contact, both touching a ball, etc.)?  Your exemplar numbers assume the chances of transmission are constant. In other words, just because 100 people are gathering, I doubt it should be automatically outlawed.  In fact, today there was a memorial Dish walk for a teen killed in a bike/truck collision.  Some mulled around close together, but most were well-spaced out and no physical contact. Didn't strike me as worrisome at all.

RE: MBB vs. Cal 6pm (Pac-12 Tournament R1) - BostonCard - 03-14-2020

FWIW San Mateo county has banned gatherings larger than 50, and has stated that gatherings between 10-50 can only go ahead with a bunch of precautions. 

Spain, like Italy, has shut down. France has shut down all non-essential establishments, including the cafe’s.

BC

RE: MBB vs. Cal 6pm (Pac-12 Tournament R1) - DC 86 - 03-14-2020

(03-14-2020, 03:16 PM)teejers1 Wrote:  But I do think communal gatherings, team sports, and anything that puts many people together should be out.  The larger the group, the larger the probability that at least one person is infected and the larger the number of susceptible individuals who could get infected.  Imagine that 1 in 1000 people are infected with the virus.  If you get together for a round of golf with three friends, the likelihood that one of you is infected is 1 in 250, and at most that person can infect three others.  Now imagine you are involved in a 250 person wedding; the chances that at least one person is infected are 4% or so, and one infection puts 249 others at risk.

If the chances of an individual being infected are 1/1,000 (0.001) then the chances of at least one infected individual in a population of 250 is actually over 22% (1-(.999^250)).

RE: MBB vs. Cal 6pm (Pac-12 Tournament R1) - fullmetal - 03-14-2020

Academic/teaching hospital has a tumor board.  One participant gets a runny nose (maybe something else that clues them in), and goes to a private clinic to get tested.  Positive.  Everyone who attended the tumor board is out for two weeks...!

This is one way that the virus chips away at healthcare provider staffing.