1. Myocarditis is an inflammation that was never tested for in athletes prior to Covid 19 (at least that I've read). Thus, the % of athletes who show post-virus signs of it may or may not be significant. This was a "big issue" when the Pac wanted to be holier-than-thou, take the high road, and not play, etc. If it were really the "long-term death/harm" boogey man that some like to raise up the flag pole, I seriously doubt that teams would just "play anyway." The exposure is too great. I actually think one benefit from all this might be that teams actually look for this in their players as a matter of routine, and then have players sit out if deemed prudent.
2. I can't speak to other areas, but SCC could have a 100% increase in Covid hospitalizations and still be absolutely fine with respect to hospital capacity. The number of Covid (and suspected) Covid cases in SCC hospitals is now below 4% of total patients, and they have 35+% capacity available. Thus, the ominous figure of a possible increase of 89% of hospitalizations would not mean much here (and may or may not mean much elsewhere). And btw, that is just speculation.
3. Of course this is about money. Any risk-benefit analysis will inevitably include a discussion of financial benefit and costs. Thus, why anyone is sounding shocked, or disgusted, or what have you because the conference is thinking about money is just being sanctimonious to sound good. And btw, re-opening any activity should most definitely involve a risk-benefit analysis. What this really boils down to is that the author does not like the conclusion drawn from that analysis. But that's a policy decision where reasonable (or at least semi-reasonable) minds can differ. I don't know if immediate testing is the "game-changer" some think it is, but so far as I can tell, that is the only thing that has changed noticeably since 5 weeks ago (the hospital numbers have gradually been going in the right direction for a while now).
I'm ambivalent about the Pac returning to play; however, I do not begrudge any conference (including the Pac) for giving it a go. And I wish them all well.
And remember, college football may still not have a complete season this year. There is a long way to go. So this author, and you, and others who agree with his take may still have the opportunity to say "Bad idea. I told you so. Never should have tried it, etc."
P.S. We've discussed in a separate thread the player "who died of Covid" in another thread, so no need to re-hash that, beyond to say that even assuming death attribution was correct, there was no definitive reason to tie that death to playing football.
2. I can't speak to other areas, but SCC could have a 100% increase in Covid hospitalizations and still be absolutely fine with respect to hospital capacity. The number of Covid (and suspected) Covid cases in SCC hospitals is now below 4% of total patients, and they have 35+% capacity available. Thus, the ominous figure of a possible increase of 89% of hospitalizations would not mean much here (and may or may not mean much elsewhere). And btw, that is just speculation.
3. Of course this is about money. Any risk-benefit analysis will inevitably include a discussion of financial benefit and costs. Thus, why anyone is sounding shocked, or disgusted, or what have you because the conference is thinking about money is just being sanctimonious to sound good. And btw, re-opening any activity should most definitely involve a risk-benefit analysis. What this really boils down to is that the author does not like the conclusion drawn from that analysis. But that's a policy decision where reasonable (or at least semi-reasonable) minds can differ. I don't know if immediate testing is the "game-changer" some think it is, but so far as I can tell, that is the only thing that has changed noticeably since 5 weeks ago (the hospital numbers have gradually been going in the right direction for a while now).
I'm ambivalent about the Pac returning to play; however, I do not begrudge any conference (including the Pac) for giving it a go. And I wish them all well.
And remember, college football may still not have a complete season this year. There is a long way to go. So this author, and you, and others who agree with his take may still have the opportunity to say "Bad idea. I told you so. Never should have tried it, etc."
P.S. We've discussed in a separate thread the player "who died of Covid" in another thread, so no need to re-hash that, beyond to say that even assuming death attribution was correct, there was no definitive reason to tie that death to playing football.