Covid and Soccer

[Unregistered]

none

That’s not how averages work. To get the average you add week one to week 2 and divide by two to get the two week average. We may have had 120 2 weeks ago and 40 this week, but that’s also why we do a rolling average and not specific weeks.

All states measure infection rates and worry about sufficient hospital capacity. I would also be ok not modeling off of California a state who is struggling to get control of the virus.

First, WA reports an absolute number of 80 cases per 100k for 2 weeks - it's not a weekly rate, it's not an average itself. It's the number of cases over 2 weeks. The 1 week average is 40. That is how averages work. One week could have been 60 and the other 20, but sorry, your example is wrong as it would mean WA had a 2 week case load of 160 cases per 100k over 14 days.

Second, obviously everyone measures infection rates and I didn't claim they didn't. NYT's tracks them in the links sent previously. I said, many states appear to not use infection rate as a metric for reopening (ie allowing youth sports) and certainly not an infection rate as low as 25 cases per 100k over 14 days that I have seen. Also, I said California's metrics for allowing youth soccer does include infection rate, but appears to include an infection rate twice that of WA's phase 3 -- about 54 cases per 100k for 2 weeks (extrapolating 3.9 cases per day whereas WA rate would amount to 1.78 cases per 100k PER DAY for 2 weeks.)
-
I did not say we should follow California's lead, only stated it as an observation (54 cases per 100k is achievable in WA, but 25 is not going to happen any time soon.)
-
I do think it's worth discussing what is an appropriate metric and rate for allowing youth soccer, and curious where our Governor came up with 25 cases per 100k over 14 days. Just a question.

[Unregistered]

As a Midwesterner by birth I drift to sanguinity and pragmatism. It's also interesting to note that until recently Washington state also had a split government. More importantly there's a reason for reporting two week rolling averages and displaying data logarithmically. In my mind the largest problem has been the national response, instead letting states blindly try to figure out the best course of action.

I think I'm beginning to recognize the heart of the conflict which is you are arguing for the individual and I am arguing for the community. Each of the players that tested positive and who knows how many asymptomatic people has a family and likely (though as there's no widespread test or contact tracing we can't sure) spread it within their community.

And yes, despite the fact that this is a novel disease there has been studies showing this is worse than the flu on many levels. Swollen hearts just being one of them.

https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2020...5451595856303/
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-pers...id-19-patients

We obviously don't know the long term implications because this virus has been around for less than a year. And despite that we're rounding 200,000 deaths in the US and many more than that with possible long term effects many of which are only now coming into focus. And I suppose that's where my sanguinity ends, where I debate this issue on an anonymous soccer board because I love soccer and my son loves soccer and I love my community. Opening backup before we know the effects is fool hardy! Heck the schedule has 3 rivers playing in it. They are in phase 1.

I think we are both arguing for the community, rather than just the individual. And I 100% agree that the lack of a coordinated, competent and consistent national response has been our biggest problem. My reading of the data is that WA is in at least as good and in some cases much better shape than other places that have moved further towards reopening both schools and youth sports, and have done so without significant problems. I pointed to MN, but could as easily have said Colorado, Utah, New Jersey, or any number of states and countries that have had a serious, careful approach to the virus (I wouldn’t put TX, Fla or GA in that category). You seem to shrug aside the community impacts of shutting down schools, sports and other aspects of the economy and overall life, but those are both relatively obvious and severe— depression, increased risk of suicides, lost earning capacity with missed school, increased alcoholism and drug abuse, lifelong adverse health and economic consequences for those who drop school or sports earlier than they otherwise would. For Covid, there’s a lot we still don’t know, but we do know (a) shut downs were initially justified as needed to avoid hospital burden and death, and both hospitalizations and deaths in WA are now and have been for months very, very low despite increasingly high levels of activity in many sectors of the economy and among the substantial subset of the population that believes the whole thing is a hoax or conspiracy; (b) many people infected with the virus (SARS-Cov-2) do not get sick (Covid-19), most who get sick don’t get very sick, and hardly anyone under 40 gets very sick (but those who do get very sick often die, and the rate of sickness and death increasing dramatically after 60 and with comorbidities)— for the young, the flu may be a significantly worse threat (like multiples of the number of deaths worse), but that’s because influenza is really bad, not a reason for concluding Covid isn’t also a significant problem that should be addressed carefully even among the young (c) a LOT of the positive test results that are uniformly counted as “cases” and keeping us from reaching reopening thresholds are, in fact, picking up dead strands of the virus in people who are no longer infectious (and may never have been), and because we aren’t distinguishing between those positive results that are and aren’t infectious we aren’t effectively enduring isolation and contact tracing for those that are (while clearing as quickly as possible those that aren’t). My conclusion from all that is that we should be opening more and sooner, and that conclusion is not based on a disregard for community wellbeing in favor of individual rights or the serious issues posed by the virus.

[Unregistered]

At this point I think it is fair to say the season will for sure not start on the normal starting date lol. Perhaps we can look forward to a later start date with a longer season or a shorter more compact season, double headers or 2 games per weekend.

[Unregistered]

I think we are both arguing for the community, rather than just the individual. And I 100% agree that the lack of a coordinated, competent and consistent national response has been our biggest problem. My reading of the data is that WA is in at least as good and in some cases much better shape than other places that have moved further towards reopening both schools and youth sports, and have done so without significant problems. I pointed to MN, but could as easily have said Colorado, Utah, New Jersey, or any number of states and countries that have had a serious, careful approach to the virus (I wouldn’t put TX, Fla or GA in that category). You seem to shrug aside the community impacts of shutting down schools, sports and other aspects of the economy and overall life, but those are both relatively obvious and severe— depression, increased risk of suicides, lost earning capacity with missed school, increased alcoholism and drug abuse, lifelong adverse health and economic consequences for those who drop school or sports earlier than they otherwise would. For Covid, there’s a lot we still don’t know, but we do know (a) shut downs were initially justified as needed to avoid hospital burden and death, and both hospitalizations and deaths in WA are now and have been for months very, very low despite increasingly high levels of activity in many sectors of the economy and among the substantial subset of the population that believes the whole thing is a hoax or conspiracy; (b) many people infected with the virus (SARS-Cov-2) do not get sick (Covid-19), most who get sick don’t get very sick, and hardly anyone under 40 gets very sick (but those who do get very sick often die, and the rate of sickness and death increasing dramatically after 60 and with comorbidities)— for the young, the flu may be a significantly worse threat (like multiples of the number of deaths worse), but that’s because influenza is really bad, not a reason for concluding Covid isn’t also a significant problem that should be addressed carefully even among the young (c) a LOT of the positive test results that are uniformly counted as “cases” and keeping us from reaching reopening thresholds are, in fact, picking up dead strands of the virus in people who are no longer infectious (and may never have been), and because we aren’t distinguishing between those positive results that are and aren’t infectious we aren’t effectively enduring isolation and contact tracing for those that are (while clearing as quickly as possible those that aren’t). My conclusion from all that is that we should be opening more and sooner, and that conclusion is not based on a disregard for community wellbeing in favor of individual rights or the serious issues posed by the virus.

i completely agree with this very long, one paragraph soliloquy.

Shorter sentences with bullets would be greatly appreciated please!

[Unregistered]

I think we are both arguing for the community, rather than just the individual. And I 100% agree that the lack of a coordinated, competent and consistent national response has been our biggest problem. My reading of the data is that WA is in at least as good and in some cases much better shape than other places that have moved further towards reopening both schools and youth sports, and have done so without significant problems. I pointed to MN, but could as easily have said Colorado, Utah, New Jersey, or any number of states and countries that have had a serious, careful approach to the virus (I wouldn’t put TX, Fla or GA in that category). You seem to shrug aside the community impacts of shutting down schools, sports and other aspects of the economy and overall life, but those are both relatively obvious and severe— depression, increased risk of suicides, lost earning capacity with missed school, increased alcoholism and drug abuse, lifelong adverse health and economic consequences for those who drop school or sports earlier than they otherwise would. For Covid, there’s a lot we still don’t know, but we do know (a) shut downs were initially justified as needed to avoid hospital burden and death, and both hospitalizations and deaths in WA are now and have been for months very, very low despite increasingly high levels of activity in many sectors of the economy and among the substantial subset of the population that believes the whole thing is a hoax or conspiracy; (b) many people infected with the virus (SARS-Cov-2) do not get sick (Covid-19), most who get sick don’t get very sick, and hardly anyone under 40 gets very sick (but those who do get very sick often die, and the rate of sickness and death increasing dramatically after 60 and with comorbidities)— for the young, the flu may be a significantly worse threat (like multiples of the number of deaths worse), but that’s because influenza is really bad, not a reason for concluding Covid isn’t also a significant problem that should be addressed carefully even among the young (c) a LOT of the positive test results that are uniformly counted as “cases” and keeping us from reaching reopening thresholds are, in fact, picking up dead strands of the virus in people who are no longer infectious (and may never have been), and because we aren’t distinguishing between those positive results that are and aren’t infectious we aren’t effectively enduring isolation and contact tracing for those that are (while clearing as quickly as possible those that aren’t). My conclusion from all that is that we should be opening more and sooner, and that conclusion is not based on a disregard for community wellbeing in favor of individual rights or the serious issues posed by the virus.

The minnesotan is right, those arguing with him are dumb.

[Unregistered]

I think we are both arguing for the community, rather than just the individual. And I 100% agree that the lack of a coordinated, competent and consistent national response has been our biggest problem. My reading of the data is that WA is in at least as good and in some cases much better shape than other places that have moved further towards reopening both schools and youth sports, and have done so without significant problems. I pointed to MN, but could as easily have said Colorado, Utah, New Jersey, or any number of states and countries that have had a serious, careful approach to the virus (I wouldn’t put TX, Fla or GA in that category). You seem to shrug aside the community impacts of shutting down schools, sports and other aspects of the economy and overall life, but those are both relatively obvious and severe— depression, increased risk of suicides, lost earning capacity with missed school, increased alcoholism and drug abuse, lifelong adverse health and economic consequences for those who drop school or sports earlier than they otherwise would. For Covid, there’s a lot we still don’t know, but we do know (a) shut downs were initially justified as needed to avoid hospital burden and death, and both hospitalizations and deaths in WA are now and have been for months very, very low despite increasingly high levels of activity in many sectors of the economy and among the substantial subset of the population that believes the whole thing is a hoax or conspiracy; (b) many people infected with the virus (SARS-Cov-2) do not get sick (Covid-19), most who get sick don’t get very sick, and hardly anyone under 40 gets very sick (but those who do get very sick often die, and the rate of sickness and death increasing dramatically after 60 and with comorbidities)— for the young, the flu may be a significantly worse threat (like multiples of the number of deaths worse), but that’s because influenza is really bad, not a reason for concluding Covid isn’t also a significant problem that should be addressed carefully even among the young (c) a LOT of the positive test results that are uniformly counted as “cases” and keeping us from reaching reopening thresholds are, in fact, picking up dead strands of the virus in people who are no longer infectious (and may never have been), and because we aren’t distinguishing between those positive results that are and aren’t infectious we aren’t effectively enduring isolation and contact tracing for those that are (while clearing as quickly as possible those that aren’t). My conclusion from all that is that we should be opening more and sooner, and that conclusion is not based on a disregard for community wellbeing in favor of individual rights or the serious issues posed by the virus.

I can only speak to Utah in your list, but my teacher friends there who had positive tests in their school and had whole grades disrupted would disagree with you. They have absolutely opened up too soon and too fast. Opening up too soon, which was certainly the case for many states, will have it's own impacts on substance abuse, depression, productivity, and lifetime income potential even for those that don't die or go to the hospital. So no, I'm not shrugging that off.

The study that was done, many if not most of the people who suffered heart damage did not need to go to the hospital. If you'd like, I can throw in a few studies on lung scarring, which also occurs with alarming frequency. I'm in no way diminishing the effects of isolation but it's preferable to death or long term damage. We are screwed either way, I think the course that WA is taking is showing that our way leads to better results faster. In your list you need to consider R--the basic reproduction ratio--which is still above 0 or too close to it for my liking in your list of well these people seem mostly ok. Death is bad but is not the only outcome and opening up too much too soon is going to lead to a lot of pain regardless of how many hospital beds are occupied.

[Unregistered]

In your list you need to consider R--the basic reproduction ratio--which is still above 0 or too close to it for my liking in your list of well these people seem mostly ok.

Should read above 1.

[Unregistered]

[QUOTE=Unregistered;2842055]First, WA reports an absolute number of 80 cases per 100k for 2 weeks - it's not a weekly rate, it's not an average itself. It's the number of cases over 2 weeks. The 1 week average is 40. That is how averages work. One week could have been 60 and the other 20, but sorry, your example is wrong as it would mean WA had a 2 week case load of 160 cases per 100k over 14 days.

Appreciate your other points but with all respect that's not how they are calculating that number. From the website:

"This measure tracks the trend in reported cases by population size. It is calculated by dividing the number of cases with a specimen collection date during a two week period by the population in the county or state and then multiplying by 100,000."

[Unregistered]

Should read above 1.

King County had R at .6 a week ago, and case counts (despite their apparent flaws, given the very high number of PCR positives with ct>33 they are no longer infectious per Prof Mina at Harvard, Prof Heneghan at Oxford, German public health authority, etc) have continued to improve.

https://public.tableau.com/views/Key...:showVizHome=n

[Unregistered]

King County had R at .6 a week ago, and case counts (despite their apparent flaws, given the very high number of PCR positives with ct>33 they are no longer infectious per Prof Mina at Harvard, Prof Heneghan at Oxford, German public health authority, etc) have continued to improve.

https://public.tableau.com/views/Key...:showVizHome=n

And that is great news! Unfortunately, what's being advocated isn't a regional approach it's a cart blanch reopening of the schedule regardless of where people are in the state/states. Many of whom do not have such favorable numbers. Three rivers soccer club is not as lucky to be in our region.

[Unregistered]

And that is great news! Unfortunately, what's being advocated isn't a regional approach it's a cart blanch reopening of the schedule regardless of where people are in the state/states. Many of whom do not have such favorable numbers. Three rivers soccer club is not as lucky to be in our region.

all in favor of kicking 3Rivers out of RCL?

[Unregistered]

all in favor of kicking 3Rivers out of RCL?

Aye, pain in the ass pre covid.

[Unregistered]

And that is great news! Unfortunately, what's being advocated isn't a regional approach it's a cart blanch reopening of the schedule regardless of where people are in the state/states. Many of whom do not have such favorable numbers. Three rivers soccer club is not as lucky to be in our region.

We could at least start by allowing our pods to scrimmage one another within each club and play a bit of 11v11. If no issues after a couple weeks, go from there.

[Unregistered]

We could at least start by allowing our pods to scrimmage one another within each club and play a bit of 11v11. If no issues after a couple weeks, go from there.

That I think, even in my caution, I could get behind. Unfortunately, It's not what WYS is pushing for despite the fact there's zero data supporting it being a safe idea (and plenty showing it does increase spread once teams start playing each other.)

[Unregistered]

Should be a great excuse to go super-regional which is exactly what youth soccer in WA needs, but then we can't keep selling mom and dad that their kid is in the BESTEST OF THE BESTEST SUPER ELITE PREMIER LEAGUE!1!!!1!