"Will there be an NFL season?" (NY Times)

[steelheadtrout]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/11/spor ... eason.html

Interesting analysis combined with virus activity...

[Texas Black & Gold]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/11/spor ... eason.html

Interesting analysis combined with virus activity...

I agree with Terry Bradshaw's opinion that there will be a season one way or the other. Although the NFL may have to get some of the Blue states to get on board.

[Donnie Brasco]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/11/spor ... eason.html

Interesting analysis combined with virus activity...

I agree with Terry Bradshaw's opinion that there will be a season one way or the other. Although the NFL may have to get some of the Blue states to get on board.

NFL has a very powerful lobbying arm, so they sure as hell are going to make sure a season happens. With or without fans is another debate

[COR-TEN]

There is too much money at stake. $8-10 billion. They need. . .errr. . . want to keep the revenue stream flowing, even if it's throttled a bit. They will do whatever it takes. . . Half a stadium is better than nothing. Half a season is better than none.

[bradshaw2ben]

It all depends on if the NFLPA and star players are willing to back to work. No Tom Brady, no NFL season, so way.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why Tom Brady and Drew Brees and pretty much every other highly paid superstar with money in the bank would risk his health/life/his family to play before it's safer than driving on the highway to get to the stadium.

[COR-TEN]

It all depends on if the NFLPA and star players are willing to back to work. No Tom Brady, no NFL season, so way.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why Tom Brady and Drew Brees and pretty much every other highly paid superstar with money in the bank would risk his health/life/his family to play before it's safer than driving on the highway to get to the stadium.

Because they have access to tests whenever they want, can demand all those around them get tested, and have access to the highest level of treatment. Besides, that's not taking into consideration where they fall on the political spectrum; or how they view the virus and the response to it. Brady is a dumpster supporter from what I can tell, as is Kraft - along with probably 80% of NFL ownership. Hell, Novak Djokovic is an anti vaxxer, and his wife wore a t-shit suggesting 5G was the cause of Covid in an instagram post.

[tbsteel]

I live in Ohio, and we've had 6 people die of the coronavirus age 30-39.

The risk for a rich NFL athlete to catch the virus and die from it is about the same as getting struck and killed by lightning.

Of course, two weeks ago all the talk was about how it was going to be hell on Earth in Georgia and Florida for opening up too soon... oh wait, no, not at all. I don't give a f about Trump or national politics in general, but I'm glad my state is moving forward to re-opening businesses this week.

[Texas Black & Gold]

It all depends on if the NFLPA and star players are willing to back to work. No Tom Brady, no NFL season, so way.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why Tom Brady and Drew Brees and pretty much every other highly paid superstar with money in the bank would risk his health/life/his family to play before it's safer than driving on the highway to get to the stadium.

Even if some of the key players choose to sit out for "safety" reasons I think they could find players to step up and play. Just like 1987 strike year. Let them play football. The season should go on if at all possible.

[SteelerDayTrader]

From TMZ Dr. Fauci


Dr. Fauci is sounding major alarms about re-starting football in America -- warning the game is the "perfect set up for spreading."

Fauci -- one of the lead doctors on Trump's Coronavirus Task Force -- spelled it all out in a conversation with Peter King's "Football Morning in America."

"This is a respiratory virus, so it’s going to be spread by shedding virus," Fauci explained.

"The problem with virus shedding is that if I have it in my nasal pharynx, and it sheds and I wipe my hand against my nose -- now it’s on my hand. You see, then I touch my chest or my thigh, then it’s on my chest or my thigh for at least a few hours."

"Sweat as such won’t transmit it. But if people are in such close contact as football players are on every single play, then that’s the perfect set up for spreading. I would think that if there is an infected football player on the field -- a middle linebacker, a tackle, whoever it is it -- as soon as they hit the next guy, the chances are that they will be shedding virus all over that person."

Then Fauci added this ...

"If you really want to be in a situation where you want to be absolutely certain, you’d test all the players before the game. And you say, 'Those who are infected: sorry, you’re sidelined. Those who are free: get in there and play.'”

Fauci stressed that if football is going to return, the leagues need to have intense testing plans ... because weekly testing won't be enough.

"If I test today, and I’m negative, you don’t know if I got exposed tomorrow ... there’s no guarantee that you’re going to get exposed and be positive the next day."

He added, "To be 100% sure, you’ve got to test every day. But, that’s not practical and that’s never going to happen. But, you can diminish dramatically by testing everybody Saturday night, Sunday morning, and say, 'okay, only negative players play.'"

So, the big question -- will there be NFL football in the fall?

Fauci put it this way ... "The virus will make the decision for us."

[K_C_]

I live in Ohio, and we've had 6 people die of the coronavirus age 30-39.

The risk for a rich NFL athlete to catch the virus and die from it is about the same as getting struck and killed by lightning.

Of course, two weeks ago all the talk was about how it was going to be hell on Earth in Georgia and Florida for opening up too soon... oh wait, no, not at all. I don't give a f about Trump or national politics in general, but I'm glad my state is moving forward to re-opening businesses this week.

I'm not going to argue if it's the right thing to do in regards to reopening the economy/country. Personally, I think it's idiotic with death rates rising but I guess it's going to happen.

...the bigger question is how will people respond to businesses opening? I live in Boca Raton, FL and they reopened some restaurants for sit down meals. From what I've read on local news updates on my phone, literally NOBODY chose to sit inside these places and plan on continuing to order takeout instead.

I sure as hell know that's what my family is going to do. We won't be going to any movie theaters, won't be shopping for clothes in a store or anything similar.

Beaches in Florida have reopened and some have already been closed again because people are dumbfuck cunts. Either they weren't practicing any form of social distancing or in one case, garbage was left all over a beach in Naples, which is directly across the state from us, so the city shut that fucking beach down again.

People are fucking stupid and need to be treated like it, especially during a pandemic. Most are too stupid to do the right thing it seems so who knows, maybe people will start flocking back to stores and restaurants before long. I don't plan on being one of them, though.

[Professor Half Wit]

I live in Ohio, and we've had 6 people die of the coronavirus age 30-39.

The risk for a rich NFL athlete to catch the virus and die from it is about the same as getting struck and killed by lightning.

Of course, two weeks ago all the talk was about how it was going to be hell on Earth in Georgia and Florida for opening up too soon... oh wait, no, not at all. I don't give a f about Trump or national politics in general, but I'm glad my state is moving forward to re-opening businesses this week.

Me , too. TB. Doubly glad that DeWine is doing so in accordance with what Amy Acton says is best and not his gut or dumb ass protestors or stupid state lawmakers.

[jebrick]

I live in Ohio, and we've had 6 people die of the coronavirus age 30-39.

The risk for a rich NFL athlete to catch the virus and die from it is about the same as getting struck and killed by lightning.

Of course, two weeks ago all the talk was about how it was going to be hell on Earth in Georgia and Florida for opening up too soon... oh wait, no, not at all. I don't give a f about Trump or national politics in general, but I'm glad my state is moving forward to re-opening businesses this week.

You mitigate your risk for lighting strikes by not going out in a lighting storm. The athletes will mitigate their risk by practicing social distancing.

I do not think the risk is trivial for these people. They are not essential and unless they were living paycheck to paycheck, they really do not need to do it. COVID-19 is also shown to have some serious effects on other organs like kidneys and heart. You also run the risk of bringing it home to your family.

[SteelPro]

I live in Ohio, and we've had 6 people die of the coronavirus age 30-39.

The risk for a rich NFL athlete to catch the virus and die from it is about the same as getting struck and killed by lightning.

Of course, two weeks ago all the talk was about how it was going to be hell on Earth in Georgia and Florida for opening up too soon... oh wait, no, not at all. I don't give a f about Trump or national politics in general, but I'm glad my state is moving forward to re-opening businesses this week.

Average number of fatalities due to lighting strikes in the entire country is around 50 per year. And no one has ever infected their child/spouse/parent with a lightning strike.

[tbsteel]

I live in Ohio, and we've had 6 people die of the coronavirus age 30-39.

The risk for a rich NFL athlete to catch the virus and die from it is about the same as getting struck and killed by lightning.

Of course, two weeks ago all the talk was about how it was going to be hell on Earth in Georgia and Florida for opening up too soon... oh wait, no, not at all. I don't give a f about Trump or national politics in general, but I'm glad my state is moving forward to re-opening businesses this week.

You mitigate your risk for lighting strikes by not going out in a lighting storm. The athletes will mitigate their risk by practicing social distancing.

I do not think the risk is trivial for these people. They are not essential and unless they were living paycheck to paycheck, they really do not need to do it. COVID-19 is also shown to have some serious effects on other organs like kidneys and heart. You also run the risk of bringing it home to your family.

Yeah, but if it's going to be cloudy/overcast for the next two years and you can either stay inside forever hoping that a year or two from now they may find a cure for lightning strikes while the economy completely collapses, mass unemployment reigns, food shortages begin, and millions and millions of families and businesses are ruined while our prior way of life becomes a thing of the past, I think I'll grab an umbrella and take my chances.

[tbsteel]

New York City data:

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page



The virus sucks. I think I may have even gotten it as I very sick around March 8th/9th that started with a cough, then developed into flu like symptoms with a bad fever, trouble breathing, body aches and chest pain. I was tested and was negative for the flu, was advised I had an upper respiratory infection, and really didn't feel normal until a full week after it happened. A few days later is when they shut the NBA down and shit hit the fan. I work downtown and undoubtedly cross paths with a lot of people in confined spaces.

But we've gotta move forward and start opening up again. Hospitalizations are trending down. Unless we want to stay in a quarantine until a cure may or may not be found a year or two from now, we've got to move forward IMO. I don't blame anyone who wants to wait it out on their own, but forcing businesses to remain closed at this point isn't the solution.

[bradshaw2ben]

If you exclude NY, we haven't even reached the peak yet.

https://apnews.com/4450a59eb5276bc5cecc61613e797018

I've heard so many eye-opening pieces of information regarding re-opening in the last few days.

A. the underreported COVID deaths are going to amount to A LOT and will greatly skew the numbers from where they are now, as will those who are in Intensive care who will almost certainly die. And some strains are going to be a lot more deadly than others. So just because you had a relatively mild strain where you live, doesn't mean reopening and travel between regions won't bring you a particularly deadly version or perhaps the strain that gives kids Kawasaki/toxic shock type symptons like we have here
B. here in NYC, we are almost but not quite back to the point of new cases/hospitalizations we were at BEFORE the shutdown... which logically means, "why the hell would you open back up when you're not even back at the point where you deemed it necessary to shut down?" Going to be a while here
C. the NFL would have to test players a minimum of 2x per week... that right there is 200,000 tests. BUT EVEN IN THAT SCENARIO, if they test a guy on Tuesday and he's negative, he could get the virus on Wednesday and spread it all around until tested again on Saturday. By then, he could have infected a bunch of the team-- some of whom might not even test positive on Saturday but who could be contagious by gametime. Fauci's recommendation is that teams with 2 or more players testing positive would have to quarantine for 2 weeks. This would be more or less the same for ALL team sports
D. 61% of people surveyed said they're not going to games or anyplace with crowding, even if it reopens. Add that to workers who are reluctant to back to work because they feel like workplace conditions are unsafe and it's not worth it

Are we getting closer to accepting that things are not ever going to go back to the old normal and that it's going to take a long time for this to dissipate? I am incredibly bearish on pro sports and entertainment happening. On top of that, I think amateur sports like college sports and high school sports are dead in the water for the foreseeable future.

[bradshaw2ben]

And now, LA County rep says it's "all but certain" Los Angeles County will remain under stay-at-home order for at least 3 more months (barring a vaccine or paradigm shift in knowledge about containing spread), due to cases continuing to rise. That is the largest local population of any county in the US, I believe.

Here's what that includes:

[Texas Black & Gold]

It is possible the worse may not be behind us yet but to mandate a lock down is not the solution. Some how there needs to be a balance for those that want to move on and those that are not ready. Taking reasonable precautions and acting on accurate information while not fear mongering should help. Also, I think there needs to be some kind of adjustments to the law that would limit the legal liabilities of those businesses or people that acted reasonably. We will eventually get back to living normally. I hope sooner than later.

[Kodiak]

If you exclude NY, we haven't even reached the peak yet.

Testing is skewing things. Most states are flat or trending down. NY was doing way more testing than other states early on (like 7X more than IL/Chicago). Testing elsewhere has ramped up significantly in recent weeks, so areas showing flat or modest increases are almost certainly trending down.

If you look at deaths, we peaked about 3-4 weeks after locking down, which means most of those people were infected BEFORE locking down. Those levels remained relatively constant for the past 6 weeks until finally ticking down, so we did flatten (and likely spread out) the peak.

And after 6+ weeks of lockdown, if your cases are still going up then the lockdowns haven't been all that effective. The point of the lockdowns was to avoid overwhelming the hospitals, and we've done that. So NY said 66% of hospitalizations had been sheltering in place. That's 2/3 of people relative to probably 1/4 or 1/6 working, which means the lockdown reduced the risk for someone sheltering in place by about 15-30%. That's great for a few weeks or a month, but as time goes on before very long the risk reduction effectively becomes 0 only serving to delay the time you might expect to contract it.

Keep the hospitals from getting overwhelmed. But the reality is the longer we delay herd immunity the more you actually increase the chance of the most vulnerable contracting it. And I think herd immunity is probably much closer than we realize - Italy didn't do anything more, really, and they are coming down significantly now. Similar story - deaths in Italy peaked 4 weeks after lockdowns started.

[Donnie Brasco]

If you exclude NY, we haven't even reached the peak yet.

Testing is skewing things. Most states are flat or trending down. NY was doing way more testing than other states early on (like 7X more than IL/Chicago). Testing elsewhere has ramped up significantly in recent weeks, so areas showing flat or modest increases are almost certainly trending down.

If you look at deaths, we peaked about 3-4 weeks after locking down, which means most of those people were infected BEFORE locking down. Those levels remained relatively constant for the past 6 weeks until finally ticking down, so we did flatten (and likely spread out) the peak.

And after 6+ weeks of lockdown, if your cases are still going up then the lockdowns haven't been all that effective. The point of the lockdowns was to avoid overwhelming the hospitals, and we've done that. So NY said 66% of hospitalizations had been sheltering in place. That's 2/3 of people relative to probably 1/4 or 1/6 working, which means the lockdown reduced the risk for someone sheltering in place by about 15-30%. That's great for a few weeks or a month, but as time goes on before very long the risk reduction effectively becomes 0 only serving to delay the time you might expect to contract it.

Keep the hospitals from getting overwhelmed. But the reality is the longer we delay herd immunity the more you actually increase the chance of the most vulnerable contracting it. And I think herd immunity is probably much closer than we realize - Italy didn't do anything more, really, and they are coming down significantly now. Similar story - deaths in Italy peaked 4 weeks after lockdowns started.

What % of people do you think HAVE or HAD Covid?

Look at HVP where most of the population has or had it, but it has no impact on them.
http://www.ashasexualhealth.org/stdssti ... ast-facts/

[Jizz Mop]

Checking Amazon for a decent crystal ball

[cyberlaz]

tbsteel...I came down with something March 1st and had the same symptoms. It started out as a cough on the morning of February 28th. It was a nasty, dry cough like the kind of cough you get when you inhale something while eating. The cough went away by the afternoon but by the evening I started up with chills and was lethargic. Next morning I had a fever, body aches, some kind of shooting pain that would come and go in my head but didn't really have trouble breathing or chest pain. I do remember if I took a deep breath and exhaled pretty hard I could get some cool wheezing sounds going. The day the fever started was a Saturday and by Monday I was on the mend. On Saturday the girlfriend dragged me to a Patient First medical place. They tested me for the flu because I was sure it was the flu. Felt exactly the same as the flu when I had it last which was like 20 years ago. It was negative. Doctor asked me if I had traveled or was around anyone who had traveled outside of the country. I hadn't been so he said it was just some run of the mill upper respiratory infection. I basically slept all weekend and by Monday I was on the mend but was tired all week and had a nagging cough that would show up at night for about a week or so.

At the time I thought it could be coronavirus but figured it was like the doctor said and was some kind of respiratory infection. In the next couple of weeks as the virus exploded all of the country, my thinking change from just some virus to I probably had coronavirus. Interesting thing about it is I think I got it from my daughter because she was sick like a day or two before I was. My other daughter got it to about the same time I did and so did my sister. All people I came into contact with within a few day period around February 28. They all had the same symptoms and all got over it relatively quickly like I did.

The moral of his story is a lot more people have had this thing than the data shows now. Once more tests are done like the serologic tests to tell if people have had it, I'll bet the death rate of this thing is way less than what it is now. I'd venture to say that it is less than 1/2 percent death rate. That will take the air out of the coronavirus boogeyman balloon. Then people will start to leave their houses because they won't be afraid anymore.

I think herd immunity is going to be the long term answer and the best plan going forward is going to be re-open when this thing is on the way down (which is starting to happen now) and protect those who will need it like elderly, immunocompromised, etc.

[Professor Half Wit]

And after 6+ weeks of lockdown, if your cases are still going up then the lockdowns haven't been all that effective.

Isn't it possible for cases to continue to rise and for lockdowns to be effective since it is always possible that without lockdowns, cases could be rising at an exponentially higher rate? What I quoted would be true were lockdowns by virtue of themselves a *sufficient condition* for flattening a curve. But if lockdowns are only a *necessary condition*, we cannot say that rise in cases after 6 weeks would mean necessarily that lockdowns are ineffective. We could say that on their own they are not enough, but they could still be necessary.

[Professor Half Wit]

I think herd immunity is going to be the long term answer and the best plan going forward is going to be re-open when this thing is on the way down (which is starting to happen now) and protect those who will need it like elderly, immunocompromised, etc.

Without a vaccine, the only option is herd immunity, whether sheltering in place or not. Whatever the morbidity rate ends up being, this has definitely turned out to be more than a bad flu, yes? Part of the purpose of sheltering in place, as I understand it, is to keep the healthcare system from being overwhelmed. You reopen too quickly, you overwhelm the health system and more people die than otherwise would. We're aiming for a slow burn spread, yes?

[K_C_]

Folks better expect this to be us in a few weeks.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/12 ... ela-merkel

[Baltostiller]

I think herd immunity is going to be the long term answer and the best plan going forward is going to be re-open when this thing is on the way down (which is starting to happen now) and protect those who will need it like elderly, immunocompromised, etc.

Without a vaccine, the only option is herd immunity, whether sheltering in place or not. Whatever the morbidity rate ends up being, this has definitely turned out to be more than a bad flu, yes? Part of the purpose of sheltering in place, as I understand it, is to keep the healthcare system from being overwhelmed. You reopen too quickly, you overwhelm the health system and more people die than otherwise would. We're aiming for a slow burn spread, yes?

If we wait for a vaccine we will never reopen and the economy will be permanently damaged. I posted this in another thread but the flu vaccine over the past 10 years has ranged from 19%-60% effective. Forget the vaccine stuff and work on treatment, whether it be existing or new meds. I for one will go out, go to restaurants, games anything. I don't have anyone compromised in my house and I work from home so I am not a danger to anyone. When the fat fuck Larry Lockdown Hogan opens up our state, if ever.

[cyberlaz]

I think herd immunity is going to be the long term answer and the best plan going forward is going to be re-open when this thing is on the way down (which is starting to happen now) and protect those who will need it like elderly, immunocompromised, etc.

Without a vaccine, the only option is herd immunity, whether sheltering in place or not. Whatever the morbidity rate ends up being, this has definitely turned out to be more than a bad flu, yes? Part of the purpose of sheltering in place, as I understand it, is to keep the healthcare system from being overwhelmed. You reopen too quickly, you overwhelm the health system and more people die than otherwise would. We're aiming for a slow burn spread, yes?

Yes..without a vaccine the only option is herd immunity or survival of the fittest. What if this thing mutates enough to where a vaccine doesn't work or is seasonal? There are reports that it has already mutated a few times. The American version of this virus is slightly different than the original virus out of China. So it may be that it's up to our immune systems to fight this off every year just like a cold but a cold with more of a kick.

Yes...we want the slow burn to not overwhelm the hospitals. That is the goal and we are there almost I think. Time to re-open and keep the foot on the gas for testing, vaccination, and treatments. We will have another wave later this year but if we close everything down again, people will go nuts.

In the long run...this is just my opinion and before you roast me for this...I think the flu will end up being more deadly. COVID-19 spreads a lot more than the flu and infects better (that R rate thing they talk about) but I think it doesn't kill as much as the flu. If the flu ever became as contagious as COVID-19 then we are doomed.

COVID-19 is a preseason game. There will be a regular season game against some other virus that will count a lot more. So we better learn from preseason so we are ready for the regular season. Sorry for the cheesy football analogy but figured it was called for to keep things football related.

[Kodiak]

Isn't it possible for cases to continue to rise and for lockdowns to be effective since it is always possible that without lockdowns, cases could be rising at an exponentially higher rate? What I quoted would be true were lockdowns by virtue of themselves a *sufficient condition* for flattening a curve. But if lockdowns are only a *necessary condition*, we cannot say that rise in cases after 6 weeks would mean necessarily that lockdowns are ineffective. We could say that on their own they are not enough, but they could still be necessary.

Sure, but millions have already had this. It's hard to draw conclusions just from looking at the # of new cases because of many issues with that data. But a flat death rate throughout 5-6 weeks of lockdowns would suggest the lockdowns were only marginally effective. Except that's not conclusive, either, until you look at the percent of new cases and see 2/3 have been sheltering in place. The virus was already here, and in Europe, and spread beyond containment before the alarm bells went off.

Not to debate Sweden's herd immunity strategy, but if you look at their case curve it looks just like Italy, NY and the US. They went up a little from early April, but it was pretty much flat and is now coming down....after 6 weeks. If you look at their deaths, peaked 3-4 weeks after the US. But if the virus doesn't go away, then we have a lower peak but a longer & fatter tail until we catch-up in immunity. Flattening the curve means slowing the spread, not stopping it. And if it doesn't go away on its own, you eventually still wind-up in the same place.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavir ... ry/sweden/

Hope was if we got to summer this could go away and not come back until winter, if at all. But that's obviously not going to happen.

[Professor Half Wit]

Isn't it possible for cases to continue to rise and for lockdowns to be effective since it is always possible that without lockdowns, cases could be rising at an exponentially higher rate? What I quoted would be true were lockdowns by virtue of themselves a *sufficient condition* for flattening a curve. But if lockdowns are only a *necessary condition*, we cannot say that rise in cases after 6 weeks would mean necessarily that lockdowns are ineffective. We could say that on their own they are not enough, but they could still be necessary.

Sure, but millions have already had this. It's hard to draw conclusions just from looking at the # of new cases because of many issues with that data. But a flat death rate throughout 5-6 weeks of lockdowns would suggest the lockdowns were only marginally effective. Except that's not conclusive, either, until you look at the percent of new cases and see 2/3 have been sheltering in place. The virus was already here, and in Europe, and spread beyond containment before the alarm bells went off.

Not to debate Sweden's herd immunity strategy, but if you look at their case curve it looks just like Italy, NY and the US. They went up a little from early April, but it was pretty much flat and is now coming down....after 6 weeks. If you look at their deaths, peaked 3-4 weeks after the US. But if the virus doesn't go away, then we have a lower peak but a longer & fatter tail until we catch-up in immunity. Flattening the curve means slowing the spread, not stopping it. And if it doesn't go away on its own, you eventually still wind-up in the same place.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavir ... ry/sweden/

Hope was if we got to summer this could go away and not come back until winter, if at all. But that's obviously not going to happen.

I was just practicing logical hygiene, my man. Not calling you out. I agree that it's hard to draw definitive conclusions.

[Kodiak]

What % of people do you think HAVE or HAD Covid?

I would guess 15-40M people in the US. 3% in most places, 10-20% in the bigger cities with major international airports (NYC estimated 25% a week or so ago). Weather may have mitigated, some, in places like Miami, Dallas, Houston, etc..

The most surprising thing I saw was a low transmission rate in NYC subway. And re-assuring that healthcare workers were lower than average, so I think masks can definitely help (probably more than the lockdown, IMO).