Not looking for this to be political. It’s already July, we are a few weeks from training camp. What do you think will happen?
Preseason was cut in half today, no decision has been made on fans. There are a ton of unknowns still.
Do you think we will be watching the Giants play in September? I certainly hope so.
You have offensive lineman who are great athletes, but aren’t at healthy weights and eat massive amounts of food and probably due steroids to keep unhealthy weight on. Those people are more than likely have cardio vascular issues and high cholesterol. They aren’t going to fair well if they get sick.
I would also pose a question of what happens if Saquon and or Daniel Jones gets sick and has some sort of lung damage and can’t get back to their peak athletic form? Does anyone here want to see that happen? Not saying it will, but it’s definitely one of the many scenarios that could happen.
You have offensive lineman who are great athletes, but aren’t at healthy weights and eat massive amounts of food and probably due steroids to keep unhealthy weight on. Those people are more than likely have cardio vascular issues and high cholesterol. They aren’t going to fair well if they get sick.
I would also pose a question of what happens if Saquon and or Daniel Jones gets sick and has some sort of lung damage and can’t get back to their peak athletic form? Does anyone here want to see that happen? Not saying it will, but it’s definitely one of the many scenarios that could happen.
Agree. I want football as much as anyone, but too much unknown with a chance of death.
On a side note, FC Dallas had 6 players today test positive as they are preparing for the MSL opening tournament
This is what I think as well
Quote:
That seems absurdly high.
Its because he's crudely taking JHU deaths (128K) divided by confirmed cases (2.7MM)
Which is obviously an incredibly dumb way to look at it, and universally scientists for months now put this anywhere between 0.2% to 1% ... but hey, people want to be obtuse that's their prerogative.
Why is that an incredibly dumb way to look at it? I don't understand your reasoning. Help me understand.
Yet in Europe, the major soccer leagues (EPL, La Liga, Serie A) were able to restart and in Germany's case, finish their season. They're doing something more effective across the pond
Pfizer hopes for 100 million doses of vaccine by end of 2020 - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 14927736 SFGFNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
That seems absurdly high.
Its because he's crudely taking JHU deaths (128K) divided by confirmed cases (2.7MM)
Which is obviously an incredibly dumb way to look at it, and universally scientists for months now put this anywhere between 0.2% to 1% ... but hey, people want to be obtuse that's their prerogative.
Why is that an incredibly dumb way to look at it? I don't understand your reasoning. Help me understand.
umm... because the ones that actually study this put mortality at 0.2-1.0%, and do you really think less than 1% of the US population by now has been exposed to this virus? The denominator is quite clearly multiples of that.
CHP - thats a dense read, what were their findings from analyzing (a whopping) 37 patients on the long-term lung damage findings?
Look we can always go down a path of worst-case scenarios. I'm sick of people deciding what's best for others - the players have in most cases at best 5-10 year earnings windows... it's up to them. We shouldnt sit here on our work-from-home perches and tell an athlete whether he should make a few million playing this year or sit home and collect unemployment while getting a year older.
Factually, it does appear that young athletes are at higher risk of seasonal flu, a car or other accident, or an onfield ACL tear or major concussion... but again, its their call and I obviously respect their decision, as I have Ryan Zimmerman and Ian Desmond's.
I'm with you in respecting athletes' individual decisions as to what is best for them. The virus presents a murky and still-not-well understood outlook. I wouldn't be surprised to see more conservative decisions being made as we get closer to camps, season.
College football is another story. I don't think it will happen. Maybe in the spring?
The virus presents a murky and still-not-well understood outlook. I wouldn't be surprised to see more conservative decisions being made as we get closer to camps, season.
I think thats likely right, and if we get more optimistic on a vaccine by year-end, then i wouldnt be at all surprised to see the season delayed by 4 months from Sep-Jan to Jan-April this year either.
I would be shocked if a year off actually extended the careers of a lot of these guys
I have doubts on there being a season. In more places than not, the pandemic is not in control. Until it is, going forward with football is going to be problematic, on many levels - legal, financial, political/PR, terms of agreement.
Quote:
In comment 14927660 I am Ninja said:
Quote:
They'll all get the virus, but no one will be sick. Because they're not elderly or orbese or have a pre-existing heart or reapiratory illness. I.e. all the people the world is coming to a standstill for.
You should change your handle to "I am Dumbfuck"
Well I would have put it better but his math holds. There might be outliers - players have also died from car accidents, overdoses, murders, heat exhaustion, etc in the past.
Widermeyers 11:59 post is by far the most political and ridiculous of any of the posts tonight and the reason this thread will be killed soon. Pathetic.
Those are accidents. This would not be.
But this is the epitome of luxury. It's like supporting the choice of driving versus mooring your yacht in a hurricane.
So, what is the acceptable risk for something that is completely superfluous? One death? One amputation? Even lesser, is someone's illness, even without mortality a worthwhile risk so that we can have something to watch on a Sunday? Christians and lions more than groceries and and steel-making.
More and more people are catching it.
In 3 football hotbeds states, Florida, Texas and California, the virus is getting out of control.
The death rate in the USA is about 4.7% (according to Johns Hopkins).
When the death toll really climbs, the bodies start piling up and cities start to rent refrigerator trucks to hold the dead, commonsense will take hold in the NFL and they will cancel the season.
It truly fascinates me that there is a faction of society that still looks at this disease the way you obviously do. My goodness.
Take a step back from your hysteria, breathe, join the real world and look at all the information that is out there. If you still believe after all of that that the real death rate is 4.7%, I hope you find help.
If there is an outbreak on a team:
- the overwhelmingly responsible thing to do is to isolate anyone exposed for a few weeks
- some players will get sick, and even if not hospitalized they won't be playing sports for a few weeks
- all of the support staff and families will be at risk, and that will include vulnerable people
The vast, vast majority of businesses and society can be operated wearing a mask, keeping distance, and taking common sense measures. Playing football doesn't fit.
And I haven't been keeping up with the news on that front.
The study was supported by the National Institute of Health.
The 781,000 total deaths in the United States in the three months through May 30 were about 122,300, or nearly 19% higher, than what would normally be expected, according to the researchers. Of the 122,300 excess deaths, 95,235 were attributed to Covid-19, they said. Most of the rest of the excess deaths, researchers said, were likely related to or directly caused by the coronavirus.
When the numbers get too high and hospital capacity gets too low there are limited options other than stopping things.
On an optimistic note other countries have shown us the way. If we as a society are collectively responsible and capable enough to follow what has worked elsewhere sports can work.
Are you trying to kill the thread? Its completely off-topic and irrelevant to the discussion.
Also, people are making the claim that the season should progress because it's low risk. This is a direct counter to that. Are opposing views inherently irrelevant and off-topic?
Also, people are making the claim that the season should progress because it's low risk. This is a direct counter to that. Are opposing views inherently irrelevant and off-topic?
Where in the article does it say professional athletes are significantly higher than 0.1-0.2% risk? I cant find it, can you provide the specific quote? If it doesnt address the age/population set this thread is discussing then it is completely off-topic and a turns this into yet another broad Covid-discussion and as you know by now thats off limits. Not to mention the article is 6 weeks old so....
and nice try on the personal attack. Its actually you that are intolerant to different views. In your view, a 0.2% risk is unacceptable to the point that you think you alone get to decide what is essential and what isn't, who gets to work and support their families and who must collect unemployment potentially for years (if thats even allowed)..
and who pays for your 'solution'anyway? Are you offering to pay 80% taxes on your wages going forward to pay for it? Curious if you are... if not, then the view is kind of a non-starter.
What we're seeing down here in Texas is crystal clear:
1. When the public doesn't follow the basic guidelines, things can get worse fast
2. There are types of business that by virtue of their business model, can't operate inside the bounds of basic guidelines
Football play and football crowds just don't seem to fit in the band of reasonable activities.
And it's quite counterproductive and selfish to risk the safe activities by being naive about the risky.
Quote:
That's it, in a nutshell.
What we're seeing down here in Texas is crystal clear:
1. When the public doesn't follow the basic guidelines, things can get worse fast
2. There are types of business that by virtue of their business model, can't operate inside the bounds of basic guidelines
Football play and football crowds just don't seem to fit in the band of reasonable activities.
And it's quite counterproductive and selfish to risk the safe activities by being naive about the risky.
Where in Texas? I’m in Austin now..
No way! Austin as well. Moved from Manhattan down here in December.
Quote:
Where in Texas? I’m in Austin now..
No way! Austin as well. Moved from Manhattan down here in December.
Cool. Once this is over (whenever that is, let’s connect)..Email info. 1956giants@gmail.com
This made my day. Absolutely.
I would be shocked if a year off actually extended the careers of a lot of these guys
Maybe a small percent. You are forgetting the fact that every year the NFL drafts over 250 players and adds a bunch more UDFAs. There are only so many roster spots. So many of the guys that would be making a check this year, won't be making one next year. Simple math. The average NFL career is 3.3 years. So for many guys, if they miss a year they miss out on about 30% of their earning potential.
Quote:
It's not political at all.
Also, people are making the claim that the season should progress because it's low risk. This is a direct counter to that. Are opposing views inherently irrelevant and off-topic?
Where in the article does it say professional athletes are significantly higher than 0.1-0.2% risk? I cant find it, can you provide the specific quote? If it doesnt address the age/population set this thread is discussing then it is completely off-topic and a turns this into yet another broad Covid-discussion and as you know by now thats off limits. Not to mention the article is 6 weeks old so....
and nice try on the personal attack. Its actually you that are intolerant to different views. In your view, a 0.2% risk is unacceptable to the point that you think you alone get to decide what is essential and what isn't, who gets to work and support their families and who must collect unemployment potentially for years (if thats even allowed)..
and who pays for your 'solution'anyway? Are you offering to pay 80% taxes on your wages going forward to pay for it? Curious if you are... if not, then the view is kind of a non-starter.
The article directly addressed the dismissal of severity, showing that the worst case scenario numbers are inaccurate. Also, even if the risk of death were actually 0.2%, there are other serious consequences. Again, even if it isn't death, what is the acceptable damage to a person we are willing to risk purely for frivolity?
MAB, you yourself replied to a comment on CFR above my comment on JAMA study. It does not explicitly refer to NFL players, of course. The point is that the incidence of infection and its effects are still so poorly understood and agreed upon--never mind any intention to mischaracterize these--that these factors will inevitably come into play for players and NFL owners and decision makers, even if a bit obfuscated. Not sure why you're up in arms about this.
To wit, 'how do you see the NFL season going' will depend on how the NFL sees the virus.
How the NFL would approach things is very different if you are talking getting sick vs risking dying. All the sports should try to move ahead, and adjust as need be. If they have to shut it down then they do. No one can really predict. Training camps WILL open, then we will see.
The problem is how contagious this is, thankfully, not how virulent it is or we would be screwed.
It’s been projected that 70!% of the people on the planet may eventually be infected (without a vaccine). (from the WHO, don’t kill the messenger here). Using even a 0.5% death rate, that’s 40+ million dead.
That’s the scary part.
- Are the at-risk populations associated with the teams safely guarded (coaches, doctors etc.)
- Are the at-risk populations in the personal lives of payers safely guarded
- Will all players exposed to an outbreak be quarantined for 2 weeks
- Can a team function if there is outbreak and some of their players are impacted across the normal spectrum: sick > very sick > critically sick
Again, virtually all business and functions can be open with reasonable protections. Football falls outside of that.
Unfortunately the antibody tests have lots of false-positives (and false-negatives), so there's no telling the percentage of people who've had it.
- Are the at-risk populations associated with the teams safely guarded (coaches, doctors etc.)
- Are the at-risk populations in the personal lives of payers safely guarded
- Will all players exposed to an outbreak be quarantined for 2 weeks
- Can a team function if there is outbreak and some of their players are impacted across the normal spectrum: sick > very sick > critically sick
Again, virtually all business and functions can be open with reasonable protections. Football falls outside of that.
But what 'mortality risk' leaves out are the as yet unquantifiable medium- and longer-term risks of contracting covid, from ground glass opacity in the lungs (impairment), CNS effects (as yet infrequent but documented, and impossible to know), kidney damage, CV impacts. These then, imo, shift risk/benefit equation away from accepting the risks.
Bottom line, I agree, football falls outside the range of risks one would or should accept unquestioned.
Not to mention that the clades of virus continue to shift, with unknown consequences.
Since that's the next significant event to occur.
I have yet to hear what the NFL plans to do in these cases. It seems inevitable. The NFL season doesn't hinge on the death rate of the virus but on how they plan around teams getting hit with the virus.
Quote:
The fixation on the mortality risk of players is weird and it’s such a small part of the equation. More important factors:
- Are the at-risk populations associated with the teams safely guarded (coaches, doctors etc.)
- Are the at-risk populations in the personal lives of payers safely guarded
- Will all players exposed to an outbreak be quarantined for 2 weeks
- Can a team function if there is outbreak and some of their players are impacted across the normal spectrum: sick > very sick > critically sick
Again, virtually all business and functions can be open with reasonable protections. Football falls outside of that.
christian, I think the perspective is spot on but your formulation is a bit off: Mortality risk may be such a small part of the equation, but if that is true, then the risk/benefit might shift toward accepting the risks presented in the balance of your post.
The mortality risk for the demographic of most players might be low, but the risks for others in their immediate sphere of contact is the same as the general population.
The players aren’t dumb. You’re already seeing examples of players not wanting to put their immediate contacts at risk. Practicing, traveling, and playing football games are all pretty good ways to not avoid infection.
And to your point of health risks short of death — I completely agree. Their bodies are their careers, without knowing the medium and long term impacts of getting sick, I suspect their will be a portion who stay off the field. Especially for the super stars who are wildly rich, why risk it?
But I think the most practical factor is if a team has a small outbreak, game over. How are you going to function if 3 offensive lineman (who are meeting, practicing, and socializing) get sick. Players are going to get held out for being infected, not just being in the ICU.
I have yet to hear what the NFL plans to do in these cases. It seems inevitable. The NFL season doesn't hinge on the death rate of the virus but on how they plan around teams getting hit with the virus.
There’s already a pandemic clause that allows them to pull up practice squad players at a moments notice, they might expand that but it sounds like if a team gets hit hard, that’s just their tough luck.
Quote:
Lets say the Giants are playing this Sunday and on Thursday they get around 10-12 positive tests. What happens? Those guys can't play? What happens to the schedule? How do you move forward in the 2-3 weeks those players need to isolate?
I have yet to hear what the NFL plans to do in these cases. It seems inevitable. The NFL season doesn't hinge on the death rate of the virus but on how they plan around teams getting hit with the virus.
There’s already a pandemic clause that allows them to pull up practice squad players at a moments notice, they might expand that but it sounds like if a team gets hit hard, that’s just their tough luck.
They will definitely need to do that and more. Look at Clemson, they had 28 players get the virus. An NFL team cannot play, probably for multiple weeks, if they get anywhere near that many positive tests.