|
|
Post by soccerballz on Apr 17, 2020 9:02:33 GMT -5
Not trying to be negative, but maybe we can send our concerns to the soccer clubs and governing bodies
|
|
|
|
Post by oraclesfriend on Apr 17, 2020 9:31:41 GMT -5
As a person who has worn masks over my face for years I think it would be exceedingly difficult to play with a mask on especially during the hot months. When you sweat it will stick to your face and be more challenging to pull enough air through to adequately to be exerting yourself at the same time.
|
|
|
|
Post by allthingsoccer on Apr 17, 2020 9:59:38 GMT -5
I'm for it.
They could try doing specialized training first, small groups.
Do just the defenders, then midfielders, wingers, and keepers. This way you have a very limited amount of players that it will be easier to control the distancing. Run that model for a couple of weeks and then slowly add them together over time.
|
|
|
|
Post by rifle on Apr 17, 2020 19:06:12 GMT -5
So what witchcraft are you all counting on if there is no vaccine? Is the virus going to magically disappear?
|
|
|
|
Post by oraclesfriend on Apr 17, 2020 19:32:07 GMT -5
So what witchcraft are you all counting on if there is no vaccine? Is the virus going to magically disappear? If the numbers are down pretty low and schools are back I have no issue with it. If the CDC feels good enough for school then I am ready to let them play. |
|
|
|
Post by soccerspin on Apr 17, 2020 19:34:59 GMT -5
So what witchcraft are you all counting on if there is no vaccine? Is the virus going to magically disappear? No. But are we willing to not play soccer or go to school or do much of anything for another whole year (through this time next year)? Because that’s the earliest anyone thinks a vaccine would be widely available. Our family is healthy and don’t have underlying conditions. We’d continue to be conservative in our actions (reduced grocery store trips, postponing vacations etc) and would remain vigilant with hand washing and wiping down surfaces and so forth. Would also hope to have some solid antibody testing within that timeframe as well to help the larger community understand who all has already been exposed to it and who hasn’t. Some believe those numbers could be rather high which then might help us feel better about resuming activities. |
|
|
|
Post by footyfan on Apr 17, 2020 20:07:56 GMT -5
The poll said virus test plan. No word about vaccine
It's not a good poll, but a silly fun one. Let's not take it too seriously.
Creating false choices are foundational to mis/disinformation campaigns.
|
|
|
|
Post by oraclesfriend on Apr 17, 2020 20:55:38 GMT -5
So what witchcraft are you all counting on if there is no vaccine? Is the virus going to magically disappear? No. But are we willing to not play soccer or go to school or do much of anything for another whole year (through this time next year)? Because that’s the earliest anyone thinks a vaccine would be widely available. Our family is healthy and don’t have underlying conditions. We’d continue to be conservative in our actions (reduced grocery store trips, postponing vacations etc) and would remain vigilant with hand washing and wiping down surfaces and so forth. Would also hope to have some solid antibody testing within that timeframe as well to help the larger community understand who all has already been exposed to it and who hasn’t. Some believe those numbers could be rather high which then might help us feel better about resuming activities. And yet despite the rising numbers in a lot of places there are physicians' offices and surgery centers that are planning to start elective surgeries as long as the patients are screened with tests first. No one knows what is right or safe or anything right now. It will be by trial and error. |
|
|
|
Post by honeybadger on Apr 18, 2020 10:37:40 GMT -5
Would let her play in a heartbeat. And a mask - no way. That will cause issues with getting enough oxygen into their bodies , plus no communication .
|
|
|
|
Post by honeybadger on Apr 18, 2020 10:43:10 GMT -5
Please , this is just a poll. Let’s make sure not to turn this into something where we’re up arguing. No witchcraft needed.
If this were Ebola, yes i’d want a “vaccine”. But for something with a 1% fatality rate ( and it’s probably .5% only because there are probably millions with it we are not counting ).
The hospital three miles from my house is 50% occupied. So while it’s bad , it’s not quiet The Walking Dead here 😂
|
|
|
|
Post by footyfan on Apr 18, 2020 12:10:42 GMT -5
Please , this is just a poll. Let’s make sure not to turn this into something where we’re up arguing. No witchcraft needed. If this were Ebola, yes i’d want a “vaccine”. But for something with a 1% fatality rate ( and it’s probably .5% only because there are probably millions with it we are not counting ). The hospital three miles from my house is 50% occupied. So while it’s bad , it’s not quiet The Walking Dead here 😂 MMMMUUUUUTTTTEEEEE |
|
|
|
Post by honeybadger on Apr 18, 2020 16:27:45 GMT -5
Please , this is just a poll. Let’s make sure not to turn this into something where we’re up arguing. No witchcraft needed. If this were Ebola, yes i’d want a “vaccine”. But for something with a 1% fatality rate ( and it’s probably .5% only because there are probably millions with it we are not counting ). The hospital three miles from my house is 50% occupied. So while it’s bad , it’s not quiet The Walking Dead here 😂 MMMMUUUUUTTTTEEEEE Of course |
|
|
|
Post by GameOfThrow-ins on Apr 19, 2020 10:23:52 GMT -5
By the end of May
Everything will be okay
And refs will shout “PLAY!”
|
|
|
|
Post by slickdaddy96 on Apr 20, 2020 11:17:18 GMT -5
There is talk in email about possibly extended out the spring season now into the summer months at least from our club. Of course that all depends on meeting the phases to be able to do such that the CDC outlined.
I have no issue with my kids playing soccer. I have no issues with attending a large college football game either because this thing is so far overblown it isn't funny anymore. A new antibody test study at Stanford showed far more people already had the virus and didn't even seek medical treatment for it than what we are testing. If you extrapolate that out nationwide and count those antibody positives as a positive case at some point in time the mortality rate would drop to somewhere between 0.12-0.2% not 1%. 0.12-0.2% is indeed right around the mortality rate of a very bad flu season. It will also show that the powers that be panicked way too much and we likely shut it down for something that we wouldn't have normally shut it down for had we known all the facts and figures.
So count me in as the I'll play in the fall, heck I'll play now and let my kids as well.
Here is a link to an article talking about the study I talked about above for those interested.
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/apr/17/coronavirus-much-more-widespread-previously-though/
|
|
|
|
Post by mistergrinch on Apr 20, 2020 13:50:12 GMT -5
There is talk in email about possibly extended out the spring season now into the summer months at least from our club. Of course that all depends on meeting the phases to be able to do such that the CDC outlined.
I have no issue with my kids playing soccer. I have no issues with attending a large college football game either because this thing is so far overblown it isn't funny anymore. A new antibody test study at Stanford showed far more people already had the virus and didn't even seek medical treatment for it than what we are testing. If you extrapolate that out nationwide and count those antibody positives as a positive case at some point in time the mortality rate would drop to somewhere between 0.12-0.2% not 1%. 0.12-0.2% is indeed right around the mortality rate of a very bad flu season. It will also show that the powers that be panicked way too much and we likely shut it down for something that we wouldn't have normally shut it down for had we known all the facts and figures.
So count me in as the I'll play in the fall, heck I'll play now and let my kids as well.
Here is a link to an article talking about the study I talked about above for those interested.
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/apr/17/coronavirus-much-more-widespread-previously-though/
The mortality rate could be the same, but the virulence is not. If the mortality rate is the same, but 20x more people get infected - the net effect is 20x the deaths. Math is fun, isn't it? We're already up over 40k deaths and likely haven't peaked yet.
It's fair for you to think it's overblown, but that could be argued about so many other things that don't end up with dead people if you're wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lady Soccer Whistledown on Apr 20, 2020 13:52:52 GMT -5
By the end of May Everything will be okay And refs will shout “PLAY!” From your lips to God's ears |
|
|
|
Post by slickdaddy96 on Apr 20, 2020 13:58:29 GMT -5
There is talk in email about possibly extended out the spring season now into the summer months at least from our club. Of course that all depends on meeting the phases to be able to do such that the CDC outlined.
I have no issue with my kids playing soccer. I have no issues with attending a large college football game either because this thing is so far overblown it isn't funny anymore. A new antibody test study at Stanford showed far more people already had the virus and didn't even seek medical treatment for it than what we are testing. If you extrapolate that out nationwide and count those antibody positives as a positive case at some point in time the mortality rate would drop to somewhere between 0.12-0.2% not 1%. 0.12-0.2% is indeed right around the mortality rate of a very bad flu season. It will also show that the powers that be panicked way too much and we likely shut it down for something that we wouldn't have normally shut it down for had we known all the facts and figures.
So count me in as the I'll play in the fall, heck I'll play now and let my kids as well.
Here is a link to an article talking about the study I talked about above for those interested.
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/apr/17/coronavirus-much-more-widespread-previously-though/
The mortality rate could be the same, but the virulence is not. If the mortality rate is the same, but 20x more people get infected - the net effect is 20x the deaths. Math is fun, isn't it? We're already up over 40k deaths and likely haven't peaked yet.
It's fair for you to think it's overblown, but that could be argued about so many other things that don't end up with dead people if you're wrong.
In 2018's flu season there was approximately 80,000 deaths. That season was a more contagious and virulent year for the flu. More people got it and more people died. Flu season is defined as Late Fall to Early Spring everywhere I have ever seen. So roughly the same amount of time say almost half a year or so we are projected to have less deaths than that Flu season. So is it as virulent as the flu after all and if it is could it be that since so many people show little to no symptoms versus a flu that always shows symptoms that you could also say that since the virus is not as severe to the majority of Americans that get it that there won't be an uptick in deaths as well. You can't just multiply out like you did. A lot of factors come into play that you are not adding in. The truth is if we go less than. 80,000 deaths through this thing which most say is to or through August than this thing was not any worse than that bad flu year and I don't believe sheltering in place and distancing really affected that death rate that much at all. We will never know that since we close shopped but that 2.2 million and even that 240K+ number was never realistic even if we had stayed status quo. |
|
|
|
Post by oraclesfriend on Apr 20, 2020 14:09:48 GMT -5
The mortality rate could be the same, but the virulence is not. If the mortality rate is the same, but 20x more people get infected - the net effect is 20x the deaths. Math is fun, isn't it? We're already up over 40k deaths and likely haven't peaked yet.
It's fair for you to think it's overblown, but that could be argued about so many other things that don't end up with dead people if you're wrong.
In 2018's flu season there was approximately 80,000 deaths. That season was a more contagious and virulent year for the flu. More people got it and more people died. Flu season is defined as Late Fall to Early Spring everywhere I have ever seen. So roughly the same amount of time say almost half a year or so we are projected to have less deaths than that Flu season. So is it as virulent as the flu after all and if it is could it be that since so many people show little to no symptoms versus a flu that always shows symptoms that you could also say that since the virus is not as severe to the majority of Americans that get it that there won't be an uptick in deaths as well. You can't just multiply out like you did. A lot of factors come into play that you are not adding in. The truth is if we go less than. 80,000 deaths through this thing which most say is to or through August than this thing was not any worse than that bad flu year and I don't believe sheltering in place and distancing really affected that death rate that much at all. We will never know that since we close shopped but that 2.2 million and even that 240K+ number was never realistic even if we had stayed status quo. The two biggest issues are how contagious it is. This is called the R naught. So even if it doesn't have a higher mortality rate the number of people who were infected OVER A GIVEN TIME FRAME overwhelmed some areas of the country (and world). The flu season is 6 months. This virus has killed 40,000 people in the US in basically two months (really most of these were in the last 5 weeks) Even at the peak of the flu season hos pitals are not overwhelmed with patients coming into them in critical condition. I know there are a lot of people who think this is overblown. Unfortunately if we tried to go on as normal I think we would have had many, many, many more dead Americans. The UK tried to just do social distancing initially and that failed there. I think this whole thing sucks. We probably would have been able to get away with less restrictions but the deniers out there put the sensible people at risk. |
|
|
|
Post by slickdaddy96 on Apr 20, 2020 15:49:43 GMT -5
In 2018's flu season there was approximately 80,000 deaths. That season was a more contagious and virulent year for the flu. More people got it and more people died. Flu season is defined as Late Fall to Early Spring everywhere I have ever seen. So roughly the same amount of time say almost half a year or so we are projected to have less deaths than that Flu season. So is it as virulent as the flu after all and if it is could it be that since so many people show little to no symptoms versus a flu that always shows symptoms that you could also say that since the virus is not as severe to the majority of Americans that get it that there won't be an uptick in deaths as well. You can't just multiply out like you did. A lot of factors come into play that you are not adding in. The truth is if we go less than. 80,000 deaths through this thing which most say is to or through August than this thing was not any worse than that bad flu year and I don't believe sheltering in place and distancing really affected that death rate that much at all. We will never know that since we close shopped but that 2.2 million and even that 240K+ number was never realistic even if we had stayed status quo. The two biggest issues are how contagious it is. This is called the R naught. So even if it doesn't have a higher mortality rate the number of people who were infected OVER A GIVEN TIME FRAME overwhelmed some areas of the country (and world). The flu season is 6 months. This virus has killed 40,000 people in the US in basically two months (really most of these were in the last 5 weeks) Even at the peak of the flu season hos pitals are not overwhelmed with patients coming into them in critical condition. I know there are a lot of people who think this is overblown. Unfortunately if we tried to go on as normal I think we would have had many, many, many more dead Americans. The UK tried to just do social distancing initially and that failed there. I think this whole thing sucks. We probably would have been able to get away with less restrictions but the deniers out there put the sensible people at risk. But had we done the following we would have cut the majority of the deaths that would have possibly increased with status quo. 1) Shelter in place all elderly 65+ and any immune compromised or pre-existing condition people that causes low immune system issues. Those people should shelter, not go out, have friends/family or instacart/grubhub deliver food and supplies and leave at door "no contact" No visitors, if a person lives with a person that is susceptible they must either isolate the person, or they must self quarantine as well. 2)The rest of us continue working, school, sports, etc... even when the sports do not allow for social distancing. 3) Safety net for those people that can not work including trying to protect as much as possible their jobs while they can not work. The majority of people getting this virus are not going to the hospital. The majority of people that are going to the hospital and then also dying are the elderly, immune compromised people, or people with other already existing pulmonary issues. So the people you have left out and about are very unlikely to go to the hospital, and if we had protected our most vulnerable from getting it the hospitals would not have been overwhelmed and the mortality rate would have dropped as well because the most vulnerable would not be getting exposed to it. The people that are getting this that are healthy that required hospitalization or even die from this is a statistically insignificant number scientifically. Yes you might be healthy and it might strike you dead, but you have a bigger chance of getting struck by lightning, dying in a car accident, etc... than dying from this virus if you are healthy. That was how it should have been done. |
|
|
|
Post by misssocceratl on Apr 20, 2020 16:37:22 GMT -5
The two biggest issues are how contagious it is. This is called the R naught. So even if it doesn't have a higher mortality rate the number of people who were infected OVER A GIVEN TIME FRAME overwhelmed some areas of the country (and world). The flu season is 6 months. This virus has killed 40,000 people in the US in basically two months (really most of these were in the last 5 weeks) Even at the peak of the flu season hos pitals are not overwhelmed with patients coming into them in critical condition. I know there are a lot of people who think this is overblown. Unfortunately if we tried to go on as normal I think we would have had many, many, many more dead Americans. The UK tried to just do social distancing initially and that failed there. I think this whole thing sucks. We probably would have been able to get away with less restrictions but the deniers out there put the sensible people at risk. But had we done the following we would have cut the majority of the deaths that would have possibly increased with status quo. 1) Shelter in place all elderly 65+ and any immune compromised or pre-existing condition people that causes low immune system issues. Those people should shelter, not go out, have friends/family or instacart/grubhub deliver food and supplies and leave at door "no contact" No visitors, if a person lives with a person that is susceptible they must either isolate the person, or they must self quarantine as well. 2)The rest of us continue working, school, sports, etc... even when the sports do not allow for social distancing. 3) Safety net for those people that can not work including trying to protect as much as possible their jobs while they can not work. The majority of people getting this virus are not going to the hospital. The majority of people that are going to the hospital and then also dying are the elderly, immune compromised people, or people with other already existing pulmonary issues. So the people you have left out and about are very unlikely to go to the hospital, and if we had protected our most vulnerable from getting it the hospitals would not have been overwhelmed and the mortality rate would have dropped as well because the most vulnerable would not be getting exposed to it. The people that are getting this that are healthy that required hospitalization or even die from this is a statistically insignificant number scientifically. Yes you might be healthy and it might strike you dead, but you have a bigger chance of getting struck by lightning, dying in a car accident, etc... than dying from this virus if you are healthy. That was how it should have been done. |
|
|
|
Post by atlfutboldad on Apr 20, 2020 16:46:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by soccerspin on Apr 20, 2020 17:19:41 GMT -5
We can go back and forth on the stats all day but given this is a team sport everyone has to be ready to engage or it doesn’t work. And I just don’t see that happening anytime soon - even with an extension of the spring season.
|
|
|
|
Post by honeybadger on Apr 20, 2020 17:25:05 GMT -5
I'm all for extended spring.
|
|
|
|
Post by footyfan on Apr 20, 2020 17:44:36 GMT -5
There is talk in email about possibly extended out the spring season now into the summer months at least from our club. Of course that all depends on meeting the phases to be able to do such that the CDC outlined.
I have no issue with my kids playing soccer. I have no issues with attending a large college football game either because this thing is so far overblown it isn't funny anymore. A new antibody test study at Stanford showed far more people already had the virus and didn't even seek medical treatment for it than what we are testing. If you extrapolate that out nationwide and count those antibody positives as a positive case at some point in time the mortality rate would drop to somewhere between 0.12-0.2% not 1%. 0.12-0.2% is indeed right around the mortality rate of a very bad flu season. It will also show that the powers that be panicked way too much and we likely shut it down for something that we wouldn't have normally shut it down for had we known all the facts and figures.
So count me in as the I'll play in the fall, heck I'll play now and let my kids as well.
Here is a link to an article talking about the study I talked about above for those interested.
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/apr/17/coronavirus-much-more-widespread-previously-though/
Lol. Washington Times. Was there no Bereitbart or InfoWars article you had handy? |
|
|
|
Post by honeybadger on Apr 20, 2020 18:06:09 GMT -5
There is talk in email about possibly extended out the spring season now into the summer months at least from our club. Of course that all depends on meeting the phases to be able to do such that the CDC outlined.
I have no issue with my kids playing soccer. I have no issues with attending a large college football game either because this thing is so far overblown it isn't funny anymore. A new antibody test study at Stanford showed far more people already had the virus and didn't even seek medical treatment for it than what we are testing. If you extrapolate that out nationwide and count those antibody positives as a positive case at some point in time the mortality rate would drop to somewhere between 0.12-0.2% not 1%. 0.12-0.2% is indeed right around the mortality rate of a very bad flu season. It will also show that the powers that be panicked way too much and we likely shut it down for something that we wouldn't have normally shut it down for had we known all the facts and figures.
So count me in as the I'll play in the fall, heck I'll play now and let my kids as well.
Here is a link to an article talking about the study I talked about above for those interested.
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/apr/17/coronavirus-much-more-widespread-previously-though/
Lol. Washington Times. Was there no Bereitbart or InfoWars article you had handy? So, are you saying the study at Stanford was not really done? Because if it was done, then regardless of who the messenger is, the facts are the facts. Either study was done, or it wasn't done. I assume it was done. And it makes logical sense there would be more infected than we know about. That would be common sense--just like not everyone who has the flu gets it confirmed.................................we are so polarized politically in this country that people won't even listen to information if the messenger doesn't think like they do. Would you believe the article if the NY Times or Rachel Maddow over at MSNBC told you? |
|
|
|
Post by footyfan on Apr 20, 2020 19:06:08 GMT -5
Lol. Washington Times. Was there no Bereitbart or InfoWars article you had handy? So, are you saying the study at Stanford was not really done? Because if it was done, then regardless of who the messenger is, the facts are the facts. Either study was done, or it wasn't done. I assume it was done. And it makes logical sense there would be more infected than we know about. That would be common sense--just like not everyone who has the flu gets it confirmed.................................we are so polarized politically in this country that people won't even listen to information if the messenger doesn't think like they do. Would you believe the article if the NY Times or Rachel Maddow over at MSNBC told you? Not a Maddow fan, but I do think NYT is fairly neutral. www.mercurynews.com/2020/04/20/feud-over-stanford-coronavirus-study-the-authors-owe-us-all-an-apology/ |
|
|
|
Post by honeybadger on Apr 20, 2020 19:19:05 GMT -5
So, are you saying the study at Stanford was not really done? Because if it was done, then regardless of who the messenger is, the facts are the facts. Either study was done, or it wasn't done. I assume it was done. And it makes logical sense there would be more infected than we know about. That would be common sense--just like not everyone who has the flu gets it confirmed.................................we are so polarized politically in this country that people won't even listen to information if the messenger doesn't think like they do. Would you believe the article if the NY Times or Rachel Maddow over at MSNBC told you? Not a Maddow fan, but I do think NYT is fairly neutral. |
|
|
|
Post by honeybadger on Apr 20, 2020 19:19:28 GMT -5
But of course you do
|
|
|
|
Post by honeybadger on Apr 20, 2020 19:23:27 GMT -5
The Journal of the American Medical Association just put out a report. One of the authors from MIT stated what I assumed was common knowledge: That when people are outdoors a virus is dispersed more vs indoors, and it's healthier for you-Lydia Bourouiba.
|
|
|
|
Post by honeybadger on Apr 20, 2020 19:36:26 GMT -5
|
|
