There will be no college football [playoff] this season

There will be no college football [playoff] this season - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: There will be no college football [playoff] this season (/thread-20374.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

RE: There will be no college football this season - teejers1 - 09-02-2020

(09-02-2020, 09:32 PM)Snorlax94 Wrote:
(09-02-2020, 09:00 PM)teejers1 Wrote:
(09-02-2020, 06:17 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I may be going out on a limb here, but I think there will be a college football season. It appears "we" as a society are by and large willing to accept the risk of COVID-19 spread to have non-essential things like bars and college football. I would have prioritized in person schooling, especially for younger kids who won't do as well online, but alas we seem to have been willing to make that sacrifice.

BC

If we are being frank, we all know which group is leading the charge against in-person classrooms for K-12 in public schools.
By this I assume you mean the president and his sycophants, because the president absolutely ruined any chance of safely opening schools by clamoring for bars to open, for venues to be crowded, by failing to use the Government to provide medical-grade PPE for teachers, for championing false information for people to not take the disease seriously, and, perhaps most destructively, for chiding people for wearing masks.

My local public school has been a champion for re-opening as much and as early as possible, despite all the government failures. They ran a summer camp for the children of essential workers, and last I heard, they ran the camp with a 0% transmission rate. They’ve rolled the success of that program to being one of the first districts in Santa Clara County to get an exemption to run an on-site accomodation for children of essential workers, and to hopefully provide services for special needs on-site. They say they’ll expand that program as quickly as they can, so much that some parents are worried they are trying to do too much on campus. And they’re doing all this despite a failure by the Senate to provide financial assistance to schools, a failure by the president to make enough masks — unlike Korea which has been providing the general public 2 medical grade masks conparable to n95s a week per person since February, a failure by the federal government which has one of the worst disease responses in the world. So by your finger pointing and innuendo, I assume you meant Trump and his lackeys.

Congrats on your local school experience. It's remarkable they were able to do that in light of everything being Trump's fault. I wish other K-12 schools had the wherewithal that your school does for overcoming insuperable hurdles.

RE: There will be no college football this season - Hurlburt88 - 09-03-2020

The school where I sit on the board is allowing teachers with risk factors to teach remotely, with a substitute physically in the classroom. Any student can also participate remotely. "Hybrid". This is the first week of classes. WIll also be taking the 3rd week off just to practice being back online so we are ready to pivot to that quickly.

RE: There will be no college football this season - BostonCard - 09-03-2020

(09-03-2020, 07:57 AM)Hurlburt88 Wrote: The school where I sit on the board is allowing teachers with risk factors to teach remotely, with a substitute physically in the classroom. Any student can also participate remotely. "Hybrid". This is the first week of classes. WIll also be taking the 3rd week off just to practice being back online so we are ready to pivot to that quickly.

This is what I've always advocated. Accommodations should be made for students (or their family members) and teachers concerned for their health, but individuals willing to go to school with appropriate steps to minimize risk should be allowed to do so.

BC

(09-02-2020, 09:32 PM)Snorlax94 Wrote: By this I assume you mean the president and his sycophants, because the president absolutely ruined any chance of safely opening schools by clamoring for bars to open, for venues to be crowded, by failing to use the Government to provide medical-grade PPE for teachers, for championing false information for people to not take the disease seriously, and, perhaps most destructively, for chiding people for wearing masks.

Despite claiming the ultimate authority, Trump actually had no authority to re-open and despite all his bloviation didn't do so. That doesn't absolve Trump of his many shortcomings in handling of the pandemic, but he had a lot of "help" here in making the environment permissive for a second wave.

BC

RE: There will be no college football this season - 82lsju - 09-03-2020

Quote:Around one-third of Big Ten athletes who tested positive for COVID-19 appear to have myocarditis, according to Penn State’s director of athletic medicine.

yes, maybe they already had it and it went undetected, but if that's the case, and they are representative of all the athletes, they better test them all for myocarditis

https://sports.yahoo.com/big-ten-covid-19-positive-athletes-one-third-have-myocarditis-penn-state-doctor-164111708.html

Myocarditis in college athletes - akiddoc - 09-03-2020

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/515003-penn-state-doctor-about-a-third-of-tested-athletes-with-covid-had-heart

RE: There will be no college football this season - dabigv13 - 09-03-2020

A big problem in understanding this is that these eye popping percentages are based on a cardiac MRI, a relatively new exam that has not typically been used as a screening exam, as it has been for some athletes during the pandemic.

If a patient is asymptomatic but has inflammation on an MRI, unclear what to do with that information. Maybe some inflammation on cardiac MRI is common after all viral infections. We don't know.

That said, it's still alarming to have objective evidence of heart inflammation no matter what. Caution should carry the day until we know more.

RE: Myocarditis in college athletes - BostonCard - 09-03-2020

FIrst thought, "Yikes, that's a lot"

Second thought, (from the article): "Sebastianelli said it is not clear to him or cardiologists who have been consulted exactly how concerning this finding is, and he suggested some cardiologists do not think it is a major problem." I am still at a loss to answer how clinically significant asymptomatic cardiac MRI findings are.

Third thought... is a common finding of unknown significance worth the risk?

Fourth thought... remember, college athletes aren't getting paid for this.

BC

RE: There will be no college football this season - BostonCard - 09-03-2020

[tweet]https://twitter.com/dennisdoddcbs/status/1301636436857421824?s=20[/tweet]

BC

RE: There will be no college football this season - Erika - 09-03-2020

“Roughly one-third of covid-19 positive Big Ten athletes have myocarditis, Penn State doctor says“ From the Washington Post

RE: There will be no college football this season - BostonCard - 09-03-2020

[tweet]https://twitter.com/BonaguraESPN/status/1301644428025540608?s=20[/tweet]

The professor clarified on that number.

BC

RE: There will be no college football this season - Mick - 09-03-2020

(09-03-2020, 12:43 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: A big problem in understanding this is that these eye popping percentages are based on a cardiac MRI, a relatively new exam that has not typically been used as a screening exam, as it has been for some athletes during the pandemic.

If a patient is asymptomatic but has inflammation on an MRI, unclear what to do with that information. Maybe some inflammation on cardiac MRI is common after all viral infections. We don't know.

That said, it's still alarming to have objective evidence of heart inflammation no matter what. Caution should carry the day until we know more.

When I was 25, our first house was on Mariposa just south of the Stanford campus. I used to run to Hoover Tower and back every morning, weighed about 190 at the time, still in pretty good shape.. One morning, I thought I was having a heart attack. It felt like my heart literally hurt. Thought I was having a heart attack. Went to the doc. EEG, EKG, sonar exam...I had an enlarged heart, they said. They recommended rest for a few weeks. Thirty years later, heart failure. I don't smoke, and my valves are clean as a whistle. Always wondered if they were linked.

RE: There will be no college football this season - TreesAndBirds - 09-03-2020

Some potentially good news.....

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/new-rapid-daily-coronavirus-testing-could-save-pac-12-football-basketball-seasons-2020-09-03?mod=mw_latestnews

One Scheduled Game Postponed indefinitely - tcufrog - 09-04-2020

TCU was scheduled to play SMU on September 10. Apparently TCU has had a COVID outbreak among players and staff. TCU announced today that the game will not be played as scheduled. From my perspective, TCU did the right thing in postponing the game. TCU will try again on September 26 vs. Iowa State. IMO football games will be hit and miss as schools wrestle with COVID, except for the SEC where football and the revenues derived therefrom trump everything else.

lex24 - lex24 - 09-04-2020

(09-03-2020, 04:56 PM)BostonCard Wrote: [tweet]https://twitter.com/BonaguraESPN/status/1301644428025540608?s=20[/tweet]

The professor clarified on that number.

BC

Weak clarification. Here is what he originally said: “When we looked at our COVID-positive athletes, whether they were symptomatic or not, 30 to roughly 35 percent of their heart muscles (are) inflamed,” Sebastianelli said. “And we really just don’t know what to do with it right now. It’s still very early in the infection. Some of that has led to the Pac-12 and the Big Ten’s decision to sort of put a hiatus on what’s happening.”

Not an ambiguous statement. A declarative one - indicating that 30-35 percent of Covid positive athletes WE LOOKED AT” had inflamed heart muscles.

There appears to be nothing true about the statement. I’d fire the guy.

RE: lex24 - chrisk - 09-04-2020

(08-28-2020, 09:35 PM)82 Card Wrote:
(08-28-2020, 04:04 PM)chrisk Wrote: If the next few weeks, the US is poised to surpass first Sweden and then Italy, UK, and Spain in the deaths/million table.
Brazil is likely to pass the US today. Otherwise, there would only be 4-5 small countries ahead of the US in a month.

According to worldometer.info, Brazil passed up US today. They have US at 561 and Barazil at 562. At the current pace, US passing Sweden will take another week; passing Italy will take 2 weeks.

US has now passed Sweden. Italy will be passed next week.

lex24 - lex24 - 09-05-2020

(09-04-2020, 06:59 PM)chrisk Wrote:
(08-28-2020, 09:35 PM)82 Card Wrote:
(08-28-2020, 04:04 PM)chrisk Wrote: If the next few weeks, the US is poised to surpass first Sweden and then Italy, UK, and Spain in the deaths/million table.
Brazil is likely to pass the US today. Otherwise, there would only be 4-5 small countries ahead of the US in a month.

According to worldometer.info, Brazil passed up US today. They have US at 561 and Barazil at 562. At the current pace, US passing Sweden will take another week; passing Italy will take 2 weeks.

US has now passed Sweden. Italy will be passed next week.

This relates to the thread how? Or did you just want to again let us know how fucked we are.

RE: lex24 - M T - 09-06-2020

Many of the schools in Alabama are part of a program called GuideSafe. All students had to take a COVID-19 test within 14 days prior to returning to campus permanently. On paper, without the details, this was a decent process (assuming that the students didn't do stupid things). After classes began, sentinel testing will look for undetected infections.

[For those who go by TLDR: I believe a significant contributor to the problem was self-swabbing by students for samples used in the testing before returning to school.]

The most notable schools are the University of Alabama (at Tuscaloosa) and Auburn University Main campus.
Auburn has 71% of the students as UA. I would expect the student populations to be roughly similar
in geographic and diversity measures.

University of Alabama (students @ Tuscaloosa only)
Reentry cases (tests within 2 weeks of return to school)
   311 (29,938 tested) 1.0% positive
Date range Cases
1/1 - 8/18   158
8/19 - 8/24 562 (6 days; 0.31% per day) Classes began Aug 19.
8/25 - 8/27 481 (3 days; 0.54% per day)
8/28 - 9/3   846 (7 days; 0.40% per day)
For a total of 1889 since classes started. (1889 is 6.3% of 29,938)

Auburn University (students @ main campus only)
Reentry cases:
   859 (21,315 tested) 4.0% positive
Date range Cases
Aug 8-14 32 (7 days)
Aug 15-21 202 (7 days; 0.14% per day) Classes began Aug 17
Aug 22-28 490 (7 days; 0.33% per day)
Aug 29-Sep 4 [not available as of 9/5]
Roughly 692 since classes started. (692 is 3.2% of 21,315)

I believe the reentry testing procedures were basically the same for these two schools. However, as you see, the % positive were vastly different for the reentry tests. Remember that while reentry testing was universal, subsequent testing was (mostly) for students with symptoms or students that knew they were exposed and went in for testing. There are probably many undetected cases in the student community.

(As we see in communities across the US, HIPAA laws are preventing people from being notified when they may have been exposed, or less generously, HIPAA laws are being used as an excuse to avoid telling potentially exposed people. At UA, professors were warned not to tell their classes if they became aware that a student in their class was infected. While the claim is that masked & socially distant students in a class don't constitute an exposure risk, there were no measures to assure the masks were properly worn, weren't leaky, and were worn when socializing before or after or otherwise outside class.)

If one believes the rate of spread of the infection ® for the two student populations was approximately the same, you would come to the conclusion that there were more cases percentage-wise at UA than Auburn on the first day of school. This would explain the higher percentage rate of new cases at UA vs Auburn.

Unfortunately, the test result periods for the two schools neither line up to each other nor to the start of school. In terms of exposures, the actual date that classes start is less important than the dates that students returned to the dorms or off campus housing.

Both schools show a very large percentage of cases. In the one month from two weeks before classes, about 7.2% of the students tested positive (with the typical notice about undetected cases). If we assume R of 1.0, this would suggest virtually all of the student body will have COVID-19 before next year starts.

The UA outbreak of 562 cases got a lot of coverage beginning August 24, and administrative reaction. If all of the 8/28 - 9/3 cases had a 5 day period from exposure to date of positive sample, then they were exposed 8/23 - 8/29. I'm hoping that next week's numbers show a big drop due to the feedback of attention to the outbreak.

Auburn's 4% positivity rate was characterized as "low" by the school, even though they were 4x the rate at UA! “These numbers show we had a low positivity rate among our students as they returned to campus,” said Fred Kam, Auburn’s Medical Clinic director.

To give some perspective, the 8/28-9/3 week at UA, if projected to the population of NYC would correspond to more than 33,500 cases a day. The Aug 22-28 week at Auburn would correspond to 27,250 cases a day. The maximum daily case rate at NYC by 7-day rolling average was about 5300 cases a day. (To be fair, the number of actual cases in NYC was likely vastly undercounted. The actual cases at the schools was likely undercounted a lot less than NYC.)

[Continued in next post]

[Continued from previous post]

I expect the schools and the state felt that the GuideSafe program of reentry testing would minimize the number of active cases in the student community as of the first day of classes. Then, the schools would try to keep the spread down by sentinel testing. Certainly at UA, and to a lesser extent at Auburn, that didn't happen. I think the US as a whole expected this of its response to COVID, but the schools didn't learn from their country's failure to contain COVID-19.

So, what went wrong? Should it all be blamed on the student behavior (going to bars & partying)? Or was the devil in the details? If the reentry testing was prone to false negatives, the number of cases on the first day of classes may have been much higher than expected.

The rate of growth of the infection, R, is very dependent upon behavior of the population. Throughout the US, cities are struggling to keep R below 1 with masks & social distancing and the banning of high risk activities. Early in the history of COVID-19, R has been set around 2, to maybe 6, in different populations before controls were introduced. I will estimate R at being the ratio of new cases in a week over the cases in the previous week.

There could be some that got infected after reentry testing but before returning to school, but with the (student) community rate of about 1% at UA, I wouldn't expect too many. Maybe I'm wrong. If PCR normally detects up to 3 weeks after infection, you might expect about about 100 new cases in the average of 1 week before school testing (average of 0 to 2 weeks). (104 = 311 * 1wk/3wk) If 100 cases turned into 562 in a week (about one period for the disease to spread to others), that would suggest an R of 4.6.

I wondered if Alabama used the (so-called "breakthrough") antigen test that the PAC-12 athletes are to be given, it has (as best I've found) 1 out of 8 cases will get a false negative.
With that test, if you found 311 cases, there were probably about 311 * 8/7 = 355 cases, meaning 44 were missed (false negatives). (If 44 cases turned into 562, R would be about 11.8.)

Alabama allowed for the antigen test, and even provided it. Here are some snippets from UA communications about the testing required/provided.

Aug 4 Student Testing Update:

Quote:All students must provide a negative COVID-19 antigen or PCR test result before returning to campus.

Testing is conducted in one of three ways:

On-site testing locations (13 sites across Alabama)
At-home testing kits (limited availability; primarily for out-of-state students who live on campus and those who do not have access to a testing site before returning to campus)*
Student tests at an alternative testing location

Aug 10 A Message from Dr. Richard Friend, Dean of the College of Community Health Sciences
In it, he indicates they were using a POC test with results in 15 minutes (ie, the antigen test) for faculty & staff. But the testing of the students on campus (apparently prior to the start of school) was being done with PCR tests.

"As the fall semester continues, CCHS will conduct sentinel testing – regular testing of approximately 4% of faculty, staff and students across campus. This will help us keep informed about Covid-19 infection rates on campus and help identify potential virus hotspots. In addition, University Medical Center, which the College operates, will continue to provide daily Covid-19 testing for those exhibiting symptoms and who need a rapid result." (ie, antigen testing once school started)

Aug 11 Student Messages
This message indicates that students who had not yet been tested needed to register and request a test at one of 13 locations across the state. But then, it says:
"The test involves a self-administered nasal swab just inside the nose."

This self-collection procedure, followed by a PCR test, is confirmed in a GuideSafe document at Auburn.

Aha! I suspect a self-administered nasal swab is the source of likely false negatives. I have no estimate of the false negative rate for self-administered swabbing. I have seen reports that indicated that improper taking the sample is prone to cause false negatives.

But, why did Auburn have a much higher detection rate in reentry testing? I don't know. Perhaps the different (13) testing centers were more or less diligent about instructing the method to take swabs and requiring students to do it right. Maybe students tended to be tested at centers closest to their school. Perhaps UA had more at-home testing.

GuideSafe was a decent plan, until you get to the details. The state & the schools SHOULD have known this might happen, and adjusted for it.

--------

In the August 10th letter, the University indicated they would be testing 4% of the faculty, staff, and students as regular, sentinel testing. (I presume that is 4% in some period (a week, a month?).) I'd certainly want to know the number (percentage) of students that are testing as positive in the sentinel testing.

RE: There will be no college football this season - oregontim - 09-07-2020

Yesterday I watched SMU vs. Texas State in actual college football. I'm glad the Pac 12 backed out. I think that's the right decision to make. But in the meantime, I enjoy watching college football and I enjoyed the game yesterday. I'm looking to more ill-advised foolhardy college football this Saturday.

Yeah, hypocrite. I admit it. They shouldn't play, but if they do, I'm going to watch some games.

RE: There will be no college football this season - OutsiderFan - 09-09-2020

[tweet]https://twitter.com/slmandel/status/1303505146140176385[/tweet]

RE: There will be no college football this season - JustAnotherFan - 09-09-2020

College football player Jamain Stephens dies at age 20 of COVID-19 complications.

California University of Pennsylvania had cancelled their football season, and it is unclear how he contracted it, so it did not necessarily come from any team activities.

I can only imagine what would happen if a Clemson or Alabama football player ended up dying from Covid-19 at this point.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/09/09/college-football-player-jamain-stephens-dies-at-age-20-of-covid-19-complications/