limited fan attendance at athletic events

limited fan attendance at athletic events - 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: limited fan attendance at athletic events (/thread-22812.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

RE: limited fan attendance at athletic events - 82lsju - 01-07-2022

(01-07-2022, 04:15 PM)WindyCityCard Wrote: Fwiw, in an email today the Stanford admin said there have been ~400 student positive tests and ~300 faculty/staff/postdoc positive tests in the past week.

For context, in the 2020-21 academic year, at the height of the pandemic (and with mandatory weekly testing for everyone) there typically were 20-30 student and 10 faculty/staff/postdoc positive tests per week.

Omicron may be less severe on average, but with those case rates it would be incredibly irresponsible to hold large non-essential gatherings indoors in person.

probably the same info from a Daily article here

https://stanforddaily.com/2022/01/07/stanford-delays-start-of-most-in-person-undergraduate-classes/

RE: limited fan attendance at athletic events - winflop - 01-08-2022

(01-07-2022, 04:15 PM)WindyCityCard Wrote: Fwiw, in an email today the Stanford admin said there have been ~400 student positive tests and ~300 faculty/staff/postdoc positive tests in the past week.

For context, in the 2020-21 academic year, at the height of the pandemic (and with mandatory weekly testing for everyone) there typically were 20-30 student and 10 faculty/staff/postdoc positive tests per week.

Omicron may be less severe on average, but with those case rates it would be incredibly irresponsible to hold large non-essential gatherings indoors in person.

Has even one of those 700 people been hospitalized?

I don't think much can be done to stop omicron from spreading. The only question is how long do you want it to take to do so? The risk is people being hospitalized (or worse), which thankfully isn't happening at anywhere near the same rate as it did for delta and previous mutations, doubly so among the vaccinated.

RE: limited fan attendance at athletic events - BostonCard - 01-08-2022

Across the US, cases have sextupled from mid-November, hospital use has merely doubled, so yeah, the risk of hospitalization is about 1/3 that of earlier variants (actually it’s a bit higher, because people are spending less time in the hospital). So, indeed on an individual level, if a vaccinated, low risk person gets COVID, they are most likely not going to get hospitalized. However, from a systems level, given the sheer number of people who have gotten COVID, a lot of hospitals are starting to fill up again. There are currently 125,000 people hospitalized with COVID, and the total number of hospital beds in the entire country is only 900,000. Given that case numbers are still rising, and hospitalizations lag behind cases, there is a legit risk that even with the fact that omicron does appear to be milder, that we will see up to a quarter of hospital beds used up by victims of COVID. Since it is not like we have 200,000 hospital beds lying fallow just in case, it means that COVID victims start to crowd out other reasons to be in the hospital. First elective surgeries, then elective admissions for things like chemotherapy for cancer.

BC

RE: limited fan attendance at athletic events - oldalum - 01-08-2022

Yes, and another growing problem is that health care workers are being sidelined by infections, stressing the system (and the health care workers able to work) in various places. We should keep in mind the system problems that rapid surges can cause, including businesses that can't adequately staff, even though the infections do not cause problems for a high percentage of those infected.

SCC website shows only 36 ICU beds are available at the moment, which doesn't seem to me to be a lot unless we have more in reserve.

RE: limited fan attendance at athletic events - cardcrimson - 01-08-2022

(01-08-2022, 07:24 PM)winflop Wrote:
(01-07-2022, 04:15 PM)WindyCityCard Wrote: Fwiw, in an email today the Stanford admin said there have been ~400 student positive tests and ~300 faculty/staff/postdoc positive tests in the past week.

For context, in the 2020-21 academic year, at the height of the pandemic (and with mandatory weekly testing for everyone) there typically were 20-30 student and 10 faculty/staff/postdoc positive tests per week.

Omicron may be less severe on average, but with those case rates it would be incredibly irresponsible to hold large non-essential gatherings indoors in person.

Has even one of those 700 people been hospitalized?

I don't think much can be done to stop omicron from spreading. The only question is how long do you want it to take to do so? The risk is people being hospitalized (or worse), which thankfully isn't happening at anywhere near the same rate as it did for delta and previous mutations, doubly so among the vaccinated.

Are you sure flop? Reuters disagrees with your assessment. And this is outdated news by now: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/cdc-chief-says-us-covid-cases-likely-have-not-yet-peaked-2022-01-07/

RE: limited fan attendance at athletic events - WindyCityCard - 01-08-2022

(01-08-2022, 07:24 PM)winflop Wrote:
(01-07-2022, 04:15 PM)WindyCityCard Wrote: Fwiw, in an email today the Stanford admin said there have been ~400 student positive tests and ~300 faculty/staff/postdoc positive tests in the past week.
.....

Has even one of those 700 people been hospitalized?
....

Stanford doesn't report those numbers, either publicly or in emails. The closest data available are Santa Clara county, which show that the # of patients in county hospitals with covid tripled, from 118 to 382 between 12/26 and 1/7. The number of covid-positive patients in the ICU approximately doubled in that time. Fortunately both numbers are still about half of what they were in January 2021, but they're both rising steeply.

https://public.tableau.com/views/COVID-19HospitalsDashboard/Hospitals?:embed=y&:showVizHome=no

Also, keep in mind that the point people are making in this thread is not that society should shut down, elementary schools should be closed, etc. I'd think that would be an overreaction at this point (and I say that as someone who has 2/3 of my household in K-12 schools).

The point is simply that there is no reason to hold mass indoor gatherings of people yelling and cheering for events they (we) can watch on TV.

RE: limited fan attendance at athletic events - chimera - 01-09-2022

I did not think I was going to post again in this thread, but this link has a lot of the latest info on Long COVID, peer reviewed scientific stuff, some done by Stanford scientists. Read or ignore as you will.

https://twitter.com/IanRicksecker/status/1478611650760437765

RE: limited fan attendance at athletic events - winflop - 01-09-2022

(01-08-2022, 10:01 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:
(01-08-2022, 07:24 PM)winflop Wrote:
(01-07-2022, 04:15 PM)WindyCityCard Wrote: Fwiw, in an email today the Stanford admin said there have been ~400 student positive tests and ~300 faculty/staff/postdoc positive tests in the past week.

For context, in the 2020-21 academic year, at the height of the pandemic (and with mandatory weekly testing for everyone) there typically were 20-30 student and 10 faculty/staff/postdoc positive tests per week.

Omicron may be less severe on average, but with those case rates it would be incredibly irresponsible to hold large non-essential gatherings indoors in person.

Has even one of those 700 people been hospitalized?

I don't think much can be done to stop omicron from spreading. The only question is how long do you want it to take to do so? The risk is people being hospitalized (or worse), which thankfully isn't happening at anywhere near the same rate as it did for delta and previous mutations, doubly so among the vaccinated.

Are you sure flop? Reuters disagrees with your assessment. And this is outdated news by now: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/cdc-chief-says-us-covid-cases-likely-have-not-yet-peaked-2022-01-07/

No, I'm not sure, which is why I posed it as a question. But the reality is that with rare exception, omicron is severely impacting the unvaccinated but not the vaccinated. Sadly, few if any are reporting on this important delineation. From the article: "We are still seeing those numbers rising," Walensky said, noting that while cases outpaced hospitalizations and deaths, rising hospitalizations were primarily among the unvaccinated.

What's happening to the unvaccinated is of minimal relevance to the Stanford community given the super-high vaccination rate.

There is also a newly-emerging frustration which is that hospitalization numbers include both people hospitalized FOR Covid and people hospitalized WITH Covid. NY state just reported that more than half of their current Covid hospitalizations are people who were hospitalized for other reasons but incidentally tested positive for Covid during the admissions process. Locally (according to the Murky News), both UCSF and Stanford hospitals have reported over 25% of their Covid patients hospitalized with Covid, not for it.

At this point, my hope is that omicron burns through quickly, with minimal impact to the vaccinated.

leftcoast - Leftcoast - 01-09-2022

Quick note - Publushed positive test rates are almost certainly UNDER reporting the Omicron surge. There’s no good mechanism for ensuring home rapid test results are reported.

(P.S. Since I mentioned our vaccinated+boosted family tested positive I’m providing an update - For all of us Covid was a bad flu (even the 25 year old). Symptoms were congestion, bad headaches, severe drowsiness, fever, weakness. Worst was over in 5 days but we all wondered who is getting asymptomatic Covid? Sure wasn’t us.)

RE: leftcoast - cardcrimson - 01-09-2022

(01-09-2022, 12:20 PM)Leftcoast Wrote: Quick note - Publushed positive test rates are almost certainly UNDER reporting the Omicron surge. There’s no good mechanism for ensuring home rapid test results are reported.

(P.S. Since I mentioned our vaccinated+boosted family tested positive I’m providing an update - For all of us Covid was a bad flu (even the 25 year old). Symptoms were congestion, bad headaches, severe drowsiness, fever, weakness. Worst was over in 5 days but we all wondered who is getting asymptomatic Covid? Sure wasn’t us.)

Does not sound like fun. Glad you and yours are on the mend.

RE: leftcoast - winflop - 01-09-2022

(01-09-2022, 12:20 PM)Leftcoast Wrote: Quick note - Publushed positive test rates are almost certainly UNDER reporting the Omicron surge. There’s no good mechanism for ensuring home rapid test results are reported.

(P.S. Since I mentioned our vaccinated+boosted family tested positive I’m providing an update - For all of us Covid was a bad flu (even the 25 year old). Symptoms were congestion, bad headaches, severe drowsiness, fever, weakness. Worst was over in 5 days but we all wondered who is getting asymptomatic Covid? Sure wasn’t us.)

Happy to read that nobody had anything more severe. Agree 100% that the actual number of positive cases is much higher due to asymptomatic and even mildly symptomatic infections. Given the scarcity of tests, if I had even mild symptoms (like a cold, not a flu) I would not likely go get tested. Save the tests for people who are sicker and may need medical attention/assistance.

RE: limited fan attendance at athletic events - BostonCard - 01-09-2022

Bear in mind that it is sometimes hard to tell the difference between hospitalized “with omicron” and “for omicron”. A patient who has a COPD exacerbation, for example, might be hospitalized for their worsening COPD and not COVID, even though COVID caused their worsening COPD. And a patient whose heart attack was brought about by the stress induced by COVID might get counted as a heart attack and not a “for COVID” admission.

BC

RE: leftcoast - M T - 01-09-2022

(01-09-2022, 12:54 PM)winflop Wrote: Given the scarcity of tests, if I had even mild symptoms (like a cold, not a flu) I would not likely go get tested. Save the tests for people who are sicker and may need medical attention/assistance.

Please consider that if you think you have COVID and are concerned that you are in a risk group (so you want meds), you probably want a RT-PCR test, not an antigen test. If you can't get a PCR test soon enough to get treated, go ahead with antigen. (See this UCSF doc's tale)

If you think you do NOT have COVID, but you might shortly put someone at risk (or maybe a large group) if you happen to be infected but asymptomatic so far, that is a great time to do an antigen test.

If an antigen test comes back positive for COVID, isolate. False positives are really rare (roughly 0% - in the several studies I've looked at, exactly 0%). If it comes back negative, well, that doesn't mean too much. Maybe you do, maybe you don't.

(I am not a physician. Consult your physician and follow their advice.)

RE: limited fan attendance at athletic events - teejers1 - 01-10-2022

(01-09-2022, 01:53 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Bear in mind that it is sometimes hard to tell the difference between hospitalized “with omicron” and “for omicron”. A patient who has a COPD exacerbation, for example, might be hospitalized for their worsening COPD and not COVID, even though COVID caused their worsening COPD. And a patient whose heart attack was brought about by the stress induced by COVID might get counted as a heart attack and not a “for COVID” admission.

BC

Some medical official in the Bay Area made the exact same point Winflop on tonight's news and said the CDC needs to correct this because it paints a misleading picture.

RE: limited fan attendance at athletic events - Phogge - 01-10-2022

Where the hell is Marty with a plea to shut this thread down?

RE: limited fan attendance at athletic events - cardcrimson - 01-10-2022

(01-10-2022, 12:43 AM)teejers1 Wrote: Some medical official in the Bay Area made the exact same point Winflop on tonight's news and said the CDC needs to correct this because it paints a misleading picture.

The picture hasn't changed since the pandemic began; people have been talking about 'hospitalized with" or "hospitalized for" all along. For some reason now, the argument has credibility with the media. . . .

RE: limited fan attendance at athletic events - Farm93 - 01-10-2022

(01-10-2022, 06:48 AM)Phogge Wrote: Where the hell is Marty with a plea to shut this thread down?

At this point COVID is the blue whale in the pool. The elephant expression doesn't give COVID enough credit.

COVID-19 protocols have the ability to suspend on-campus learning and academic research. That drives everything IMHO, not hospitalizations or deaths. Athletics capable of bringing in a few million in revenue in the best of times, just aren't that important to a multi-billion dollar operation.

Back to athletics, COVID-19 protocols have the ability to disqualify WBB and MGym teams during post season play at a moments notice. The recent USA figure skating championships demonstrated that. So it is possible Stanford's NCAA team title streak will end this year because of COVID-19 protocols.

The AD should do everything possible to make sure NCAA championship level teams remain viable given existing COVID-19 protocols, and at the moment the single biggest thing the AD can do is keep the athletes and coaches away from the fans, especially fans that seem to think getting COVID is not a big deal. I don't think it is a health or survival thing for this variant, but I do think the choices will impact their chances of navigating protocols and winning titles.

IMHO - Get all the athletes and coaches boosted and get all in the AD to properly use N95, KN95 and/or KF94 masks. Then create the best possible AD bubble you can create. The best bubble will not have fans in the stands or in the AD facilities, so I don't expect to be watching any indoor Stanford sports until August 2022. If it is earlier than that great, but I am OK with the idea that the AD's bubble may not include me.

RE: limited fan attendance at athletic events - teejers1 - 01-10-2022

(01-10-2022, 10:44 AM)Farm93 Wrote:
(01-10-2022, 06:48 AM)Phogge Wrote: Where the hell is Marty with a plea to shut this thread down?
At this point COVID is the blue whale in the pool. The elephant expression doesn't give COVID enough credit.

COVID-19 protocols have the ability to suspend on-campus learning and academic research. That drives everything IMHO, not hospitalizations or deaths. Athletics capable of bringing in a few million in revenue in the best of times, just aren't that important to a multi-billion dollar operation.

Back to athletics, COVID-19 protocols have the ability to disqualify WBB and MGym teams during post season play at a moments notice. The recent USA figure skating championships demonstrated that. So it is possible Stanford's NCAA team title streak will end this year because of COVID-19 protocols.

The AD should do everything possible to make sure NCAA championship level teams remain viable given existing COVID-19 protocols, and at the moment the single biggest thing the AD can do is keep the athletes and coaches away from the fans, especially fans that seem to think getting COVID is not a big deal. I don't think it is a health or survival thing for this variant, but I do think the choices will impact their chances of navigating protocols and winning titles.

IMHO - Get all the athletes and coaches boosted and get all in the AD to properly use N95, KN95 and/or KF94 masks. Then create the best possible AD bubble you can create. The best bubble will not have fans in the stands or in the AD facilities, so I don't expect to be watching any indoor Stanford sports until August 2022. If it is earlier than that great, but I am OK with the idea that the AD's bubble may not include me.

Look, Stanford can (and will) do whatever it wants re: fans and that's fine - as long as they refund $$ provided by fans expecting to watch in person.

But I must point out that your entire "no fan" safety approach is based on the notion that player-risk from fan attendance is real. Maybe . . . but it also seems that for hoops (or any indoor sport at Maples) you could lessen risk - probably even eliminate it - if you limit seating areas. But whatever, Stanford probably thinks it's not "worth it" for whatever reason, including administrative/implementation costs/pain in the ass, so we'll watch on TV (when we can).

Last point: I have to take this moment to re-raise the issue of overreporting of Covid deaths with BC, who was adamant that all prior reporting was accurate (and frankly, did not understand why I was asking if the deaths were "because of" Covid or died "with Covid").

RE: limited fan attendance at athletic events - WBB fan - 01-10-2022

I've been reading all these posts and not responded to any so far, but I think there's an aspect that hasn't been raised as yet, and it's important in thinking about Stanford's motivation. It's not just a matter of protecting the athletes from the fans etc. Stanford is responding to the current surge in what to me is a responsible way -- barring fans from indoor events also protects fans. Personally, I don't want to go to large indoor events right now, or even relatively small ones, and I think many feel this way. I suspect that Stanford is taking the risk to fans, not just athletes, into account.

RE: limited fan attendance at athletic events - crackpot - 01-10-2022

(01-10-2022, 10:44 AM)Farm93 Wrote:
(01-10-2022, 06:48 AM)Phogge Wrote: Where the hell is Marty with a plea to shut this thread down?
IMHO - Get all the athletes and coaches boosted and get all in the AD to properly use N95, KN95 and/or KF94 masks. Then create the best possible AD bubble you can create. The best bubble will not have fans in the stands or in the AD facilities, so I don't expect to be watching any indoor Stanford sports until August 2022. If it is earlier than that great, but I am OK with the idea that the AD's bubble may not include me.

Watching the Our Stories on the WBB championship season, it was nice to see the team taking it seriously. I was horrified to watch Episode 3 of Sweet Life of WBB with Belibi and Jones. Little to no serious mask-wearing in freakin' TENNESSEE...