If they play as is expected, I don't see how the number doesn't legitimately end up closer to 100% than 50% by the end of the season. And within that we will certainly see some deaths unfortunately.
OT 100% NOT the Official Off-Topic/Politics/Corona Thread
- Thread starter portlandhog
- Start date
Here's some interesting real world info for y'all. My cousin dates a player for a Big 12 team. He tested positive when they reported last week. They had been together on a beach trip for 6 days and for every day after they returned until he reported. She was tested after his results came back and she is negative. Don't think this thing is as contagious as y'all think.
Your cousin dates a college player. 2nd cousin? Uncle really young? What's goin on here HT. I'm drying to narrow down your age range
I don't disagree with any of that. You're seeing some big numbers already, and school hasn't started and practice hasn't started. Once those two happen, the numbers will skyrocket.
Here's where I may differ....I don't know if playing football will really increase the numbers that much. If school is back in session, and football is cancelled, I would still expect 50-100% of college football players to get this. The players getting it now, aren't getting it because they're lifting weights. For the most part they are getting it because they are being college students - going to parties and bars. They are going to be in dorms, eating in cafeterias, hanging in common areas, going to bars, hooking up with girls. And they will be doing that stuff even more if they don't have football.
Raw Data
- 370/100,000 20-29 YO Males get disease. 73,700 NCAA athletes so assumed 273 get the disease.
- 3.7% of infected require hospitilization. Assume 10 people hospitilized
- 0.149% of infected die from disease. So you're looking at 0.4 expected persons.
2,1,3,4,5You sure about that, Clark?
Of course. And when the rest of the student population returns all bets are off. I think the death toll is going to take off in the late fall.
The figure you posted earlier was if every player got it. The question I asked, and you responded to, was if every player got it. Now, you are using just 273 getting it? That number is worthless is projecting anything. Hell, 273 just in P5 have probably already tested positive in the first two weeks back and school hasn't even started.
To answer the question, using your figures above, if every single player got it we would expect 110 players dead. If 50% got it, 55 dead. If 25% got it, 28 dead.
(IMO, that number isn't accurate, because the 370/100,000 you used isn't accurate and way to low.)
Shit...not what you asked...if every player got it...
0.149% of 73,700 is 110...but that is if the denominator on the 0.149% is accurate. Meaning, 100 people have the disease, only 10 people get tested because the other 90 are asymptomatic.
From that 10, 0.149% would die...but in all actuality, the mortality rate is actually 0.0149%.
Yeah, you just beat me to it. But look at my previous comment. The percent mortality is given a known number of infected...which we obviously won't know...but we should know exponentially better with athletes because many schools other than dipshit Arkansas are testing the asymptomatic.
My bottom line on this is there are going to be deaths. Probably not 100. Probably not 50. Maybe not even 10.
If I'm an AD or school president or chancellor, you just have to know that going in. And you have to be prepared to answer the question....Was the millions of dollars in TV revenue worth the deaths of these kids?
Like I've said in this thread, I think this will happen if campuses are open whether football is played or not. But he NCAA isn't a group that has a ton of of wiggle room when it comes to PR and any deaths on its watch are going to be treated harshly.
And we still haven't addressed the issue of coaches, support staff, trainers, administrative, etc at every school and their increased risk.
I don't question the validity of it existing on the CDC website. I question the accuracy as its no doubt much higher. Just as you said a couple of posts up, a large percentage never gets tested because they are asymptomatic.I thought you may question that validity. Here's the graph from the CDC.
I believe the 0.149% is too high because the 370 is too low.
I agree it's possible that at least one individual will die from the disease. Statistically, it isn't probable, but it is absolutely possible.
I think the NBA has done something very wise and has basically set up a covid insurance policy. Not even if the person dies, but has any sort of impact from the disease. My assumption is some insurance agency is quickly putting together plans because it will be a gold mine for them. The probability is incredibly low, but the impact the virus would have on an individual and a family could be awful; therefore, the premiums would be insane...but worth it for the University.
You then clearly convey to the individual the risks and what they are signing up for. Literally had to do the same exact thing when I worked on a rig. We watched videos, signed life insurance, all that kind of good stuff because the probability of dying was pretty damn high...in fact, a guy died on my rig...It's obviously different in this case because the probability is so fluid given the communicable nature of the disease...but the percent mortality possibility are probably fairly synonymous.
a .02% death rate (if it’s even that high.) Let that sink in. More people were probably killed in Chicago over Father’s Day weekend.
When you say that, are you basing that on the figures you posted above? 370/100,000 getting it?
I'm basing it off of mass data we have on the virus. Meaning, of the 370 who test positive, only 3.7% need hospitilization...so 14/100k...that number is known...not assumed...
So statistically, there should only be 10.3 hospitalized...which is the same number I already provided. When the numerator and denominator are absoultes, like death and hospitilization per 100,000, it's easier to make comments rather than infection/100k because no one knows how many are actually infected.
Maryland playing football this year? One was from willfull ignorance, the other could be from a communicable disease.
Have not seen the Arkansas data on this, but this is the trend in other hotspot areas. The median age of positive tests in Florida & Texas is around 37/38 and the 18-40 year old age group is making up about 20-25% of hospitalizations in both states.
But the figures you are using are based on the 370/100,000. The 3.7% and 0.149% come from that. Your final numbers are based on that.
Using your 370/100,000, we STATISTICALLY should expect a 105 man roster to have 0.3885 players per roster contract CV-19 this season. That's like 1 player for every 3 teams for the entire season....
Do you not see how laughable those stats are when multiple teams have had 10+ test positive in the first two weeks before contact football and school have even started?
The infection rate for a college football team is going to be MUCH higher than the rate has been for the 18-24 age group over the past 4 months. That means hospitalization and deaths rates will be higher.
Last edited:
I don't think you're getting it.
Stop thinking about the 370.
Think 3,352 (6,704 total hospitilzation in that age frame divided by 2 to account for just males) hospitilzations per 21 million male college age citizens and 137 deaths (273 deaths for that age range divided by 2 to account for just males).
3352/21,000,000 = 15.9 hosp/100k...or 11.7/NCAA athletes
137/21,000,000 = 0.65 deaths/100k...or 0.48/NCAA athletes
Get it?
These big age ranges (18-40 or 18-55) crack me up. We literally are talking about kids and parents being thrown into the same group just to skew the data younger.
- May 11, 2002
- 34,222
- 33,814
- 113
I remember when we had a thread to talk about the Rona...
What could have been. Bonehead move locking that.
That thread became a political pissing match. This one is about the status of our football program. BERG (big) DIFFERENCES.
- May 11, 2002
- 34,222
- 33,814
- 113
Just so we are clear, you want me to stop thinking about a piece of data that you posted earlier - multiple times - that no longer supports your POV? Its your data and I'm sure it sounded great when you said only 273 college athletes would get this, statistically.
Do you not get that the infection rate is going to be much higher for a college football team than it was for that age group over the past four months? You're taking kids out of quarantine, or even just normal summer home life and putting them onto a college campus and in a college town. Its not remotely comparable to what's happened the past 3-4 months.
While i certainly agree and have said as much, the .0037 infection rate you used earlier is much too low. Laughably low, and can't believe you estimated that just 273 total college athletes would get infected. But 100 times too low? Because I would absolutely bet on more than 37% of college football players getting this.
Hesooz Christo.
Ok. A few True/False questions for you to try and simplify it.
1) True or False. The below table, found here, says 273 persons have DIED...not infected...but an absolute DIED from covid...in the age range of a college athlete?
2) True of False. 273/2 = 136.5?
3) True of False. The below graph, found here, shows there are appoximately 21 MM individuals in the 10 year age gap around college?
4) True or False. 136.5/21MM = 6.5 x 10-6?
5) True or False. 6.5 x 10-6 times 100,000 = 0.65?
6) True or False. 0.65 times (73,700/100,000) = 0.48?
7) True or False. 0.48 is less than 1?
Is this helping?
Yeah, the post he was referencing was deaths, not positive tests. Positive tests don't mean much with most being asymptomatic. Its hospitalizations and deaths that mean something
True all 7 times.
Here are some True/False questions for you
1. T/F In order to die from Covid-19, you have to be infected with CV-19.
2. T/F Not all 21 MM in that age group were infected over the past 4 months.
3. T/F If the infection rate went up, you would expect the death rate to rise at the same rate. Ex. If 1 million infection lead to 500 deaths, statistically speaking, wouldn't 2 million lead to 1,000?
4. T/F For the 0.65 per 100,000 to hold up, the infection rate would have to be the same for the rest of the year as it was for the 4 months listed.
I'm not sure I've seen a lot of data on false positives. Data came out yesterday regarding how long protective antibodies stay around (which is not as long as we hoped). The implication was risk for re-infection. I'm not as concerned about that because there should hopefully be other forms of immunologic memory that would kick in besides just antibodies. What concerns me and always has is the risk of false negative antibody tests (IE the antibodies don't show up on the test because someone didn't ever make them or they became undetectable while the person was still infectious).
Three and four are worded a little odd. When I think rate I think isntance over time. I think you are just asking if instance went up, would you expect more deaths...which obviously the answer is yes.
For the 0.65 to stay the same, no male between 20-29 could die from Covid moving forward.
So the question would then be, how many people between the age of 20-29 who are male would need to die for it statistically make sense for one of those to play football regardless of physical condition?
- 1 = X times (73,700/100,000)
- X = 1.357
- 1.357/0.65 = 2.09
The seven day rolling average as of yesterday was 619. 120k/619 is 193 days...which is January 2nd of 2021.
So if nothing changes, and you don't account for any physical factors, medical care, resources, etc., statistically, you would expect, on a population basis, a fatality on or before January 2nd of 2021.
Similar threads
