Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Covid and Soccer

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
    As was suggested above, the only conclusive way to assess whether outdoor sports contribute to community transmission would be to allow outdoor sports to start up and continuing and monitoring the situation. With community transmission now at low levels (even the 75k/100k/14 day level for King County reflected is at the level Harvard School of Public Health recommended for reopening schools), no meaningful current burden on hospitals, a very low apparent risk to children (certainly in terms of symptoms, hospitalizations, and deaths) of not playing sports and attending school in person vis-a-vis the relatively known and quantifiable impacts of not doing those things, and recent data showing a lot of the "positive" PCR tests are actually catching non-infectious old remnants of RNA strands due to the high cycle threshold setting in the test equipment, and 40+ states already playing, there are plenty of good reasons to think it's time to turn the dial towards a further reopening. Instead choosing to open bowling alleys (indoors, older population, lots of older facilities with mediocre ventilation, lots of high bmi's), as the state recently did, doesn't make a lot of sense.
    I'd again point to the data. We aren't anywhere close to levels where any other country has opened schools. Children have parents, grandparents and caregivers that aren't as lucky to have the same risk profile as children. And again I'd point to the data that Washington Youth Soccer referenced to the state showing that indeed, bowling has a lower risk profile than your proposal.

    We have turned the dial up, we're practicing in pods now. If we really want to show it's safe start testing what we have now. Further, until we hit targets it's too early to engage in travel games. Incidentally, we'd still be classified in the red category if we used Idaho's metrics.

    https://coronavirus.idaho.gov/

    I assume this is the statistic to which you are pointing since you didn't cite it, but, no, based on that we aren't in a place to open schools. And are no where near close to the levels when other countries did so either. And again we need to go broader than just king county as in the RCL we play teams with much worse statistics.

    https://www.boston.com/news/coronavi...pening-schools

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
      I'd again point to the data. We aren't anywhere close to levels where any other country has opened schools. Children have parents, grandparents and caregivers that aren't as lucky to have the same risk profile as children. And again I'd point to the data that Washington Youth Soccer referenced to the state showing that indeed, bowling has a lower risk profile than your proposal.

      We have turned the dial up, we're practicing in pods now. If we really want to show it's safe start testing what we have now. Further, until we hit targets it's too early to engage in travel games. Incidentally, we'd still be classified in the red category if we used Idaho's metrics.

      https://coronavirus.idaho.gov/

      I assume this is the statistic to which you are pointing since you didn't cite it, but, no, based on that we aren't in a place to open schools. And are no where near close to the levels when other countries did so either. And again we need to go broader than just king county as in the RCL we play teams with much worse statistics.

      https://www.boston.com/news/coronavi...pening-schools
      I'm not sure where you are getting that the risks of indoor, adult bowling is less risky than indoor youth soccer. Or even school.

      Kids have been practicing in pods here since July, and there haven't been an reports of transmission at training. Nor have there been reports of transmission at training or games in any of the 40+ states + the UK and other countries that are playing. Anyone who is exceptionally risk averse would of course be free to keep their kid home, but society can't do a controlled study of each and every activity before allowing it to reopen, which seems to be what you want for youth soccer at least.

      Yes, many (but not all; Sweden is one exception and there are others) countries have opened up schools with fewer cases. Of course, many states have opened up schools at activities with higher case counts. Are we at least close to where we need to be to allow youth soccer and even in-person school? Based on the data, and particularly for outdoor sports (waiting another couple weeks for in-person school may make sense), it sure looks like it. The state dashboard says we were at 71.9/100k/14 days on 8/29. https://coronavirus.wa.gov/what-you-...ment-dashboard

      The current 7 day rolling average is 54 cases per day (that likely will go up a bit due to data delays), which is about 33/100k/14 days. https://www.doh.wa.gov/Emergencies/C.../DataDashboard

      Here's a cite to a NYT article where the authors (from Penn and GW) discuss 75/100k over 7 days as the trigger for school reopening, based on recommendations from a National Academy of Sciences panel. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/29/o...ls-reopen.html. The Harvard guidelines I had in mind are a bit different, and suggest in-person for K-8 and hybrid for 9-12 when cases are below 140/100k/14 days (but wouldn't allow full reopening for K-12 until cases are below 14/100k/14 days). https://globalepidemics.org/wp-conte...fing_72020.pdf

      Since the risk in indoor settings seems 19x that of outdoor settings, the triggers for allowing outdoor sports should be, if anything, more flexible. And then there's the related issue that up to 90% of positive PCR tests are no longer infectious. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/h...s-testing.html. For that reason, reopening triggers that are based on case counts (rather than hospitalizations, deaths, hospital burdens, or positive test %) may not make much sense at all.

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
        I'm not sure where you are getting that the risks of indoor, adult bowling is less risky than indoor youth soccer. Or even school.

        Kids have been practicing in pods here since July, and there haven't been an reports of transmission at training. Nor have there been reports of transmission at training or games in any of the 40+ states + the UK and other countries that are playing. Anyone who is exceptionally risk averse would of course be free to keep their kid home, but society can't do a controlled study of each and every activity before allowing it to reopen, which seems to be what you want for youth soccer at least.

        Yes, many (but not all; Sweden is one exception and there are others) countries have opened up schools with fewer cases. Of course, many states have opened up schools at activities with higher case counts. Are we at least close to where we need to be to allow youth soccer and even in-person school? Based on the data, and particularly for outdoor sports (waiting another couple weeks for in-person school may make sense), it sure looks like it. The state dashboard says we were at 71.9/100k/14 days on 8/29. https://coronavirus.wa.gov/what-you-...ment-dashboard

        The current 7 day rolling average is 54 cases per day (that likely will go up a bit due to data delays), which is about 33/100k/14 days. https://www.doh.wa.gov/Emergencies/C.../DataDashboard

        Here's a cite to a NYT article where the authors (from Penn and GW) discuss 75/100k over 7 days as the trigger for school reopening, based on recommendations from a National Academy of Sciences panel. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/29/o...ls-reopen.html. The Harvard guidelines I had in mind are a bit different, and suggest in-person for K-8 and hybrid for 9-12 when cases are below 140/100k/14 days (but wouldn't allow full reopening for K-12 until cases are below 14/100k/14 days). https://globalepidemics.org/wp-conte...fing_72020.pdf

        Since the risk in indoor settings seems 19x that of outdoor settings, the triggers for allowing outdoor sports should be, if anything, more flexible. And then there's the related issue that up to 90% of positive PCR tests are no longer infectious. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/h...s-testing.html. For that reason, reopening triggers that are based on case counts (rather than hospitalizations, deaths, hospital burdens, or positive test %) may not make much sense at all.
        I'm getting the information from the data WSYS referenced regarding risk of various activities with and without masks. By inference that data indicates the relative risk of the sport: low for bowling, moderate to high for soccer. Low occupancy indoors speaking with face mask = low risk. It is moderate to high (depending on whether or not you consider soccer a low occupancy or high occupancy sport.) Outdoors, no facemask, shouting/breathing heavy.

        We don't know what the transmission rate is for our current set up because we aren't testing. As I recall at least two clubs shut down, temporarily, after the opening because of COVID spread concerns. I think you are missing the point of the article you posted, which is this (from the article):

        But for the outbreaks raging now, he said, what’s needed are coronavirus tests that are fast, cheap and abundant enough to frequently test everyone who needs it — even if the tests are less sensitive.

        “It might not catch every last one of the transmitting people, but it sure will catch the most transmissible people, including the superspreaders,” Dr. Mina said. “That alone would drive epidemics practically to zero.”

        We are so far away from when other countries opened up and yet we persist and we do so without having the testing we need to make really informed decisions. And it comes at the expense of life (https://people.com/health/arizona-te...ol-reopenings/) It really does look like the efforts and pain that we're all living through are paying off and I, like you, can't wait till we all can safely see the field again. (Me included though my beloved indoor is probably even farther away.)

        Again thanks for keeping this constructive and not adding a whole lot of what aboutism into the argument. Reasonable people can disagree and there's a lot of unknowns and uncertainty. I really want kids to be able to play but not at the expense of the safety of society at large.

        Comment


          #34
          Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
          yeah but my teams first two games are in Spokane and Idaho. Idaho rates not so bad, but Spokane is increasing and you have to drive through and stop to use the bathroom in counties with skyrocketing rates and poor mask comliance. There's plenty of competition locally. RCL should have left out the eastern Washington and Idaho teams this year. They could make their own competitive group on that side of the mountains.
          dumb reasoning

          Comment


            #35
            Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
            dumb reasoning
            I'm going to write Don Garber now! Suck it regionality and player safety!

            America, F**K YEAH!

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
              I'm getting the information from the data WSYS referenced regarding risk of various activities with and without masks. By inference that data indicates the relative risk of the sport: low for bowling, moderate to high for soccer. Low occupancy indoors speaking with face mask = low risk. It is moderate to high (depending on whether or not you consider soccer a low occupancy or high occupancy sport.) Outdoors, no facemask, shouting/breathing heavy.

              We don't know what the transmission rate is for our current set up because we aren't testing. As I recall at least two clubs shut down, temporarily, after the opening because of COVID spread concerns. I think you are missing the point of the article you posted, which is this (from the article):

              But for the outbreaks raging now, he said, what’s needed are coronavirus tests that are fast, cheap and abundant enough to frequently test everyone who needs it — even if the tests are less sensitive.

              “It might not catch every last one of the transmitting people, but it sure will catch the most transmissible people, including the superspreaders,” Dr. Mina said. “That alone would drive epidemics practically to zero.”

              We are so far away from when other countries opened up and yet we persist and we do so without having the testing we need to make really informed decisions. And it comes at the expense of life (https://people.com/health/arizona-te...ol-reopenings/) It really does look like the efforts and pain that we're all living through are paying off and I, like you, can't wait till we all can safely see the field again. (Me included though my beloved indoor is probably even farther away.)

              Again thanks for keeping this constructive and not adding a whole lot of what aboutism into the argument. Reasonable people can disagree and there's a lot of unknowns and uncertainty. I really want kids to be able to play but not at the expense of the safety of society at large.
              The NYT article and Harvard Prof Mina’s work have several implications. One as you note, is that we really need fast, abundant and cheap testing it. But another is that case counts based on PCR are not accurately assessing the current threat of the pandemic — with up to 90% of the positives no longer infectious, we aren’t honing in effectively and contact tracing for those that are, and we are keeping things shut down based on cases that aren’t currently infectious (this would explain why hospitalizations and deaths remained low in WA even as cases spiked). This issue has caused a huge uproar in the UK over the past week, where it appears they are moving towards designating any result with a cycle threshold in excess of 30 as negative. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54000629. Sadly, we don’t have anything resembling a national testing strategy (or a coherent national pandemic strategy for that matter, apart from hoping it will all just disappear or that a vaccine will
              come before Election Day), so it’s up to resource strapped and understandably cautious and risk averse local public health officials to hopefully get there sooner rather later (but I’ll still take our state’s approach over mass the mass yolo and if that means mass death so be it approach of some states).

              Comment


                #37
                Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                The NYT article and Harvard Prof Mina’s work have several implications. One as you note, is that we really need fast, abundant and cheap testing it. But another is that case counts based on PCR are not accurately assessing the current threat of the pandemic — with up to 90% of the positives no longer infectious, we aren’t honing in effectively and contact tracing for those that are, and we are keeping things shut down based on cases that aren’t currently infectious (this would explain why hospitalizations and deaths remained low in WA even as cases spiked). This issue has caused a huge uproar in the UK over the past week, where it appears they are moving towards designating any result with a cycle threshold in excess of 30 as negative. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54000629. Sadly, we don’t have anything resembling a national testing strategy (or a coherent national pandemic strategy for that matter, apart from hoping it will all just disappear or that a vaccine will
                come before Election Day), so it’s up to resource strapped and understandably cautious and risk averse local public health officials to hopefully get there sooner rather later (but I’ll still take our state’s approach over mass the mass yolo and if that means mass death so be it approach of some states).
                Thanks to both of you for this discourse. It represents a lot of my own internal debate and was refreshing to read, particularly on this forum!

                Comment


                  #38
                  Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                  Thanks to both of you for this discourse. It represents a lot of my own internal debate and was refreshing to read, particularly on this forum!
                  Proof that libtards can't think for themselves

                  Comment


                    #39
                    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                    Proof that libtards can't think for themselves
                    Is that you Putin?

                    Comment


                      #40
                      frustrating that they have not taken regionality or cross contact in to account we have several back to back sat sun games on the schedule and they have us going over the mountains for multiple games. Zero reason for eastern WA to be in the league during good times, even less of a reason now.

                      In a logical world they would have done home and away games for each set of teams one weekend then one weekend off. That way if there was a covid issue only 2 teams have to stop, rather than 4 plus, and they would already be well in to their 2 week quarantine without having to miss a game. I know it's not ideal as you want the chance at a re-match later in the season, but it's freaking 2020 do what you gotta do. It's pretty clear they just want to maintain a financial foothold in E. Washington and know if they leave now they probably wont get them back.

                      The way they have it now if someone test positive with covid in an age group it will probably bring the entire division to a halt as all of the teams would have been in contact within 2 weeks.

                      I e-mailed the contact listed on the return to play guidelines if you have any questions. He got back to me right away and forwarded my e-mail on to 3 people on the board, one e-mailed back, one sentence, do not contact this e-mail again. I didn't bother pointing out that I had in fact not contacted that e-mail and it had been forwarded to him, but well done WYS . . .

                      If they had put these kind of protections in place the governor would be more likely to approve return to play.

                      Comment


                        #41
                        Teams from all over Washington trying to play a tournament in North Idaho this weekend. Got cancelled halfway through...for wildfire smoke. 2020 just wont quit.

                        Comment


                          #42
                          Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                          frustrating that they have not taken regionality or cross contact in to account we have several back to back sat sun games on the schedule and they have us going over the mountains for multiple games. Zero reason for eastern WA to be in the league during good times, even less of a reason now.

                          In a logical world they would have done home and away games for each set of teams one weekend then one weekend off. That way if there was a covid issue only 2 teams have to stop, rather than 4 plus, and they would already be well in to their 2 week quarantine without having to miss a game. I know it's not ideal as you want the chance at a re-match later in the season, but it's freaking 2020 do what you gotta do. It's pretty clear they just want to maintain a financial foothold in E. Washington and know if they leave now they probably wont get them back.

                          The way they have it now if someone test positive with covid in an age group it will probably bring the entire division to a halt as all of the teams would have been in contact within 2 weeks.

                          I e-mailed the contact listed on the return to play guidelines if you have any questions. He got back to me right away and forwarded my e-mail on to 3 people on the board, one e-mailed back, one sentence, do not contact this e-mail again. I didn't bother pointing out that I had in fact not contacted that e-mail and it had been forwarded to him, but well done WYS . . .

                          If they had put these kind of protections in place the governor would be more likely to approve return to play.

                          who ever the board member who that replied with this should be outed and shamed. As a club board member myself, I would never reply with that. You are there for a purpose... and that's not the reply.

                          Comment


                            #43
                            Any rumors on progress of opening up youth sports in our state?

                            Comment


                              #44
                              Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                              Any rumors on progress of opening up youth sports in our state?
                              Pure rumor heard from a couple people involved with WYS and PSPL. Inslee is supposed to come out with additional guidance that loosens some restrictions on specific sports. Expect a lot to be allowed for a sport like baseball or softball, a bit more for “mid-contact” sports like lacrosse or softball, things like football or indoor basketball probably still in trouble.

                              Comment


                                #45
                                Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                                Pure rumor heard from a couple people involved with WYS and PSPL. Inslee is supposed to come out with additional guidance that loosens some restrictions on specific sports. Expect a lot to be allowed for a sport like baseball or softball, a bit more for “mid-contact” sports like lacrosse or softball, things like football or indoor basketball probably still in trouble.
                                Soccer has generally been grouped as moderate risk, along with sports like baseball and softball.

                                Comment

                                Previously entered content was automatically saved. Restore or Discard.
                                Auto-Saved
                                x
                                Insert: Thumbnail Small Medium Large Fullsize Remove  
                                x
                                Working...
                                X