Posts moved from the Football Forum (Split)

[VolGirl05]

Your presumption is wrong lol, I too was laid off (worked for a University after graduating the year before with my MPH). People are going to catch COVID yes. We do need to MINIMIZE spread though. Until a vaccine has been developed and administered.

There is a reason why other countries have done so well with this. Not everything is some big media conspiracy. Wear a damn mask, edit your routine a bit, and yes it will be inconvenient. Suck it up and deal with it for a bit and we will be better off in the long run.

Look I am clearly a sports fan as well. But sports are not that important in the grand scheme of a pandemic.

Then at what point will our "public health" (whatever that is...I'm responsible for my health and my immune system) officials start teaching the public how to minimize their risk of COVID infection by fixing whatever was wrong with their immune system in the first place? If getting Vitamin D levels into normal range alone can decrease the risk of coronavirus exposure leading to COVID infection by as much as 50%, and reducing insulin resistance, and balancing blood sugars, and eliminating other pathogens in the gut, and increasing gram-positive/probiotic bacteria in the body, and avoiding processed or refined manmade "foods" that lead to inflammation and disease, etc etc etc etc, are the specific things that *actually* reduce infection rate for not only this pathogen but ALL of them and the ones that aren't even here yet...why don't we just take care of that and get back to life?

 

[MontyPython]

Oh, sure, Clay. A bunch of 19 and 20 year olds are gonna stand up to the UT Chancellor and tell him "No, we are concerned about our heath and spreading the virus."

Dipsh*t.

 

[zaqhhh]

Then at what point will our "public health" (whatever that is...I'm responsible for my health and my immune system) officials start teaching the public how to minimize their risk of COVID infection by fixing whatever was wrong with their immune system in the first place? If getting Vitamin D levels into normal range alone can decrease the risk of coronavirus exposure leading to COVID infection by as much as 50%, and reducing insulin resistance, and balancing blood sugars, and eliminating other pathogens in the gut, and increasing gram-positive/probiotic bacteria in the body, and avoiding processed or refined manmade "foods" that lead to inflammation and disease, etc etc etc etc, are the specific things that *actually* reduce infection rate for not only this pathogen but ALL of them and the ones that aren't even here yet...why don't we just take care of that and get back to life?

Oh trust me you can open a can of worms conversations about how we need preventative healthcare, universal coverage, etc.

And yes Americans have vastly worse diets than many developed nations.

The problem is even if we said that, how many people will listen? How many will say "I don't care what they say, this is America and I do what I want."

This is why we have to rely on mandates from government and corporate America.

 

[sjt18]

To start off I studied Public Health for 6 years and have my Masters in it. But let's forget about that because this is common sense.

Then you should be much more careful with extreme overreactions than you apparently are.

We have 163k deaths and many active cases in this country.

Most of those "deaths" were end of life patients that were unable to handle a virus that doctors did not yet know how to treat. AS a Public Health educated individual... you should know the demographics on this virus say it does not pose a significant health risk to those under 40... or under 70 if in relatively good health. The numbers are right there on CDC's website to prove this.

I personally believe the Stanford professor and others that say the actual number of infections is 10 to 20 times greater than the confirmed cases. That factor is probably dropping due to increased testing. But what that means is the virus was NEVER as deadly as some claimed.

Now common sense dictates, more contact=more cases. More cases=more deaths.

Did you even think about that for a second before writing it? The virus is and has spread... PRECISELY as deaths have dropped off significantly. More cases only means more deaths if those likely to die from it... get it. Developing herd immunity to even a partial extent among those with very low risk of a severe infection... will NOT create more deaths.

You need to step away from your conclusion and look at the facts lying in front of you.

Even if you consider that these are younger adults, they have parents and grandparents who raise them and they constantly interact with. Not to mention fans.

So rather than protecting the elderly with air filtration, masks when visiting them, masks or clean oxygen sources for them during visits, and other protective measures... we should put the entire populace in masks and essentially cancel everything?

You have that exactly backwards. Let's place our effort and resources into protecting the vulnerable rather than the idiocy being proposed.

Testing while it definitely helps isnt 100% accurate, therefore even if they test negative...They could still very well be spreading it.

OK. Prove that. Prove that non-symptomatic people with or without masks are spreading the virus and at the same or higher rate than symptomatic people. Please don't post conjecture or anecdotal arguments. Post the study that shows asymptomatic people are spreading the virus.

I am sure you are aware that a WHO rep announced a few weeks back that a review of contact traces from around the world found no definite transmission between any infected person and an asymptomatic carrier. They concluded it rarely or never happens. Under pressure, they walked that back and said they weren't as sure about "pre-symptomatic" cases. But the evidence seems to suggest that those without symptoms aren't nearly as likely to spread it if they do so at all. And again, for virtually all of these young people it is pretty much indistinguishable from the flu or another nasty virus... if that.

The only study I have seen that attempted to prove it could be spread outside came from China. They reviewed contact traces and found NO evidence of outdoors transmission.

Considering your education, that should make a ton of sense. A significant viral load has to be experienced before a healthy person's immune system is overcome. Since we don't actually know if a non-symptomatic Covid positive person exhales the virus to any significant level... We would need PROOF that playing an outdoor game with outdoor fans... is inherently unsafe. The people most in danger of getting Covid watching a Vols game... are probably those who go to a sports bar that has recycled air for HVAC. Not only can they get air recycled from anyone who is there... the virus may find a place to grow on HVAC filters and then be blown across the whole building.

 

[zaqhhh]

The
Them playing will DECREASE their social activity and we shouldn't worry about them if they do get it because THEY WILL NOT DIE

THERE IS NO DATA SUGGESTING THEY ARE AT ANY RISK OF DYING.

They literally have more risk of dying in a car accident, getting murdered, SUICIDE and the seasonal FLU.

It IS a social activity.
The vast majority will not but a few likely will. And if more of them get it, more of them will spread it to people who will.

And among those who don't, we have no idea what the long term implications of the virus are.

 

[JohnnyJava]

I think the decision will be made by the lawyers on the liability issues.

You might well be right. I wonder though how covid-19 is fundamentally different, from a liability standpoint, from CTE or any other football liability.

 

[zaqhhh]

Then you should be much more careful with extreme overreactions than you apparently are.

Most of those "deaths" were end of life patients that were unable to handle a virus that doctors did not yet know how to treat. AS a Public Health educated individual... you should know the demographics on this virus say it does not pose a significant health risk to those under 40... or under 70 if in relatively good health. The numbers are right there on CDC's website to prove this.

I personally believe the Stanford professor and others that say the actual number of infections is 10 to 20 times greater than the confirmed cases. That factor is probably dropping due to increased testing. But what that means is the virus was NEVER as deadly as some claimed.

Did you even think about that for a second before writing it? The virus is and has spread... PRECISELY as deaths have dropped off significantly. More cases only means more deaths if those likely to die from it... get it. Developing herd immunity to even a partial extent among those with very low risk of a severe infection... will NOT create more deaths.

You need to step away from your conclusion and look at the facts lying in front of you.

So rather than protecting the elderly with air filtration, masks when visiting them, masks or clean oxygen sources for them during visits, and other protective measures... we should put the entire populace in masks and essentially cancel everything?

You have that exactly backwards. Let's place our effort and resources into protecting the vulnerable rather than the idiocy being proposed.


OK. Prove that. Prove that non-symptomatic people with or without masks are spreading the virus and at the same or higher rate than symptomatic people. Please don't post conjecture or anecdotal arguments. Post the study that shows asymptomatic people are spreading the virus.

I am sure you are aware that a WHO rep announced a few weeks back that a review of contact traces from around the world found no definite transmission between any infected person and an asymptomatic carrier. They concluded it rarely or never happens. Under pressure, they walked that back and said they weren't as sure about "pre-symptomatic" cases. But the evidence seems to suggest that those without symptoms aren't nearly as likely to spread it if they do so at all. And again, for virtually all of these young people it is pretty much indistinguishable from the flu or another nasty virus... if that.

The only study I have seen that attempted to prove it could be spread outside came from China. They reviewed contact traces and found NO evidence of outdoors transmission.

Considering your education, that should make a ton of sense. A significant viral load has to be experienced before a healthy person's immune system is overcome. Since we don't actually know if a non-symptomatic Covid positive person exhales the virus to any significant level... We would need PROOF that playing an outdoor game with outdoor fans... is inherently unsafe. The people most in danger of getting Covid watching a Vols game... are probably those who go to a sports bar that has recycled air for HVAC. Not only can they get air recycled from anyone who is there... the virus may find a place to grow on HVAC filters and then be blown across the whole building.

Look you threw a lot out here, some of it valid but some of it not.

I won't go point by point as I'm juggling 10 conversations.

You say the cases are likely higher, some of the people who agree with you say its lower. I'll say I agree that its likely higher which yes does mean its less deadly but still it has accounted for so many deaths.

Yes it affects older people much worse, I 100% agree.

But when young people get more of it, it inevitably leads to older people who are susceptible dying in greater numbers.

And we have no clue what the long term implications of young people getting it.

 

[sjt18]

It IS a social activity.
The vast majority will not but a few likely will. And if more of them get it, more of them will spread it to people who will.

And among those who don't, we have no idea what the long term implications of the virus are.

So are you saying the 200K to 500K people who have died as a direct or indirect result of the flu should have resulted in shutting our society down already?

 

[norrislakevol]

Your presumption is wrong lol, I too was laid off (worked for a University after graduating the year before with my MPH). People are going to catch COVID yes. We do need to MINIMIZE spread though. Until a vaccine has been developed and administered.

There is a reason why other countries have done so well with this. Not everything is some big media conspiracy. Wear a damn mask, edit your routine a bit, and yes it will be inconvenient. Suck it up and deal with it for a bit and we will be better off in the long run.

Look I am clearly a sports fan as well. But sports are not that important in the grand scheme of a pandemic.

A vaccine is likely not going to be very effective. Still need to wait on that before living our lives normally?

 

[zaqhhh]

A vaccine is likely not going to be very effective. Still need to wait on that before living our lives normally?

Source? Why would it not be?

 

[Pride85]

Well, many of the vaccine being developed for the prevention of Covid-19 are what Are known as RNA vaccines which are not grown in egg cells. There are no RNA vaccines currently in use or approved for use. That is why it takes months or years to develop safe and effective vaccines. Being a novel virus, vaccine trials for this virus are even more important. One does not yet know the efficacy of theses new vaccine or the duration of antibodies which may be produced by RNA vaccines. We all hope these vaccines will be safe and effective, but no one knows if they do until the new vaccines have been throughly tested.

Again, any of these vaccines require a functioning immune system to work. If your immune system is compromised, the vaccine will not help that person. It will help those with a healthy immune system develop antibodies and differentiated t-cells quicker and make the infection cycle faster. The same mechanism as the flu shot. I really don't understand why it would matter to you if the origin of the virus components was egg cell incubation. With the destroyed virus, there is little chance for an infection.
Kudos for using RNA in your description. COVID-19 is an RNA virus. The little bugger likes to reprogram your bodies DNA to make replicates of itself. Kinda creepy, yeah?

 

[sjt18]

Look you threw a lot out here, some of it valid but some of it not.

I think most of the others would be patient enough to let you answer what I posted.

You say the cases are likely higher, some of the people who agree with you say its lower. I'll say I agree that its likely higher which yes does mean its less deadly but still it has accounted for so many deaths.

But that's the thing. It has NOT "accounted for so many deaths". It is largely at worst an aggravating or secondary cause for end of life patients and people with significant health issues.

There are VERY rare occasions when otherwise healthy people get it and die. But if we are going to let statistical anomalies dictate our lives... where exactly does that madness end?

But when young people get more of it, it inevitably leads to older people who are susceptible dying in greater numbers.

Under the current ideas to control the virus... maybe. But there is MORE than enough proof that this doesn't have to be the case AND we can figure out how to protect the old and restore their quality of life. NY's HORRIBLE policies resulted in mass nursing home deaths. This was also the thing that caused Sweden's response to look worse than it should have. In MO, about half of all fatalities have been in individuals over 80... however nursing home residents appear to have a lower infection and death rate than those outside of nursing homes.

You can protect these populations without destroying the quality of life for everyone else. I listed some other ways to help keep them safe in an earlier post.

And we have no clue what the long term implications of young people getting it.

Well, for most, we know that they don't even realize they have or have had it. For most it is milder than the flu. There are some known risks for lung damage due to severe cases but again young people have a much lower incidence of the virus.

How long do you want to wait before returning to lives worth living? Is there a point before young people of today die of old age when we will KNOW what implications might be?

Like with anything else that we are actually RATIONAL and ADULT about... we run tests and look for evidence of damage then mitigate any long term damage. The price you seem to want exact for "safety" is TOO high for such a limited and temporary pay back.

 

[sjt18]

unds

We understand (generally) the long term implications of the flu.

We won't know the long term implications maybe for decades... so no life until then?

And the flu is something we deal with every year. A new virus which we don't fully understand killing tens of thousands of people? Absolutely warrants a shutdown.

No it doesn't and never did. FAR more people will have their lives shortened and die deaths of despair than would have died due to not shutting down. In fact, there really isn't any evidence that the shutdowns saved any lives... nor was that the purpose we were given. The shutdown was supposedly designed to prevent overtaxing our resources. We now know that to the extent it was going to happen it DID happen in NYC in spite of the shut down... AND that it did not overwhelm our resources even in NYC. You can argue that this is hindsight... but the shutdown was not necessary for the purpose given.

 

[zaqhhh]

I think most of the others would be patient enough to let you answer what I posted.

But that's the thing. It has NOT "accounted for so many deaths". It is largely at worst an aggravating or secondary cause for end of life patients and people with significant health issues.

There are VERY rare occasions when otherwise healthy people get it and die. But if we are going to let statistical anomalies dictate our lives... where exactly does that madness end?

Under the current ideas to control the virus... maybe. But there is MORE than enough proof that this doesn't have to be the case AND we can figure out how to protect the old and restore their quality of life. NY's HORRIBLE policies resulted in mass nursing home deaths. This was also the thing that caused Sweden's response to look worse than it should have. In MO, about half of all fatalities have been in individuals over 80... however nursing home residents appear to have a lower infection and death rate than those outside of nursing homes.

You can protect these populations without destroying the quality of life for everyone else. I listed some other ways to help keep them safe in an earlier post.

Well, for most, we know that they don't even realize they have or have had it. For most it is milder than the flu. There are some known risks for lung damage due to severe cases but again young people have a much lower incidence of the virus.

How long do you want to wait before returning to lives worth living? Is there a point before young people of today die of old age when we will KNOW what implications might be?

Like with anything else that we are actually RATIONAL and ADULT about... we run tests and look for evidence of damage then mitigate any long term damage. The price you seem to want exact for "safety" is TOO high for such a limited and temporary pay back.

I agree with most of what you are saying. And yes you are right to say that NY's handling was wrong in that instance and that better protocols be put into place.

I will reply to your how long must we wait answer. A vaccine if we do it right and don't rush it should be effective and ready by early next year and be able to administered to a significant proportion of the population by mid 2021.

At that point, while there will still be risks...we can significantly drawback restrictions.

 

[VolsAgainstTheWorld15]

Source? Why would it not be?

To my knowledge we've never made a vaccine that eradicated a coronavirus or even come close. Even the influenza vaccine was only 45% effective in the 19-20 flu season I believe. Assuming roughly the same effectiveness in the covid vaccine, this virus still be prevalent even if every US citizen gets vaccinated (definitely not going to happen).

 

[norrislakevol]

Source? Why would it not be?

Dr. Fouci. 50 to 75 percent effectiveness rate at best. Just like the annual flu shot that a lot of people complain about not working.

 

[zaqhhh]

But the point is they will practically only be in contact with the same people, who will be monitored rigorously and tested several times a week.

If they do not have that, they will socially distance less back home.
Trevor Lawrence and others have said as much.
Obviously they really want to play so I am sure they will try extra hard to limit contact with ople outside the team.

Thats why when poeple returned to campus so many tested positive. Because they were hanging out with a lot of people! Just saw a college basketball player post a video on instagram of him at a wedding with like 60 people and nobody had masks on.

Some will, some won't. I have seen videos of students returning to college campuses and having parties and fights already and my local college just moved people in this weekend.

Some are working hard and socially distancing, some are not. So now we throw those who are and those who aren't together and let's guess what will happen.

I agree that many will ignore it whether they will there or not, but we are putting additional people at risk by allowing it to go forward.

 

[VolsAgainstTheWorld15]

I agree with most of what you are saying. And yes you are right to say that NY's handling was wrong in that instance and that better protocols be put into place.

I will reply to your how long must we wait answer. A vaccine if we do it right and don't rush it should be effective and ready by early next year and be able to administered to a significant proportion of the population by mid 2021.

At that point, while there will still be risks...we can significantly drawback restrictions.

So you're suggesting a shut down until mid 2021?

 

[zaqhhh]

We won't know the long term implications maybe for decades... so no life until then?


No it doesn't and never did. FAR more people will have their lives shortened and die deaths of despair than would have died due to not shutting down. In fact, there really isn't any evidence that the shutdowns saved any lives... nor was that the purpose we were given. The shutdown was supposedly designed to prevent overtaxing our resources. We now know that to the extent it was going to happen it DID happen in NYC in spite of the shut down... AND that it did not overwhelm our resources even in NYC. You can argue that this is hindsight... but the shutdown was not necessary for the purpose given.

Shutdowns definitely helped with flattening the curve.

Lets remember DeSantis in Florida touting not shutting down only to be hit with the worst numbers in the country for a period of time.

That saved thousands of lives.

 

[zaqhhh]

So you're suggesting a shut down until mid 2021?

It depends on what you define as shutdown. If we have a mask mandate/social distancing, restaurants and stores can remain open perfectly fine.

Schools with reduced capacity even.

Contact Sports? Yeah Id shut those down until then.

 

[sonofUT62]

Dr. Fouci. 50 to 75 percent effectiveness rate at best. Just like the annual flu shot that a lot of people complain about not working.

There are currently 143 companies working on a vaccine. I’m not an expert on flu vaccine but don’t think there is that much investment in it. Also quoting Faucci is slippery as his story seems to change from time to time.

 

[TennVols12]

So if I had kids yes.

Now I do understand that we don't have a good childcare system set up in the US and some parents can't afford to quit their jobs.

So I am a bit more flexible on where I stand.

My belief is that it should be optional and that way we have less on ground students so social distancing can be better implemented.

Fair enough.

 

[zaqhhh]

To my knowledge we've never made a vaccine that eradicated a coronavirus or even come close. Even the influenza vaccine was only 45% effective in the 19-20 flu season I believe. Assuming roughly the same effectiveness in the covid vaccine, this virus still be prevalent even if every US citizen gets vaccinated (definitely not going to happen).

We have also never had a virus with as much research and development investment as this one.

And we don't even need it to be totally effective just enough to present herd immunity.

 

[zaqhhh]

Dr. Fouci. 50 to 75 percent effectiveness rate at best. Just like the annual flu shot that a lot of people complain about not working.

If its 70% effective, combined with recovered immunity if it holds, herd immunity should take care of the rest.

 

[sjt18]

I agree with most of what you are saying. And yes you are right to say that NY's handling was wrong in that instance and that better protocols be put into place.

I will reply to your how long must we wait answer. A vaccine if we do it right and don't rush it should be effective and ready by early next year and be able to administered to a significant proportion of the population by mid 2021.

At that point, while there will still be risks...we can significantly drawback restrictions.

That's simply not good enough. The cost-benefit you propose is BADLY skewed... and at this point I'm not even talking about football.

Sweden is no longer making the news. They took a "risk" and treated this like other viral outbreaks. They counted on herd immunity especially among the young. They acknowledge that they mismanaged nursing homes... but they now envision "life as usual"... and much sooner than a vaccine will be ready.

When Asian flu hit, the US followed a nearly identical policy. Few people who lived through it... even remember it. It wasn't 24 hour news. There were no body counts though it killed as large or larger % of the population than Covid is likely to do (and it actually DID kill most of them including young people). They counted on herd immunity to stop the virus... and it did.

BTW, if there weren't already significant herd immunity to the virus due to T-cells from previous Coronavirus infections... we might actually have a problem that justifies the current reaction.


Our outbreak is going to be much more disjointed due to the shutdown. NYC is through it. Other areas managed to delay it... until everyone started cranking up their HVAC systems and sharing the virus with each other.

Here is an article from around the beginning of the media's panic narrative. I suspect you will see the merit in what the guy says when you look at the numbers... especially those from NY.

Israeli Professor Shows Virus Follows Fixed Pattern