MWC Impact With 23 Cal State U. Campuses Not Reopening in the Fall?

[Wyokie]

Ok I'll bite...I keep hearing people talking about "crushing our rights" and "keeping us in an unnecessary lockdown". I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with those statements, but what is the benefit to politicians, bureaucrats, etc in extending a lockdown? I just don't see the benefit of it, why do it if there's no benefit?

Not bashing, I'm truly confused as to how people see this as a possibility when I just don't see a reason behind it.

I think there is a contingent that believes our very existence as a country is illegitimate. They are embarrassed and infuriated by capitalism and want it to end. Green new deal BS. This is their big opportunity to begin the fulfillment their mission of re-shaping America as we know it. Old white man bad and down with the oppressors and our evil country and society and time for us to be a good citizen at the world table.

In other words, the SJW twerps that are running around screwing up everything just to make themselves feel superior. :roll:

 

[laxwyo]

Yeah, the NCAA is planning to kill off a large part of their membership, and pro sports leagues are going to go out of business, and everyone is trying to get into the worst depression in history, to get at the president.

Well, it stems from the media and that’s exactly what they’re trying to do. They all have jobs and are getting paid. They have those other institutions so fucking scared to have any deaths on their hands. So yeah, it comes from that. Obviously they all aren’t doing it for that reason.

 

[ZapPoke]

I am surprised more people don’t bring up the subject of our last pandemic, the Hong Kong flu of 1968-1969. It killed a million people worldwide and 100k in the US. I don’t remember us doing anything out of the ordinary in response to it. Could be because Wheatland was already isolated And they had a vaccine by the fall of 69. Why 50 years later does it take longer to develop a vaccine?

 

[POKE FAN]

It's time to flip the switch on this dog-and-pony show. Lots of movement domestically and internationally in the right direction during the last few days. (I'm glad to see that most Cowboy fans have their heads screwed on right concerning this matter.)

From the SDUT article:

San Diego State remains committed to fielding fall sports, despite an announcement Tuesday that most fall classes will be conducted online in the 23-school California State University system.

Not all student-athletes would return at once. It would be phased in, beginning with football players as a “test case,” because they normally are the first athletes to return to campus for workouts and conditioning before startig practice at the beginning of August.

“But we also think we can conduct the sports in some way. It’s May 12th today. There’s a lot of things that can happen between today and getting into the fall season.”

Wicker said football fans being allowed into SDCCU Stadium will not be the deciding factor for playing as scheduled this season.

“It’s not what you want to do, but we do have a television contract that’s brand new this year,” he said. “It is more revenue to the institution than what we’ve had in the past. Again, it’s not a decision that had to be made today. We’ll continue to assess what things look like.”


https://twitter.com/philsteele042/status/1261340561434226689?s=20

Article link: https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/college/story/2020-05-12/san-diego-state-aztecs-fall-sports-ccaa-cancels-cal-state-san-marcos

 

[Asmodeanreborn]

And they had a vaccine by the fall of 69. Why 50 years later does it take longer to develop a vaccine?

Vaccines take different amounts of time depending on what you need to hit the virus as they all act and attack the body in slightly different ways. There's a serious possibility that we cannot even develop a virus for this strain. I believe that for the COVID-SARS strain that hit in the early 2000s we never managed to have an approved vaccine at all.


I don't think there's anything wrong with being careful with this one. The problem is that one group of people who tend to fall on one side of the political spectrum are all too eager to dismiss this on the behest of very powerful business interests, not recognizing that their sources of news leave plenty of vital information out, while the other side of the spectrum is overly relying on us eventually finding a magic cure for this that may never exist. Both sides are EXTREMELY susceptible to conspiracy theories too, or thinking that statistical outliers are the mean, which is maybe the most annoying part.

The good news is that when people pull this hard in opposite directions, we generally stay somewhere in the middle. It would be nice if both sides could come together somehow to actually create a plan for how we as a society deal with the worst case scenario of this, so that no matter what happens, we have SOME sense of how we can go forward as a nation. I think way too many people are worried because there's simply no direction.

 

[bladerunnr]

And they had a vaccine by the fall of 69. Why 50 years later does it take longer to develop a vaccine?

Vaccines take different amounts of time depending on what you need to hit the virus as they all act and attack the body in slightly different ways. There's a serious possibility that we cannot even develop a virus for this strain. I believe that for the COVID-SARS strain that hit in the early 2000s we never managed to have an approved vaccine at all.


I don't think there's anything wrong with being careful with this one. The problem is that one group of people who tend to fall on one side of the political spectrum are all too eager to dismiss this on the behest of very powerful business interests, not recognizing that their sources of news leave plenty of vital information out, while the other side of the spectrum is overly relying on us eventually finding a magic cure for this that may never exist. Both sides are EXTREMELY susceptible to conspiracy theories too, or thinking that statistical outliers are the mean, which is maybe the most annoying part.

The good news is that when people pull this hard in opposite directions, we generally stay somewhere in the middle. It would be nice if both sides could come together somehow to actually create a plan for how we as a society deal with the worst case scenario of this, so that no matter what happens, we have SOME sense of how we can go forward as a nation. I think way too many people are worried because there's simply no direction.

I basically disagree with most of this. Business people are not trying to "dismiss" this. But those on the lockdown forever side don't explain where that gets us. Meanwhile, small businesses (and large ones as well) are closing their doors forever. We understand the risks, but are willing to take them. Here in Colorado, we've had just over 1,000 virus deaths. Ninety percent of them are people over 60. Most of the remaining 100 had underlying health issues. So the risk of getting the virus is real. The risk of dying from it is very small for most of us. In my opinion, it's not worth 36 million unemployed Americans.
Regarding a plan: You cannot have a plan for the entire country. New York has 1/3 of all the deaths. They have a subway system and live far closer together than most of us. I think people are worried because of the way the media has been covering this. Since a lot of the media live in the northeast, they see this far differently than the rest of us. Wyoming has only had 7 deaths. Let's put that in perspective. More Wyoming student athletes (cross country runners) were killed in a single auto accident than the virus deaths of the entire state.

The reason for the lockdown was to flatten the curve so the medical system would not be overwhelmed. That has been achieved in most states. Even in the hardest hit counties in Colorado, hospital beds are empty and ventilators are gathering dust. It's time to get things open again. Those who are vulnerable or who feel the risk is too great, they can stay home. But those willing to take some risk to resume their lives in a normal way should be allowed to.

 

[ZapPoke]

I agree that we need to resume our lives. We deal with risk all the time. We take precautions to deal with them to mitigate the risk. You could be killed in an automobile accident. We don’t tell everyone to stop driving. We equip our vehicles with safety features and practice safe driving techniques.

We should have been washing our hands all along. I am possibly in a high risk group (over 60), but also a smoker. A French study indicated smokers actually have better outcomes. Go figure. I wear a mask in public mostly to prevent myself from touching my face.

Open things up and take appropriate measures to protect yourself.

 

[Asmodeanreborn]

I basically disagree with most of this. Business people are not trying to "dismiss" this. But those on the lockdown forever side don't explain where that gets us. Meanwhile, small businesses (and large ones as well) are closing their doors forever. We understand the risks, but are willing to take them. Here in Colorado, we've had just over 1,000 virus deaths. Ninety percent of them are people over 60. Most of the remaining 100 had underlying health issues. So the risk of getting the virus is real. The risk of dying from it is very small for most of us. In my opinion, it's not worth 36 million unemployed Americans.

Regarding a plan: You cannot have a plan for the entire country. New York has 1/3 of all the deaths. They have a subway system and live far closer together than most of us. I think people are worried because of the way the media has been covering this. Since a lot of the media live in the northeast, they see this far differently than the rest of us. Wyoming has only had 7 deaths. Let's put that in perspective. More Wyoming student athletes (cross country runners) were killed in a single auto accident than the virus deaths of the entire state.

The reason for the lockdown was to flatten the curve so the medical system would not be overwhelmed. That has been achieved in most states. Even in the hardest hit counties in Colorado, hospital beds are empty and ventilators are gathering dust. It's time to get things open again. Those who are vulnerable or who feel the risk is too great, they can stay home. But those willing to take some risk to resume their lives in a normal way should be allowed to.

This response is kind of what I mean. There's definitely some faulty information here and some of these points sound almost regurgitated from certain sources. You can 100% have a tracing and testing strategy for the entire nation and it's getting appalling that we haven't developed that yet. This is not something dependent at all on population density, nor is it anything new. The military developed something along these lines and published a large plan in 2009 for it, as a matter of fact. Restrictions on what types of businesses can be open or crowd-sizes etc. make a lot more sense to deal with on a local basis, so in that part I do agree with you.

As far as Colorado goes, we're currently (May 13) using 392 out of 1,076 ventilators even after all this time of very tough restriction. I agree it makes sense to more or less fully open up places like Mesa County which has had almost no cases, but Denver Metro better be more careful than that as their ventilators are hardly gathering dust at the moment. Colorado's testing capacity is still pretty poor overall but getting better. It's all about risk management, and that's the main reason for the continued social distancing and the mask requirement.

I'm sure you've also heard about Weld County and the meat plant scandal in Greeley. It sucks, but I guess beef will get really expensive later this summer because their plant was far from the only one struck like that. Which makes you wonder, what the hell goes on in these meat plants/slaughterhouses? The ones we sent our cows to growing up were freaking CLINICAL, and everybody wore PPE as a standard because they wanted no potential for any kind of bacteria or viruses on the meat.

 

[bladerunnr]

I basically disagree with most of this. Business people are not trying to "dismiss" this. But those on the lockdown forever side don't explain where that gets us. Meanwhile, small businesses (and large ones as well) are closing their doors forever. We understand the risks, but are willing to take them. Here in Colorado, we've had just over 1,000 virus deaths. Ninety percent of them are people over 60. Most of the remaining 100 had underlying health issues. So the risk of getting the virus is real. The risk of dying from it is very small for most of us. In my opinion, it's not worth 36 million unemployed Americans.

Regarding a plan: You cannot have a plan for the entire country. New York has 1/3 of all the deaths. They have a subway system and live far closer together than most of us. I think people are worried because of the way the media has been covering this. Since a lot of the media live in the northeast, they see this far differently than the rest of us. Wyoming has only had 7 deaths. Let's put that in perspective. More Wyoming student athletes (cross country runners) were killed in a single auto accident than the virus deaths of the entire state.

The reason for the lockdown was to flatten the curve so the medical system would not be overwhelmed. That has been achieved in most states. Even in the hardest hit counties in Colorado, hospital beds are empty and ventilators are gathering dust. It's time to get things open again. Those who are vulnerable or who feel the risk is too great, they can stay home. But those willing to take some risk to resume their lives in a normal way should be allowed to.

This response is kind of what I mean. There's definitely some faulty information here and some of these points sound almost regurgitated from certain sources. You can 100% have a tracing and testing strategy for the entire nation and it's getting appalling that we haven't developed that yet. This is not something dependent at all on population density, nor is it anything new. The military developed something along these lines and published a large plan in 2009 for it, as a matter of fact. Restrictions on what types of businesses can be open or crowd-sizes etc. make a lot more sense to deal with on a local basis, so in that part I do agree with you.

As far as Colorado goes, we're currently (May 13) using 392 out of 1,076 ventilators even after all this time of very tough restriction. I agree it makes sense to more or less fully open up places like Mesa County which has had almost no cases, but Denver Metro better be more careful than that as their ventilators are hardly gathering dust at the moment. Colorado's testing capacity is still pretty poor overall but getting better. It's all about risk management, and that's the main reason for the continued social distancing and the mask requirement.

I'm sure you've also heard about Weld County and the meat plant scandal in Greeley. It sucks, but I guess beef will get really expensive later this summer because their plant was far from the only one struck like that. Which makes you wonder, what the hell goes on in these meat plants/slaughterhouses? The ones we sent our cows to growing up were freaking CLINICAL, and everybody wore PPE as a standard because they wanted no potential for any kind of bacteria or viruses on the meat.

Here's an interesting article about meat packing plants. It seems the cold temperatures in the plants help the virus live longer in the air.

https://www.wired.com/story/why-meatpacking-plants-have-become-covid-19-hot-spots/

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Asmodeanreborn, here are facts from CDC data. Hospitalization rate in the under 49 group is ballpark of 36 per 10K. Also fact, 8% of hospitalizations have no known health condition. This means we could reasonably predict ballpark of 30-32 cases per 10k in the under 49 group. That leaves us with somewhere around 4 per 10k unexpected hospitalizations in the healthy under 49 group. Death rate in healthy under 49 is almost 0.

Putting that per million. Even with an aggressive 20% infection rate, that's 200,000 infected. We would expect ballpark of 80 hospitalizations in 1 million healthy under 49 adults and almost no deaths.

 

[Asmodeanreborn]

Asmodeanreborn, here are facts from CDC data. Hospitalization rate in the under 49 group is ballpark of 36 per 10K. Also fact, 8% of hospitalizations have no known health condition. This means we could reasonably predict ballpark of 30-32 cases per 10k in the under 49 group. That leaves us with somewhere around 4 per 10k unexpected hospitalizations in the healthy under 49 group. Death rate in healthy under 49 is almost 0.

Putting that per million. Even with an aggressive 20% infection rate, that's 200,000 infected. We would expect ballpark of 80 hospitalizations in 1 million healthy under 49 adults and almost no deaths.

Yeah, like I said - I'm all for letting out of people in responsible forms - in fact, without it happening, I'm out of a job soon. You just want to be careful when you do so, and in some areas you need things to slow down even more before you do so. Places like Grand Junction have more or less opened up completely. My father-in-law's church is now doing in-person services after doing online ones for a while. It makes sense because there's been almost zero cases over there.

Meanwhile, NYC has a hospitalization rate of about 250/100,000 people if you look at ages 0-44 (https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page). If that rate hit Denver, they'd be out of respirators very quickly, obviously (there's about 1,100 respirators in all of Colorado currently, about a third in use). But what does this mean? Maybe we should hold off on large concerts and stuff for a few more months, but honestly, maybe it's time to start youth sports again with slightly modified behavior? Kids need to be out and move around and interact. Risk is really freaking low for them, but if they participate, maybe they should also keep their distance from their 95-year old great grandma.

 

[Adv8RU12]

Try on this article in the Denver Post about masks. What if EVERYONE wore a mask?


https://www.pressreader.com/usa/the-denver-post/20200517/282415581475471

 

[bladerunnr]

It looks like Wyoming is blazing a trail regarding opening things up.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...yoming-club-throws-masks-on-party/5190889002/

 

[fromolwyoming]

It looks like Wyoming is blazing a trail regarding opening things up.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...yoming-club-throws-masks-on-party/5190889002/

In all honesty, at least in Laramie, not much was fully shut down, long term at least (like gyms). Most restaurants switched to delivery/carry out, for example.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Asmodeanreborn, here are facts from CDC data. Hospitalization rate in the under 49 group is ballpark of 36 per 10K. Also fact, 8% of hospitalizations have no known health condition. This means we could reasonably predict ballpark of 30-32 cases per 10k in the under 49 group. That leaves us with somewhere around 4 per 10k unexpected hospitalizations in the healthy under 49 group. Death rate in healthy under 49 is almost 0.

Putting that per million. Even with an aggressive 20% infection rate, that's 200,000 infected. We would expect ballpark of 80 hospitalizations in 1 million healthy under 49 adults and almost no deaths.

Yeah, like I said - I'm all for letting out of people in responsible forms - in fact, without it happening, I'm out of a job soon. You just want to be careful when you do so, and in some areas you need things to slow down even more before you do so. Places like Grand Junction have more or less opened up completely. My father-in-law's church is now doing in-person services after doing online ones for a while. It makes sense because there's been almost zero cases over there.

Meanwhile, NYC has a hospitalization rate of about 250/100,000 people if you look at ages 0-44 (https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page). If that rate hit Denver, they'd be out of respirators very quickly, obviously (there's about 1,100 respirators in all of Colorado currently, about a third in use). But what does this mean? Maybe we should hold off on large concerts and stuff for a few more months, but honestly, maybe it's time to start youth sports again with slightly modified behavior? Kids need to be out and move around and interact. Risk is really freaking low for them, but if they participate, maybe they should also keep their distance from their 95-year old great grandma.

Hospitalization does not mean respirator was required. They should report that. Also, the data you cite does not differentiate prior health issues. That is key to opening this up and that is what is so frustrating about this response. They are treating everyone like they are 90 years old with prior health issues. In the NY data, what if 95% of those 250 had prior health issues?

For the life of me I can't understand why we don't use the data we now have.

Like I said above, have everyone under 50 or 55 go get a physical and an antibody test. If you had it and didn't have issues, you are fine. If you didn't have it and don't have the underlying health conditions, you are likely fine. If you didn't have it and have the underlying health conditions, then, yeah, you need to be a little more careful.

If your exposure and subsequent antibodies don't provide immunity, then a vaccine is futile anyway other than the concept you get a large percentage of the population exposed at once (in the case of vaccine). Nonetheless, we don't know how much of the population has been exposed. Maybe we are closer than we think.

Testing and contact tracing aren't required if we start with the groups who either won't have an issue (already been infected and no issue) or likely won't have an issue. If people could see a clear path forward, they would be more likely to buy in.

 

[Asmodeanreborn]

Hospitalization does not mean respirator was required. They should report that. Also, the data you cite does not differentiate prior health issues. That is key to opening this up and that is what is so frustrating about this response. They are treating everyone like they are 90 years old with prior health issues. In the NY data, what if 95% of those 250 had prior health issues?

For the life of me I can't understand why we don't use the data we now have.

Like I said above, have everyone under 50 or 55 go get a physical and an antibody test. If you had it and didn't have issues, you are fine. If you didn't have it and don't have the underlying health conditions, you are likely fine. If you didn't have it and have the underlying health conditions, then, yeah, you need to be a little more careful.

If your exposure and subsequent antibodies don't provide immunity, then a vaccine is futile anyway other than the concept you get a large percentage of the population exposed at once (in the case of vaccine). Nonetheless, we don't know how much of the population has been exposed. Maybe we are closer than we think.

Testing and contact tracing aren't required if we start with the groups who either won't have an issue (already been infected and no issue) or likely won't have an issue. If people could see a clear path forward, they would be more likely to buy in.

I both agree and disagree with you, but I do think on the major point, we're in agreement. Why don't we have an actual larger plan, whether that is being careful with risk groups or presenting a way to test, trace, and isolate if necessary?

A friend of mine got laid off and now has to pay $2,800 a month for health insurance through COBRA for his family of four. How the hell are you supposed to do that without a job? It took my family like 5 years to dig out of the hole from the last crisis in '08. Now we finally have some cash reserves set aside, but those will be drained super fast if we're going to have health coverage. WTF?!

 

[POKE FAN]

https://twitter.com/PeteThamel/status/1263189960573796352?s=20

 

[Pokes fan 24-7]

I think there will be a football season and there will be fans. It might be necessary to retool the schedule to eliminate longer trips that can’t be done by bus ( like ball state and Louisiana). The real question is what precautions do you take with fans? Some ideas I have heard are limit ticket sales, limit people in bathrooms, close concessions to keep people from congregating on the concourses etc. what do you guys think? Should there be precautions like that?

 

[bladerunnr]

I think there will be a football season and there will be fans. It might be necessary to retool the schedule to eliminate longer trips that can’t be done by bus ( like ball state and Louisiana). The real question is what precautions do you take with fans? Some ideas I have heard are limit ticket sales, limit people in bathrooms, close concessions to keep people from congregating on the concourses etc. what do you guys think? Should there be precautions like that?

I don't see how it will work. A team scores or makes a big play and fans will high five and celebrate w/out any thought about social distancing. Fans tailgate before games. I guess that is out as well.
There was an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal today about new social distancing guidelines for bars and restaurants. Many bar owners said that social distancing is incompatible with their business (I agree) model. Many owners said they will remain closed until social distancing guidelines are eliminated. College spectator sports like football and basketball are incompatible with social distancing. Moreover, if it's really that unsafe, then how can you have players on the field touching, tackling, spitting, etc....? If one player gets cv, does the entire team get quarantined for 2 weeks?
If teams have to travel by bus, it's not feasible. If Wyoming has to take a bus to New Mexico or Vegas, it's 2 days lost just in travel. Having players stuck together on a bus for 10 hours seems just as problematic as putting them on a plane for 90 minutes.

 

[laxwyo]

There will be a season. With fans. After all the protests, we no longer have the media screaming that social gatherings will kill everyone. The truth will come into focus without the corporate media lying. The data is there. It’s not any more of an issue than the scores of other deadly diseases. If you’re really old or compromised or you’re around those people, you should take precautions. But really, shouldn’t we always be taking those precautions to guard our most vulnerable? Everything should be open now. Florida governor or maybe it was Texas said they had no confirmed outdoor transmissions.