Push push and hope - 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: Push push and hope (/thread-20143.html)
+- 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: Push push and hope (/thread-20143.html)
Push push and hope - BostonCard - 07-25-2020
That seems to be the strategy that college football will be following:
https://sports.yahoo.com/whats-next-for-college-football-a-cycle-of-delay-and-hope-000929412.html
Quote:We are entering a cycle in college athletics of Push Push and Hope. Schedules are being delayed, nudged back with the hope that the COVID-19 pandemic will subside enough to allow some semblance of a normal college football season.
Narrator: it won't. While infections seem to have peaked in many of the hotspots (Florida, Texas), deaths, which are delayed a few weeks, will continue to rise. Then things will probably flatten out a bit but we will still see 1000 or so people dying from COVID-19 a day. It may slowly decline after that, but over the course of months. And there is a decent chance that as things decline, we again let down our guard and things get worse.
BC
RE: Push push and hope - Brickcity - 07-25-2020
(07-25-2020, 01:16 PM)BostonCard Wrote: That seems to be the strategy that college football will be following:
https://sports.yahoo.com/whats-next-for-college-football-a-cycle-of-delay-and-hope-000929412.html
Quote:We are entering a cycle in college athletics of Push Push and Hope. Schedules are being delayed, nudged back with the hope that the COVID-19 pandemic will subside enough to allow some semblance of a normal college football season.
Narrator: it won't. While infections seem to have peaked in many of the hotspots (Florida, Texas), deaths, which are delayed a few weeks, will continue to rise. Then things will probably flatten out a bit but we will still see 1000 or so people dying from COVID-19 a day. It may slowly decline after that, but over the course of months. And there is a decent chance that as things decline, we again let down our guard and things get worse.
BC
Agreed. I've assumed for some time that college sports - at least ones where competitors come in contact with each other - are done for the 2020-2021 academic year.
RE: Push push and hope - teejers1 - 07-26-2020
(07-25-2020, 05:15 PM)Brickcity Wrote:(07-25-2020, 01:16 PM)BostonCard Wrote: That seems to be the strategy that college football will be following:
https://sports.yahoo.com/whats-next-for-college-football-a-cycle-of-delay-and-hope-000929412.html
Quote:We are entering a cycle in college athletics of Push Push and Hope. Schedules are being delayed, nudged back with the hope that the COVID-19 pandemic will subside enough to allow some semblance of a normal college football season.
Narrator: it won't. While infections seem to have peaked in many of the hotspots (Florida, Texas), deaths, which are delayed a few weeks, will continue to rise. Then things will probably flatten out a bit but we will still see 1000 or so people dying from COVID-19 a day. It may slowly decline after that, but over the course of months. And there is a decent chance that as things decline, we again let down our guard and things get worse.
BC
Agreed. I've assumed for some time that college sports - at least ones where competitors come in contact with each other - are done for the 2020-2021 academic year.
Soccer is being played now . . . all over the world . . . and that is a contact sport (though not as much as football is). And TBT (The Basketball Tournament) went off without a hitch. We'll see about the NBA re-start. Baseball should be fine.
RE: Push push and hope - French Rage - 07-26-2020
Postpone everything until March 15th. Then pick up any in-progress sport where it was then in that season. Especially college hockey. Cornell at #1, let everyone continue that season of eligibility.
RE: Push push and hope - Phogge - 07-27-2020
I would argue for dumping the entire year, online learning and enforced social distancing with all wearing masks. Then see where we are in Summer ‘21.
RE: Push push and hope - gailtate - 07-29-2020
The longer this drags on, the worse the look. The evidence of infection is clear and present in pro sports right now. The virus doesn't care about conference inconveniences, championships, schedules, athletic budgets or whining fans who want their circus and tailgates. Kudos to the Stanford parent (ex-NFL player) who pulled his son out of action in an exemplary show of responsibility and judgement. Wish there were more like him. They're evidently rare in sports administration, at all levels.
RE: Push push and hope - donkey687 - 07-29-2020
(07-29-2020, 12:27 PM)gailtate Wrote: The longer this drags on, the worse the look. The evidence of infection is clear and present in pro sports right now. The virus doesn't care about conference inconveniences, championships, schedules, athletic budgets or whining fans who want their circus and tailgates. Kudos to the Stanford parent (ex-NFL player) who pulled his son out of action in an exemplary show of responsibility and judgement. Wish there were more like him. They're evidently rare in sports administration, at all levels.
There are two interesting and opposite conclusions that can be drawn from the pro leagues and colleges reporting back early for football:
1) Miami Marlins outbreak: It is inevitable that some teams will have it and proves, we can't operate safely and college football should be shutdown.
2) NFL, NBA, colleges all had a decent number of positive tests when players returned. Those players sat out for two weeks. Subsequent tests are showing very small positive rates. The last two league wide tests for NBA had zero positives. Baseball outside of the Marlins had zero positives in the last tests. This tells us two things: Athletes left to their own device and living and working out at home are at high risk of infection as proven by all the positive by college players coming to campus. Players on site with their teams are taking much greater precautions and getting tested more frequently. I think a credible argument could be made that a lot less college football players will be infected with COVID this year if there is a college football season (and all the controls and testing that will be in place) than if they are living their life sans college football.
While it is easy to point out the risks of playing and say there shouldn't be a season, you can't ignore the risks that the players will face by not playing.
RE: Push push and hope - OutsiderFan - 07-29-2020
These two statements can both be true:
1. College students who play sports can be safer if sports are played.
2. Playing college sports presents too much of a risk to the health of athletes, coaches, and staff.
It all comes down to everyone behaving responsibly and not putting themselves in high risk situations. If everyone 100% followed the proper risk mitigating behavior, sports would be in great position. However, we can't count on 100% compliance, and probably a lot less than that. As usual, a few will spoil things for the many.
RE: Push push and hope - gailtate - 07-29-2020
(07-29-2020, 12:52 PM)donkey687 Wrote:(07-29-2020, 12:27 PM)gailtate Wrote: The longer this drags on, the worse the look. The evidence of infection is clear and present in pro sports right now. The virus doesn't care about conference inconveniences, championships, schedules, athletic budgets or whining fans who want their circus and tailgates. Kudos to the Stanford parent (ex-NFL player) who pulled his son out of action in an exemplary show of responsibility and judgement. Wish there were more like him. They're evidently rare in sports administration, at all levels.
There are two interesting and opposite conclusions that can be drawn from the pro leagues and colleges reporting back early for football:
1) Miami Marlins outbreak: It is inevitable that some teams will have it and proves, we can't operate safely and college football should be shutdown.
2) NFL, NBA, colleges all had a decent number of positive tests when players returned. Those players sat out for two weeks. Subsequent tests are showing very small positive rates. The last two league wide tests for NBA had zero positives. Baseball outside of the Marlins had zero positives in the last tests. This tells us two things: Athletes left to their own device and living and working out at home are at high risk of infection as proven by all the positive by college players coming to campus. Players on site with their teams are taking much greater precautions and getting tested more frequently. I think a credible argument could be made that a lot less college football players will be infected with COVID this year if there is a college football season (and all the controls and testing that will be in place) than if they are living their life sans college football.
While it is easy to point out the risks of playing and say there shouldn't be a season, you can't ignore the risks that the players will face by not playing.
I say there is a higher risk in playing. You? Would you encourage your son to suit up to have a greater chance of staying healthy?
RE: Push push and hope - M T - 07-29-2020
Don't most of the various scenarios of sports teams playing involve testing in the absence of symptoms to assure players are not infectious?
This is a problem in California, as such testing is the lowest priority, and currently (as I read the statement) would not be offered.
Updated COVID-19 Testing Guidance
Quote:Tier Four Priority
Tier Four would be implemented when the state's testing turnaround time, as monitored by CDPH, is less than 48 hours.
- Other individuals not specified above including: those who are asymptomatic but believe they have a risk for being actively infected as well as routine testing by employers.
Quote:This updated guidance is intended to support public health officials, health care providers, and laboratories in determining who should be tested given the current context of the COVID-19 pandemic in California.It is hard for me to understand when "Guidance" is a recommendation and when it is required.
This guidance should be used for prioritization of patient populations as well as for the purposes of guiding laboratories in managing specimen processing.
In light of this, it would seem blatantly wrong for MLB or the PAC-12 to buy testing if California is struggling (as it is now) to get Tier 1 to 3 tests done within 48 hours. Do any of us think testing should be prioritized for wealthy businesses?
RE: Push push and hope - Goose - 07-29-2020
(07-29-2020, 01:40 PM)M T Wrote: It is hard for me to understand when "Guidance" is a recommendation and when it is required.Wealthy businesses (and people) can buy their own testing kits and PCR machines. Probably the Abbot Labs tests could be used as well if you are on a lower budget. Won't use any "public" testing capacity at all. If I were MLB, that is what I would do. Only way to ensure fast turnaround.
In light of this, it would seem blatantly wrong for MLB or the PAC-12 to buy testing if California is struggling (as it is now) to get Tier 1 to 3 tests done within 48 hours. Do any of us think testing should be prioritized for wealthy businesses?
RE: Push push and hope - M T - 07-31-2020
(07-29-2020, 04:47 PM)Goose Wrote:(07-29-2020, 01:40 PM)M T Wrote: It is hard for me to understand when "Guidance" is a recommendation and when it is required.Wealthy businesses (and people) can buy their own testing kits and PCR machines. Probably the Abbot Labs tests could be used as well if you are on a lower budget. Won't use any "public" testing capacity at all. If I were MLB, that is what I would do. Only way to ensure fast turnaround.
In light of this, it would seem blatantly wrong for MLB or the PAC-12 to buy testing if California is struggling (as it is now) to get Tier 1 to 3 tests done within 48 hours. Do any of us think testing should be prioritized for wealthy businesses?
No "public" about it. The guidance says "laboratories". I don't think that Google or SF Giants having testing kits or PCR machines means that the processing of results would be considered something other than a laboratory. Read the SCC order on laboratories having to report results to the Public Health Officer. ""Laboratory" means any facility meeting the requirements to perform testing classified as high complexity under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of section 353 of the Public Health Service Act". If such a facility is being run by MLB, SFGiants, or Google, it would apparently still be a Laboratory. (Btw, that order doesn't specify that the lab is in SCC or California, only that the person whose test it is, is from SCC. So, if the state specifies it similarly, it won't matter if the tests are run in a 3rd world country.)
You might now say, "What about spit test machines?" I think the Public Health Departments (specifically, CADPH) will define testing to include any mechanism that gets results while such mechanisms are in short supply. If spit test machines become widely available next week, then that's great. But if money buys tests when others can't get them, this seems contrary to the intent of the California guidance.
RE: Push push and hope - Goose - 07-31-2020
(07-31-2020, 05:53 AM)M T Wrote:The SCC order is a reporting requirement. The lab run by Google and/or the Giants would be required by the order to report the results to CalRIDIE and the "Health Care Provider (If any) that ordered the test" for any resident of the County or for any test performed/collected in the county. OK, fine, they could do that. The State "guidance" specifies the order in which tests should be prioritized. OK, fine. However, if a Lab is run by and dedicated to supporting only the Teamsters Union (or the Giants), the only samples they have will probably be Tier 4 and there is no issue. The number of tests would be low enough that the priority wouldn't matter anyway. You may take issue with a Lab being owned by and/or servicing a limited group of individuals, but AFAIK it isn't illegal in any way. A lab need not be "public", i.e. sell its services to all comers. The State could make a law against such things (good luck in the 9th circuit), but AFAIK, there isn't one.(07-29-2020, 04:47 PM)Goose Wrote:(07-29-2020, 01:40 PM)M T Wrote: It is hard for me to understand when "Guidance" is a recommendation and when it is required.Wealthy businesses (and people) can buy their own testing kits and PCR machines. Probably the Abbot Labs tests could be used as well if you are on a lower budget. Won't use any "public" testing capacity at all. If I were MLB, that is what I would do. Only way to ensure fast turnaround.
In light of this, it would seem blatantly wrong for MLB or the PAC-12 to buy testing if California is struggling (as it is now) to get Tier 1 to 3 tests done within 48 hours. Do any of us think testing should be prioritized for wealthy businesses?
No "public" about it. The guidance says "laboratories". I don't think that Google or SF Giants having testing kits or PCR machines means that the processing of results would be considered something other than a laboratory. Read the SCC order on laboratories having to report results to the Public Health Officer. ""Laboratory" means any facility meeting the requirements to perform testing classified as high complexity under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of section 353 of the Public Health Service Act". If such a facility is being run by MLB, SFGiants, or Google, it would apparently still be a Laboratory. (Btw, that order doesn't specify that the lab is in SCC or California, only that the person whose test it is, is from SCC. So, if the state specifies it similarly, it won't matter if the tests are run in a 3rd world country.)
You might now say, "What about spit test machines?" I think the Public Health Departments (specifically, CADPH) will define testing to include any mechanism that gets results while such mechanisms are in short supply. If spit test machines become widely available next week, then that's great. But if money buys tests when others can't get them, this seems contrary to the intent of the California guidance.
I think it also should be pointed out that the jurisdiction of SCC Health Department is limited to SCC. The SCC order makes it a misdemeanor to not follow the reporting requirements. However, if the test is sent to a lab out of the county (i.e. the company has no presence in SCC), the order is not enforceable. County Health Departments do not have unlimited jurisdiction. What they can do is prevent Health Care Providers from sending samples to labs that don't comply, but they can't do anything about how labs outside the County operate. The State may have some "reciprocity" law I am unaware of that would allow enforcement by another County in the State. Why any sane lab wouldn't comply is another issue.
The State of California also has limited jurisdiction. A lab operating in Nevada doesn't have to follow California's priorities unless it has a presence in the State where California can punish it for non-compliance. Interstate Commerce. As for international labs, even the Federal Government can't do much. Look at all the nonsense available on the internet.
RE: Push push and hope - JJJ - 08-02-2020
(07-29-2020, 01:16 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: These two statements can both be true:Didn't know where to put this article, but maybe here?
1. College students who play sports can be safer if sports are played.
2. Playing college sports presents too much of a risk to the health of athletes, coaches, and staff.
It all comes down to everyone behaving responsibly and not putting themselves in high risk situations. If everyone 100% followed the proper risk mitigating behavior, sports would be in great position. However, we can't count on 100% compliance, and probably a lot less than that. As usual, a few will spoil things for the many.
Quote:With the fate of the 2020 college football season in flux, the only certainty about the season remains the constant uncertainty. With big decisions by Power Five commissioners looming about the sport’s immediate future, the most prepared schools to play football this season remain the three military academies who play FBS football.
Army, Navy and Air Force all essentially operate in a bubble, which affords them what the other 127 FBS schools lack – a controlled environment to prepare for the season.
https://sports.yahoo.com/could-a-military-academy-win-the-college-football-national-title-022741886.html