NFL shutting down all team facilities until at least April 8 due to coronavirus

[soulman]

NFL shutting down all team facilities until at least April 8 due to coronavirus

Originally posted on Sportsnaut  |  By Jesse Reed  |  Last updated 3/24/20

 

The NFL continues to take safety measures amid the coronavirus pandemic that is sweeping the nation.

The league had already banned all players from team facilities and shut down all physicals until the health crisis has passed. Now it has shut down all team facilities, with limited exceptions.

Tom Pelissero of NFL Network noted that the NFL will reassess the situation on April 8, with advice from experts.

Looking for more NFL news and rumors?  Get the latest here.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell sent a memo to clubs tonight, saying all club facilities will close at 6 p.m. Wednesday, with limited exceptions, per sources. The league will reassess April 8 with advice from experts.

So NFL teams, like many others, will now #stayathome.

— Tom Pelissero (@TomPelissero) March 25, 2020

The league also is expected to make the decision to move the NFL Draft from Las Vegas into a studio, which of course makes perfect sense considering the fact that the Las Vegas Strip has been shut down.

There is hope that the NFL season will be able to go on as planned, but at this point the league’s offseason program is in danger of being scrapped altogether. Based on what has happened so far, at least one owner would be surprised if players were allowed back at team facilities before training camp begins in mid-July.

This article first appeared on Sportsnaut and was syndicated with permission.

[The_Romen]

Craziness. There's gonna be a lot of sloppy play whenever the league gets started back up.

[Epyon]

I mean, considering that a vaccine is being rumored to take ~18 months to produce and clear safety testing,  

I'm only about 50% the NFL even has a season this year, truth be told. An NFL stadium pack with tens of thousands drunk fans sounds like a giant petri dish of bad news.   Herd immunity is about the only way this stops spreading around.

[soulman]

IMHO the only quicker way out of this is by having more and better testing available to more people.

The Trib says Abbott Labs has gotten FDA approval for a test that can determine a positive in as little as 5 minutes and a negative in as little as 13 minutes and they can be used in the field.  If the first 50,000 prove to be accurate enough and they can mass produce more quickly enough we may finally begin to get ahead of the curve but until we can test more people we really don't know where we are.

As of this AM the US alone has 143,000 confirmed cases and over 2500 deaths but with testing we might have double that many.  We just don't know.  But with a current national mortality rate of 1.75% we damn well need to find out soon just how many we do have because we're probably gonna see 15,000-20,000 deaths per million and we have 328 million people in the US all with zero immunity to it.

Edited March 30, 2020 by soulman

[beardown3231]

Too bad this didn't happen in 2017. Then maybe Pace wouldn't have had the opportunity to fall in love with Trubisky's Toyota and his fun loving personality.

[soulman]

To be honest we'd be far better off to hope Mitch doesn't succumb to permanent suckage and recovers enough to at least show some major improvement.  I'm fine with Foles taking over but we'd still need a capable #2 and that would be Mitch at least for now.

[JAF-N72EX]

18 hours ago, soulman said:

There is hope that the NFL season will be able to go on as planned, but at this point the league’s offseason program is in danger of being scrapped altogether. Based on what has happened so far, at least one owner would be surprised if players were allowed back at team facilities before training camp begins in mid-July.

This doesn't surprise me at all. It's became clear to me for a while now that the possibility of any offseason program taking place is very slim. Some of them could possibly start later (OCT-NOV ) but they would be very rushed if they intend on having a season. 

[dll2000]

I guess I am total minority, but that is a place I often find myself.  

I totally disagree with the approach to the virus situation.  I think we have gone mad.   

[soulman]

2 hours ago, dll2000 said:

I guess I am total minority, but that is a place I often find myself.  

I totally disagree with the approach to the virus situation.  I think we have gone mad.   

And you're entitled to that opinion sir.  Just stay the hell away from then OK?  LOL

[dll2000]

21 minutes ago, soulman said:

And you're entitled to that opinion sir.  Just stay the hell away from then OK?  LOL

I just think the cure is going to be worse than the disease on a macro level.

I have sympathy for those that die from any cause, but that is a small number in greater scheme of large decisions like shutting down entire economy.

 

 

[soulman]

32 minutes ago, dll2000 said:

I just think the cure is going to be worse than the disease on a macro level.

I have sympathy for those that die from any cause, but that is a small number in greater scheme of large decisions like shutting down entire economy.

 

 

I hear ya' brother but at least you can resurrect an economy.  There is no stimulus package available for human resurrections.  Like it or not we're gonna see a global recession before all is said an done and there will be a lot of fixin' to do when it's time for that but not now.

As of 10:41 AM the confirmed infections are 190,740 and body count is 4127.  That's a mortality rate of 2.16% and rising.  It was under 1.5% a week ago so where does that stop?  Globally the mortality rate is 5%.  Can we get that high in the US?  I dunno but Mass General Hospital is down to it's last ventilator this AM.  So who decides whose to live and whose to die?  Any you think it's not that bad?

Depending on the mortality rate we're talking about anywhere from 20,000 to maybe as high as 50,000 per million and we have 328 million people in this country none of whom have an immunity and not a whole lot of hope for a vaccine anytime soon.  If only 10% are infected we're talking about anywhere from 600,000 to 1.65 mil deaths.  That's a whole lot of people who can't return to work and a whole lot of consumer who won't be consuming anything any longer.  Think on that for a bit while you isolate.....or not. 

[BEAR FACE DOWN ARROW]

51 minutes ago, dll2000 said:

I just think the cure is going to be worse than the disease on a macro level.

I have sympathy for those that die from any cause, but that is a small number in greater scheme of large decisions like shutting down entire economy.

 

 

Excepting the human cost here, which could be 7 figures in dead, and 48 million hospitalized (or in bad enough condition to be so even if the hospitals stop taking people in) , the economic impact of just shrugging would be huge as well.  If we spend (depending on who you believe) 15-25% GDP on health care, and our hospitals stop working because they're overloaded with one diesease and lets say we have a third of the health care workers dead or incapacitated, then that is going to blow it's own giant hole through the economy. And what happens when **** just stops working because all the bus drivers, teachers, pilots, shop workers, cop and all the other people that are higher risk due to seeing a **** ton of people every day get sick with similar morbidity rates?  Speaking as someone whose biz revenues have fallen off a cliff, this to me makes a lot more sense.  

I have a friend who is running a hospitals response to this in another state, and he's saying that the health care industry is probably going to need a huge bailout down the line, as they're not doing anything profitable right now and won't be for some time.  Whether private insurance or medicaid, they do not make a lot on emergency medicine compared to electives and surgery. For what it's worth, he thinks guidance on gatherings is going to be in place through June, and that there will be some sort of rolling relaxations of the stayda****home guidance in May. 

There's a lot of facets to this that are going to be affecting us all for years, it's an interesting discussion that would be more fun as a thought experiment. 

[dll2000]

6 minutes ago, soulman said:

I hear ya' brother but at least you can resurrect an economy.  There is no stimulus package available for human resurrections.  Like it or not we're gonna see a global recession before all is said an done and there will be a lot of fixin' to do when it's time for that but not now.

As of 10:41 AM the confirmed infections are 190,740 and body count is 4127.  That's a mortality rate of 2.16% and rising.  It was under 1.5% a week ago so where does that stop?  Globally the mortality rate is 5%.  Can we get that high in the US?  I dunno but Mass General Hospital is down to it's last ventilator this AM.  So who decides whose to live and whose to die?  Any you think it's not that bad?

Depending on the mortality rate we're talking about anywhere from 20,000 to maybe as high as 50,000 per million and we have 328 million people in this country none of whom have an immunity and not a whole lot of hope for a vaccine anytime soon.  If only 10% are infected we're talking about anywhere from 600,000 to 1.65 mil deaths.  That's a whole lot of people who can't return to work and a whole lot of consumer who won't be consuming anything any longer.  Think on that for a bit while you isolate.....or not. 

Just asking questions that need to be asked.  

Basically if you are healthy you are going to live and devolop anti-bodies if you get it.  Right?   Or you have 99% chance of living which is basically same thing.  

Why don't we let the healthy people work and sequester the at risk population and provide economic assistance to them?   We have millions of people in rural areas staying in their homes for basically no reason to be fair to be people in cities.   

How many people will die from ripples of a depression?  Does anyone think about that?  It isn't just we rebuild the economy anymore than it is just we don't need to worry about the elderly or susceptible sick.   

How many people die from all other dangers everyday that doesn't get same media attention?  

You have to make macro decisions.  You can save 10s of 1000s of lives by eliminating all kinds of things, but there is a societal cost to each thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BEAR FACE DOWN ARROW]

5 minutes ago, dll2000 said:

Just asking questions that need to be asked.  

Basically if you are healthy you are going to live and devolop anti-bodies if you get it.  Right?   Or you have 99% chance of living which is basically same thing.  

Why don't we let the healthy people work and sequester the at risk population and provide economic assistance to them?   We have millions of people in rural areas staying in their homes for basically no reason to be fair to be people in cities.   

How many people will die from ripples of a depression?  Does anyone think about that?  It isn't just we rebuild the economy anymore than it is just we don't need to worry about the elderly or susceptible sick.   

How many people die from all other dangers everyday that doesn't get same media attention?  

You have to make macro decisions.  You can save 10s of 1000s of lives by eliminating all kinds of things, but there is a societal cost to each thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

To me the obvious buy in has always been what happens to hospitals if we had chosen to do nothing, and then just let it all hit the fan at once.  Aside from an increasing death rate due to people not being able to get care, it also means no one else is able to get care for anything.  I'm guessing I'm not the only one who's yelled at their  kid "get off that damn thing/down from there/out of that damn thing, you don't want to go to the hospital this week!"

There's a pretty decent chance when all is said and done this hits rural populations harder than urban, as rural hospitals have a lot of challenges that urban ones don't in terms of capacity and patient access.  The upside is that it should spread slower there if people are staying home which should make better care available since it'll be the same number of people over a longer period of time. 

[dll2000]

1 minute ago, RunningVaccs said:

To me the obvious buy in has always been what happens to hospitals if we had chosen to do nothing, and then just let it all hit the fan at once.  Aside from an increasing death rate due to people not being able to get care, it also means no one else is able to get care for anything.  I'm guessing I'm not the only one who's yelled at their  kid "get off that damn thing/down from there/out of that damn thing, you don't want to go to the hospital this week!"

There's a pretty decent chance when all is said and done this hits rural populations harder than urban, as rural hospitals have a lot of challenges that urban ones don't in terms of capacity and patient access.  The upside is that it should spread slower there if people are staying home which should make better care available since it'll be the same number of people over a longer period of time. 

I can't prove a negative.  I don't even know if I am right.  But I am a natural skeptic in many things.  

You can always say it would have been way, way worse if we didn't make people in Montana stay home.  But we won't ever know.

Actually we can to an extent.  Some countries are doing nothing.  Mexico is basically doing nothing.  They are actually encouraging people to get out and about to help economy.

They have few ventilators and poor hospitals, few doctors and really poor resources compared to U.S.   They should theoretically be far, far worse off especially by doing nothing.   

Let's see if they have mass deaths as predicted on the scale of all the numbers being thrown about.