TO PLAY or NOT TO PLAY... COVID-19

9iner wrote:
We initially shutdown so we didn’t overwhelm the healthcare system...That I get but in most areas that didn’t happen so you would think with the right precautions in place we would be good to go??? NOW you hear people say they aren’t comfortable until we have a vaccine...those people can choose that path and sit at home waiting but if the powers-to-be adopt that philosophy we are all in trouble and won’t see the pitch for a very long time.   We are dealing with a virus that is concerning and should be taken seriously but realistically it’s a virus that most people if infected will fight off.   We have to find some common ground and figure out how to get our kids playing again and not live in fear.   Everyone’s feelings are valid and should be respected but it can’t be either you want everything shut down until we have no more cases or you are a terrible human and don’t care about people dying.  Those 2 thoughts will lead to nowhere but I’m afraid that is the exact place we find ourselves.  We need a light at the end of tunnel and that 1st tournament to look forward to b/c even though some don’t like to compare, this virus will take a toll on mental health just as much as physical health if we keep continuing down this road to nowhere.  
Let’s make a plan, take the appropriate measures and get the kids playing again soon.   If you live in fear are you really living?  

scottytx wrote:My best guess is that sports contact and crowds are not going to happen again until widespread and regular testing kicks in. Even once that happens, there are going to be spikes and we might need to distance again for intervals of a month or so (especially for the crowded events and activities). So check the refund policy on those tournaments before you sign up.

Rec soccer might be completely dead for the rest of the year, but club soccer is a big business and most of the parents I know are as hardcore as the players. So if the leagues and clubs push for an early return (May or June), will there be enough parents on each team willing to participate? Restaurants might be opening up soon, but it will be a while before they are filled up again.

There are just so many unknowns out there right now, making it really hard to predict. Your guess is as good as mine.

Everyone can go elsewhere to read about and debate the medical and political side of this problem, but I am interested to hear more of the club/parent/league youth soccer perspective and news.

7WhiskeyPapa wrote:

scottytx wrote:My best guess is that sports contact and crowds are not going to happen again until widespread and regular testing kicks in. Even once that happens, there are going to be spikes and we might need to distance again for intervals of a month or so (especially for the crowded events and activities). So check the refund policy on those tournaments before you sign up.

Rec soccer might be completely dead for the rest of the year, but club soccer is a big business and most of the parents I know are as hardcore as the players. So if the leagues and clubs push for an early return (May or June), will there be enough parents on each team willing to participate? Restaurants might be opening up soon, but it will be a while before they are filled up again.

There are just so many unknowns out there right now, making it really hard to predict. Your guess is as good as mine.

Everyone can go elsewhere to read about and debate the medical and political side of this problem, but I am interested to hear more of the club/parent/league youth soccer perspective and news.

I will be willing to send my kids back to soccer long before I will be eating in a restaurant again. Unless there is another significant spike, I hope we are back at the latest by July 1 signing day; I would be happy with June 1. I presume we will all be back at work around then, and I don't see the logic in going to an office building with hundreds of people each day but not being able to go in a field to play soccer. More important than my views, I think we are quickly moving toward critical mass of people not even interested in taking things slowly. If the leagues don't open, I suspect we will find some underground, black market scrimmages or pick up games. The kids in my neighborhood are already practicing in groups of 3-4. Those groups will grow or join eventually. I was surprised to see an adult pick up game last weekend with 12 players.

BWGophers wrote:BWGophers Daily Prediction Sure to Be Wrong:

We will not see club soccer, or any other youth or HS sport, nor will we see schools open again, until one of the following happens:

1) There's a vaccine for COVID-19
2) There's a proven, highly effective treatment for COVID-19 that reduces the death rate
3) There is extensive, if not fully comprehensive, testing for COVID antibodies that shows that the infection rate was/is significantly higher than current data shows, and thus the hospitalization and death rates are significantly lower than current data shows

We live in too litigious of a society, and no club/organization/school is going to want to be the "one" directly responsible for a cluster of cases, unless the data shows that the risk is much smaller than what we KNOW (not what we THINK) today.

BWGophers wrote:BWGophers Daily Prediction Sure to Be Wrong:

We will not see club soccer, or any other youth or HS sport, nor will we see schools open again, until one of the following happens:

1) There's a vaccine for COVID-19
2) There's a proven, highly effective treatment for COVID-19 that reduces the death rate
3) There is extensive, if not fully comprehensive, testing for COVID antibodies that shows that the infection rate was/is significantly higher than current data shows, and thus the hospitalization and death rates are significantly lower than current data shows

We live in too litigious of a society, and no club/organization/school is going to want to be the "one" directly responsible for a cluster of cases, unless the data shows that the risk is much smaller than what we KNOW (not what we THINK) today.

WinTheChipzRdown wrote:

BWGophers wrote:BWGophers Daily Prediction Sure to Be Wrong:

We will not see club soccer, or any other youth or HS sport, nor will we see schools open again, until one of the following happens:

1) There's a vaccine for COVID-19
2) There's a proven, highly effective treatment for COVID-19 that reduces the death rate
3) There is extensive, if not fully comprehensive, testing for COVID antibodies that shows that the infection rate was/is significantly higher than current data shows, and thus the hospitalization and death rates are significantly lower than current data shows

We live in too litigious of a society, and no club/organization/school is going to want to be the "one" directly responsible for a cluster of cases, unless the data shows that the risk is much smaller than what we KNOW (not what we THINK) today.

Agreed.
It’s hard, as much as I would love to get back rolling, it’s a bit different when you’ve lost someone relatively close to you and your family. They weren’t elderly, they weren’t already sick, now they’re gone...quickly. Definitely better safe than sorry.

NoSpinZone wrote:

BWGophers wrote:BWGophers Daily Prediction Sure to Be Wrong:

We will not see club soccer, or any other youth or HS sport, nor will we see schools open again, until one of the following happens:

1) There's a vaccine for COVID-19
2) There's a proven, highly effective treatment for COVID-19 that reduces the death rate
3) There is extensive, if not fully comprehensive, testing for COVID antibodies that shows that the infection rate was/is significantly higher than current data shows, and thus the hospitalization and death rates are significantly lower than current data shows

We live in too litigious of a society, and no club/organization/school is going to want to be the "one" directly responsible for a cluster of cases, unless the data shows that the risk is much smaller than what we KNOW (not what we THINK) today.

Not that I disagree with where this seems to be headed, but waivers solve the legal issue, especially if specifically spelled out.  No one forcing a family/kid to play, maybe some dont mind a little risk and willing to move on with life/soccer/work.

BWGophers wrote:

NoSpinZone wrote:

BWGophers wrote:BWGophers Daily Prediction Sure to Be Wrong:

We will not see club soccer, or any other youth or HS sport, nor will we see schools open again, until one of the following happens:

1) There's a vaccine for COVID-19
2) There's a proven, highly effective treatment for COVID-19 that reduces the death rate
3) There is extensive, if not fully comprehensive, testing for COVID antibodies that shows that the infection rate was/is significantly higher than current data shows, and thus the hospitalization and death rates are significantly lower than current data shows

We live in too litigious of a society, and no club/organization/school is going to want to be the "one" directly responsible for a cluster of cases, unless the data shows that the risk is much smaller than what we KNOW (not what we THINK) today.

Not that I disagree with where this seems to be headed, but waivers solve the legal issue, especially if specifically spelled out.  No one forcing a family/kid to play, maybe some dont mind a little risk and willing to move on with life/soccer/work.

The problem is that waivers are intended to cover risk to yourself or your kid.  The problem with COVID is that the risk you take may actually have a much greater negative impact on OTHERS, than you or your kid.  Waivers don't cover you endangering others.

BWGophers wrote:Just some back of the envelope numbers based on the data released from NY State today:

H1N1 - From CDC - ~60.8 Million US infections, 12,469 US deaths in 12 months, Mortality Rate for those infected = 12,469/60.8 Million = 0.02%

COVID-19 - From NY Antibody Study, estimating ~2.7 Million NY Infections, ~15,000 NY deaths in 2 Months, Mortality Rate for those infected = 15,000/2.7 Million = 0.55%

In other words, COVID-19 mortality rate is somewhere in the neighborhood of 27.5 TIMES more deadly than H1N1, for a similar infection rate (~15%).

bird04 wrote:

BWGophers wrote:Just some back of the envelope numbers based on the data released from NY State today:

H1N1 - From CDC - ~60.8 Million US infections, 12,469 US deaths in 12 months, Mortality Rate for those infected = 12,469/60.8 Million = 0.02%

COVID-19 - From NY Antibody Study, estimating ~2.7 Million NY Infections, ~15,000 NY deaths in 2 Months, Mortality Rate for those infected = 15,000/2.7 Million = 0.55%

In other words, COVID-19 mortality rate is somewhere in the neighborhood of 27.5 TIMES more deadly than H1N1, for a similar infection rate (~15%).

Maybe just stop everything in NYC/New Jersey? Cuz those are very non-representative numbers for the rest of the country...easy to cherry pick statistical subgroups within a nationwide sample to get frightening numbers.

I would refer you to the latest vis a vis the relationship between prevalence (the denominator) and mortality (the numerator)...turns out in the Stanford study and, subsequently, the UCLA study, the number of people who have had COVID is under reported by a factor of 50-80 times. If such is the case, and it appears so as the studies definitely were powered correctly by appearance, then the mortality comes in right at the H1N1 numbers. My memory fails me at times as I get older, but I don't remember the nationwide shutdown at the time of bird flu...

So what's the difference and, if there is a difference that we cannot ascertain, the question becomes...do we open up the rest of the country, and if so, how about allowing those at minuscule risk (i.e. healthy young athletes, not the elderly with co-morbidities) back to normalcy. I say yes, as you can tell from the tone of this post. But I would also say that the stats and science back me up on this.

Some reading...

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04/antibody-surveys-suggesting-vast-undercount-coronavirus-infections-may-be-unreliable

There's also a good article from The Hill on this topic. And plenty more. We as a society are odd about these type things, maybe for good reason...the old precautionary principle, for instance. But any principle taken too far can be harmful in a world of multivariate and competing and equally legitimate interests and facts. A bad flu season kills 80,000 but we rightfully don't shut society down for this relatively low risk, albeit tragic in every instance, annual disease. Nor should we now, at this point, for this one, now that we have some data that says it is much, much more like the annual flu than the Black Death or Andromeda Strain. And awaiting the re-opening of society for the time when we have a vaccine is not policy. It is wishful thinking. Sometimes vaccines are developed right along the Gann charts plotted in the pharmaceutical companies that make them. Other times, it's like the AIDS vaccine....30 years and waiting. So, no, policy cannot be grounded on that.

poster1mm wrote:99.45 COVID Living Rate
99.98 H1N1  Living Rate

I would take my chances of living in both cases.  We certainly all have personal stories at this point on both sides of the argument and all should be respected.  It feels like we are taking out an umbrella when there is a less than 1% chance of rain and screaming that we are all going to get soaked.

I get the OTHERS argument also but shouldn't the OTHERS stay away from the ones who are willing to take a chance?  Wouldn't that be just a little more reasonable?  I understand the overwhelming of the healthcare system also but NYC healthcare was already overwhelmed and has been for years.  Seems like they would have voted the governor out if they really cared.  Hospitals around the country have economics also and now we are seeing layoffs and furloughs for the system we were trying to protect.  

BWGophers wrote:

bird04 wrote:

BWGophers wrote:Just some back of the envelope numbers based on the data released from NY State today:

H1N1 - From CDC - ~60.8 Million US infections, 12,469 US deaths in 12 months, Mortality Rate for those infected = 12,469/60.8 Million = 0.02%

COVID-19 - From NY Antibody Study, estimating ~2.7 Million NY Infections, ~15,000 NY deaths in 2 Months, Mortality Rate for those infected = 15,000/2.7 Million = 0.55%

In other words, COVID-19 mortality rate is somewhere in the neighborhood of 27.5 TIMES more deadly than H1N1, for a similar infection rate (~15%).

Maybe just stop everything in NYC/New Jersey? Cuz those are very non-representative numbers for the rest of the country...easy to cherry pick statistical subgroups within a nationwide sample to get frightening numbers.

I would refer you to the latest vis a vis the relationship between prevalence (the denominator) and mortality (the numerator)...turns out in the Stanford study and, subsequently, the UCLA study, the number of people who have had COVID is under reported by a factor of 50-80 times. If such is the case, and it appears so as the studies definitely were powered correctly by appearance, then the mortality comes in right at the H1N1 numbers. My memory fails me at times as I get older, but I don't remember the nationwide shutdown at the time of bird flu...

So what's the difference and, if there is a difference that we cannot ascertain, the question becomes...do we open up the rest of the country, and if so, how about allowing those at minuscule risk (i.e. healthy young athletes, not the elderly with co-morbidities) back to normalcy. I say yes, as you can tell from the tone of this post. But I would also say that the stats and science back me up on this.

Some reading...

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04/antibody-surveys-suggesting-vast-undercount-coronavirus-infections-may-be-unreliable

There's also a good article from The Hill on this topic. And plenty more. We as a society are odd about these type things, maybe for good reason...the old precautionary principle, for instance. But any principle taken too far can be harmful in a world of multivariate and competing and equally legitimate interests and facts. A bad flu season kills 80,000 but we rightfully don't shut society down for this relatively low risk, albeit tragic in every instance, annual disease. Nor should we now, at this point, for this one, now that we have some data that says it is much, much more like the annual flu than the Black Death or Andromeda Strain. And awaiting the re-opening of society for the time when we have a vaccine is not policy. It is wishful thinking. Sometimes vaccines are developed right along the Gann charts plotted in the pharmaceutical companies that make them. Other times, it's like the AIDS vaccine....30 years and waiting. So, no, policy cannot be grounded on that.

You are correct.  So I went and ran the numbers.  The Stanford study estimates that Santa Clara county infections are somewhere between 50-80x greater than what is being reported.  Per the Johns Hopkins web site, Santa Clara county currently has 1987 reported cases with 95 reported deaths.  So, using the 50-80x range, that puts the mortality rate at 0.06% on the low side, 0.10% on the high side.  So, somewhere between 3-5 times the mortality rate (0.02%) of H1N1.  Definitely not as severe as the NY data, but definitely not in the same arena as H1N1.

So, can you tell me where DFW fits in this curve?  Do we have a total infection rate close to NY (~15%)?  If so, that'd be great, because with a combined population of 6.6 million in Dallas/Tarrant/Denton/Collin Counties, that means 990,000 have been infected with 150 total deaths so far, or a mortality rate of 0.015%, which is on par with H1N1.  Or, do we have a total infection rate close to LA or Santa Clara counties (~4%), that would mean 264,000 infections in DFW with 150 deaths so far, or a mortality rate = 0.056% or ~3x the mortality rate of H1N1.  Not great, but not NY.  However, what if our current infection rate in DFW is actually less than LA or Santa Clara, say 1% or ~66,000 of us currently have the virus (this is about 10x the total # of current reported cases in the 4 counties), that means the mortality rate in DFW is closer to .22% or 11x H1N1.

Can anyone tell us what the actual infection rate is in DFW?  Can anyone tell us what the infection rate would then become if we relaxed social distancing?

I would argue to you that the answer is currently NO on both cases, so we currently CAN'T say whether COVID is just another bad flu season, or if it's the Black Death or Andromeda Strain.  

So...  back to the original point I made in this thread yesterday...  since we CAN'T say with any level of certainty yet what the true extent and severity of COVID is, because we don't have the testing in place to generate the proper data, I think the general public, businesses, schools, sport entities, etc. are going to be VERY hesitant to open things back up, no matter Trump, Abbott, Patrick, Jenkins, etc. say.

So, to keep total deaths down and not overwhelm our medical ecosystem, you need to be sure you can:
1) Keep down the infection rate via vaccine, and/or expansive/comprehensive testing with rapid isolation and contact tracing, and/or social distancing
and/or
2) Have expansive/comprehensive testing to generate more accurate data to confirm that the true mortality rate is much lower than current data supports
and/or
3) Reduce the mortality rate by having an effective treatment for those that do get infected

I'm all for any and all of these things ASAP. However, until we get at least one of them, I don't think you'll see things open up, no matter our what our elected leaders tell us.