ISU Athletics Staff Member Tests Positive
- Thread starter LowOverhead
- Start date
Everyone knows that. And, frankly, that is the big problem. Because at any one time there are likely lots of people that get it and as the virus runs through an area (lets say a football team), you have to isolate and not play everyone that is positive.
In general, I'm not especially worried about the team having someone who has serious issues with the virus (although this could come back to bite me), I AM worried about the team being able to keep the virus from spreading so that we can actually play a whole season with a relatively complete roster.
There won't be a season if the standard is mandatory quarantine and isolation for every positive test. The standard for this disease has been set at crazy-high levels that simply aren't realistic to meet in a normally functioning society (not locked down).
At this pace, college athletics (and probably universities as a whole) will never be the same and many won't recover.
Cases are slowing down but unless there's just a huge drop off in the next two months I don't see how a fully functioning college football season happens even without fans.
At least for Iowa, this is not correct. Current data posted on the state's website says 64% of cases tested positive did have symptoms. 11% were confirmed to have no symptoms. The rest either were unknown or are still too soon to know. This doesn't say how severe the symptoms were though.
https://coronavirus.iowa.gov/pages/case-counts
I think you have to make adjustments to policy based on data. If we have reason to believe that people who test positive can go back to the team (or in general, people going back into society) after a shorter time without infecting others, then we can adjust the policy.
But compare this other illnesses - if a player were to test positive for Influenza A they would probably not be allowed to practice with the team until they were no longer contagious. That's just practical - you don't want your whole team getting sick and reducing their ability to play well on the field. We know enough about those other diseases to say exactly when you aren't contagious anymore. I think as we learn more about COVID-19, then we can make more targeted decisions.
Anything to add to this list?
4 Iowa State (sports not yet known).
1 Okie State football
2 Marshall football
This of course is because many places, Iowa included are using a HIGHLY targeted testing approach, particularly early on. I'm not sure how it's changed with the increased testing, but for a while you had to pretty much have symptoms to get tested, with some exceptions. So for a vast majority of people getting tested, the outcomes were Symptomatic and positive or Symptomatic and negative. So, that 80% dualthreat pointed out would apply only where a swath of the general population were tested randomly. The method most places use, including Iowa, that is targeted would be irrelevant to determining how many people with the virus are symptomatic or asymptomatic. It would be more relevant to use Iowa results to see how many people are symptomatic due to COVID vs. other illnesses or factors.
OSU actually has 3 cases on the football team. They also told the incoming freshmen to not show up yet, which seems to be a tad over reactionary.
Plenty of people in the general public are not looking at the timeline in a very practical manner. I don't know exactly what it needs to be, but you probably take a targeted date for the first game, work backwards and need 3-4 weeks of camp, and work back from there to need a couple weeks from that for planning, notification of procedures, getting people on campus, etc.
For games to start Sept. 5 you probably have have cases really ramp down to very low levels by mid-July for sure. Maybe it will happen. Maybe schedules can be trimmed and revised to push that timeline back 2-3 weeks. Even if things stay on the current gradually declining "slow burn" like it seems to be most places, will that be enough to have a functional season?
You're right that Iowa's test sample is skewed. In general, data from all states in the US should contain a significant time period where tests could only be performed on people who had symptoms. In general, we haven't tested random sweeps of people, at least not in the US. Nearly all the testing data we have is based on people who go to get tested because they suspect they might have the virus. That is the nature of the testing data that we have. So if you say that 80% of people tested positive have no symptoms most people are going to assume that you are referring to the people who have actually been tested, not a hypothetical study group of people tested at random.
Iowa's data says at least 64% have symptoms. The CDC estimates that 65% will have symptoms. That is the data I know of, which strongly contradicts the 80% no symptoms number. If we have data that says today the positive cases are less likely to be symptomatic based on wider testing, then that's great. Or if there has been a study done that attempts to control for the bias in testing data we have. But, so far as I know we don't have that data at least publicly available.
And the point of this related to football - data shows that most people who tested positive do have symptoms. So, we can't just say it's fine for people to play even on a positive test because there's a low chance they'll have symptoms. If someone tests positive, they need to sit out until they're no longer contagious.
Not that I've heard, but quite frankly if I was incharge at a school I wouldn't publicly announce it.
https://time.com/5842669/coronavirus-asymptomatic-transmission/
I don't know if I believe the 80% number but it's out there, and not just in Trumpistan.
I am not going to weigh in on whether there should or shouldn't be college football at this point and what it should look like. I think there is still time to make an even more informed decision as we know more and the landscape is clearer.
I would like to address the dismissal of risk. Several people are pointing to the other risks associated with playing that they say are much higher. Or are talking about the risk we all take when we get in an automobile. That is all fine and good but this isn't an either/or situation. This is an added risk on top of the risks an athlete faces on and off the football field. Also, it isn't just about the risk to the athletes or the fans in the stands. We could have practically all low risk people in the stands and on the field but that isn't the whole equation. The idea is to limit the number and spread of cases to protect those who may not be at the games but are high risk. The more people who are out there who are exposed and contract the disease, the greater the chance that the high risk people will interact with a carrier and contract the disease with much graver consequences. This includes the families of the players.
I would like to address the dismissal of risk. Several people are pointing to the other risks associated with playing that they say are much higher. Or are talking about the risk we all take when we get in an automobile. That is all fine and good but this isn't an either/or situation. This is an added risk on top of the risks an athlete faces on and off the football field. Also, it isn't just about the risk to the athletes or the fans in the stands. We could have practically all low risk people in the stands and on the field but that isn't the whole equation. The idea is to limit the number and spread of cases to protect those who may not be at the games but are high risk. The more people who are out there who are exposed and contract the disease, the greater the chance that the high risk people will interact with a carrier and contract the disease with much graver consequences. This includes the families of the players.
