NO FANS AT CYCLONE GAMES?

[isucy86]

In regard to playing football this fall I think there are 3 main options facing college Presidents:

• Don't play football this fall. IMO this happens under 2 scenarios. The first being widespread Covid outbreaks among MLB and NBA players once they return OR 10ish college teams experience an outbreak of 10-15 players once fall practice begins. This decision would likely happen Aug 10-15. The second driver would be high confidence that a vaccine will exist in early 2021. This could allow for 100% capacity and maximize football revenue during the 20/21 fiscal year. Timing could also be around Aug 15.
• The next option would be college football playing in front of limited fans. This might be 1,000-5,000 fans. Comprised of player families, band, big $ donors, media and some senior class students. This scenario happens if the outbreak continues at current levels.
• The 3rd option is football with 20,000-30,000 fans. IMO this only happens if new Covid cases/hospitalizations are BELOW levels seen in late May and trending down.

IMO if I were to puts odds on the scenarios:

• No fall football - 35%
• Fall football, limited fans -55%
• Fall football, 30-50% capacity - 10%

 

[CycloneErik]

Masks aren't 100% effective. When combined with social distancing, the result is much closer to 100% effective. The anti-mask crowd is so bizarre.

They aren't bizarre, just stupid.

 

[larrysarmy]

What do you suppose the athletic departments motive is for wanting people to wear masks?

It’s still the wrong question. All for masks, wear them, I do. The question for schools and colleges alike is still how much of the virus are they prepared to live with in their community? Masks and social distancing help mitigate to some degree, but doesn’t eliminate the virus and with sheer volume of testing, there will be cases and could be through next year or longer, no one knows. So what is the threshold? How long do you operate at these reduced levels (which clearly have consequences too, see JP’s thoughts).

 

[3TrueFans]

It’s still the wrong question. All for masks, wear them, I do. The question for schools and colleges alike is still how much of the virus are they prepared to live with in their community? Masks and social distancing help mitigate to some degree, but doesn’t eliminate the virus and with sheer volume of testing, there will be cases and could be through next year or longer, no one knows. So what is the threshold? How long do you operate at these reduced levels (which clearly have consequences too, see JP’s thoughts).

So what is your suggestion then? No masks and no reduced levels of operation? Yes to masks and no reduced levels of operation?

The athletic department seems to think that the public wearing masks is important in order to get football in the fall, do you disagree?

 

[Doc]

Wait a minute. Why do I have to avoid crowds and social distance if masks are so effective?

A little redundancy never hurts. This is an extreme example, but why do airplanes have extra hydraulic systems if the main one is designed never to fail?

If you social distanced, wore a mask, and avoided large crowds rather than simply do one or two, you’ve decreased the chance that something will go wrong. Those extra things didn’t change your probability of getting the virus much, but in a country of 325,000,000 people those percentage points add up to real numbers.

 

[3TrueFans]

Wait a minute. Why do I have to avoid crowds and social distance if masks are so effective?

Why do I need to wear a seat belt if the airbags are so effective?

 

[arobb]

 

[3TrueFans]

Just for some actual context.

"I don't regret anything I said then because in the context of the time in which I said it, it was correct. We were told in our task force meetings that we have a serious problem with the lack of PPEs and masks for the health providers who are putting themselves in harm's way every day to take care of sick people,"

"When it became clear that we could get the infection could be spread by asymptomatic carriers who don't know they're infected, that made it very clear that we had to strongly recommend masks," he said.

"And also, it soon became clear that we had enough protective equipment and that cloth masks and homemade masks were as good as masks that you would buy from surgical supply stores," Fauci added. "So in the context of when we were not strongly recommending it, it was the correct thing."

I think it was probably still wrong to not recommend masks earlier, but I also obviously don't know anything about the overall supply of masks and how bad a run on masks would have been.

 

[larrysarmy]

So what is your suggestion then? No masks and no reduced levels of operation? Yes to masks and no reduced levels of operation?

The athletic department seems to think that the public wearing masks is important in order to get football in the fall, do you disagree?

I’m glad you brought up the athletic department. I saw that today, ISU athletics Twitter has all these posts of players playing with the tag line of “If you want to see this, you need to wear this (masks).” Which on the surface is fine, but there will still be more than likely cases/infections in Story County, Iowa, etc. And could be well into next year. Masks won’t eradicate the virus, will sports be played still with the virus in the community? If the goal is zero cases (I don’t know if that is), then I’m sure how anything can be pulled off, unless some sort of “living with it” mindset...which the public is comfortable with.

 

[arobb]

Just for some actual context.




I think it was probably still wrong to not recommend masks earlier, but I also obviously don't know anything about the overall supply of masks and how bad a run on masks would have been.

I understand trying to keep PPE available for health care staff, but the "droplet" comment is what sticks out the most to me.

 

[Doc]

It’s still the wrong question. All for masks, wear them, I do. The question for schools and colleges alike is still how much of the virus are they prepared to live with in their community? Masks and social distancing help mitigate to some degree, but doesn’t eliminate the virus and with sheer volume of testing, there will be cases and could be through next year or longer, no one knows. So what is the threshold? How long do you operate at these reduced levels (which clearly have consequences too, see JP’s thoughts).

When I read someone ask “how much” of the virus we are prepared to live with, I see someone who is still seeing the virus growth as linear rather than exponential. I think it’s the wrong question to ask. Anyway, I’ll crawl back into the cave now.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167487016306596

 

[madguy30]

Wait a minute. Why do I have to avoid crowds and social distance if masks are so effective?

If I drive at the speed limit or safe speed for the conditions, keep a far following space behind another driver, and pay attention instead of texting does that help avoid hurting someone with my car, and if I do only two of those things is it more or less risky?

 

[3TrueFans]

I understand trying to keep PPE available for health care staff, but the "droplet" comment is what sticks out the most to me.

Yeah, don’t like that as much, but the goal was to keep masks for healthcare at the time. And the recommendation has been very clear since then.

 

[3TrueFans]

I’m glad you brought up the athletic department. I saw that today, ISU athletics Twitter has all these posts of players playing with the tag line of “If you want to see this, you need to wear this (masks).” Which on the surface is fine, but there will still be more than likely cases/infections in Story County, Iowa, etc. And could be well into next year. Masks won’t eradicate the virus, will sports be played still with the virus in the community? If the goal is zero cases (I don’t know if that is), then I’m sure how anything can be pulled off, unless some sort of “living with it” mindset...which the public is comfortable with.

So what is your suggestion then? No masks and no reduced levels of operation? Yes to masks and no reduced levels of operation?

The athletic department seems to think that the public wearing masks is important in order to get football in the fall, do you disagree?

 

[jsb]

I’m glad you brought up the athletic department. I saw that today, ISU athletics Twitter has all these posts of players playing with the tag line of “If you want to see this, you need to wear this (masks).” Which on the surface is fine, but there will still be more than likely cases/infections in Story County, Iowa, etc. And could be well into next year. Masks won’t eradicate the virus, will sports be played still with the virus in the community? If the goal is zero cases (I don’t know if that is), then I’m sure how anything can be pulled off, unless some sort of “living with it” mindset...which the public is comfortable with.

you are so dense. The point is to slow the growth of the infections and any scientist that knows anything believes that masks do that. The goal is OBVIOUSLY not zero cases, but you are obviously trying to be difficult.

Do you think that football can go on in this country at the current rate of infection?

 

[CrossCyed]

They aren't bizarre, just stupid.

They can be both

 

[larrysarmy]

you are so dense. The point is to slow the growth of the infections and any scientist that knows anything believes that masks do that. The goal is OBVIOUSLY not zero cases, but you are obviously trying to be difficult.

Do you think that football can go on in this country at the current rate of infection?

Of course zero cases is the goal, but is that even possible? How do you get there w/o natural herd immunity or virus burn out or by vaccine? Masks don’t rid you of the virus. All for masks by the way. But if everyone wore masks for 6 weeks until Sept and there is still infections in your community, you still playing? Have your kids in school?

FWIW, I believe schools should be open and sports to continue (though crowds should be limited), due to low to no impact on younger people. That said, WILL it happen, based on the current narrative in the public, not likely.

 

[Acylum]

It should say... “This Mask will Protect You More Than Our Governor Ever Will”.

You were also the person who said each infected individual infects 3 others. So there are idiots spread throughout the argument.

 

[Cyched]

you are so dense. The point is to slow the growth of the infections and any scientist that knows anything believes that masks do that. The goal is OBVIOUSLY not zero cases, but you are obviously trying to be difficult.

Do you think that football can go on in this country at the current rate of infection?

Of course zero cases is the goal, but is that even possible?

Yeah...you’re not arguing in good faith

 

[larrysarmy]

Yeah...you’re not arguing in good faith

How so? We both agree 0 cases is best, but how do get there...so life can resume as normal?