Shanedorf Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 34 minutes ago, acowboys62 said: curious if teams have ever had to address this type of thing before. it happens every year, but the teams don't appear to have a systematic process for handling it http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000001083583/article/multiple-seahawks-players-battled-flu-bug-in-mnf-win https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/28178901/eight-miss-practice-patriots-deal-flu-bug According to data provided by the CDC on peak flu activity since 1982, February is the top month for flu with a total of 14 seasons having peaked during this month since 1982. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 (edited) 16 hours ago, vikesfan89 said: Then why not shut it down with 1 positive? You answered this more or less already: 17 hours ago, vikesfan89 said: I'm just saying it's not that black and white. How many players, coaches, training staff etc will be involved? It seems like it wouldn't be hard for 2 of them to test positive while being infected from someplace else Fauci is playing the odds. Remember that in this hypothetical, he's talking about resuming football with the virus relatively under control, not like we have now. So there are going to be a relatively small number of new cases coming up, and ideally we'd be tracking who has contact with everyone. Let's walk through the 4 different scenarios: If you have 1 person on a football team test positive, they didn't get it from anyone else on the team since no one else tested positive. In this case it would make sense to quarantine that one person and other people they have had contact with, but the problem isn't necessarily in the team yet since the player got it from somewhere else. If you have 2 people who test positive, again we don't know where they got it, but they could have come in contact with the first person who tested positive or they could have gotten it from someone else. In this case, what makes the most sense might depend. If you go back and look at everyone that player had contact with and it turned out they had to have been infected from the first person on the team who tested positive, then you might want to react by quarantining the team, but that definitely doesn't have to be the case. If you could show the 2nd person didn't get it from the first, then you could try and quarantine both players and let the rest of the team keep going. If you have 3 people, now there are 2 other football players/staff who might have given it to the player. In this case, whatever the odds of infection being spread through the team were when you only had 2 people test positive, they are now nominally twice as high since that 3rd positive test could have come from contact with either the first or second player. When you get to 4 people, the odds of the transmission of the virus being from football-related contact keep going up and up. Basically, as the number of cases increases, so does the likelihood that the transmission came as a result of football. Once that likelihood gets too high, then that would trigger a quarantine of the football complex for a few weeks to stop the spread, then you'd re-start. Edited May 12, 2020 by ramssuperbowl99 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikesfan89 Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 4 minutes ago, August4th said: This isn't going to end well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenos Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 2 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: You answered this more or less already: Fauci is playing the odds. Remember that in this hypothetical, he's talking about resuming football with the virus relatively under control, not like we have now. So there are going to be a relatively small number of new cases coming up, and ideally we'd be tracking who has contact with everyone. Let's walk through the 4 different scenarios: If you have 1 person on a football team test positive, they didn't get it from anyone else on the team since no one else tested positive. In this case it would make sense to quarantine that one person and other people they have had contact with, but the problem isn't necessarily in the team yet since the player got it from somewhere else. If you have 2 people who test positive, again we don't know where they got it, but they could have come in contact with the first person who tested positive or they could have gotten it from someone else. In this case, what makes the most sense might depend. If you go back and look at everyone that player had contact with it turned out they had to have been infected from the first person on the team who tested positive, then you might want to react by quarantining the team, but that definitely doesn't have to be the case. If you could show the 2nd person didn't get it from the first, then you could try and quarantine both players and let the rest of the team keep going . If you have 3 people, now there are 2 other football players/staff who might have given it to the player. In this case, whatever the odds of infection being spread through the team were when you only had 2 people test positive, they are now nominally twice as high since that 3rd positive test could have come from contact with either the first or second player. When you get to 4 people, the odds of the transmission of the virus being from football-related contact keep going up and up. Basically, as the number of cases increases, so does the likelihood that the transmission came as a result of football. Once that likelihood gets too high, then that would trigger a quarantine of the football complex for a few weeks to stop the spread, then you'd re-start. What did you think of the Peter King interview? Was there anything that didn't make sense or Peter ran with that shouldn't have been misconstrued? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N4L Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 4 minutes ago, mission27 said: LA extending stay at home "three more months" Thats absolutely ridiculous you are surprised by this? LA basin has been bringing down CA numbers the whole time. Bay area should be out of lockdown in another 2 months, and we have significantly less cases 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 1 minute ago, Xenos said: What did you think of the Peter King interview? Was there anything that didn't make sense or Peter ran with that shouldn't have been misconstrued? I haven't listened to it (not a real big Peter King fan tbh). I just saw Fauci's explanation in the thread where he didn't really show his work when he was answering and thought it might be better to go slower and take each example one at a time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenos Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 10 minutes ago, mission27 said: LA extending stay at home "three more months" Thats absolutely ridiculous The article is a lot more nuanced than the headline. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 1 minute ago, Xenos said: The article is a lot more nuanced than the headline. This quote: Quote “Our hope is that by using the data, we’d be able to slowly lift restrictions over the next three months,” she said. sounds like exactly what most of the non-insane states are doing. She's just saying it might take 3 months to move through the phases of their re-opening. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theJ Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 On 5/5/2020 at 1:53 PM, theJ said: 1st world problems for a minute. My brother is getting married in two weeks. The wedding is still on, in a reduced capacity at a different (outdoor) venue. I ordered a suit way back at the end of February from Men's Warehouse, had it tailored, etc. It was supposed to be done right before everything closed down. They've been closed since. They were supposed to reopen yesterday, but haven't so far. I paid $300 for this suit... Update: Men's Wearhouse is apparently not following state recommendations, and instead following national standards. Ohio opened up retail today, but they have declined to open. No suit for me. I demand a refund! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 7 minutes ago, theJ said: Update: Men's Wearhouse is apparently not following state recommendations, and instead following national standards. Ohio opened up retail today, but they have declined to open. No suit for me. I demand a refund! I realize your brother was screwed here, but the determination to still throw a wedding during all this is bananas. If I was him I'd consider eloping if you really couldn't wait and throw the party next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theJ Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 1 minute ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: I realize your brother was screwed here, but the determination to still throw a wedding during all this is bananas. If I was him I'd consider eloping if you really couldn't wait and throw the party next year. It's going to be a small, outdoor wedding. There's little risk here. Frankly i think he's kind of relieved that he doesn't have to throw a party for the whole extended family. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 2 minutes ago, theJ said: It's going to be a small, outdoor wedding. There's little risk here. Frankly i think he's kind of relieved that he doesn't have to throw a party for the whole extended family. Oh yeah nevermind. This is the perfect wedding season for him then. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TVScout Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 Moderna's potential coronavirus vaccine gains FDA's 'fast track' status https://www.yahoo.com/news/modernas-experimental-coronavirus-vaccine-gets-121838528.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbadbuff Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 8 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: I realize your brother was screwed here, but the determination to still throw a wedding during all this is bananas. If I was him I'd consider eloping if you really couldn't wait and throw the party next year. I moved mine from June to November, hoping that’s far enough. We just got the ok (Finger Lakes region of New York) to begin phase one of reopening on Friday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mission27 Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 25 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: This quote: sounds like exactly what most of the non-insane states are doing. She's just saying it might take 3 months to move through the phases of their re-opening. The government needs to do a better job of messaging this then and the media has to do a better job of avoiding sensationalist headlines Because the headlines everywhere now is LA lockdown extended 3 months Which will just continue to make this whole situation more polarized, partisan, and lead to much worse outcomes Nobody thought we were going to zero on May 15. But we need to start moving in that direction now and terms like 'shelter in place' or 'stay at home' cant be part of the next phase of this response or there's no point do anyhting 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts