Phase 4 = high school football?

I'm headed down there Saturday to babysit my grandsons. I was going to go car shopping while I was there....

I just changed my mind.

Teetime wrote:I'm headed down there Saturday to babysit my grandsons. I was going to go car shopping while I was there....

I just changed my mind.

My oldest daughter lives down there too. I was going to go down there just to have lunch on the weekend and she called it off, saying it was too risky.

Teetime wrote:I'm headed down there Saturday to babysit my grandsons. I was going to go car shopping while I was there....

I just changed my mind.

Make sure you remind as many people as you can down there to wear their masks. JB would appreciate it.

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/pritzker-issues-warning-to-illinois-residents-traveling-to-other-states/2312030/

Teetime wrote:I do wish they would have moved baseball to the fall.

Maybe things have changed, but when I played and when my sons played there were a lot of football players that also played baseball. You can be pretty good about social distancing in a baseball game.

I agree with this. And they lost an entire season last spring. This "summer" season is planned to be about 6 weeks and 3 games per week.

2 winters ago, there was a proposal to IHSA to move softball to fall. I don't think it made it past the committee to reach the point of being voted on.

I believe the new "summer" season is 7 weeks, but only 5 weeks where games are allowed. That's 15 games max. I realize not everyone plays travel ball, but pushing the HS season back also cuts off a "prime" month of travel (June) where teams would have likely played many more than 15 games. My daughters (and the rest of our team) want to play high school ball, so we'll make whatever schedule we have work. I do wonder if players from some of the more "elite" travel teams will decide to skip high school and just play travel. Especially the ones that have players from multiple states.

Not sure why they cant play 4 games in a week. Tue, Wed and a Double Dip on Saturday would get them 20 games in.

Bighitter11 wrote:Not sure why they cant play 4 games in a week.  Tue, Wed and a Double Dip on Saturday would get them 20 games in.  

I'd why they can't play more than that. I mean, there's been plenty of years where March and April were so horrendous weather wise, teams end up playing nearly every day of late April/May.

I think the rules were changed with the new season. It's 3 games a week max, and that's only if 1 day is a double header. So only 2 game days a week.

I can understand if a team doesnt have a deep staff and your worried about pitching arms but let the teams decide how many games they play.

tm wrote:I think the rules were changed with the new season. It's 3 games a week max, and that's only if 1 day is a double header. So only 2 game days a week.

That's dumb.

I agree... You get a rainy saturday next year, and football will be playing as many games in a week as softball/baseball.

tm wrote:I agree... You get a rainy saturday next year, and football will be playing as many games in a week as softball/baseball.

Do those rules apply for spring break too?

EDIT- I forgot they're not starting until May 1.

Teetime wrote:I do wish they would have moved baseball to the fall.

Maybe things have changed, but when I played and when my sons played there were a lot of football players that also played baseball. You can be pretty good about social distancing in a baseball game.

iesa is allowing fall baseball. i'm not sure why they(ihsa) couldn't do it.

If COVID is successful at anything, I think it has the ability to finally kill school sponsored sports for good-
https://herald-review.com/sports/high-school/baseball/its-a-win-win-millikin-fall-baseball-league-will-give-high-school-players-competition/article_f0937fad-86f7-5070-9cc3-0025154ffe86.html

I think for baseball and softball you may be right...football is a different animal I truly believe. Maybe I'm just blinded by my affection for Friday night high school football which very well may be, but I don't think that will happen. Basketball is a 50/50 deal...most AAU teams play in the late spring / early summer; now, that could easily change, but as of right now I'd be more worried if I coached baseball or softball. Those parents are bat shit if you ask me...I'm so glad my kids decided to hang up the bat and glove for track.

lefty120 wrote:Those parents are bat shit if you ask me...

Let's be honest, all parents are now.

Head Idiot wrote:

lefty120 wrote:Those parents are bat shit if you ask me...

Let's be honest, all parents are now.

By in large this is an accurate statement.

According to CDC the COVID19 mortality rate for ages 15-24 is 0.00057%. Now why aren't we having HS and College football? Ohio Governor announced today that all HS, Middle school and youth fall sports could proceed. OSU can't play though. Think that isn't about politics?

OSUBucks wrote:According to CDC the COVID19 mortality rate for ages 15-24 is 0.00057%. Now why aren't we having HS and College football?

Because mortality rate among teens is not the same as positivity rate which is not the same as the R number.

Do you really think what is driving the high school sports decisions in Illinois relative to the virus is driven by concern over the kids' mortality rate? It's about the numbers of kids (and those connected to their sports programs) getting infected, and them infecting others, and so on...

ramblinman wrote:

OSUBucks wrote:According to CDC the COVID19 mortality rate for ages 15-24 is 0.00057%. Now why aren't we having HS and College football?

Because mortality rate among teens is not the same as positivity rate which is not the same as the R number.

Do you really think what is driving the high school sports decisions in Illinois relative to the virus is driven by concern over the kids' mortality rate? It's about the numbers of kids (and those connected to their sports programs) getting infected, and them infecting others, and so on...

If that is true then explain this
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-2671

"Among 3410 close contacts, 127 of were secondarily infected"

The secondary attack rate increased with the severity of index cases, from 0.3% for asymptomatic to 3.3% for mild, 5.6% for moderate, and 6.2% for severe or critical cases.

For the 0-17 group of the 357 close contacts only 14 of the contacts became infected.

This is why a lot of countries are no longer counting asymptomatic cases as positive.

ramblinman wrote:

OSUBucks wrote:According to CDC the COVID19 mortality rate for ages 15-24 is 0.00057%. Now why aren't we having HS and College football?

Because mortality rate among teens is not the same as positivity rate which is not the same as the R number.

Do you really think what is driving the high school sports decisions in Illinois relative to the virus is driven by concern over the kids' mortality rate?  It's about the numbers of kids (and those connected to their sports programs) getting infected, and them infecting others, and so on...

It may not be true with the HS kids but the college players are locked down on campus, at least OSU's are. They haven't had a positive test in weeks.

https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2020/08/10/asymptomatic

This article states asymptomatic individuals carry the same viral load but because they are not coughing and sneezing spread it does not spread as efficiently.

dusty7 wrote:https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2020/08/10/asymptomatic

This article states asymptomatic individuals carry the same viral load but because they are not coughing and sneezing spread it does not spread as efficiently.  

So it's okay then for them to be lining up across the LOS inches apart from each other's faces, huffing and puffing?  Hey, at least they aren't coughing and sneezing, right?

And, many of the reports I have read with respect to spreading the virus indicate that the most contagious stage of an infected individual is shortly after becoming infected and immediately preceding the onset of symptoms.   So, that means that those who are infected and ultimately will become symptomatic are the most contagious before they start feeling ill. Kind of renders the absence of coughing or sneezing argument somewhat moot.

Although there are many reports, here is an excerpt from one of them: "In brief, evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 RNA can be detected in people 1-3 days before their symptom onset, with the highest viral loads, as measured by RT-PCR, observed around the day of symptom onset, followed by a gradual decline over time." https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/transmission-of-sars-cov-2-implications-for-infection-prevention-precautions

And here is one more: "Researchers estimate that people who get infected with the coronavirus can spread it to others 2 to 3 days before symptoms start and are most contagious 1 to 2 days before they feel sick." https://www.webmd.com/lung/coronavirus-incubation-period

ramblinman wrote:

dusty7 wrote:https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2020/08/10/asymptomatic

This article states asymptomatic individuals carry the same viral load but because they are not coughing and sneezing spread it does not spread as efficiently.  

So it's okay then for them to be lining up across the LOS inches apart from each other's faces, huffing and puffing?  Hey, at least they aren't coughing and sneezing, right?

And, many of the reports I have read with respect to spreading the virus indicate that the most contagious stage of an infected individual is shortly after becoming infected and immediately preceding the onset of symptoms.   So, that means that those who are infected and ultimately will become symptomatic are the most contagious before they start feeling ill. Kind of renders the absence of coughing or sneezing argument somewhat moot.

Although there are many reports, here is an excerpt from one of them:  "In brief, evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 RNA can be detected in people 1-3 days before their symptom onset, with the highest viral loads, as measured by RT-PCR, observed around the day of symptom onset, followed by a gradual decline over time."  https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/transmission-of-sars-cov-2-implications-for-infection-prevention-precautions

And here is one more:  "Researchers estimate that people who get infected with the coronavirus can spread it to others 2 to 3 days before symptoms start and are most contagious 1 to 2 days before they feel sick."  https://www.webmd.com/lung/coronavirus-incubation-period

As is the case with this entire thing, find a study that says one thing and another study says the complete opposite. This just shows how the "science and data" have now become politicized. When doctors and hospitals receive extra revenue from having a high number of COVID + patients, they are going to try and keep the narrative going for the sake of $$$, which is wrong and against the Hippocratic Oath in my opinion. There is just no 100% truth out there, it is all slanted toward the reds, the blues, and those who can profit. Just take the study on mayocarditis after infection, everybody went nuts and got worried then a few days later it comes out all individuals in the study were 45+ years old, the author probably just wanted to get some notoriety and their 15 minutes of fame and a spot on a national news network.

There is no truth and I would say not a single politician, government entity, or alphabet soup bureaucracy has been very transparent throughout this entire pandemic and has done all they can to gain publicity and support for their next election. Not saying some have not done a good job, but it seems this is starting to become about themselves and their next election.

On another note, the current 7 day US Positivity is at the same level it was during the first week of July. Is the 2nd wave over? When will be expecting a 3rd wave?

dusty7 wrote:

ramblinman wrote:

dusty7 wrote:https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2020/08/10/asymptomatic

This article states asymptomatic individuals carry the same viral load but because they are not coughing and sneezing spread it does not spread as efficiently.  

So it's okay then for them to be lining up across the LOS inches apart from each other's faces, huffing and puffing?  Hey, at least they aren't coughing and sneezing, right?

And, many of the reports I have read with respect to spreading the virus indicate that the most contagious stage of an infected individual is shortly after becoming infected and immediately preceding the onset of symptoms.   So, that means that those who are infected and ultimately will become symptomatic are the most contagious before they start feeling ill. Kind of renders the absence of coughing or sneezing argument somewhat moot.

Although there are many reports, here is an excerpt from one of them:  "In brief, evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 RNA can be detected in people 1-3 days before their symptom onset, with the highest viral loads, as measured by RT-PCR, observed around the day of symptom onset, followed by a gradual decline over time."  https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/transmission-of-sars-cov-2-implications-for-infection-prevention-precautions

And here is one more:  "Researchers estimate that people who get infected with the coronavirus can spread it to others 2 to 3 days before symptoms start and are most contagious 1 to 2 days before they feel sick."  https://www.webmd.com/lung/coronavirus-incubation-period

As is the case with this entire thing, find a study that says one thing and another study says the complete opposite.  This just shows how the "science and data" have now become politicized. When doctors and hospitals receive extra revenue from having a high number of COVID + patients, they are going to try and keep the narrative going for the sake of $$$, which is wrong and against the Hippocratic Oath in my opinion.  There is just no 100% truth out there, it is all slanted toward the reds, the blues, and those who can profit. Just take the study on mayocarditis after infection, everybody went nuts and got worried then a few days later it comes out all individuals in the study were 45+ years old, the author probably just wanted to get some notoriety and their 15 minutes of fame and a spot on a national news network.

There is no truth and I would say not a single politician, government entity, or alphabet soup bureaucracy has been very transparent throughout this entire pandemic and has done all they can to gain publicity and support for their next election.  Not saying some have not done a good job, but it seems this is starting to become about themselves and their next election.  

On another note, the current 7 day US Positivity is at the same level it was during the first week of July.  Is the 2nd wave over? When will be expecting a 3rd wave?    

Okay, so I looked at that article from the advisory board that you cited. You totally picked what you wanted from that article to suit your narrative. Specifically, you picked up on the following: "Benjamin Cowling, an epidemiologist at the University of Hong Kong who was not involved in the study, added that the results "confirm what we've suspected for a long time—that asymptomatic cases can transmit infection." However, Cowling said, because asymptomatic people don't cough or sneeze, they might not be as efficient at spreading the virus as symptomatic people."

So this is a single epidemiologist COMMENTING on the report that was published in JAMA. His COMMENT was not a report in and of itself, and he was not a part of the study. Furthermore, the guy says that the results of the study CONFIRM that asymptomatic cases of COVID can transmit the infection, but you CHOSE NOT to mention that, instead you claim that the "article states" that asymptomatic cases MIGHT not be as efficient at spreading the virus because they aren't coughing or sneezing. Really, though, it was an opinion offered by one person...who also stated that asymptomatic cases can transmit the virus.

Further, the article you cited went on to say, "On the other hand, symptomatic patients often stay home to recover from Covid-19, while asymptomatic patients who could be unaware they're carrying the virus may continue with their everyday routines, potentially infecting others,..." but you CHOSE NOT to mention that. So, basically, within the same article, you have two comments, one of which suited your narrative regarding asymptomatic carriers, and one that did not. Then, when I gave you two references regarding when people are the most contagious, from the MANY references on that topic that are out there, you turn it political.

Lame.