College Baseball and Covid

@Senna posted:

It is the right interpretation. Any other interpretation is incorrect. 

Here's the exact wording from the CDC on how death certificates are filled out. You can find it at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/blue_form.pdf

"The cause-of-death section consists of two parts. Part I is for reporting a chain of events leading directly to death, with the immediate cause of death (the final disease, injury, or complication directly causing death) on Line a and the underlying cause of death (the disease or injury that initiated the chain of morbid events that led directly and inevitably to death) on the lowest used line.

Part II is for reporting all other significant diseases, conditions, or injuries that contributed to death but which did not result in the underlying cause of death given in Part I. The cause-of-death information should be YOUR best medical OPINION. A condition can be listed as “probable” even if it has not been definitively diagnosed."I

It works like this:

• If an otherwise healthy person contracts COVID-19 and dies from it, and the examining doctor can find no other underlying illnesses that could have contributed to death, the decedent will have only an immediate cause of death listed, which would be COVID-19. That's the 6%.
• If a person had a preexisting condition (say, had a partial lung removal), then contracted COVID-19 and died because their reduced lung capacity prevented them from recovering from COVID-19, then the immediate cause of death would be listed as COVID-19 (line 1 of Part I), with the partial lung removal being the primary underlying cause (bottom line of Part I).  These people are part of the 94%
  • A friend of mine had this exact issue, but fortunately survived after 3 weeks in ICU.
• If a person contracts COVID-19, then, during the course of the infection, develops complications that ultimately take their life (say, ARDS), then the complications (ARDS) will be listed as the immediate cause of death (line 1 of Part I), with COVID-19 being listed as the primary underlying cause (bottom line of Part I). These people are also part of the 94%.

 

As for Part II, that's where all the other items go that contribute to the death. So items like obesity, smoking, etc. will go there. 

All of these deaths, no matter where COVID-19 is listed, are because of COVID-19, regrettably. 

If you don't understand it, here's something that may help, grim and regrettable as it may be:

Everyone knows that Chadwick Boseman died on Friday (rest in power). And you will undoubtedly read that he died of colon cancer. But what killed him wasn't necessarily the cancer in his colon. Rather, it was in all likelihood the spread of the cancer to the lymph nodes, and then on to other organs (such as the liver or pancreas). So while line 1 of Part I of his autopsy may list something such as liver failure as the immediate cause of death, the primary underlying cause will be colon cancer. Hence, he died because of colon cancer. 

People rarely die in a vacuum, and the death process is often complex as hell. And COVID-19 seems hellbent on finding new and innovative ways to challenge the body.

I hope this helps to explain why any other interpretation of the death statistics is incorrect, and why there is no smoking gun, nor light at the end of the tunnel in this CDC data. 

 

 

There are many resource pieces out last night and this morning providing this same very straight forward information that Senna (and Anotherparent prior) has stated, clearing up much of the misinterpretation (yes, interpretation) of the 6% CDC findings.  These expanded explanations can be found, among other places, in plenty of outlets that pass the neutral media fact check process that some others have wisely suggested.  

We still have very complex issues surrounding this pandemic and no easy solutions coming from either political perspective, science or anywhere in between.  Bringing it back to baseball... hopefully we will figure out how to work together better to get to a place where kids are playing everywhere again.   

I can't believe I'm gonna open this can of worms but here goes.  When you look at situations your idea of fake news and real news is twisted according to life and your side of life.  When one side looks at the Jacob Blake shooting they see a guy who was carrying a weapon, stealing a car, kidnapping kids, and threatening police who was shot to protect others and the police who would not have been shot if they had not decided to break the law on multiple occasions.  The other side sees a black man who was shot unneccessarily because of his skin color no matter the other circumstances.  Either side it was a sad event that someone was shot and put a police officer in the position to make a choice.  it is crazy that I have had to rewrite this numerous times not to add my lean to the story because of where I stand on this.  I cannot imagine what it is like to be a reporter and not lean.

Which one is right?  It depends on who you ask and where they stand, normally politically.  We will not agree on fake news and real news because the reporter leans one way or the other and reports the news according to either how they lean or their employer leans.  In today's society, the news will lean one way or another.  I don't think I have seen an article lately where the news did not lean.  Fake news or real is according to the way you lean.

@old_school posted:

in PA we have a Sec of Health who also happens to be transgender...telling us to follow the science....give you one guess where she / he is on the political spectrum. Follow the science like Cuomo / Wolf  and the others when they started sentencing old people to die? 

I have no idea what you are talking about.  Obviously Cuomo and Wolf didnt follow or listen to the science/data and thats why over 40k died in nursing homes.

If you look for data that's very difficult to manipulate, this chart is the actual number of deaths vs. the predicted number of deaths based on past years data. Death certificates that have been received during the week.

The CDC has an all cause mortality graph.

 https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/...19/excess_deaths.htm  

A lot more people have died this year than would have been expected based on 2017, 2018 and 2019 data. 

@RoadRunner posted:

Serious question:  are you suggesting to keep all kids home because some families have that difficult choice?  

No. I'm suggesting that whatever situation you are in as a parent, it's difficult. My niece is 8, she is going to school. The girl she sits next to was sent was sent home yesterday with a fever and sore throat. If her classroom get shut down her parents, who both work full-time, will have to find child care. Best option is my dad who would love to do it, but is 80

So far, our entire 6th grade is online, along with a class of first graders because they have cases in their classrooms. Those things happen in the snap of a finger without notice, leaving parents scrambling.

Another friend's kid is also 8. Her parents are keeping her home and doing remote learning. The mom, who works for me in a job that really can be done remotely, has apologized repeatedly for missing deadlines because remote learning is turning into a full time job for her in terms of monitoring what the kid is doing, that the computer is working right, etc. Hopefully this will get easier as people get more used to it, but right now, it's tough.

Deciding which option to use is hard. Then deciding what you need to make it work also is hard. And then making your decision work in the real world is also hard.

I'm just saying very few people have anything like "easy accommodations" right now.

Just as a note — we'll have a fun test in Iowa in a couple of weeks. Iowa State University, in Ames, which has been identified as the hottest of hot spots in the country right now, plans to allow 26,000 people into their first football game on Sept. 12. I honestly think it could be done safely if you have the right rules in place and people follow them, but students so far haven't been doing that. We'll see if season ticket holders can do better.

I am honestly curious to see how it plays out. But I'm also glad that I won't be among the guinea pigs trying it.

@Senna posted:

You said that my original post was one interpretation. Perhaps you meant to say that this proves that “C-19 is not as deadly to those without preexisting conditions/under XX age”. I don’t disagree with that statement. Don’t think anyone would. This has been a common “known” for 4 months.

 But as for the original claim (not yours) of “This news is HUGE and should change entirely the way we deal with covid 19”, which is what I was addressing nearly a page ago? Not the case. Nothing has changed. 

It's also not meaningless, as you seem to be asserting.  It is further confirmation that we can accurately identify very large portions of the population with little to no risk of adverse outcomes, determine where those populations interact with higher risk individuals that need to have accommodations and make policy decisions based on that data.  We are not doing that.  We continued to test en masse asymptomatic 18 to 24 year old college students and send whole schools full of kids off to remote learning because an insignificant number within a non-vulnerable population tested positive.  

This data confirming what "has been a common known for 4 months" (your words), should in fact change entirely how we deal with Covid for a huge portion of the population.....but it hasn't.  Why?

If a 7 year old gets the virus why shut down the entire school? Heck why even send the whole class home? Kids that young rarely spread the virus and rarely die...quarantine the kid, test the other kids periodically, sanitize, mask, social distance, etc and move on...no need to shut the entire school down and cause hardship for all the parents...this is supported by the science and data in my opinion.

@JETSR71 posted:

If you look for data that's very difficult to manipulate, this chart is the actual number of deaths vs. the predicted number of deaths based on past years data. Death certificates that have been received during the week.

The CDC has an all cause mortality graph.

 https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/...19/excess_deaths.htm  

A lot more people have died this year than would have been expected based on 2017, 2018 and 2019 data. 

 

That is probably one of the best measure IMO.  However, I wonder if some of this is due to the negative impacts of the shutdowns.  This will probably be argued about for years.  As a scientist myself, I actually like the discussions about what different data means.  While data is generally pretty straight forward, interpreting it is always done through a personal lens. 

@cabbagedad posted:

These expanded explanations can be found, among other places, in plenty of outlets that pass the neutral media fact check process that some others have wisely suggested.  

With all due respect to you cab, I don’t need any media outlet to explain or interpret facts for me. Report the facts. Give me the score. 

@edcoach posted:

If a 7 year old gets the virus why shut down the entire school? Heck why even send the whole class home? Kids that young rarely spread the virus and rarely die...quarantine the kid, test the other kids periodically, sanitize, mask, social distance, etc and move on...no need to shut the entire school down and cause hardship for all the parents...this is supported by the science and data in my opinion.

Yep.  But, if the teacher is high-risk, or lives with someone who is high-risk, then the teacher should stay home.  How, exactly, do you have school without the teachers? 

In our school district, they polled teachers, 60-70% of them didn't want to be in classrooms until our local numbers were going lower and not higher.  You can say they are "essential workers," make them go to work, what that means is that those who are able to quit will do so, if enough of them to do, the effect would be, schools would be closed.  

As Iowamom23 said, it spirals.

@Iowamom23 posted:

No. I'm suggesting that whatever situation you are in as a parent, it's difficult. My niece is 8, she is going to school. The girl she sits next to was sent was sent home yesterday with a fever and sore throat. If her classroom get shut down her parents, who both work full-time, will have to find child care. Best option is my dad who would love to do it, but is 80

So far, our entire 6th grade is online, along with a class of first graders because they have cases in their classrooms. Those things happen in the snap of a finger without notice, leaving parents scrambling.

Another friend's kid is also 8. Her parents are keeping her home and doing remote learning. The mom, who works for me in a job that really can be done remotely, has apologized repeatedly for missing deadlines because remote learning is turning into a full time job for her in terms of monitoring what the kid is doing, that the computer is working right, etc. Hopefully this will get easier as people get more used to it, but right now, it's tough.

Deciding which option to use is hard. Then deciding what you need to make it work also is hard. And then making your decision work in the real world is also hard.

 

I'm just saying very few people have anything like "easy accommodations" right now.

Agreed.  

@22and25 posted:

It's also not meaningless, as you seem to be asserting.  It is further confirmation that we can accurately identify very large portions of the population with little to no risk of adverse outcomes, determine where those populations interact with higher risk individuals that need to have accommodations and make policy decisions based on that data.  We are not doing that.  We continued to test en masse asymptomatic 18 to 24 year old college students and send whole schools full of kids off to remote learning because an insignificant number within a non-vulnerable population tested positive.  

This data confirming what "has been a common known for 4 months" (your words), should in fact change entirely how we deal with Covid for a huge portion of the population.....but it hasn't.  Why?

 

I never said it was meaningless, despite your interpretation. It confirms/clarifies what we've "known". More data always helps. 

As for your second paragraph, I daresay that this is already taking place. Students in many portions of the country (including where I live) are going to schools/colleges, sports are being played, lives are being lived as close to normal as possible. But the age groups that you deem non-vulnerable population (an incorrect statement) don't exist in a bubble, interacting only among themselves. They have teachers, admin, custodians, bus drivers, coaches, tutors, etc.. In the teacher segment alone, over 30% of them are above the age of 50, with a C19-related hospitalization rate around 36 times higher than those of their students, and a C19-related mortality rate that is around 46 times higher. 

I believe that the current policies are a measured, yet imperfect, response in how to have a population that will be largely asymptomatic coexist in enclosed spaces for hours at a time with a population that is significantly more vulnerable. I believe that the only future that will provide a real sense of safety will involve rapid testing on a daily basis (swab when you wake up, results by the time you're out of the shower) and proper isolation when a person tests positive. 

@RoadRunner posted:

With all due respect to you cab, I don’t need any media outlet to explain or interpret facts for me. Report the facts. Give me the score. 

A lot of people are only getting the “facts” their political persuasion of the news chooses to provide. Sometimes what’s provided is not facts but leaks from one political persuasion to a news source that political persuasion.

Try watching Fox or OAN and then CNN or MS-NBC on the same news day. You would swear they’re reporting from different planets. I prefer to ignore all four of them. They’re really just inciters of high blood pressure. 

If teachers don't want to risk it there are substitutes. Im a teacher i mask up and sanitize desks etc a few times per day. 

@anotherparent posted:

Yep.  But, if the teacher is high-risk, or lives with someone who is high-risk, then the teacher should stay home.  How, exactly, do you have school without the teachers? 

In our school district, they polled teachers, 60-70% of them didn't want to be in classrooms until our local numbers were going lower and not higher.  You can say they are "essential workers," make them go to work, what that means is that those who are able to quit will do so, if enough of them to do, the effect would be, schools would be closed.  

As Iowamom23 said, it spirals.

There will never be "enough" teachers to quit to close schools. They may strike, but they won't quit. What else are they going to do? 

@Senna posted:

I never said it was meaningless, despite your interpretation. It confirms/clarifies what we've "known". More data always helps. 

As for your second paragraph, I daresay that this is already taking place. Students in many portions of the country (including where I live) are going to schools/colleges, sports are being played, lives are being lived as close to normal as possible. But the age groups that you deem non-vulnerable population (an incorrect statement) don't exist in a bubble, interacting only among themselves. They have teachers, admin, custodians, bus drivers, coaches, tutors, etc.. In the teacher segment alone, over 30% of them are above the age of 50, with a C19-related hospitalization rate around 36 times higher than those of their students, and a C19-related mortality rate that is around 46 times higher. 

I believe that the current policies are a measured, yet imperfect, response in how to have a population that will be largely asymptomatic coexist in enclosed spaces for hours at a time with a population that is significantly more vulnerable. I believe that the only future that will provide a real sense of safety will involve rapid testing on a daily basis (swab when you wake up, results by the time you're out of the shower) and proper isolation when a person tests positive. 

You say my statement about the vulnerability of this demographic is incorrect.  The data is pretty clear in support of my statement. What support do you have for saying I am wrong?

As to the rest. Technology accommodations for the most vulnerable followed by PPE, social distancing and good disinfecting protocols would mitigate those concerns.  Someone mentioned frontline healthcare workers that belong to vulnerable demographics....where are the thousands of sick and dieing healthcare workers?  I work directly with doctors, nurses and hospital administrators from across the country on a daily basis.  Their staffs are not sick despite being the most exposed. PPE works in that environment. Why wouldn't it work on a bus, in a classroom or in a lecture hall?

We are not going to hide our way out of Covid.

@22and25 posted:

You say my statement about the vulnerability of this demographic is incorrect.  The data is pretty clear in support of my statement. What support do you have for saying I am wrong?

 

As to the rest. Technology accommodations for the most vulnerable followed by PPE, social distancing and good disinfecting protocols would mitigate those concerns.  Someone mentioned frontline healthcare workers that belong to vulnerable demographics....where are the thousands of sick and dieing healthcare workers?  I work directly with doctors, nurses and hospital administrators from across the country on a daily basis.  Their staffs are not sick despite being the most exposed. PPE works in that environment. Why wouldn't it work on a bus, in a classroom or in a lecture hall?

 

We are not going to hide our way out of Covid.

I say that you don’t understand what “non-vulnerable” means. 

You evade the discussion I make by bringing up new situations. I’m done. Best of health to you and yours, I truly mean it. 

@22and25 posted:

I work directly with doctors, nurses and hospital administrators from across the country on a daily basis.  Their staffs are not sick despite being the most exposed. PPE works in that environment. Why wouldn't it work on a bus, in a classroom or in a lecture hall?

 

We are not going to hide our way out of Covid.

Nursed and Docs are trained professionals so that's why it prob works better but your point is clearly valid.

Now as to "we are not going to hide our way out of Covid" - are you recommending Herd Immunity?  I think its time to talk about it again......  Herd immunity must have killed the Spanish Flu off (can I say Spanish Flu?).   I go back to T-Cells + B-Cells + people with good behaviors could be approaching 50-60%+ right?   

I think the vaccine will still beat herd immunity but if not herd immunity is right behind it.

Sweden.

It’s fascinating how divided our country is about many things these days, including this topic.  I don’t think there’s much convincing the other side about anything, lately, no matter how carefully the argument is spelled out by either side....That’s all I got to say about that!!!

@Senna posted:

I say that you don’t understand what “non-vulnerable” means. 

You evade the discussion I make by bringing up new situations. I’m done. Best of health to you and yours, I truly mean it. 

You keep acting like you are the smartest person in the room.  "Explaining" things to us as though you are comprehending something that we are incapable of grasping.  I have not once changed the subject.  In fact, I addressed what you said point by point both times I quoted you.  You have said I am wrong twice, without actually supporting that claim other than to insinuate that I don't understand the subject at hand.

To that point, as to not understanding what "non-vulnerable" means, let me see if I can figure that one out to your satisfaction.  In the context of population health which is what we are debating here, a subject I have dealt with regularly for 20 years in various roles working inside a few global healthcare technology companies, it means a statistically insignificant number of the members of a defined class demonstrate adverse health outcomes from contracting a pathogen.  Put simply, not enough people under 50 get sick enough from Covid to justify drastic universal measures to prevent it.

If that's still not right, please explain it to me again....maybe I am as dumb as you keep suggesting☺

@edcoach posted:

If teachers don't want to risk it there are substitutes. Im a teacher i mask up and sanitize desks etc a few times per day. 

We had every sixth grade teacher get exposed and put in quarantine. We don't have enough subs at the best of times. A friend of mine, who had decided not to sub, got 9 calls for two-week positions in 10 minutes. And he's a reliable sub. Back to my early point — nothing is easy these days.

Is this a good time to mention that my son's baseball program shut down this week? He was one of 8 players who (so far) has not tested positive or been quarantined due to exposure. Not a big deal really in the fall, but what can you do as we get closer to an actual season to keep kids on the field?

@edcoach posted:

If teachers don't want to risk it there are substitutes. Im a teacher i mask up and sanitize desks etc a few times per day. 

Thank you. You are essential ❤️

@Iowamom23 posted:

Is this a good time to mention that my son's baseball program shut down this week? He was one of 8 players who (so far) has not tested positive or been quarantined due to exposure. Not a big deal really in the fall, but what can you do as we get closer to an actual season to keep kids on the field?

So sorry to hear that but I am glad to hear that Iowamom23son is clear. Hopefully things will level off and they can get back out there. That’s what they did at ND. Put it on pause for two weeks and when the number of new cases slowed down, they announced a phased reopening with a detailed explanation of the why and the how. It included testing and quarantining protocols and consequences of non-adherence. My other daughter is moving into her school now (basketball). They managed to stay clean during summer work outs so fingers crossed. 

@22and25 posted:

You keep acting like you are the smartest person in the room.  "Explaining" things to us as though you are comprehending something that we are incapable of grasping.  I have not once changed the subject.  In fact, I addressed what you said point by point both times I quoted you.  You have said I am wrong twice, without actually supporting that claim other than to insinuate that I don't understand the subject at hand.

To that point, as to not understanding what "non-vulnerable" means, let me see if I can figure that one out to your satisfaction.  In the context of population health which is what we are debating here, a subject I have dealt with regularly for 20 years in various roles working inside a few global healthcare technology companies, it means a statistically insignificant number of the members of a defined class demonstrate adverse health outcomes from contracting a pathogen.  Put simply, not enough people under 50 get sick enough from Covid to justify drastic universal measures to prevent it.

If that's still not right, please explain it to me again....maybe I am as dumb as you keep suggesting☺

I think she said she was done.

@LuckyCat posted:

I think she said she was done.

Yes, I saw that she threw one last barb and ran.  Thanks.

@anotherparent posted:

Yep.  But, if the teacher is high-risk, or lives with someone who is high-risk, then the teacher should stay home.  How, exactly, do you have school without the teachers? 

In our school district, they polled teachers, 60-70% of them didn't want to be in classrooms until our local numbers were going lower and not higher.  You can say they are "essential workers," make them go to work, what that means is that those who are able to quit will do so, if enough of them to do, the effect would be, schools would be closed.  

As Iowamom23 said, it spirals.

Why do we care what an employee wants? They have job, get it done, there plenty of recent college grads looking to teach. 

@Iowamom23 posted:

We had every sixth grade teacher get exposed and put in quarantine. We don't have enough subs at the best of times. A friend of mine, who had decided not to sub, got 9 calls for two-week positions in 10 minutes. And he's a reliable sub. Back to my early point — nothing is easy these days.

I guess it depends where you live, we have teachers working construction, waitressing tables, in the insurance business you name it. They are everywhere, there a 100 applications for jobs, kids work as long term subs for years to get a job....it is not an issue 

@3and2Fastball posted:

It’s fascinating how divided our country is about many things these days, including this topic.  I don’t think there’s much convincing the other side about anything, lately, no matter how carefully the argument is spelled out by either side....That’s all I got to say about that!!!

Follow the science. Until it doesn’t fit your agenda.

Do you think coaches will start cutting players for not abiding by Covid rules?  I've heard of several cases where large numbers of players are being quarantined because guys are going to parties and in large groups then testing positive or running temperatures.  I just wonder when college coaches are going to say to some of these guys, "If you can't be smart enough to protect yourself and your teammates then we don't need you."  I know these guys want the "college experience" but what are they willing to risk to have that experience? 

@PitchingFan posted:

Do you think coaches will start cutting players for not abiding by Covid rules?  I've heard of several cases where large numbers of players are being quarantined because guys are going to parties and in large groups then testing positive or running temperatures.  I just wonder when college coaches are going to say to some of these guys, "If you can't be smart enough to protect yourself and your teammates then we don't need you."  I know these guys want the "college experience" but what are they willing to risk to have that experience? 

I can see it happening, but it will depend on much they needed you in the first place.

I could see that happening, too, for the more marginal players, maybe the ones that weren't heavily recruited.  Or the walkons.  I would think the older guys would be smarter.  But I could see that happening with the freshmen.

I can't understand why guys would risk their season by doing stupid stuff.  One guy told my son that is one of the main reasons I am in college is the parties.  My son told him the reason he was in college is to get an education and play ball.  Very frustrating that some are willing to risk it all for everyone for a few parties.  I just think coaches are going to get fed up with these guys and say time to go.  I care more about my team than a few individuals.

Unless catching them at a party how do you determine how someone got COVID? It could have happened going to class. Or to dinner in the cafeteria.

Most athletes in all programs are taking online classes. You can only get into the cafeteria with a temperature check on most campuses and at certain times.

PF,

I don't think coaches will put up with it. Too many kids who really are respectful of team rules, and they are replaceable.

I've told my son that you don't want to bring Covid back to the campus or your team.  On a small campus, in a small town, the last thing you want to be known for is being Patient Zero.

I almost posted this on The D1 Trap but decided to keep it here and not kill another thread.  The problem this year is that with Covid rules, some are playing by them because they care about baseball and others are breaking them because they care more about their social experience than their baseball.  They would rather party and hang out with friends even if it jeopardizes the team's ability to practice and play baseball.  When you realize there are truly only 3 parts of college for an athlete, you can tell the ones who choose the sport and the academics versus the ones who choose academics and social and definitely the ones who choose the sport and social. 

To me it goes back to when we were younger playing travel.  Most families went to the tournament looking for what they could do.  We went to the tournament to play baseball.  I despised the parents that allowed their kid to go to the beach during a world series and get sunburned and not be able to play.  You are there for baseball not vacation.  But I knew I was in the minority.  We had a family that wanted to miss a pool play game at Disney for Elite 32 to go to the theme park.  I voted if they missed that game the kid was not allowed to play the rest of the tournament, but I was outvoted. 

I think the same way with college.  It is hard for me to realize that even at a P5 some guys are there more for the social than the baseball.  I reckon I expected everyone who went to a P5 to play baseball would be fully committed to baseball, but I'm wrong.  You have all your life to be social and party and get drunk.  Your baseball career will only last a few more years no matter how good you are. 

Pitchingfan, I think for most successful college kids, they can have a balance of the two extremes you are discussing.  For an athlete to be successful, though, they probably have to be on the one extreme based on hard work. 

BTW, we had a huge outbreak on our campus football team, so much so, they had to cancel their first game.  It was due to the hurricane, though, so you have to cut them some slack.  When you lose power for days and have family/friends who's lives were devastated, things can be difficult.