2020 High School Baseball Season

CIAC, which "runs" Connecticut HS sports, just announced that they are indefinitely suspending the start of the spring sports season however there is a strong desire to provide student-athletes some spring athletic experience if possible.

This is a level headed decision.  Now they will follow the data along with state mandates to determine what can be possible.  The worst decision that could be made is cancelling right now with a few months of the year left.  Hey, it may end up in a full cancel but not yet.   Also, my son just got a nice email from his soon to be head college coach (just a thoughtful check-in).  So in past 24 hours - he got word from his summer travel coach, updates on his HS season and a college coach check-in.  

Now if we can get this market to just settle down we can breathe a little in this house.

First practice day for Iowa baseball is set for May 4 (summer baseball here). Hoping we may actually get to do that. 

With each passing day, as the world gains more experience with the disease, one thing we are learning is that fatality rates are zero for those under 10 and virtually zero for those 11-19.

What this means to me is, the closure of schools and the cessation of school-related activities is not justified by any scientific fact.  We're dealing only with an hysterical overreaction.

Before the NCAA just cancelled everything, it had announced that games would proceed but without spectators.  If people want to do this to protect older, more vulnerable members of the community, perhaps that is still justifiable.  But cancelling practices and games among youths is not justified.

As a nation, we need to stop talking about all the things we can't do or shouldn't do and start identifying things we CAN do.  I'm not willing to accept this message that we're all going to have to huddle in our homes for literally months with no interaction.  Letting fear ruin all our lives, put millions out of work, cause tens of thousands of businesses to fail and igniting a depression should be off the table as an option. 

If you could put all school students, teachers, coaches, trainers, and food-service workers under the age of 40 in school and keep them there 24/7 with no contact with people outside, I'd agree that that was the way to go.  Let them all get infected and recover.  However, that's not how it works.  That's not how colleges work, either.

How many students have parents in high-risk groups?  (mine, for a start)  How old are the teachers and coaches?  How many have diabetes, asthma, or other health problems?  What about their families?  People who live with elderly relatives?  How many of those people would be allowed to opt out, if schools are open?  How do you run things if a lot of people opt out?

Midlo Dad posted:

With each passing day, as the world gains more experience with the disease, one thing we are learning is that fatality rates are zero for those under 10 and virtually zero for those 11-19.

What this means to me is, the closure of schools and the cessation of school-related activities is not justified by any scientific fact.  We're dealing only with an hysterical overreaction.

Before the NCAA just cancelled everything, it had announced that games would proceed but without spectators.  If people want to do this to protect older, more vulnerable members of the community, perhaps that is still justifiable.  But cancelling practices and games among youths is not justified.

As a nation, we need to stop talking about all the things we can't do or shouldn't do and start identifying things we CAN do.  I'm not willing to accept this message that we're all going to have to huddle in our homes for literally months with no interaction.  Letting fear ruin all our lives, put millions out of work, cause tens of thousands of businesses to fail and igniting a depression should be off the table as an option. 

Midlo, I think you aren't giving enough weight to two important points:

1) Kids can get C-19, including sever cases, although they generally are at lower risk:

"Children, including very young children, can develop COVID-19. However, children tend to experience milder symptoms such as fever, runny nose, and cough. Some children have had severe complications, but this has been less common. Children with underlying health conditions may be at increased risk for severe illness."  (https://www.health.harvard.edu...irus-resource-center)

2) More importantly, children who are infected can infect others--parents, grandparents, babysitters, people that happen to be near them on public transit or in the grocery store or church.  Take schools as a specific example, since you mentioned them.  No school can operate without adults present.  Teachers, janitors, administrators, parent volunteers all are adults, some are old enough to be at high risk, and some have underlying health conditions.  Even if you conclude the risk to kids themselves is acceptable, closing schools was a measure intended to help everyone by slowing the spread of coronavirus.

I am not a public health expert.  But I assume you are not either.  Those who do have medical and public health expertise are darn near unanimous in their recommendations at this point.

Midlo Dad posted:

With each passing day, as the world gains more experience with the disease, one thing we are learning is that fatality rates are zero for those under 10 and virtually zero for those 11-19.

What this means to me is, the closure of schools and the cessation of school-related activities is not justified by any scientific fact.  We're dealing only with an hysterical overreaction.

Before the NCAA just cancelled everything, it had announced that games would proceed but without spectators.  If people want to do this to protect older, more vulnerable members of the community, perhaps that is still justifiable.  But cancelling practices and games among youths is not justified.

As a nation, we need to stop talking about all the things we can't do or shouldn't do and start identifying things we CAN do.  I'm not willing to accept this message that we're all going to have to huddle in our homes for literally months with no interaction.  Letting fear ruin all our lives, put millions out of work, cause tens of thousands of businesses to fail and igniting a depression should be off the table as an option. 

Couldn't agree more! Wait until folks stop getting PAID or only get 1/2 their salaries and then see how fast they want to open everything back up. I just hope in the next 2 weeks people start to figure it out, each passing day seems to add new and further advanced closures, why not just wait it out already??

Midlo, JimmyMac and other folks, I mean this with all goodwill:  If you think the country is overreacting, then please do a little online research.  See if you can find a recent. reputable source (meaning a medical authority, not a political site or an editorial) that supports your position.  The UK's stance might have offered you some limited backing until the past 24-48 hours, when they concluded they also needed to take more active measures.  

I say this not to try to be combative, but because I honestly think you'll find that the medical experts just don't agree with you.  If you find some public health agency or official who backs you, then please post a link here.  Because I have spent way too much time online reading about this stuff (which I freely admit is my only source of knowledge on the matter--I have no medical training), and nothing I read backs up the view that schools should be re-opened or sports should resume for at least some weeks yet.  

Chico Escuela posted:

Midlo Dad posted:

With each passing day, as the world gains more experience with the disease, one thing we are learning is that fatality rates are zero for those under 10 and virtually zero for those 11-19.

What this means to me is, the closure of schools and the cessation of school-related activities is not justified by any scientific fact.  We're dealing only with an hysterical overreaction.

Before the NCAA just cancelled everything, it had announced that games would proceed but without spectators.  If people want to do this to protect older, more vulnerable members of the community, perhaps that is still justifiable.  But cancelling practices and games among youths is not justified.

As a nation, we need to stop talking about all the things we can't do or shouldn't do and start identifying things we CAN do.  I'm not willing to accept this message that we're all going to have to huddle in our homes for literally months with no interaction.  Letting fear ruin all our lives, put millions out of work, cause tens of thousands of businesses to fail and igniting a depression should be off the table as an option. 

Midlo, I think you aren't giving enough weight to two important points:

1) Kids can get C-19, including sever cases, although they generally are at lower risk:

"Children, including very young children, can develop COVID-19. However, children tend to experience milder symptoms such as fever, runny nose, and cough. Some children have had severe complications, but this has been less common. Children with underlying health conditions may be at increased risk for severe illness."  (https://www.health.harvard.edu...irus-resource-center)

2) More importantly, children who are infected can infect others--parents, grandparents, babysitters, people that happen to be near them on public transit or in the grocery store or church.  Take schools as a specific example, since you mentioned them.  No school can operate without adults present.  Teachers, janitors, administrators, parent volunteers all are adults, some are old enough to be at high risk, and some have underlying health conditions.  Even if you conclude the risk to kids themselves is acceptable, closing schools was a measure intended to help everyone by slowing the spread of coronavirus.

I am not a public health expert.  But I assume you are not either.  Those who do have medical and public health expertise are darn near unanimous in their recommendations at this point.

Chico is 100% correct. Midlo, you are 100% myopic and naive. No, I'm not picking on you. 

From someone in the field, with experience, just because kids aren't currently dying or the virus isn't apparently lethal to them, is even more reason for them to be quarantined and kept away from each other and everyone else. They are the perfect vector. Look up what a "vector" is. 

Let Me Google That For you.

You are entitled to your opinion, however wrong it is in this case, but come on. "What this means to me is, the closure of schools and the cessation of school-related activities is not justified by any scientific fact.  We're dealing only with an hysterical overreaction."  WOW!!

If you aren't trained or have any experience, please let the experts lead the way and offer guidance. Otherwise it just sounds silly and naive.

To help exemplify the situation, watch a few simulations and understand how the vector works, and if the vector doesn't show symptoms, it can't be identified, treated, or quarantined to protect the rest of the population. Transmission skyrockets. Self quarantine works, shuts this down, stops the spread. 

https://mail.google.com/mail/u...bTWqcJJmXvKVcCNgmhqV

Control what you can control. This is bigger than you, your family, me or mine, and so are the ramifications. People being selfish and not quarantining are only exacerbating and delaying the outcome.  This doesn't have legs if you don't give it legs! Take this awful contagion's power away now and often. 

Hug your family (when it's safe) and wait it out. This WILL go away sooner the sooner people effectively self-quarantine. Make a list of all you're grateful for and the things you miss most. We're taking in moments we overlooked before, perhaps you are too!

Seems the little things are big now whereas a week ago the big things are little today.

All this takes is everyone to hit the pause button and it stops in MUCH LESS TIME than it will if you don't. This would have been resolved in a matter of weeks with systemic and mandatory self quarantines. Now it will unfortunately take longer as people travel, and go about this without care or caution. 

Yes, spring ball is GONE. Hoping summer ball isn't affected, but I'm losing faith in that with every passing day and with ignorant and naive posts. 

Knowing the math behind availability of hospitals, hospital beds, ventilators, staff, etc. You don't want this to get out of hand, should you or a loved one, need that bed or ventilator or staff to be alert and awake to treat you and not sick themselves.

Wash your hands and chill.........

YouTube from people that have and are going through this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=o_cImRzKXOs&feature=emb_share&fbclid=IwAR3u9MgJnCC9yAKOJsomddHSe2dbbUvdj-cseGV4hkYOY_d2m2ALMBoTkxo  

Think about more than yourself and your inconvenience......

This is an interesting read...

https://www.cdc.gov/coronaviru...r-school-closure.pdf

The most interesting part is as follows (although I encourage reading the full article, especially the table at the end that details the pro/con of each approach).

Available modeling data indicate that early, short to medium closures do not impact the epi curve of COVID-19 or available health care measures (e.g., hospitalizations). There may be some impact of much longer closures (8 weeks, 20 weeks) further into community spread, but that modelling also shows that other mitigation efforts (e.g., handwashing, home isolation) have more impact on both spread of disease and health care measures. In other countries, those places who closed school (e.g., Hong Kong) have not had more success in reducing spread than those that did not (e.g., Singapore).

atlnon posted:

This is an interesting read...

https://www.cdc.gov/coronaviru...r-school-closure.pdf

The most interesting part is as follows (although I encourage reading the full article, especially the table at the end that details the pro/con of each approach).

Available modeling data indicate that early, short to medium closures do not impact the epi curve of COVID-19 or available health care measures (e.g., hospitalizations). There may be some impact of much longer closures (8 weeks, 20 weeks) further into community spread, but that modelling also shows that other mitigation efforts (e.g., handwashing, home isolation) have more impact on both spread of disease and health care measures. In other countries, those places who closed school (e.g., Hong Kong) have not had more success in reducing spread than those that did not (e.g., Singapore).

School closures without other methods will not do much.  It says right here in the excerpt you selected that home isolation and hand washing have more impact.  How do you both home isolate and go to school? (Hint: you can't)

Midlo Dad posted:

With each passing day, as the world gains more experience with the disease, one thing we are learning is that fatality rates are zero for those under 10 and virtually zero for those 11-19.

What this means to me is, the closure of schools and the cessation of school-related activities is not justified by any scientific fact.  We're dealing only with an hysterical overreaction.

Before the NCAA just cancelled everything, it had announced that games would proceed but without spectators.  If people want to do this to protect older, more vulnerable members of the community, perhaps that is still justifiable.  But cancelling practices and games among youths is not justified.

As a nation, we need to stop talking about all the things we can't do or shouldn't do and start identifying things we CAN do.  I'm not willing to accept this message that we're all going to have to huddle in our homes for literally months with no interaction.  Letting fear ruin all our lives, put millions out of work, cause tens of thousands of businesses to fail and igniting a depression should be off the table as an option. 

What does the data say about transmission for those age groups?

I think it's really to protect everybody, in all age groups.  There isn't significant data as to what are the ramifications for those who have been sick.

Reports coming from China, has been diminished lung capacity.

Maybe if we had known sooner, things could have been different.

Go44dad posted:

What does the data say about transmission for those age groups?

Nature (highest-level science journal in the US) says that children get sick as much as other people, but show symptoms much less, especially severe symptoms:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00154-w

"Children are just as likely to become infected with the new coronavirus as adults, finds one of the most detailed studies yet published on the spread of the virus, known as SARS-CoV-2. The analysis — based on data from Shenzhen in China — provides a partial answer to one of the most pressing questions surrounding the outbreak: the role of children.

Previous studies have suggested that kids are much less likely than other age groups to develop severe symptoms when infected by the coronavirus. But it was not clear whether this was because they weren’t getting infected or because they were fighting off the infection more effectively.

 “Kids are just as likely to get infected and they’re not getting sick,” says Justin Lessler, an infectious-disease epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland."

atlnon posted:

This is an interesting read...

https://www.cdc.gov/coronaviru...r-school-closure.pdf

The most interesting part is as follows (although I encourage reading the full article, especially the table at the end that details the pro/con of each approach).

Available modeling data indicate that early, short to medium closures do not impact the epi curve of COVID-19 or available health care measures (e.g., hospitalizations). There may be some impact of much longer closures (8 weeks, 20 weeks) further into community spread, but that modelling also shows that other mitigation efforts (e.g., handwashing, home isolation) have more impact on both spread of disease and health care measures. In other countries, those places who closed school (e.g., Hong Kong) have not had more success in reducing spread than those that did not (e.g., Singapore).

Agreed it is interesting (thanks for sharing). 

I don't know what to make of it.  For one, it's very odd that CDC seems to be suggesting school closings won't help after offering no objection when schools were closing just a few days ago.  I understand there may be new info, but to provide new official guidance now is really odd.  I also agree with 22and25 that the reference to the effectiveness of "home isolation" seems directly at odds with keeping schools open.

And then there is the recommendation that schools "implement multiple social distancing strategies for gatherings, classrooms and movement through the building."  How do you keep kids six feet apart in class, when desks are generally much closer together than that, and many classrooms are filled to capacity?  How do you have HS students change classes but maintain six feet of separation in the halls?  Lockers are next to each other, people are all trying to get from one place to another in a short interval between periods.  Even at lunch time--not many schools I know of have space in their cafeterias to keep six feet of space in line, six feet between kids sitting at tables...  Is CDC also suggesting restaurants should stay open? A school cafeteria is essentially a large restaurant.     

I read it as saying that it's no use to close just for a few weeks; that schools have to close for 8+ weeks.  But it wasn't very clear.

Obviously, now that they're saying no groups of more than 10 people, school is out.

Just read that MLB is considering skipping the amateur draft this year in an attempt to save money. That would be bad news for some players on my son's team. Got a potential 1st round pick, and 2 others who will probably go in the draft.  I wonder if they do skip the draft and these kids take their scholarships and play in college, if they will create some type of exception for next year that would let these kids be eligible for the 2021 amateur draft.

Lots of tears from MLB ownership, standing in the soup line with their pockets turned out. 

They’re also “fearful” they won’t be able to pay their stadium personnel, per the same article.  Just your basic positioning for upcoming negotiations with union and possible government handouts. 

Moved up to #4 in state rankings. I think we can hold this spot awhile. 

ARCEKU21 posted:

Just read that MLB is considering skipping the amateur draft this year in an attempt to save money. That would be bad news for some players on my son's team. Got a potential 1st round pick, and 2 others who will probably go in the draft.  I wonder if they do skip the draft and these kids take their scholarships and play in college, if they will create some type of exception for next year that would let these kids be eligible for the 2021 amateur draft.

Well, yes they would be eligible. But would probably have to sign for peanuts. (Assuming they are on a college roster)

RoadRunner posted:

ARCEKU21 posted:

Just read that MLB is considering skipping the amateur draft this year in an attempt to save money. That would be bad news for some players on my son's team. Got a potential 1st round pick, and 2 others who will probably go in the draft.  I wonder if they do skip the draft and these kids take their scholarships and play in college, if they will create some type of exception for next year that would let these kids be eligible for the 2021 amateur draft.

Well, yes they would be eligible. But would probably have to sign for peanuts. (Assuming they are on a college roster)

Roadrunner, These are HS kids, I believe.  If they start D1 college, they won't be eligible again until they are 21 or a junior (some turn 21 their sophomore year),  unless they make exceptions, which the college coaches are not planning on (loosing freshmen players to the draft).  Hopefully, these players have college to fall back on, which is not a bad place to land.

It is quite a mess, but decisions will be made and baseball will be played again.  

Still really crappy. Kids working hard for an opportunity that is now taken away for 3 more years. And walking into rosters with juniors who were sure things for the draft but are now playing another year.  They are making a bigger mess of all of this.  If they just move forward, it sucks but everyone lost one season.  What they are doing now messes up 3-4 seasons.

PitchingFan posted:

Let's start with your son's grade, what level they play (middle school, 9th grade, jv or varsity), position, school if you would like to share

Found this thread too late... Son is a 2020 LHP at a ranked school in Texas. Started a game on what became the final day of games last week and was pulled in the 5th inning of a no hitter (because he walked a batter on a full count after hitting one earlier that inning). Team still won big, so earned the W, but the reliever did allow a hit in the 6th, so no combined no-no. Not quite the high note though I was expecting his team to go out on this season. Team was stacked with like 6 D1s and a D2 from the senior class alone.  

Eokerholm posted:

To help exemplify the situation, watch a few simulations and understand how the vector works, and if the vector doesn't show symptoms, it can't be identified, treated, or quarantined to protect the rest of the population. Transmission skyrockets. Self quarantine works, shuts this down, stops the spread. 

All this takes is everyone to hit the pause button and it stops in MUCH LESS TIME than it will if you don't. This would have been resolved in a matter of weeks with systemic and mandatory self quarantines. Now it will unfortunately take longer as people travel, and go about this without care or caution. 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding but..... we can't actually stop the spread at this point can we? Isn't it too late for that? 

If it were localized to a few small areas in the country then maybe we could stop it. But there are documented cases in every state now and more everyday. You could say it's already metastasized if you will.

If it were less contagious maybe we could stop it.

And maybe we could stop it if it wasn't possible to be asymptomatic and contagious. Or possible to be mildly symptomatic and contagious. Or maybe if that time frame  were shorter.

Given these conditions, wouldn't we need to follow extremely stringent quarantine rules? Much more stringent than what they're currently recommending?  Is it realistic to think that you can get enough people to comply for long enough?  Or even get enough people to fully comply at all?

Seems like all we can do is slow spread? I'm not suggesting that we should just resume life as normal. I'm perfectly willing  to make sacrifices for the common good. I just like to understand whats happening that's all. 

2True posted:

Eokerholm posted:

To help exemplify the situation, watch a few simulations and understand how the vector works, and if the vector doesn't show symptoms, it can't be identified, treated, or quarantined to protect the rest of the population. Transmission skyrockets. Self quarantine works, shuts this down, stops the spread. 

All this takes is everyone to hit the pause button and it stops in MUCH LESS TIME than it will if you don't. This would have been resolved in a matter of weeks with systemic and mandatory self quarantines. Now it will unfortunately take longer as people travel, and go about this without care or caution. 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding but..... we can't actually stop the spread at this point can we? Isn't it too late for that? 

If it were localized to a few small areas in the country then maybe we could stop it. But there are documented cases in every state now and more everyday. You could say it's already metastasized if you will.

If it were less contagious maybe we could stop it.

And maybe we could stop it if it wasn't possible to be asymptomatic and contagious. Or possible to be mildly symptomatic and contagious. Or maybe if that time frame  were shorter.

Given these conditions, wouldn't we need to follow extremely stringent quarantine rules? Much more stringent than what they're currently recommending?  Is it realistic to think that you can get enough people to comply for long enough?  Or even get enough people to fully comply at all?

Seems like all we can do is slow spread? I'm not suggesting that we should just resume life as normal. I'm perfectly willing  to make sacrifices for the common good. I just like to understand whats happening that's all. 

 

 

 

Slowing the spread is the goal. Completely stopping it is not realistic for our country. 

Slowing the spread is attainable. Eradicating or stopping it completely is not an option unless, like you said, strict protocol measures are followed and adhered too, which will not happen in this country, too inconvenient.

The virus has no legs. The only way to transmit it is through vector movement and/or aspirate contact.

There are a multitude of protocols and measures that people can do to assist in the reduction of movement and transmission. Hand washing, social distancing and isolation , etc. 

if, for example, you act like you are infected and don’t want to get someone else sick you’ll be apt to make better decisions on movement and interaction and in essence help stop/slow the spread.

This only works when people comply. Rethink that play date with the neighborhood kids, unless you all are not moving and not a single person in your group leaves your containment area and comes in contact with a vector (symptomatic or asymptotic) or aspirate. As discussed, if everyone that was infected, looked,acted, and walked like the zombies in the movies immediately upon infection, this would easy to avoid.

The goal is  manageable spread with medical capacity for treatment and recovery. 

Sorry, typing on my phone is proving more frustrating than helpful before coffee. 

Plain and simple, if I don’t leave my House, I will not get infected nor will any one of my family. Nor will I if infected (with or without symptoms) infect someone else. But I have to leave to get groceries or medicine or supplies. When I do or even if I order delivery, that is a chance for transmission. 

less movement, less infection/spread

Do you, your family, and your community a favor and keep the kids home, watch movies, play games, do chores, mow the grass, fix that thing you said you were going to, build something, clean out the garage, take the dog for a walk, go for a hike, go through closets and drawers and clean out stuff to donate. social distancing is good and helps. It’s manageable.

This will slow down and we can get back to normal so much quicker if and when more people do just that. 

2True posted:

Eokerholm posted:

To help exemplify the situation, watch a few simulations and understand how the vector works, and if the vector doesn't show symptoms, it can't be identified, treated, or quarantined to protect the rest of the population. Transmission skyrockets. Self quarantine works, shuts this down, stops the spread. 

All this takes is everyone to hit the pause button and it stops in MUCH LESS TIME than it will if you don't. This would have been resolved in a matter of weeks with systemic and mandatory self quarantines. Now it will unfortunately take longer as people travel, and go about this without care or caution. 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding but..... we can't actually stop the spread at this point can we? Isn't it too late for that? 

If it were localized to a few small areas in the country then maybe we could stop it. But there are documented cases in every state now and more everyday. You could say it's already metastasized if you will.

If it were less contagious maybe we could stop it.

And maybe we could stop it if it wasn't possible to be asymptomatic and contagious. Or possible to be mildly symptomatic and contagious. Or maybe if that time frame  were shorter.

Given these conditions, wouldn't we need to follow extremely stringent quarantine rules? Much more stringent than what they're currently recommending?  Is it realistic to think that you can get enough people to comply for long enough?  Or even get enough people to fully comply at all?

Seems like all we can do is slow spread? I'm not suggesting that we should just resume life as normal. I'm perfectly willing  to make sacrifices for the common good. I just like to understand whats happening that's all. 

 

 

 

Good questions.  Here is the clearest article I have seen explaining the goal of "social distancing" policies:

https://www.washingtonpost.com...ld/corona-simulator/

This article is also good re: what it means to "flatten the curve" and why it matters:

https://www.livescience.com/co...atten-the-curve.html

Eokerholm

 If only we would ALL be so logical, unselfish & considerate. Great post.

2True posted:

Maybe I'm misunderstanding but..... we can't actually stop the spread at this point can we? Isn't it too late for that? 

Given these conditions, wouldn't we need to follow extremely stringent quarantine rules? Much more stringent than what they're currently recommending?  Is it realistic to think that you can get enough people to comply for long enough?  Or even get enough people to fully comply at all?

Seems like all we can do is slow spread? I'm not suggesting that we should just resume life as normal. I'm perfectly willing  to make sacrifices for the common good. I just like to understand whats happening that's all.

Yes, it's here, and slowing it down is crucial.  It's all about hospital beds.  20% of people who get it will need hospitalization, so there have to be enough beds and ventilators in hospitals (especially intensive care), and enough people to care for them.  The more isolation everyone does, the slower it will spread, and the fewer people will have it AT ONE TIME.  That is what they are trying to achieve, before it gets out of control.

Countries where they made isolation mandatory, and forced people to comply, are ahead, or are getting on top of it.  Where they waited too long, like Italy, it got out of control.  Since the US hasn't mandated anything on a federal level, it's not clear what will happen. 

Chico Escuela posted:

atlnon posted:

This is an interesting read...

https://www.cdc.gov/coronaviru...r-school-closure.pdf

The most interesting part is as follows (although I encourage reading the full article, especially the table at the end that details the pro/con of each approach).

Available modeling data indicate that early, short to medium closures do not impact the epi curve of COVID-19 or available health care measures (e.g., hospitalizations). There may be some impact of much longer closures (8 weeks, 20 weeks) further into community spread, but that modelling also shows that other mitigation efforts (e.g., handwashing, home isolation) have more impact on both spread of disease and health care measures. In other countries, those places who closed school (e.g., Hong Kong) have not had more success in reducing spread than those that did not (e.g., Singapore).

Agreed it is interesting (thanks for sharing). 

I don't know what to make of it.  For one, it's very odd that CDC seems to be suggesting school closings won't help after offering no objection when schools were closing just a few days ago.  I understand there may be new info, but to provide new official guidance now is really odd.  I also agree with 22and25 that the reference to the effectiveness of "home isolation" seems directly at odds with keeping schools open.

And then there is the recommendation that schools "implement multiple social distancing strategies for gatherings, classrooms and movement through the building."  How do you keep kids six feet apart in class, when desks are generally much closer together than that, and many classrooms are filled to capacity?  How do you have HS students change classes but maintain six feet of separation in the halls?  Lockers are next to each other, people are all trying to get from one place to another in a short interval between periods.  Even at lunch time--not many schools I know of have space in their cafeterias to keep six feet of space in line, six feet between kids sitting at tables...  Is CDC also suggesting restaurants should stay open? A school cafeteria is essentially a large restaurant.     

Yeah, that's what I felt also (not sure what to make of it).  My conclusion is same as anotherparent, that the only effective closing is 8+ weeks.

The interesting thing to me though is this: In other countries, those places who closed school (e.g., Hong Kong) have not had more success in reducing spread than those that did not (e.g., Singapore).

I didn't realize that Singapore did not close schools.  But knowing Singapore (strict government and small city-state), they are able to enforce strict quarantine and isolation so I think that is an exception.

Here's a graph I saw this morning.  It's outdated as it was back when US has 5,000 cases (which is scary as that is just a few days ago).  Now, it's close to 9,000, still following the exponential trajectory.

On increase in cases, it is difficult to separate the increase between causalities. Most likely the increase is split between increase in the spread of the disease and the increase in testing. In addition, any information about transmission, mortality or any other percentages you try and glean from early data is tainted by bias in sampling, i.e., they are most likely testing patients in the ICU first, then the very sick, then the mildly sick. just careful with conclusions from early numbers.

And on school closings in Hong Kong not changing transmission rates, I’m not buying it as a rationale to put groups of people together.  

My opinion, Best case is we are 8 weeks out from understanding where we are and not “out of it” until a vaccine is developed and distributed.

Go44dad posted:

On increase in cases, it is difficult to separate the increase between causalities. Most likely the increase is split between increase in the spread of the disease and the increase in testing. In addition, any information about transmission, mortality or any other percentages you try and glean from early data is tainted by bias in sampling, i.e., they are most likely testing patients in the ICU first, then the very sick, then the mildly sick. just careful with conclusions from early numbers.

And on school closings in Hong Kong not changing transmission rates, I’m not buying it as a rationale to put groups of people together.  

My opinion, Best case is we are 8 weeks out from understanding where we are and not “out of it” until a vaccine is developed and distributed.

 

If you are right about the 8 weeks (and there are plenty that think you are) then there is likely to be no baseball this summer either. No collegiate leagues, no travel ball tournaments, etc. Maybe a little premature to predict that but it’s certainly a possibility. 

If we are 8 weeks out, there might not be official summer ball but we might definitely go back to the olden days with guys of all ages.  Guys getting together in the sandlot and playing ball.  No way baseball players stay locked up for that long.  I have a field by my house and I'm sure unless we are in complete lockdown that there will be guys using it at some point. 

Let's say the 8 weeks is close to accurate and we tack on another month to be safe.  That would take us to roughly June 10th.  I don't see why HS summer ball could not happen from mid June to Mid August.  Last summer our schedule ran almost exactly 2 months.

Here is a pretty fair opinion piece from a Stanford professor. 

https://www.statnews.com/2020/...thout-reliable-data/

d-mac posted:

Here is a pretty fair opinion piece from a Stanford professor. 

https://www.statnews.com/2020/...thout-reliable-data/

 

And a direct followup.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/...ly-against-covid-19/

Senna posted:

d-mac posted:

Here is a pretty fair opinion piece from a Stanford professor. 

https://www.statnews.com/2020/...thout-reliable-data/

 

And a direct followup.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/...ly-against-covid-19/

I enjoyed these 2 articles a lot, and wished there are more conversations like these happening as opposed to the hyper-politicized and rhetoric-filled shouting happening right now.

2True posted:

Eokerholm posted:

To help exemplify the situation, watch a few simulations and understand how the vector works, and if the vector doesn't show symptoms, it can't be identified, treated, or quarantined to protect the rest of the population. Transmission skyrockets. Self quarantine works, shuts this down, stops the spread. 

All this takes is everyone to hit the pause button and it stops in MUCH LESS TIME than it will if you don't. This would have been resolved in a matter of weeks with systemic and mandatory self quarantines. Now it will unfortunately take longer as people travel, and go about this without care or caution. 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding but..... we can't actually stop the spread at this point can we? Isn't it too late for that? 

If it were localized to a few small areas in the country then maybe we could stop it. But there are documented cases in every state now and more everyday. You could say it's already metastasized if you will.

If it were less contagious maybe we could stop it.

And maybe we could stop it if it wasn't possible to be asymptomatic and contagious. Or possible to be mildly symptomatic and contagious. Or maybe if that time frame  were shorter.

Given these conditions, wouldn't we need to follow extremely stringent quarantine rules? Much more stringent than what they're currently recommending?  Is it realistic to think that you can get enough people to comply for long enough?  Or even get enough people to fully comply at all?

Seems like all we can do is slow spread? I'm not suggesting that we should just resume life as normal. I'm perfectly willing  to make sacrifices for the common good. I just like to understand whats happening that's all. 

 

 

 

Slowing the spread is the goal at this juncture. We only have so many hospital beds, ventilators, Drs and nurses. Even if you don’t care about contracting the virus, if our hospitals are overloaded, YOU might die from something else, like an MI, MVA, CVA, etc. Hospitals have limited resources, even without coronavirus. 

Texas just extended HS no extra curricular activities to May 4th. 

Chico Escuela posted:

atlnon posted:

This is an interesting read...

https://www.cdc.gov/coronaviru...r-school-closure.pdf

The most interesting part is as follows (although I encourage reading the full article, especially the table at the end that details the pro/con of each approach).

Available modeling data indicate that early, short to medium closures do not impact the epi curve of COVID-19 or available health care measures (e.g., hospitalizations). There may be some impact of much longer closures (8 weeks, 20 weeks) further into community spread, but that modelling also shows that other mitigation efforts (e.g., handwashing, home isolation) have more impact on both spread of disease and health care measures. In other countries, those places who closed school (e.g., Hong Kong) have not had more success in reducing spread than those that did not (e.g., Singapore).

Agreed it is interesting (thanks for sharing). 

I don't know what to make of it.  For one, it's very odd that CDC seems to be suggesting school closings won't help after offering no objection when schools were closing just a few days ago.  I understand there may be new info, but to provide new official guidance now is really odd.  I also agree with 22and25 that the reference to the effectiveness of "home isolation" seems directly at odds with keeping schools open.

And then there is the recommendation that schools "implement multiple social distancing strategies for gatherings, classrooms and movement through the building."  How do you keep kids six feet apart in class, when desks are generally much closer together than that, and many classrooms are filled to capacity?  How do you have HS students change classes but maintain six feet of separation in the halls?  Lockers are next to each other, people are all trying to get from one place to another in a short interval between periods.  Even at lunch time--not many schools I know of have space in their cafeterias to keep six feet of space in line, six feet between kids sitting at tables...  Is CDC also suggesting restaurants should stay open? A school cafeteria is essentially a large restaurant.     

CDC has been all over the place in their guidance, changing things from one day to the next. The cutbacks and administration changes there, and in some other places such as Homeland Security, look to have been terrible decisions. Some said that at the time, but it is particularly damning in hindsight.

    So now my wife is being told to go to work even if she has had contact with infected people, and to wear a Bandana if the masks are gone. It would be funny if it wasn't so serious. 

 Anyway, this is a long way away from HS baseball. I know it's a small thing compared to real life, but it's looking more and more like this season will never get off the ground for us. Son #2 is a HS SO, so it's not as bad for him. Feel badly for the Seniors, especially the ones who won't be playing in college.