BearGoggles said:I didn't provide a link because, in all candor, the information has been so widely disseminated I took it for granted.01Bear said:BearGoggles said:Let me help. You posted a bunch of articles showing that some students died of Covid. Yes - you were responding to someone's question. But what is the relevance? Because we KNOW that scientifically/statistically speaking, the number of students (aka young people) dying of COVID is miniscule in comparison to many other risks - the articles you posted don't change that. And to the point of his post, covid deaths in this age group are less than the number of students dying of flu, yet we still play football and other sports - without any precautions - when there's flu.01Bear said:Northside91 said:01Bear said:Northside91 said:I absolutely realize that. I also realize that you're holding out the information in your post as something relevant to the broader discussion. I'm doing the same thing. Clear enough?01Bear said:Northside91 said:https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html01Bear said:NVBear78 said:When was the last College Student to die from Covid?okaydo said:Yogi Bear said:How long has it been since our last high-profile COVID-19 death? We have a lot of old-as-hell politicians getting it and even they seem to be recovering OK. Assuming that the infected players are properly quarantined during recovery, if you're going to have a season at all, it would seem that one positive test shouldn't derail a game.hanky1 said:
I feel terrible for our players who work their butt off only to have their season threatened by complete lack of imagination and foresight by our athletic department leader.
The blanket contact tracing quarantine required by the city of Berkeley makes no sense because
1) it goes against what every other medical professional in every other sports league has recommended and
2) it just makes no freakin common sense. None whatsoever.
This should've been apparent to Knowlton from the very beginning and he should've just either 1) cancelled the whole damn season or 2) found another city to play in.
Under these rules, the only way we could play football is if every player and coach on the roster made it through the year without contracting COVID (which is >99% harmless to people in their age group anyways). This was always unrealistic. Plans should've been made to play/practice/live elsewhere.
The failure to recognize this was a failure in leadership. Complete failure.
Strike 1 for Knowlton. Considering how catastrophic this strike was, does he even deserve another at-bat?
We have a bad habit of letting the City push us around.
Yes, old-as-hell politicians get the best health care.
I don't know if this is the last college student to die of COVID-19, but this college student did die of it.
https://www.wndu.com/2020/11/03/coroner-releases-report-in-death-of-grace-college-student/
2018-19, per CDC. Over 2,000 flu deaths and 60,000 hospitalizations in the 18-49 age group. That should cover 98%+ of our players and coaches. Pretty unacceptable risk if you ask me. That's why I'm thinking of petitioning the Chancellor and AD to cancel all sports and on campus activities during peak cold/flu/COVID season, which is roughly November 1 through mid-March. If they go with it, Cal can wind up football and basketball, like many faculty members and administrators have long wanted, and get on with the much more important business of spinning false/unscientific narratives and assimilating all living souls in plain sight.
I'm not sure what the point of your post was. Are you just trying to troll?
You realize my post was in reply to NVBear78's question as to when a college student last died of Covid-19. I replied with a link to a news report of such a death.
You read more into my comment than I wrote. I only answered a question asked by NVBear78.
As for your comment, what exactly is the relevance of it to the "broader discussion?" Also, what exactly do you think is the "broader discussion?"
Cal. Its athletic programs. The administration. The CoB. Young to relatively young people in the context of COVID.
The kind thing would be to say you're better than this, but that would be a lie.
Aside from the last sentence, which is just a pathetic veiled attempt at continued trolling, your last comment was just a jumble of words. It's unclear what exactly is the point you're trying to make or whether it's even in response to (the questions in) my last comment.
So, if by your logic, the covid risk is unacceptable, then so would the risk of the flu. And, again, by your logic, Cal should cancel all sports due to flu risk (without regard to COVID).
Yes - covid is worse than the flu on the whole - because of the risk to older people, absence of a vaccine, etc. But the protocols established in connection with football mitigate most if not all of that. Even if a football player gets covid, the chance of spread to more vulnerable groups is drastically reduced by all the protocols.
As an aside - what percentage of football players/staff do you think would have covid if they weren't observing the football protocols? I think its safe to say more given that Cal has had ONE case. So in terms that group, the covid risk is very likely lower due to football.
Actually, it was Okaydo who did the research and pulled up the multiple articles of college students who died of Covid-19. I only pulled up one article of a recent student who died of Covid-19. Even then, I was clear I was unsure whether that was the most recent college student who died of Covid-19.
That said, your argument ignores the other arguments that have been made about how (1) there is a wide range of consequences between health and death re Covid-19 and (2) no one knows what the long term health consequences will be for those who "recover" from Covid-19. Finally, you now assert that Covid-19 is less deadly to college students than the flu, something no one has argued before and for which you proffer no evidence.
But let's pretend your arguments are well made. Let's assume that the flu is more deadly for college students than is Covid-19. Let's also assume that the only negative consequence of Covid-19 is death and that those who recover recover fully. Under these assumptions, sure, the balance tilts toward allowing the students to play. However, it should be noted that this does not mean the risk of the spread of Covid-19 won't increase among the ranks of the coaching staff, the support staff, the cleaning staff, etc. who are not college students. Neither does it mean their risk of death from Covid-19 won't unnecessarily increase as a result.
Now, getting back to reality and facts, the assumptions that had to be made to support your rosy scenario are too many and have no basis in fact. (At least to my knowledge. Of course, if you have access to any evidence to the contrary, it would be appreciated if you shared that evidence.) While it may be true that Covid-19 is less deadly than the flu for college-aged kids (again, this seems to be an assumption based on no facts), there are numerous cases where some otherwise healthy people have been left with long-term damage after they "recovered." Worse, it is unknown what triggers this ling term damage. Furthermore, no one knows how long the damage will last (i.e., whether they're permanent).
While for some people, death may be the only tragedy they fear, there are others who recognize that tragedies do not have to be fatal to be serious. Organ failure, for example. Scarred lung tissue would be another. Mental health disease would be a third. At present, no one knows just what are the risks of these or other maladies to anyone, let alone to college-aged kids.
All things being equal, it makes little sense to risk the health and well-being of anyone (let alone kids whose care has been entrusted to Cal) for something as unnecessary and frivolous as mass entertainment. While I am a sports fan (and really a Cal sports fan), I tend not to believe sports is the end all and be all (not even Cal sports).
That said, I recognize that not everyone may feel the same. That's completely fine. If others believe sports is the end all be all, more power to them. I'd just ask that they be the ones to participate in the activities and not put others at risk.
Of course, I'm merely a Cal alumnus and a Cal fan. I have no voice in how the school (let alone the City of Berkeley) chooses to move forward. Whatever I have to say on this matter really doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
"In a report detailing the differences between COVID-19 and the flu, the CDC states that "the risk of complications for healthy children is higher for flu compared to COVID-19." Same applies to deaths in that age range.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/sep/08/ron-johnson/johnson-mostly-track-claim-flu-harder-kids-covid-1/
Here is the actual CDC report - applicable to children under 17. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/symptoms/flu-vs-covid19.htm
Here is an article discussing people under 25 - -same conclusions.
https://freopp.org/comparing-the-risk-of-death-from-covid-19-vs-influenza-by-age-d33a1c76c198
"Based on that analysis, what is striking is that those under the age of 25 are at significantly lower risk of death from COVID-19 than of the flu. Under our assumptions, for example, school-aged children between 5 and 14 have a 1 in 200,000 chance of dying of influenza, but a 1 in 1.1 million chance of dying of COVID-19.
For toddlers, the relative risk is even more pronounced. We estimate that Americans between ages 14 are 6 times more likely to die of influenza than of COVID-19"
You're correct that there is a generalized concern about spread from young people to other more vulnerable populations. That is why old (and otherwise vulnerable people) are staying at home and avoiding contact with young people. And no doubt, the players and staff are being told to stay in a semi-bubble both to protect themselves and others. Given this reality and the testing protocols, the chance of a player and/or coach spreading the disease to a vulnerable party is very low.
The larger question is how do we protect the vulnerable groups? Do we lock down people under 25 (e.g., cancel in person school/college and all of their social activities), tell football players they can't play, etc., to avoid spread to more vulnerable groups? Or do we tell the vulnerable people to be careful and adopt stringent testing protocols for anyone coming into contact with old people? I have college aged children and they stay away from the grandparents for exactly this reason.
There's no "correct" answer here. But I do think that "older or vulnerable people" (including politicians and many of the white collar works least affected by the pandemic) are asking the young people to make a huge sacrifice without a full and fair assessment of the cost/burden so imposed. We are asking young people who are not at personal risk (certainly no more risk than the flu) to absorb massive costs and consequences which will affect them for a long time (lost education, employment, increased mental health issues).
And that is where the comparison to the flu becomes interesting. We don't make the same risk allocations for flu, which comparatively speaking is more deadly for the young and less deadly for the old. Why do you suppose that is? Hint: who has the economic and political power?
Thank you for sharing those links. While the freeopp.org link was the only one that provided any sort of numbers for college-aged kids' mortality rate re Covid-19 versus their mortality rate re flu, the latter's numbers are likely relying on an (over)estimate (see, https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/comparing-covid-19-deaths-to-flu-deaths-is-like-comparing-apples-to-oranges/ ). By some accounts, the estimated flu deaths numbers is high by a factor of about five. So instead of a mortality rate of 1 in 1,000,000, the mortality rate for college-aged kids re flu should be about 1 in 5,000,000. Assuming the mortality rate for college-aged kids re Covid-19 remains 1 in 1,100,000, that means the actual mortality rate of college-aged kids with Covid-19 is closer to five times higher than that the mortality rate of college-aged kids with the flu.
Keep in mind, it's not entirely clear how the mortality rate for Covid-19 was determined as presented in the freeopp article. Even assuming that number was based on the number of college-aged kids who have actually become sick and died of Covid-19, that number is likely skewed by the measures that have been implemented to reduce the number of people who become sick with (and die of) Covid-19, including college-aged kids. This is alluded to somewhat in the Politifact article you linked.
That aside, I think we are in agreement that many Americans don't believe there is a correct answer in how to about spread to vulnerable groups. However, many countries around the world have provided a template for how to do protect the most vulnerable groups. Basically, the idea is to stop the spread of the Sars-Cov-2 virus among the general population. A shining example of this is Taiwan, where there have been 584 total cases and 7 deaths among a population of 7.06 million. Compare that with Alaska, which has had 20,715 total cases and 87 deaths for a population of 683,879 people. (For the record, I chose Alaska as a comp because so many people dismiss Taiwan's success at battling the virus due to its ability to restrict travel thanks to its geography and because of its relatively smaller population versus the US. Alaska's population is even smaller than that of Taiwan and it also benefits from geographical isolation, though it is not an island.)
The fact of the matter is, there is a way to prevent the spread of the virus among the most vulnerable groups. However, too many Americans have been either too blinded by hubris to follow the examples set by "other" (especially non-White majority ) nations, have been misled by the lies emanating forth from the White House that the virus was no more deadly than the flu, or have fallen into the idiotic belief that Covid-19 was all a hoax designed to hurt the re-election chances of the incumbent in the White House. Too many Americans have refused to take simple precautions and to listen to the public health and medical experts. This is also why the US is leading the world in both total cases and deaths from Covid-19.
While my goal isn't to excoriate my fellow Americans, it's about time that someone did. We have become the laughingstock of the world in no small part due to how we've responded to Covid-19. Where once America was respected for it's leadership on the medical and scientific frontiers, the rest of the world is now pointing to us as an example of what not to do. As a patriotic American who loves my country, this galls me. So long as America's leaders continue to rebuff and deny science when they prove inconvenient, we'll continue to be the world's Goofus.
For what it's worth, I agree with you that we're in this mess because of who has money, power, and control. You're absolutely right that the rich and powerful have screwed over the rest of country for decades, if not centuries, in the preservation of their own selfish interests.