It's going to be a disaster trying to figure everything out, especially if the NCAA wants to be fair to everyone. The NCAA can't keep kicking eligibility down the road. At some point they'll have to tell student-athletes they are SOL, and you won't get that eligibility back.
-
You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.
HuskerMax readers can save 50% on Omaha Steaks .
Frost on football this fall
- Thread starter Busker
- Start date
It's going to be a disaster trying to figure everything out, especially if the NCAA wants to be fair to everyone. The NCAA can't keep kicking eligibility down the road. At some point they'll have to tell student-athletes they are SOL, and you won't get that eligibility back.
Close contact by definition is within 6 feet for 15 minutes....passing close by someone on the way to a seat wouldn't count.
It would count if this crap is truly airborne...and in that case six feet is no longer far enough.
Nearly 240 experts urge WHO, CDC to acknowledge airborne transmission of COVID-19
The WHO and CDC don't acknowledge it, but if airborne transmission plays a big role in COVID-19's spread, the U.S. may have to rethink its prevention methods.
www.usatoday.com
It would count if this crap is truly airborne...and in that case six feet is no longer far enough.
Nearly 240 experts urge WHO, CDC to acknowledge airborne transmission of COVID-19
The WHO and CDC don't acknowledge it, but if airborne transmission plays a big role in COVID-19's spread, the U.S. may have to rethink its prevention methods.www.usatoday.com
Simply being airborne doesn't mean 6 feet isn't a safe distance. And being airborne doesn't change the definition of close contact.
Just listened to CCD on school opening. The emphasis was that schools should use CCD guidelines as a formula for opening and not as a restriction for keeping them closed. I would think colleges should buy into that reasoning as well. The supposedly brightest minds should be able to figure out how to operate safely using the guidelines shouldn’t they? At a time when the Covid 19 death rate is significantly diminished compared to it’s peak despite the elevated case numbers only fear stands in the way of intelligently normalizing societies events it seems to me. That includes football.
I go back and forth on whether football should be played (lean toward it at the moment). Fans are a hard sell to me until we get farther into this and understand the death rate from the current trajectory of case numbers.
And just to clarify from a science standpoint, if you are still making comparisons to influenza, your credibility on this topic is nil.
And just to clarify from a science standpoint, if you are still making comparisons to influenza, your credibility on this topic is nil.
If the virus is indeed airborne, as reported in my link, then it can suspend in air space on micro droplets for hours at a time and no distance is safe. The stairwells, elevators, corridors and restrooms at memorial stadium become a breeding ground for new transmissions. Players would be at risk simply by lining up against each other while breathing heavily.
Last edited:
What I don't understand about all of this is how the 1918 flu seems to be completely forgotten. We're doing the exact same thing that happened then.
Everyone was on lockdown, they even had fines if you went out, but people were tired of staying home and there were concerns about the economy, so the summer came and everything started opening back up. Unsurprisingly, the number of cases and deaths skyrocketed. Come fall, they had to shut everything down again. That sounds awfully familiar.
I can't understand why people have this cavalier attitude of, "well, they're young, the chances are low that they're going to get sick or die, so the season should happen". Sure, they're young and healthy, but how low of a percentage are we comfortable with to say the risk is negligible? How can any of us determine the risk someone else should take on when it involves their health?
Lets say the season comes and for the most part, all teams only have a player or two with Covid. But then a few games into the season on multiple teams, a large number of the players or even a few coaches get it. Which can very easily happen. They don't show symptoms, but they were tested and have it. Do teams take the attitude of, "well, they're young, lets risk the health of the opposing team's players and coaches and let them play anyway"? Or, do they make them sit out? If the first scenario happens, I would lose the little faith I have left in humanity. If it's the second scenario, there could be teams that would barely have enough players to field a team or they may not have enough at all.
Some on here have argued that you can't live in fear, and that you just have to live your life, but it really makes me wonder if they are genuinely concerned about the well-being of the players and coaches and think the risk is worth it, or if deep down, they just don't want their entertainment taken away from them.
Everyone was on lockdown, they even had fines if you went out, but people were tired of staying home and there were concerns about the economy, so the summer came and everything started opening back up. Unsurprisingly, the number of cases and deaths skyrocketed. Come fall, they had to shut everything down again. That sounds awfully familiar.
I can't understand why people have this cavalier attitude of, "well, they're young, the chances are low that they're going to get sick or die, so the season should happen". Sure, they're young and healthy, but how low of a percentage are we comfortable with to say the risk is negligible? How can any of us determine the risk someone else should take on when it involves their health?
Lets say the season comes and for the most part, all teams only have a player or two with Covid. But then a few games into the season on multiple teams, a large number of the players or even a few coaches get it. Which can very easily happen. They don't show symptoms, but they were tested and have it. Do teams take the attitude of, "well, they're young, lets risk the health of the opposing team's players and coaches and let them play anyway"? Or, do they make them sit out? If the first scenario happens, I would lose the little faith I have left in humanity. If it's the second scenario, there could be teams that would barely have enough players to field a team or they may not have enough at all.
Some on here have argued that you can't live in fear, and that you just have to live your life, but it really makes me wonder if they are genuinely concerned about the well-being of the players and coaches and think the risk is worth it, or if deep down, they just don't want their entertainment taken away from them.
Breeding ground? Viruses don't replicate (breed) outside a host organism.
If the virus were indeed airborne and as transmissible as you describe, it would have ravaged the country in a matter of weeks, if not days. The numbers all show social distancing has been effective in slowing the transmission....so, unless this is some giant leap by the virus (extremely doubtful) i would be skeptical of this information.
That is a choice to be made by each individual. Those that decide it is worth the risk to attend an event, be it a sporting event, church, a dinner out or mud wrestling are the ones who have made the decision they feel is best for them. Those that are comfortable with absolutely no risk do not attend anything or go anywhere.
I think positive coaches and players do not participate in games. If the team doesn't want to compete or can't compete, then an alternative opponent may become available due to other teams having the same issues. If NO alternative opponent is available, that would mean it isn't a wide spread issue.
It was a metaphor- I think (I'm neither a scientist nor a writer) but I would hope you got the point- if you think sitting with 90,000 other people in a stadium, walking around it, restrooms, vending, etc. isn't a complete recipe for disaster during a pandemic, I don't know what to tell you. And I'm not trying to spread fear- there's enough of that just looking at the data for the fall.
Stay safe and GBR
I'll use the same logic some people use when they say a few people will end up "sacrificing themselves" for the better of the whole (ie the elderly and those with health issues)- if I'm expected to take my chances as an immune compromised individual, I guess the occasional business can take its chances too and possibly end up gone. What's the difference? I can risk my life but that business can't be asked to take a risk?
And the OVERALL economy always bounces back, let me fix it for you.
I just read today many scientists are not impressed with its mutation characteristics, so we'll see.
Correct- and those three things aren't really great ideas right now either.
