So much negativity and sarcasm about attendance. I thought this was a fan board for supporters of Stanford Athletics.
Outside Topic Covid-19 considerations
03-03-2020, 10:57 PM
At least we'll get great coverage on the Pac-12 Network. Oh wait, nobody carries it anymore.
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
At least we'll get great coverage on the Pac-12 Network. Oh wait, nobody carries it anymore.
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
03-03-2020, 11:28 PM
(03-03-2020, 10:08 PM)Snorlax94 Wrote: So much negativity and sarcasm about attendance. I thought this was a fan board for supporters of Stanford Athletics.
Hey, I'm speaking from personal knowledge, as a season ticket member/supporter who actually attended all of those men's b'ball games over the past several seasons... :-)
(03-03-2020, 10:08 PM)Snorlax94 Wrote: So much negativity and sarcasm about attendance. I thought this was a fan board for supporters of Stanford Athletics.
Hey, I'm speaking from personal knowledge, as a season ticket member/supporter who actually attended all of those men's b'ball games over the past several seasons... :-)
I asked for a pointer to a study that measures whether masks help or not. As there are different national CDC-type organizations that have different advice on masks, I find it strange that some people seem adamant on one side or the other.
So I googled and found an article asking the same question. Here are 3 studies the article mentioned. (NOTE: There may be other studies that contradict these. I am not able to do a medical literature search. If you find conflicting studies, or identify problems in these studies, please contribute.)
Study 1:
Study 2: This study paired hand hygiene with wearing masks versus neither, so it doesn't really indicate anything about face masks themselves.
Study 3: Subjects in residence halls at a university
If I read their numbers correctly, it appears that the face-mask-only group appeared to do well in the first week, but did less well each succeeding week, getting to the same level as the control group by the final week. The face-mask-hand-hygiene group's numbers got better each week. (Presumably these changes were not statistically relevant in this study, but might be interesting if someone were to test for that. Tiring of compliance? False sense of protection?)
Unfortunately none of these test hand-hygiene vs hand-hygiene + face mask.
I certainly hope that no hoarders are preventing health-care workers from being able to get masks. But no one should be chastised if they use a mask to protect themselves.
The WHO & CDC have been seeing this disease progressing for two months. I would have hoped that was enough time for the word to get out to hospitals and other health care professionals to stock up on all their supplies, including masks. (That's not to say those professionals should be out-of-luck if they didn't stock up.)
So I googled and found an article asking the same question. Here are 3 studies the article mentioned. (NOTE: There may be other studies that contradict these. I am not able to do a medical literature search. If you find conflicting studies, or identify problems in these studies, please contribute.)
Study 1:
Quote:...However, compliance with mask use was less than 50%. In an adjusted analysis of compliant subjects, masks as a group had protective efficacy in excess of 80% against clinical influenza-like illness. The efficacy against proven viral infection and between P2 masks (57%) and surgical masks (33%) was non-significant. ... In compliant users, masks were highly efficacious.
Study 2: This study paired hand hygiene with wearing masks versus neither, so it doesn't really indicate anything about face masks themselves.
Study 3: Subjects in residence halls at a university
Quote:Participants were assigned to face mask and hand hygiene, face mask only, or control group during the study. Discrete-time survival models using generalized estimating equations to estimate intervention effects on ILI and confirmed influenza A/B infection over a 6-week study period were examined. A significant reduction in the rate of ILI was observed in weeks 3 through 6 of the study, with a maximum reduction of 75% during the final study week (rate ratio [RR] = 0.25, [95% CI, 0.07 to 0.87]). Both intervention groups compared to the control showed cumulative reductions in rates of influenza over the study period, although results did not reach statistical significance.
If I read their numbers correctly, it appears that the face-mask-only group appeared to do well in the first week, but did less well each succeeding week, getting to the same level as the control group by the final week. The face-mask-hand-hygiene group's numbers got better each week. (Presumably these changes were not statistically relevant in this study, but might be interesting if someone were to test for that. Tiring of compliance? False sense of protection?)
Unfortunately none of these test hand-hygiene vs hand-hygiene + face mask.
I certainly hope that no hoarders are preventing health-care workers from being able to get masks. But no one should be chastised if they use a mask to protect themselves.
The WHO & CDC have been seeing this disease progressing for two months. I would have hoped that was enough time for the word to get out to hospitals and other health care professionals to stock up on all their supplies, including masks. (That's not to say those professionals should be out-of-luck if they didn't stock up.)
I asked for a pointer to a study that measures whether masks help or not. As there are different national CDC-type organizations that have different advice on masks, I find it strange that some people seem adamant on one side or the other.
So I googled and found an article asking the same question. Here are 3 studies the article mentioned. (NOTE: There may be other studies that contradict these. I am not able to do a medical literature search. If you find conflicting studies, or identify problems in these studies, please contribute.)
Study 1:
Study 2: This study paired hand hygiene with wearing masks versus neither, so it doesn't really indicate anything about face masks themselves.
Study 3: Subjects in residence halls at a university
If I read their numbers correctly, it appears that the face-mask-only group appeared to do well in the first week, but did less well each succeeding week, getting to the same level as the control group by the final week. The face-mask-hand-hygiene group's numbers got better each week. (Presumably these changes were not statistically relevant in this study, but might be interesting if someone were to test for that. Tiring of compliance? False sense of protection?)
Unfortunately none of these test hand-hygiene vs hand-hygiene + face mask.
I certainly hope that no hoarders are preventing health-care workers from being able to get masks. But no one should be chastised if they use a mask to protect themselves.
The WHO & CDC have been seeing this disease progressing for two months. I would have hoped that was enough time for the word to get out to hospitals and other health care professionals to stock up on all their supplies, including masks. (That's not to say those professionals should be out-of-luck if they didn't stock up.)
So I googled and found an article asking the same question. Here are 3 studies the article mentioned. (NOTE: There may be other studies that contradict these. I am not able to do a medical literature search. If you find conflicting studies, or identify problems in these studies, please contribute.)
Study 1:
Quote:...However, compliance with mask use was less than 50%. In an adjusted analysis of compliant subjects, masks as a group had protective efficacy in excess of 80% against clinical influenza-like illness. The efficacy against proven viral infection and between P2 masks (57%) and surgical masks (33%) was non-significant. ... In compliant users, masks were highly efficacious.
Study 2: This study paired hand hygiene with wearing masks versus neither, so it doesn't really indicate anything about face masks themselves.
Study 3: Subjects in residence halls at a university
Quote:Participants were assigned to face mask and hand hygiene, face mask only, or control group during the study. Discrete-time survival models using generalized estimating equations to estimate intervention effects on ILI and confirmed influenza A/B infection over a 6-week study period were examined. A significant reduction in the rate of ILI was observed in weeks 3 through 6 of the study, with a maximum reduction of 75% during the final study week (rate ratio [RR] = 0.25, [95% CI, 0.07 to 0.87]). Both intervention groups compared to the control showed cumulative reductions in rates of influenza over the study period, although results did not reach statistical significance.
If I read their numbers correctly, it appears that the face-mask-only group appeared to do well in the first week, but did less well each succeeding week, getting to the same level as the control group by the final week. The face-mask-hand-hygiene group's numbers got better each week. (Presumably these changes were not statistically relevant in this study, but might be interesting if someone were to test for that. Tiring of compliance? False sense of protection?)
Unfortunately none of these test hand-hygiene vs hand-hygiene + face mask.
I certainly hope that no hoarders are preventing health-care workers from being able to get masks. But no one should be chastised if they use a mask to protect themselves.
The WHO & CDC have been seeing this disease progressing for two months. I would have hoped that was enough time for the word to get out to hospitals and other health care professionals to stock up on all their supplies, including masks. (That's not to say those professionals should be out-of-luck if they didn't stock up.)
Sigh... Tuesday, there were two more cases in Santa Clara County (#10, #11), source under investigation on both. No real further information about the others, but they indicated two cases (not counting the new ones) have no known source. IMO, it would be better to say there are two clusters (where a single individual may be a cluster) whose sources are unknown, as it may be difficult to know which was the first infection in a cluster. I suspect these correspond to cases #3 and #5.
Double sigh.... New cases in its county doesn't make the Mercury News (as of 12:30AM). But concern about hoarding toilet paper in Australia does! Channel 7 did cover the new cases & guidelines (posted at 7:30PM).
Santa Clara County has dropped identifying gender or whether the patients are hospitalized. To me, it seems obvious they are hospitalized. If these cases were discovered by chasing down known contacts, their sources wouldn't be under investigation. If these were people that had recently been overseas, the sources wouldn't be under investigation. Since it was neither of those situations, these two new cases are almost surely hospitalized as they wouldn't have been tested otherwise.
If you take the statistic of 80% of the cases are mild, and Santa Clara county now has (by my calculation) 6 hospitalized cases (#3, #5, #6, #7, #10, #11), how many cases would that suggest there are?
(The case in San Mateo County is hospitalized with unknown source of infection.)
Someone please ask the SCC DPH to indicate publicly whether any of the new cases, showing up Feb 28 and later, match the genome of the disease in the patient who was released on Feb 20. It won't make much difference to the spread in this county now, but, whichever way that is answered, may give useful information to areas where there are one or two cases of the disease.
Double sigh.... New cases in its county doesn't make the Mercury News (as of 12:30AM). But concern about hoarding toilet paper in Australia does! Channel 7 did cover the new cases & guidelines (posted at 7:30PM).
Santa Clara County has dropped identifying gender or whether the patients are hospitalized. To me, it seems obvious they are hospitalized. If these cases were discovered by chasing down known contacts, their sources wouldn't be under investigation. If these were people that had recently been overseas, the sources wouldn't be under investigation. Since it was neither of those situations, these two new cases are almost surely hospitalized as they wouldn't have been tested otherwise.
If you take the statistic of 80% of the cases are mild, and Santa Clara county now has (by my calculation) 6 hospitalized cases (#3, #5, #6, #7, #10, #11), how many cases would that suggest there are?
(The case in San Mateo County is hospitalized with unknown source of infection.)
Someone please ask the SCC DPH to indicate publicly whether any of the new cases, showing up Feb 28 and later, match the genome of the disease in the patient who was released on Feb 20. It won't make much difference to the spread in this county now, but, whichever way that is answered, may give useful information to areas where there are one or two cases of the disease.
Sigh... Tuesday, there were two more cases in Santa Clara County (#10, #11), source under investigation on both. No real further information about the others, but they indicated two cases (not counting the new ones) have no known source. IMO, it would be better to say there are two clusters (where a single individual may be a cluster) whose sources are unknown, as it may be difficult to know which was the first infection in a cluster. I suspect these correspond to cases #3 and #5.
Double sigh.... New cases in its county doesn't make the Mercury News (as of 12:30AM). But concern about hoarding toilet paper in Australia does! Channel 7 did cover the new cases & guidelines (posted at 7:30PM).
Santa Clara County has dropped identifying gender or whether the patients are hospitalized. To me, it seems obvious they are hospitalized. If these cases were discovered by chasing down known contacts, their sources wouldn't be under investigation. If these were people that had recently been overseas, the sources wouldn't be under investigation. Since it was neither of those situations, these two new cases are almost surely hospitalized as they wouldn't have been tested otherwise.
If you take the statistic of 80% of the cases are mild, and Santa Clara county now has (by my calculation) 6 hospitalized cases (#3, #5, #6, #7, #10, #11), how many cases would that suggest there are?
(The case in San Mateo County is hospitalized with unknown source of infection.)
Someone please ask the SCC DPH to indicate publicly whether any of the new cases, showing up Feb 28 and later, match the genome of the disease in the patient who was released on Feb 20. It won't make much difference to the spread in this county now, but, whichever way that is answered, may give useful information to areas where there are one or two cases of the disease.
Double sigh.... New cases in its county doesn't make the Mercury News (as of 12:30AM). But concern about hoarding toilet paper in Australia does! Channel 7 did cover the new cases & guidelines (posted at 7:30PM).
Santa Clara County has dropped identifying gender or whether the patients are hospitalized. To me, it seems obvious they are hospitalized. If these cases were discovered by chasing down known contacts, their sources wouldn't be under investigation. If these were people that had recently been overseas, the sources wouldn't be under investigation. Since it was neither of those situations, these two new cases are almost surely hospitalized as they wouldn't have been tested otherwise.
If you take the statistic of 80% of the cases are mild, and Santa Clara county now has (by my calculation) 6 hospitalized cases (#3, #5, #6, #7, #10, #11), how many cases would that suggest there are?
(The case in San Mateo County is hospitalized with unknown source of infection.)
Someone please ask the SCC DPH to indicate publicly whether any of the new cases, showing up Feb 28 and later, match the genome of the disease in the patient who was released on Feb 20. It won't make much difference to the spread in this county now, but, whichever way that is answered, may give useful information to areas where there are one or two cases of the disease.
(03-03-2020, 03:19 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(03-03-2020, 12:58 PM)M T Wrote:Quote:When the virus started to spread in Guangdong — the province where the 2002-2003 SARS outbreak began — worried people flooded fever clinics to be tested. Of 320,000 tests performed, just under 0.5% were positive for the virus at the peak of transmission there, he said — which suggests that only 1 case out of 200 was being missed.
That doesn't make sense or at least the phrasing is misleading. If the 320,000 people tested were representative and .5% were positive, it doesn't mean that 1 in 200 cases are missed, it means that 1 in 200 people have an undetected case. The population of Guandong is 113.46 million, so if .5% are positive, that's 56500 undetected cases. Since there are 1350 cases in the province, that means that >97% of cases are undetected.
Good catch. I took that quote from the article, not from the WHO-China Joint Mission report. I shouldn't have trusted it. The numbers are wrong and the interpretation in the article is faulty, as you pointed out.
From the report
Quote:Within the fever clinics in Guangdong, the percentage of samples that tested positive for the COVID-19 virus has decreased over time from a peak of 0.47% positive on 30 January to 0.02% on 16 February. Overall in Guangdong, 0.14% of approximately 320,000 fever clinic screenings were positive for COVID-19.At a "fever clinic", the patients will not be asymptomatic and will not be a random sample of the population. 0.14% translates to about 448 patients detected at the fever clinics.
Interestingly, tests for COVID-19 (mostly in January) of samples of Influenza-like Illnesses had very few positive hits. The highest reported was 3 out of 20 in Wuhan in the 2nd week of January.
Quote:As of 20 February, in Guangdong Province, among 9939 identified close contacts, 9939 (100%) were traced and 7765 (78%) have completed medical observation. Among the close contacts, 479 (4.8%) were found to be infected with COVID-19.
I would think that percentage is dependent upon how quickly the primary patient was diagnosed after becoming infectious.
The report does confirm what I had suspected: all patients (including mild symptoms) who tested positive were admitted to the hospital. They had no visitors. They had to test negative twice, 24 hours apart, before being released. No home care (with other members of the household wandering in & out) that Santa Clara County is currently doing.
Quote:COVID-19 is transmitted via droplets and fomites during close unprotected contact between an infector and infectee. Airborne spread has not been reported for COVID-19 and it is not believed to be a major driver of transmission based on available evidence...[etc]
(03-03-2020, 03:19 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(03-03-2020, 12:58 PM)M T Wrote:Quote:When the virus started to spread in Guangdong — the province where the 2002-2003 SARS outbreak began — worried people flooded fever clinics to be tested. Of 320,000 tests performed, just under 0.5% were positive for the virus at the peak of transmission there, he said — which suggests that only 1 case out of 200 was being missed.
That doesn't make sense or at least the phrasing is misleading. If the 320,000 people tested were representative and .5% were positive, it doesn't mean that 1 in 200 cases are missed, it means that 1 in 200 people have an undetected case. The population of Guandong is 113.46 million, so if .5% are positive, that's 56500 undetected cases. Since there are 1350 cases in the province, that means that >97% of cases are undetected.
Good catch. I took that quote from the article, not from the WHO-China Joint Mission report. I shouldn't have trusted it. The numbers are wrong and the interpretation in the article is faulty, as you pointed out.
From the report
Quote:Within the fever clinics in Guangdong, the percentage of samples that tested positive for the COVID-19 virus has decreased over time from a peak of 0.47% positive on 30 January to 0.02% on 16 February. Overall in Guangdong, 0.14% of approximately 320,000 fever clinic screenings were positive for COVID-19.At a "fever clinic", the patients will not be asymptomatic and will not be a random sample of the population. 0.14% translates to about 448 patients detected at the fever clinics.
Interestingly, tests for COVID-19 (mostly in January) of samples of Influenza-like Illnesses had very few positive hits. The highest reported was 3 out of 20 in Wuhan in the 2nd week of January.
Quote:As of 20 February, in Guangdong Province, among 9939 identified close contacts, 9939 (100%) were traced and 7765 (78%) have completed medical observation. Among the close contacts, 479 (4.8%) were found to be infected with COVID-19.
I would think that percentage is dependent upon how quickly the primary patient was diagnosed after becoming infectious.
The report does confirm what I had suspected: all patients (including mild symptoms) who tested positive were admitted to the hospital. They had no visitors. They had to test negative twice, 24 hours apart, before being released. No home care (with other members of the household wandering in & out) that Santa Clara County is currently doing.
Quote:COVID-19 is transmitted via droplets and fomites during close unprotected contact between an infector and infectee. Airborne spread has not been reported for COVID-19 and it is not believed to be a major driver of transmission based on available evidence...[etc]
03-04-2020, 04:06 AM
Question: If you are having competitions without spectators, how can one justify having the competitions themselves? I mean all sports other than maybe golf are done at very close distances, and many of them share the same balls.
Moreover, how are athletes going to feel about competing when they see spectators are prohibited for safety reasons? Will they even want to travel on commercial flights to be at their games and meets?
Moreover, how are athletes going to feel about competing when they see spectators are prohibited for safety reasons? Will they even want to travel on commercial flights to be at their games and meets?
Question: If you are having competitions without spectators, how can one justify having the competitions themselves? I mean all sports other than maybe golf are done at very close distances, and many of them share the same balls.
Moreover, how are athletes going to feel about competing when they see spectators are prohibited for safety reasons? Will they even want to travel on commercial flights to be at their games and meets?
Moreover, how are athletes going to feel about competing when they see spectators are prohibited for safety reasons? Will they even want to travel on commercial flights to be at their games and meets?
03-04-2020, 04:16 AM
My new area of curiosity on this thing is post-mortem testing. How many people that have died of pneumonia or flu in last month were carrying SARS-CoV2?
I read there was such a case found in WA. Not sure if there were more, but seems likely. I’m going to guess there are some cases being conflated with flu, but not sure how many.
I read there was such a case found in WA. Not sure if there were more, but seems likely. I’m going to guess there are some cases being conflated with flu, but not sure how many.
My new area of curiosity on this thing is post-mortem testing. How many people that have died of pneumonia or flu in last month were carrying SARS-CoV2?
I read there was such a case found in WA. Not sure if there were more, but seems likely. I’m going to guess there are some cases being conflated with flu, but not sure how many.
I read there was such a case found in WA. Not sure if there were more, but seems likely. I’m going to guess there are some cases being conflated with flu, but not sure how many.
03-04-2020, 05:50 AM
Speaking of testing... It appears that as of now, nobody is being charged to have a test for this virus taken, though this could change. To me, this is the #1 story to follow about this virus. If testing is free, almost everyone will want it. That will see the numbers of reported cases drastically increase for a while, but this will give public health planners the information needed to take measures hat will slow the spread. On a related note, I did read a letter to Congress yesterday from an infectious disease association calling on them to fund widespread testing, so seems there is momentum for that. At this point it seems quite unlikely we are going to have to pay for tests out of our pocket with co-pays, etc. I'm super curious how we setup drive-thru or walk-up testing and if it will vary from country to county or state to state. There really is no need for a visit to a medical clinic to get tested.
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/covid-...over-3000/
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/covid-...over-3000/
Speaking of testing... It appears that as of now, nobody is being charged to have a test for this virus taken, though this could change. To me, this is the #1 story to follow about this virus. If testing is free, almost everyone will want it. That will see the numbers of reported cases drastically increase for a while, but this will give public health planners the information needed to take measures hat will slow the spread. On a related note, I did read a letter to Congress yesterday from an infectious disease association calling on them to fund widespread testing, so seems there is momentum for that. At this point it seems quite unlikely we are going to have to pay for tests out of our pocket with co-pays, etc. I'm super curious how we setup drive-thru or walk-up testing and if it will vary from country to county or state to state. There really is no need for a visit to a medical clinic to get tested.
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/covid-...over-3000/
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/covid-...over-3000/
03-04-2020, 10:53 AM
(03-04-2020, 04:06 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Question: If you are having competitions without spectators, how can one justify having the competitions themselves? I mean all sports other than maybe golf are done at very close distances, and many of them share the same balls.
Moreover, how are athletes going to feel about competing when they see spectators are prohibited for safety reasons? Will they even want to travel on commercial flights to be at their games and meets?
Chicago State has cancelled their basketball games this week for both men and women. The men's team was scheduled for a road trip including Seattle.
(03-04-2020, 04:06 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Question: If you are having competitions without spectators, how can one justify having the competitions themselves? I mean all sports other than maybe golf are done at very close distances, and many of them share the same balls.
Moreover, how are athletes going to feel about competing when they see spectators are prohibited for safety reasons? Will they even want to travel on commercial flights to be at their games and meets?
Chicago State has cancelled their basketball games this week for both men and women. The men's team was scheduled for a road trip including Seattle.
03-04-2020, 11:56 AM
(03-03-2020, 10:07 PM)76lsjumb Wrote:(03-03-2020, 09:15 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(03-03-2020, 08:49 PM)Phogge Wrote: Another reason not to renew football tickets.
Don't think you have to worry about crowding in the football stadium this fall.
BC
It shouldn't be difficult to implement these procedures in Maples. They've been rehearsing them during men's b'ball games for the past few seasons.
Men's basketball has already played its final regular season game. I guess there's the possibility of a home NIT game, but really this impacts the women's basketball team for the first two rounds of the NCAA tournament, right?
As for other spring sports, I think this policy will work for volleyball, golf, softball, baseball and tennis. Given the expected attendance and square footage of available seating, fans can be admitted into the venue in a reasonable amount of time and they can spread out sufficiently.
But it may be a moot point as I think we are heading towards college sports events being cancelled.
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
(03-03-2020, 10:07 PM)76lsjumb Wrote:(03-03-2020, 09:15 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(03-03-2020, 08:49 PM)Phogge Wrote: Another reason not to renew football tickets.
Don't think you have to worry about crowding in the football stadium this fall.
BC
It shouldn't be difficult to implement these procedures in Maples. They've been rehearsing them during men's b'ball games for the past few seasons.
Men's basketball has already played its final regular season game. I guess there's the possibility of a home NIT game, but really this impacts the women's basketball team for the first two rounds of the NCAA tournament, right?
As for other spring sports, I think this policy will work for volleyball, golf, softball, baseball and tennis. Given the expected attendance and square footage of available seating, fans can be admitted into the venue in a reasonable amount of time and they can spread out sufficiently.
But it may be a moot point as I think we are heading towards college sports events being cancelled.
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
03-04-2020, 12:20 PM
(03-04-2020, 10:53 AM)chrisk Wrote:(03-04-2020, 04:06 AM)OutsiderFan
dateline='1583320004' Wrote: Question: If you are having competitions without spectators, how can one justify having the competitions themselves? I mean all sports other than maybe golf are done at very close distances, and many of them share the same balls.
Moreover, how are athletes going to feel about competing when they see spectators are prohibited for safety reasons? Will they even want to travel on commercial flights to be at their games and meets?
Chicago State has cancelled their basketball games this week for both men and women. The men's team was scheduled for a road trip including Seattle.
Cancellations may also may be due to the fact that they were 0 and 14 in league
(03-04-2020, 10:53 AM)chrisk Wrote:(03-04-2020, 04:06 AM)OutsiderFan
dateline='1583320004' Wrote: Question: If you are having competitions without spectators, how can one justify having the competitions themselves? I mean all sports other than maybe golf are done at very close distances, and many of them share the same balls.
Moreover, how are athletes going to feel about competing when they see spectators are prohibited for safety reasons? Will they even want to travel on commercial flights to be at their games and meets?
Chicago State has cancelled their basketball games this week for both men and women. The men's team was scheduled for a road trip including Seattle.
Cancellations may also may be due to the fact that they were 0 and 14 in league
03-04-2020, 12:24 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-04-2020, 12:35 PM by BostonCard.)
Quote:Study 1: ...However, compliance with mask use was less than 50%. In an adjusted analysis of compliant subjects, masks as a group had protective efficacy in excess of 80% against clinical influenza-like illness. The efficacy against proven viral infection and between P2 masks (57%) and surgical masks (33%) was non-significant. ... In compliant users, masks were highly efficacious.
Study 2: This study paired hand hygiene with wearing masks versus neither, so it doesn't really indicate anything about face masks themselves.
Study 3: Subjects in residence halls at a university [quote]Participants were assigned to face mask and hand hygiene, face mask only, or control group during the study. Discrete-time survival models using generalized estimating equations to estimate intervention effects on ILI and confirmed influenza A/B infection over a 6-week study period were examined. A significant reduction in the rate of ILI was observed in weeks 3 through 6 of the study, with a maximum reduction of 75% during the final study week (rate ratio [RR] = 0.25, [95% CI, 0.07 to 0.87]). Both intervention groups compared to the control showed cumulative reductions in rates of influenza over the study period, although results did not reach statistical significance.
I think the studies support the general consensus on this which is that masks can help when a) the masks are properly fitted, b) the users are compliant with them, c) the users use them properly d) it is paired with other hygiene methods (hand washing, gloves, etc).
Note, the type of mask required is dependent on how the virus/bacteria is transmitted. If it is mostly in the upper respiratory tract, the particles produced are mostly droplets, and droplet precautions (surgical mask plus gloves, possibly with an eye shield) are adequate. If the source of the virus/bacteria is in the lungs and it is spread via coughing, then full respiratory/airborne precautions are required (N95 mask), ideally a negative pressure room.
Wikipedia has a nice summary of what each type of infection requires and what each type entails.
Here's what they say for SARS (also a coronavirus that causes a respiratory syndrome:
| Infection or condition | Infection or condition | Precautions duration² | Precautions comments |
| Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) | Airborne / Contact / Droplet | DI plus 10 days after resolution offever, provided respiratory symptoms are absent or improving | Airborne Precautions preferred; D if AIIR unavailable. N95 or higher respiratory protection; surgical mask if N95 unavailable; eye protection (goggles, face shield); aerosol-generating procedures and "supershedders" highest risk for transmission via small droplet nuclei and large droplets.[65][66][67] Vigilant environmental disinfection (see www.cdc.gov/ncidod/sars) |
Bottom line, I don't think a mask in and of itself (especially if it is not a fit, N95 mask) will protect anyone very well.
BC
California now has its first coronavirus death.
https://apple.news/A_WhbKs2IStGlwuMjP14H_A
The scary thing is this quote:
Quote:The individual’s likely exposure occurred during international travel on a Princess cruise ship that departed Feb. 10 from San Francisco to Mexico and returned Feb. 21.
If the individual was exposed on the cruise, the experience with the Diamond Princess cruise in Japan, where there was widespread exposure to the virus suggests that a lot of people could potential be positive. Moreover, with a cruise departing from SF, there will be a lot of Bay Area residents exposed.
BC
(This post was last modified: 03-04-2020, 12:35 PM by BostonCard.)
Quote:Study 1: ...However, compliance with mask use was less than 50%. In an adjusted analysis of compliant subjects, masks as a group had protective efficacy in excess of 80% against clinical influenza-like illness. The efficacy against proven viral infection and between P2 masks (57%) and surgical masks (33%) was non-significant. ... In compliant users, masks were highly efficacious.
Study 2: This study paired hand hygiene with wearing masks versus neither, so it doesn't really indicate anything about face masks themselves.
Study 3: Subjects in residence halls at a university [quote]Participants were assigned to face mask and hand hygiene, face mask only, or control group during the study. Discrete-time survival models using generalized estimating equations to estimate intervention effects on ILI and confirmed influenza A/B infection over a 6-week study period were examined. A significant reduction in the rate of ILI was observed in weeks 3 through 6 of the study, with a maximum reduction of 75% during the final study week (rate ratio [RR] = 0.25, [95% CI, 0.07 to 0.87]). Both intervention groups compared to the control showed cumulative reductions in rates of influenza over the study period, although results did not reach statistical significance.
I think the studies support the general consensus on this which is that masks can help when a) the masks are properly fitted, b) the users are compliant with them, c) the users use them properly d) it is paired with other hygiene methods (hand washing, gloves, etc).
Note, the type of mask required is dependent on how the virus/bacteria is transmitted. If it is mostly in the upper respiratory tract, the particles produced are mostly droplets, and droplet precautions (surgical mask plus gloves, possibly with an eye shield) are adequate. If the source of the virus/bacteria is in the lungs and it is spread via coughing, then full respiratory/airborne precautions are required (N95 mask), ideally a negative pressure room.
Wikipedia has a nice summary of what each type of infection requires and what each type entails.
Here's what they say for SARS (also a coronavirus that causes a respiratory syndrome:
| Infection or condition | Infection or condition | Precautions duration² | Precautions comments |
| Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) | Airborne / Contact / Droplet | DI plus 10 days after resolution offever, provided respiratory symptoms are absent or improving | Airborne Precautions preferred; D if AIIR unavailable. N95 or higher respiratory protection; surgical mask if N95 unavailable; eye protection (goggles, face shield); aerosol-generating procedures and "supershedders" highest risk for transmission via small droplet nuclei and large droplets.[65][66][67] Vigilant environmental disinfection (see www.cdc.gov/ncidod/sars) |
Bottom line, I don't think a mask in and of itself (especially if it is not a fit, N95 mask) will protect anyone very well.
BC
California now has its first coronavirus death.
https://apple.news/A_WhbKs2IStGlwuMjP14H_A
The scary thing is this quote:
Quote:The individual’s likely exposure occurred during international travel on a Princess cruise ship that departed Feb. 10 from San Francisco to Mexico and returned Feb. 21.
If the individual was exposed on the cruise, the experience with the Diamond Princess cruise in Japan, where there was widespread exposure to the virus suggests that a lot of people could potential be positive. Moreover, with a cruise departing from SF, there will be a lot of Bay Area residents exposed.
BC
03-04-2020, 12:55 PM
(03-03-2020, 10:07 PM)76lsjumb Wrote:(03-03-2020, 09:15 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(03-03-2020, 08:49 PM)Phogge Wrote: Another reason not to renew football tickets.
Don't think you have to worry about crowding in the football stadium this fall.
BC
It shouldn't be difficult to implement these procedures in Maples. They've been rehearsing them during men's b'ball games for the past few seasons.
The only way there’s another MBB game in Maples this year is if it’s a first round game in the Dawkins Invitational Tournament. In which case, it won’t be an issue
(03-03-2020, 10:07 PM)76lsjumb Wrote:(03-03-2020, 09:15 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(03-03-2020, 08:49 PM)Phogge Wrote: Another reason not to renew football tickets.
Don't think you have to worry about crowding in the football stadium this fall.
BC
It shouldn't be difficult to implement these procedures in Maples. They've been rehearsing them during men's b'ball games for the past few seasons.
The only way there’s another MBB game in Maples this year is if it’s a first round game in the Dawkins Invitational Tournament. In which case, it won’t be an issue
03-04-2020, 01:31 PM
Boy, it is hard to get a handle on this. I was dragged into my physician's office today for a physical. I am a compliant patient, but very slow on the trigger for medicines or interventions. Mostly we correspond, about the quarterly blood tests I have to take because of the methotrexate. But she finally insisted on a physical, so there I was this morning. She is ultra-cautious in the past, something of a worry wart, so I expected to be inundated with virus precautions - pamphlets, sermons, the works.
instead . . . nothing. I brought the subject up. She shrugged her shoulders, suggested washing hands a lot (which we are doing), and commented that it hadn't spread too far. Not much.
My dad, a retired ophthalmologist and a centenarian as of October (meaning he was born in the Spanish flu year, 1919) was similarly nonchalant. This is not to say that he and others do not see Covid-19 as dangerous - they do - but they also see it as flu virus not unlike many, many others, more significant than some. But at the end of the day, a flu, of the type that is a pretty constant nemesis, in one form or another, with various degrees of mortality.
I am in the age group (+70) in which the mortality rate is 8%. but even so . . .
So . . . wash hands every time I come into the house, avoid public tactile surfaces (like door handles and gas pumps - hard to remember to do that), nod and smile instead of grasping hands. But other than that, it's business as usual. I will take my normal Friday walk to the movies, eat the popcorn, and hope for the best.
instead . . . nothing. I brought the subject up. She shrugged her shoulders, suggested washing hands a lot (which we are doing), and commented that it hadn't spread too far. Not much.
My dad, a retired ophthalmologist and a centenarian as of October (meaning he was born in the Spanish flu year, 1919) was similarly nonchalant. This is not to say that he and others do not see Covid-19 as dangerous - they do - but they also see it as flu virus not unlike many, many others, more significant than some. But at the end of the day, a flu, of the type that is a pretty constant nemesis, in one form or another, with various degrees of mortality.
I am in the age group (+70) in which the mortality rate is 8%. but even so . . .
So . . . wash hands every time I come into the house, avoid public tactile surfaces (like door handles and gas pumps - hard to remember to do that), nod and smile instead of grasping hands. But other than that, it's business as usual. I will take my normal Friday walk to the movies, eat the popcorn, and hope for the best.
I wouldn't give you two cents for all your fancy rules if, behind them, they didn't have a little bit of plain, ordinary, everyday kindness - yeah, and a little looking out for the other fella, too.
Boy, it is hard to get a handle on this. I was dragged into my physician's office today for a physical. I am a compliant patient, but very slow on the trigger for medicines or interventions. Mostly we correspond, about the quarterly blood tests I have to take because of the methotrexate. But she finally insisted on a physical, so there I was this morning. She is ultra-cautious in the past, something of a worry wart, so I expected to be inundated with virus precautions - pamphlets, sermons, the works.
instead . . . nothing. I brought the subject up. She shrugged her shoulders, suggested washing hands a lot (which we are doing), and commented that it hadn't spread too far. Not much.
My dad, a retired ophthalmologist and a centenarian as of October (meaning he was born in the Spanish flu year, 1919) was similarly nonchalant. This is not to say that he and others do not see Covid-19 as dangerous - they do - but they also see it as flu virus not unlike many, many others, more significant than some. But at the end of the day, a flu, of the type that is a pretty constant nemesis, in one form or another, with various degrees of mortality.
I am in the age group (+70) in which the mortality rate is 8%. but even so . . .
So . . . wash hands every time I come into the house, avoid public tactile surfaces (like door handles and gas pumps - hard to remember to do that), nod and smile instead of grasping hands. But other than that, it's business as usual. I will take my normal Friday walk to the movies, eat the popcorn, and hope for the best.
instead . . . nothing. I brought the subject up. She shrugged her shoulders, suggested washing hands a lot (which we are doing), and commented that it hadn't spread too far. Not much.
My dad, a retired ophthalmologist and a centenarian as of October (meaning he was born in the Spanish flu year, 1919) was similarly nonchalant. This is not to say that he and others do not see Covid-19 as dangerous - they do - but they also see it as flu virus not unlike many, many others, more significant than some. But at the end of the day, a flu, of the type that is a pretty constant nemesis, in one form or another, with various degrees of mortality.
I am in the age group (+70) in which the mortality rate is 8%. but even so . . .
So . . . wash hands every time I come into the house, avoid public tactile surfaces (like door handles and gas pumps - hard to remember to do that), nod and smile instead of grasping hands. But other than that, it's business as usual. I will take my normal Friday walk to the movies, eat the popcorn, and hope for the best.
I wouldn't give you two cents for all your fancy rules if, behind them, they didn't have a little bit of plain, ordinary, everyday kindness - yeah, and a little looking out for the other fella, too.
03-04-2020, 02:53 PM
(03-04-2020, 12:55 PM)winflop Wrote:(03-03-2020, 10:07 PM)76lsjumb Wrote:(03-03-2020, 09:15 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(03-03-2020, 08:49 PM)Phogge Wrote: Another reason not to renew football tickets.
Don't think you have to worry about crowding in the football stadium this fall.
BC
It shouldn't be difficult to implement these procedures in Maples. They've been rehearsing them during men's b'ball games for the past few seasons.
The only way there’s another MBB game in Maples this year is if it’s a first round game in the Dawkins Invitational Tournament. In which case, it won’t be an issue
Well, if we make the NCAA tourney, I just hope we don't get a first round game against Siena...
(03-04-2020, 12:55 PM)winflop Wrote:(03-03-2020, 10:07 PM)76lsjumb Wrote:(03-03-2020, 09:15 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(03-03-2020, 08:49 PM)Phogge Wrote: Another reason not to renew football tickets.
Don't think you have to worry about crowding in the football stadium this fall.
BC
It shouldn't be difficult to implement these procedures in Maples. They've been rehearsing them during men's b'ball games for the past few seasons.
The only way there’s another MBB game in Maples this year is if it’s a first round game in the Dawkins Invitational Tournament. In which case, it won’t be an issue
Well, if we make the NCAA tourney, I just hope we don't get a first round game against Siena...
03-04-2020, 03:14 PM
(03-04-2020, 01:31 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote: Boy, it is hard to get a handle on this.Not really if you are following what the scientists are saying. There are plenty of people in full on denial about this, and my social media feeds are full of dismissive and factually incorrect statements about the virus, some even from medical workers. But I think that they are just not following it closely or do not understand how diseases spread (being a medical doctor does not make you an expert in epidemiology or statistical modeling of disease spread).
Unfortunately, I think it's going to take Wuhan-type numbers of cases before most Americans come around to what we're up against. Hopefully I'm wrong.
(03-04-2020, 01:31 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote: Boy, it is hard to get a handle on this.Not really if you are following what the scientists are saying. There are plenty of people in full on denial about this, and my social media feeds are full of dismissive and factually incorrect statements about the virus, some even from medical workers. But I think that they are just not following it closely or do not understand how diseases spread (being a medical doctor does not make you an expert in epidemiology or statistical modeling of disease spread).
Unfortunately, I think it's going to take Wuhan-type numbers of cases before most Americans come around to what we're up against. Hopefully I'm wrong.
03-04-2020, 07:33 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-04-2020, 10:07 PM by Genuine Realist.)
The gist of my post was that the most insouciant people I know aren't social media trolls, but MD's. It's a brand new flu, but diseases themselves are nothing new. That's the essence of the reaction, which amounts to a shrug.
Unfortunately, I think it's going to take Wuhan-type numbers of cases before most Americans come around to what we're up against. Hopefully I'm wrong.
[/quote]
(03-04-2020, 01:31 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote: Boy, it is hard to get a handle on this.Not really if you are following what the scientists are saying. There are plenty of people in full on denial about this, and my social media feeds are full of dismissive and factually incorrect statements about the virus, some even from medical workers. But I think that they are just not following it closely or do not understand how diseases spread (being a medical doctor does not make you an expert in epidemiology or statistical modeling of disease spread).
Unfortunately, I think it's going to take Wuhan-type numbers of cases before most Americans come around to what we're up against. Hopefully I'm wrong.
[/quote]
I wouldn't give you two cents for all your fancy rules if, behind them, they didn't have a little bit of plain, ordinary, everyday kindness - yeah, and a little looking out for the other fella, too.
(This post was last modified: 03-04-2020, 10:07 PM by Genuine Realist.)
The gist of my post was that the most insouciant people I know aren't social media trolls, but MD's. It's a brand new flu, but diseases themselves are nothing new. That's the essence of the reaction, which amounts to a shrug.
Unfortunately, I think it's going to take Wuhan-type numbers of cases before most Americans come around to what we're up against. Hopefully I'm wrong.
[/quote]
(03-04-2020, 01:31 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote: Boy, it is hard to get a handle on this.Not really if you are following what the scientists are saying. There are plenty of people in full on denial about this, and my social media feeds are full of dismissive and factually incorrect statements about the virus, some even from medical workers. But I think that they are just not following it closely or do not understand how diseases spread (being a medical doctor does not make you an expert in epidemiology or statistical modeling of disease spread).
Unfortunately, I think it's going to take Wuhan-type numbers of cases before most Americans come around to what we're up against. Hopefully I'm wrong.
[/quote]
I wouldn't give you two cents for all your fancy rules if, behind them, they didn't have a little bit of plain, ordinary, everyday kindness - yeah, and a little looking out for the other fella, too.
03-04-2020, 08:10 PM
(03-04-2020, 08:05 PM)Mick Wrote:(03-03-2020, 09:15 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(03-03-2020, 08:49 PM)Phogge Wrote: Another reason not to renew football tickets.
Don't think you have to worry about crowding in the football stadium this fall.
BC
The football fans will be automatically compliant.
Does beer kill COVID-19 or enhance compliance?? If so, beers for everyone!
(03-04-2020, 08:05 PM)Mick Wrote:(03-03-2020, 09:15 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(03-03-2020, 08:49 PM)Phogge Wrote: Another reason not to renew football tickets.
Don't think you have to worry about crowding in the football stadium this fall.
BC
The football fans will be automatically compliant.
Does beer kill COVID-19 or enhance compliance?? If so, beers for everyone!
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »