Iowa Athletics COVID-19 Discussion

uihawk82 said:
This does not look good, 28 players, wow.

And this quote from your 2nd link sounds dire about the bad possibilities of getting sick even by a young healthy player:

"The mother of an Indiana offensive lineman said in a viral Facebook post that her son is battling heart problems after “14 days of hell battling the horrible virus,” a chilling post for anyone still convinced that this is only a problem for old people in nursing homes.


“Bottom line, even if your son’s schools do everything right to protect them, they CAN’T PROTECT THEM!!” Deborah Rucker wrote."
Click to expand...

I guess my question regarding the mother's "even if your son's schools do everything right to protect them, they can't protect them" comment would be what safe guards are out there to guarantee that protection whether they are on the football field or not. I'm not saying sports should or shouldn't be played, but these universities have more protective measures in place then anything else these individuals would have exposure to. The bottom line is she's right that the university cannot protect them, but what can. It's not about athletes being at risk, its about everyone in society being at risk of getting the virus.
 
kicker22 said:
I guess my question regarding the mother's "even if your son's schools do everything right to protect them, they can't protect them" comment would be what safe guards are out there to guarantee that protection whether they are on the football field or not. I'm not saying sports should or shouldn't be played, but these universities have more protective measures in place then anything else these individuals would have exposure to. The bottom line is she's right that the university cannot protect them, but what can. It's not about athletes being at risk, its about everyone in society being at risk of getting the virus.
Click to expand...

Everyone has risk, but most individuals can easily significantly mitigate their personal risk profile.

You can order everything online and stay home. If you need to go out, you can procure high quality masks and stay as far away from others as possible. That's why I'm glad my state is pretty much open for business. If you want to go to the beach, fine, you can. If you want to stay home, you can. Most people can tailor their activities to their personal risk tolerance.

I'm all for people having some freedom to choose and I personally take pretty heavy precautions to try to avoid The Germ. I'm not terribly worried about for me and my immediate family, but I don't want to take unreasonable risks of getting it over something stupid. The colleges trying to play football without an actual bubble is a disaster waiting to happen. 99.9% of the college athletes are going to be totally fine, but some chunk d-tackle or o-lineman somewhere is going to either die or get really fucked up from this thing. High obesity is a known comorbidity factor and some of the big uglies in the trenches at lesser programs are doughy, which puts them into an elevated risk profile. We've seen big uglies die from heat stroke, the most famous being Korey Stringer. This shit is no different. It is an absolutely known risk and it simply isn't worth some 19 year old kid with his whole life in front of him dying just so we can watch college football. That gets outside the bands of reasonable risk, IMHO. I do think basketball, which doesn't have big uglies and much smaller teams, could be done reasonably safely, but football should be 86ed immediately.
 
okeefe4prez said:
Everyone has risk, but most individuals can easily significantly mitigate their personal risk profile.

You can order everything online and stay home. If you need to go out, you can procure high quality masks and stay as far away from others as possible. That's why I'm glad my state is pretty much open for business. If you want to go to the beach, fine, you can. If you want to stay home, you can. Most people can tailor their activities to their personal risk tolerance.

I'm all for people having some freedom to choose and I personally take pretty heavy precautions to try to avoid The Germ. I'm not terribly worried about for me and my immediate family, but I don't want to take unreasonable risks of getting it over something stupid. The colleges trying to play football without an actual bubble is a disaster waiting to happen. 99.9% of the college athletes are going to be totally fine, but some chunk d-tackle or o-lineman somewhere is going to either die or get really fucked up from this thing. High obesity is a known comorbidity factor and some of the big uglies in the trenches at lesser programs are doughy, which puts them into an elevated risk profile. We've seen big uglies die from heat stroke, the most famous being Korey Stringer. This shit is no different. It is an absolutely known risk and it simply isn't worth some 19 year old kid with his whole life in front of him dying just so we can watch college football. That gets outside the bands of reasonable risk, IMHO. I do think basketball, which doesn't have big uglies and much smaller teams, could be done reasonably safely, but football should be 86ed immediately.
Click to expand...

The numbers at Rutgers (28 football players and possibly more) are staggering. Initially it was thought the exposure came from a party that they weren’t supposed to attend but some did. The more current thinking is they got it from one asymptomatic player and The Germ quickly spread. Granted most of the players testing positive won’t have many effects, if any, but a few may. They’re all having to quarantine which means no practice, no working out, no being in team meetings. Bottom line is it’s a significant setback for a program in a P5 conference. I wouldn’t expect Rutgers to be alone in that boat.

I’m just having a hard time seeing this season being played, at least in the Fall. If basketball is played, it’s likely to be a shortened season that starts after Jan. 1, 2021.

This virus sucks.
 
The NCAA Board of Governors showed it has just about as much courage and strength as the agency itself does when it comes to punishing cash-cow programs for significant violations.
 
tweeterhawk said:
The NCAA Board of Governors showed it has just about as much courage and strength as the agency itself does when it comes to punishing cash-cow programs for significant violations.
Click to expand...

The NCAA cannot stop play. It will get sued for an antitrust violation and damages are 3x losses. It does not want to "endorse" play either, lest they find themselves defendants in a number of lawsuits. They are in an absolute no-win situation here.

This is the result of putting a bunch of high paid functionaries who have never had a real job into a position of power. Emmert needs to draw up a strongly worded release that says "hey, we are not stopping you from playing, each member school is free to do its own thing, but we think, and this is merely a suggestion, that it is a bad idea to try to kick off a football season in 30 days."

There are too many people who have gotten fat off the whole "amateur athletics" crap who are placing preservation of their 7 figure salaries ahead of player well-being. It is despicable. These men are not leaders. If I were in the shoes of any long tenured P5 coach or AD or commissioner, I would insist on a $1 salary and insurance for the year to show shared sacrifice. The people who need to be organizational leaders just completely suck.

This bullshit of saying "derp, it's safe for Maryland to go to Iowa or Iowa to go to PSU, but Iowa playing ISU, UNI and NIU is too much risk" is the fucking icing on the cake. If it is unsafe to play 12 games, it is unsafe to play 10. If it is unsafe for Northwestern or Rutgers to have kids on campus, it is unsafe to play football. The fucking paralysis at this point is mind-boggling.
 
kicker22 said:
I may have misunderstood your intent. I don't think it has anything to do with being afraid, but rather wear them out of respect. Maybe it does involve being scared. I don't wear a mask because I'm afraid f the virus or because I'm afraid I could get it. I wear it because I value others as much as i do myself, and in the event that I'm carrying it I don't want to give it to someone that I unknowingly come into contact with, so maybe there is a fear that I'm unknowingly spreading it. If the masks even diminish the possibility/likelihood of spreading it then IMO its worth wearing. Same with the vaccine, even if its only 50% effective that still means that half the population of those getting vaccinated are benefiting. I agree with you that it's hear to stay, but feel the only way were going to get anywhere close to where we were before the breakout is by doing whatever we can regardless of how minimal it is. It's optimistic and probably naive, but I wear the mask and make the effort to do the little things (frequent hand washing,social distance, etc...) because the things we've sacrificed in the grand scheme of things since March mean too much for me to let go of and I'm going to do anything I can, regardless of how minimal to try to get back to normal.
Click to expand...
I understand both sides of the to wear a mask or not. I feel no need to put anyone in a situation where they must defend their choices to me. I'm not judging anyone.
I would totally wear one in a hospital or retirement home where there is no question that the majority are highly susceptible. Like you I would do it out of respect, not because I agree with it or anything else. However the data we have suggests (the last time I looked) that around 45% of the population won't have any symptoms at all. Then a very large portion of the population will only have mild symptoms. Those numbers tell me that the vast majority do not need a vaccine at all. Given that a vaccine is only 50% effective and lots of people still get the flu even after they've had the flu shot.
So it doesn't make any sense to me to wear a mask all the time or into stores.
 
kicker22 said:
I guess my question regarding the mother's "even if your son's schools do everything right to protect them, they can't protect them" comment would be what safe guards are out there to guarantee that protection whether they are on the football field or not. I'm not saying sports should or shouldn't be played, but these universities have more protective measures in place then anything else these individuals would have exposure to. The bottom line is she's right that the university cannot protect them, but what can. It's not about athletes being at risk, its about everyone in society being at risk of getting the virus.
Click to expand...

Well maybe this player whose mom you are discussing, maybe this player will hunker down at home, work out with weights and cardio machines, practice his technique, etc without much contact with other people. He can stay safer than going to college and playing football so maybe that answers your question.

I think all of us realize by now or should realize that you can stay away from this by distancing from other people, wearing a mask when out and about, and not getting in big crowds, inside or outside.

I have gone golfing about 15 times this year and maybe 5 of those times with others. I always ride a cart solo. We all do. I/we try to keep our distance, on the greens and tee boxes I circle around my friends and try to stay 10 feet apart and I try to stay at least parallel to the wind with them.

If you have ever seen small spray droplets from a hose in a 15+ mph wind you know how far they can carry so the wind is something to take note of. I try to stay upwind or parallel to the wind and the other players.
 
HuckFinn said:
Someone who criticizes a player for opting out for the 2020 season should be placed in an asylum.
Click to expand...

I would agree, but under the stipulation that that said player is doing is part to avoid getting the virus such as social distancing, minimal large group exposure, etc... If said player ends up opting out but then isn't taking precautions, and going out to bars/parties on a nightly basis like a lot of fellow college students do, then I absolutely think its fair game.
 
Northside Hawk said:
Illinois governor Pritzker has put eleven counties on alert because they meet at least two of his six criteria for potential spread of the virus.. One of them is Jo Daviess county, home to Galena and the popular Chicago playground known as Eagle Ridge. It’s also a county that my wife and I both work in.

Here is a number that is not in Pritzker’s criteria. 30 active cases for the whole county.

Here’s another. 73.2% of all confirmed cases recovered. One death.

We had deaths on back to back weekends from motorcycle/deer crashes in Jo Daviess county. Neither cyclist was wearing a helmet. But my wife could get furloughed for a second time this year because Fred Flintstone can’t see past his quadruple chin or his giant gullet and has deemed this county a dangerous Covid threat.
Click to expand...


Nationally, we may end up with 400,000 deaths. Nice false equivalency. Quarter of a million likely by December. 30,000 people usually die from influenza. Maybe 40-50k by car accident. Drug addiction and suicide are at similar levels.

I totally appreciate the need to get back to normal, but this isn't, as our president said, going to just magically go away anytime soon.

IHME.org estimates 295,011 COVID deaths in the US by Dec 1. That's a LOT of deaths.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top