Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Several Cowboys & Texans Test Positive for COVID19 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Hot Sauce Guy
- Start date
- Status
I'm still holding steady at 32% of a season. If the numbers can start trending down that percentage will go way up. I'm still having trouble getting motivated to dig into any serious fantasy football research.
I appreciate your enthusiasm. Too many people are "Doom and gloom". My low percentage reflects more of where we are at now in the middle of some major spikes. I'm more optimistic when looking at the bigger picture.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Sadly, it’s the bigger picture that makes me more pessimistic.
when all this started a couple guys in my FF and FB leagues were being super Debbie Downer & I was the Pollyanna saying everything would be fine - we were lucky that other countries got hit 1st, and we’d have it dialed in. After all, we’re America, and we have science! Further we’d successfully contained Ebola, swine flu, H1N1, etc.
as time has passed, I become less and less convinced that sports will happen. I continue to hope I’m wrong.
Yes it is a deadly virus.Or maybe it’s just a deadly virus with significantly higher morality than the flu & it won’t matter at all whether NFL players are healthier or seek treatment faster because for the % who are impacted to the point that they require hospitalization it’s already a very high risk situation.
Unfortunately we just don’t know.
man, just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.
I think we do know that timing with regards to treatment can have a significant effect on a person's health. How long do you think it takes the average person to go from presymptomatic to symptomatic to getting tested and getting the results to I better get help? NFL players will be tested everyday. There will be no delay in their treatment.
BTW..We have seen this played out in how the Coronavirus is affecting minorities and especially people of color.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
The challenge there is the unknown.
in a prior post about the cruise ship, neither rhyme nor reason can be made of who contracted it, who was symptomatic, who required advanced treatment.
the same holds true for larger populations. Why do some become symptomatic after 2 days & some after 14? Why do some require intubation & others experience mild flu-like symptoms even if age, BMI, and relative health is the same?
what we know is that this virus attacks the blood vessels, which is why the symptoms have so much variance, and why the first month+ was like an episode of House, without the hilariously dry antics.
But because of the nature of this illness and the seeming randomness of who is effected & to what severity, it’s impossible to say “x age group” or “x group with access to healthcare” or really any other generalization. Do those factor in? Probably, yes. But there continue to be unexpected twists that disprove those generalizations. Otherwise healthy 40 yr old marathon runner having a massive stroke, for just one example. And yeah - that’s a “corner case”, but with 125K+ dead we are seeing a LOT of corner cases now.
sadly we just don’t know what we don’t know. And in that light & on-topic, it seems wildly irresponsible to make the NFL a Petrie dish to experiment with players to try to validate any theories about who’s at risk or not.
That’s really the bottom line with sports right now, right? A lot of us think we know things. A lot of folks smarter than us do too. But no one really knows. It is not yet fact. So putting players in these “bubbles” (that are only as strong as the weakest link) and waiting to see if an outbreak happens seems like a really crappy thing to do, just from a humanity perspective.
I don’t see how this can be done ethically. If 1 player, coach or team personnel out of ~3000 dies, it’s a failed experiment.
You are correct. There is still a lot we don't know about this virus. We can only currently go with the information we have. Right now we are all just talking this out. It's similar to when we actually talk Fantasy. It's a game of incomplete information.
I see your point regarding ethics. However, is it ethical to deny thousands of football players the opportunity to make a living? How about those who work in the industry? How about those who would be indirectly affected? I think most want to play. If the players are ok with the risks involved then why not let them play. Everyday folks go to work knowing there is a risk. It's possible that It's safer for the players to play games than the alternative. If the season ended some players may have to get real jobs. At least in the NFL environment they have access to daily testing and medical technology. There are long term risks of no NFL season. There would be businesses and jobs lost. This could lead to depression and suicide.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
except if we’re wrong about drafting a WR, maybe we don’t get 1300/9 if we’re wrong about whether it’s reasonably safe to have team sports, people could die.
So it’s not entirely similar.
Those are all interesting hypotheticals - some slippery slopes as well.
economic loss seems like an inevitability. Whether people become destitute and/or suicidal as a result seems like a much bigger discussion about the role of the federal government & providing a public safety net, but that’s more a topic for the Politics forum.
but to your direct question, it’s not an easy answer. Yes, people assume risk all the time. Every time I drive or even step out my front door I could be hit by a bus or struck by lightning. I assume that risk to put food on my table or live my life.
but we’re talking about sports. Many of the associated jobs are seasonal. The big money losers are the networks & owners. And the biggest risk will fall on the front line workers, players and if allowed, fans.
So back to ethics - there’s a flip side to your question of who gets hurt, which is “why aren’t those with the most to lose also exposed to the biggest risk?” I guess the answer there is the wealthy & powerful often got that way on the backs of others, but again, that teeters on a Politics forum topic.
I hear what you’re saying, and I never want anyone to lose work, money or jeopardize their mental health, but it’s a difficult calculus when the flip-side of that is dying of a horrible infectious disease. That says more about how we’re structured as a society than whether it’s ethically ok to return to sports during a pandemic.
And again - if just 1 player, coach, concessions worker dies of COVID, then they’re gonna shut it all down anyway, rendering the other stuff moot regardless.
This. So much misinformation in here it's wild. NFL players being compared to the typical aged 19-35 numbers is so so so so SO irrelevant because NFL players have so many things working for them that these others don't. Lack of serious health conditions, being healthy, daily checks, the best healthcare in the country, etc. Each one of those factors they're probably in the top 1% of in the country. The odds of an NFL player dying from this are probably worse than them being struck by lightning. And for the 1000000th time, NO that doesnt mean I'm taking this virus lightly, I'm in the camp of this not being taken seriously enough. But based on the topic of the thread, it's not a health concern if these players get it as long as they isolate from their families.
Why discussing something that is so so so unlikely to happen?
Even if the season does go ahead, it seems pretty clear now that there should be no fans for the entire year. The public has shown it cannot be responsible in trying to contain this thing. There's going to be anti-maskers (I still can't believe this is a thing) who will try to get into stadiums not wearing one... or take them off during the game to make a point. It would be both a PR and health nightmare. Don't let fans anywhere near these stadiums.
The AFL in Australia is doing a surprisingly accurate job of pumping crowd noise into the stadiums. They have certain "exciting moment" tracks, certain "boooo" tracks, certain "build up cheering" tracks like a player returning a kick for a TD might have. You can actually watch a game without looking at the stands at all, and think it's full of fans.
The AFL in Australia is doing a surprisingly accurate job of pumping crowd noise into the stadiums. They have certain "exciting moment" tracks, certain "boooo" tracks, certain "build up cheering" tracks like a player returning a kick for a TD might have. You can actually watch a game without looking at the stands at all, and think it's full of fans.
DallasDMac
Footballguy
Your assertion was that testing was readily available to all. Appointments required in and of itself MAY not be a sign this in't true, but I notice you conveniently left out the "Tests limited to certain patients" statement. I think that makes it fairly obvious that not just anyone can walk in, appointment or not, and get tested. So I'll go back to my previous statement, which is daily testing of the entire league is a horrendous waste of valuable resources that could be better utilized elsewhere.
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting thought. But WOULD they be better utilized elsewhere? The teams have the money and people to do daily testing... if they didn't do daily player testing, would this money actually be used on the public? It's like saying NFL players should make less and that that money should instead go to feed the starving children or those who need it more. I don't think daily NFL testing would actually change the amount of resources available to those who need it.
DallasDMac
Footballguy
I have no idea why you are talking money. Money shouldn't even be in the discussion. It should be based on need.
I agree. But I'm just curious how you think that NFL testing would take away from public testing. I don't see it as one or the other. The NFL teams likely have their own doctors who would be performing these daily tests, and these doctors likely wouldn't be giving the tests to the public otherwise.
DallasDMac
Footballguy
Pretty sure those doctors aren't developing the tests they are using. There are a a finite number of tests that can be created and distributed on a given day. Hop in the COVID thread and just read TODAY's posts and you'll see quite a few pointing to testing shortages in several states. I mean, don't get me wrong, we can both totally agree to disagree. But the idea of wasting (yes, in my opinion it is a total waste) the number of tests it would take on a daily basis to to test the entire NFL is just a travesty when they are needed so badly elsewhere. All so we can watch grown men play a game. But given we can't even get people to wear a mask in a store without crying about it, I guess I shouldn't be surprised at people's priorities.
I guess I was unaware that there was such a shortage of these tests. With all the money the NFL brings in, you'd think they'd be able to use that to increase this finite number of tests that can be created/distributed on any given day? The NFL should be responsible for acquiring/creating/distributing their own tests that do not add to the shortage of tests to the public. Not sure if that's possible, but with enough money, anything seems possible.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
It’s not limited here. I didn’t leave anything out, but you got me I guess.
I get emails from CVS and Rite Aid, saying schedule an appointment for free test and Walgreens does it as well. It’s by appointment only but it only takes signing up for a Google account to schedule it.
Wow why are people such jerks in this thread?
Last edited by a moderator:
They could just purchase them from places where there isn’t a shortage. In the DMV it’s as simple as can be to get a test. My FIL woke up Thursday with a sore throat, got a test by noon and had his results (negative!) within a day. A friend of mine had the same experience and I’ve experienced the same thing Dr O mentions with pharmacies advertising the free testing around here. Ideally there would be national leadership directing these readily available tests to the hot spots but the president essentially told states to figure their own stuff out in the beginning so here we are. Maybe there’s lab capacity or staffing capability limit too in Az, Fla, Texas?
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
this is a good point. To take it 1 further, I interact with the state/county health dept frequently. Gathering sizes or even approval for events of any scale usually fall under their jurisdiction.
unfortunately that varies state to state. Also unfortunate is that some of the states with the worst outbreaks are less progressive states (as you mentioned above with AZ / FL) - that’s a dangerous combo.:
seems like that would be fair, so far as criticism goes. If players are expected to be on lockdown, and there’s an outbreak at a club resulting in 15 players from a team popping positive, that’s potential end the season. Because even if (and I want to be clear, I do not agree with this premise) it is not at all likely for these young strong players to become symptomatic or require advanced care (it’s totally possible) they will still have been asymptomatic carriers.
And then you have quarantine them for X amount of time, and also trace everyone they’ve come into contact with & quarantine those folks for X amount of time.
That scenario would be a complete disaster for the 2020 season, assuming there is one played conditionally. It’s not “worst case scenario”, but it’s close. “Disruptive” wouldn’t begin to describe the impact such an event would have.
That is the worst case scenario. For sure. And while less likely, it is absolutely possible that a player succumbs. Tom Brady is 42. I believe he’ll turn 43 in August. From all available data, Tom has a ~1% mortality rate if he contracts the virus.
Back to the bowl of skittles analogy....Tom’s a gamer. If you pass him the bowl, he’ll probably eat a skittle knowing that 1 of the 100 could kill him. But you’re correct that it’s far more likely that he passes it along to an older coach or assistant & they succumb.
those are worst case scenarios. I don’t believe it will take a worst-case scenario to end the season prematurely. Merely an outbreak. The quarantining will make playing a schedule logistically impossible.
The ONLY way I see it possible is if every coach, player, assistant & ref/league personnel & every on-field camera operator all quarantined for a few weeks, then with complete testing all travelled to a facility that’s totally locked down, where they could play the entire season on lockdown.
note: I don’t believe that’s realistic. I just think it’s the only way to ensure an uninterrupted season.
What a mess.
Point 1- yeah I don’t know what the process of getting approval would look like. The ability to test everyone before the “event” (game/practice) might play a role? And I’m guessing the NFL has some clout to throw around to help get their way.this is a good point. To take it 1 further, I interact with the state/county health dept frequently. Gathering sizes or even approval for events of any scale usually fall under their jurisdiction.
unfortunately that varies state to state. Also unfortunate is that some of the states with the worst outbreaks are less progressive states (as you mentioned above with AZ / FL) - that’s a dangerous combo.:
seems like that would be fair, so far as criticism goes. If players are expected to be on lockdown, and there’s an outbreak at a club resulting in 15 players from a team popping positive, that’s potential end the season. Because even if (and I want to be clear, I do not agree with this premise) it is not at all likely for these young strong players to become symptomatic or require advanced care (it’s totally possible) they will still have been asymptomatic carriers.
And then you have quarantine them for X amount of time, and also trace everyone they’ve come into contact with & quarantine those folks for X amount of time.
That scenario would be a complete disaster for the 2020 season, assuming there is one played conditionally. It’s not “worst case scenario”, but it’s close. “Disruptive” wouldn’t begin to describe the impact such an event would have.
That is the worst case scenario. For sure. And while less likely, it is absolutely possible that a player succumbs. Tom Brady is 42. I believe he’ll turn 43 in August. From all available data, Tom has a ~1% mortality rate if he contracts the virus.
Back to the bowl of skittles analogy....Tom’s a gamer. If you pass him the bowl, he’ll probably eat a skittle knowing that 1 of the 100 could kill him. But you’re correct that it’s far more likely that he passes it along to an older coach or assistant & they succumb.
those are worst case scenarios. I don’t believe it will take a worst-case scenario to end the season prematurely. Merely an outbreak. The quarantining will make playing a schedule logistically impossible.
The ONLY way I see it possible is if every coach, player, assistant & ref/league personnel & every on-field camera operator all quarantined for a few weeks, then with complete testing all travelled to a facility that’s totally locked down, where they could play the entire season on lockdown.
note: I don’t believe that’s realistic. I just think it’s the only way to ensure an uninterrupted season.
What a mess.
Point 2- A state in lockdown presumably would mean bars/clubs are closed but I guess it could apply to a house party too. I meant it more in states that are “open” if players go out and are linked to an outbreak the NFL will catch heat for it and I think that’s a bit unfair because people are going out now causing outbreaks across all kinds of professions but aren’t in the public eye. And players could get together and do whatever they want regardless of whether games are being played or not. You could make a case they’re more likely to do that than if they’re not in season. Nevertheless it will fall on the NFL and it’s a headline they don’t want. The NFL doc or Goodell also stated that they expect players to get it. And they’re prepared to work around it or something along those lines. So I don’t think an outbreak is definitely doom for the season. But public scrutiny will be worth watching if outbreaks start to stack up. Especially if we’re pumping up to 50, 60, 70k cases per day and the deaths starting getting back up into the 4 digits.
Point 3- entirely disagree with the mortality odds being assigned to Brady but you know that, we don’t need to rehash
. I’d think they could greatly limit exposure to more at risk coaches/staff. Maybe they’re in booth on game days. I’m sure they’ll be masked for practice and maybe indoor practices are limited or spaced/masked more extremely. I’m sure they’ll also be required to maintain distance from the players. It won’t be foolproof but the NFL has had months to work on what they want to put in place to be (and appear) as safe as possible while working towards playing. I am fairly optimistic about playing though even without a full NBA esque bubble scenario.Completely inaccurate. It's the spreading of this false data that is making this situation worse than it is.
Tom does not have a 1% mortality rate if he contracts the virus. 74.6% of Covid deaths had an underlying condition, 24.7% may have had another condition, and 0.7% had no underlying condition. Tom Brady's chances of dying from it would be 0.7% of 1%.... so 1 in 14 000 rather than the 1 in 100 you're suggesting. And that doesn't even take into account that he's in good shape and has the top health care out there which makes it much, much lower than that.
Also take into account in his age range the death rate isn’t close to 1% before you start factoring the underlying condition data you mentioned. Heck the death rate may not be 1% for the entire country, including the (much much higher!) high risk age ranges.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Per CDC statistics through June 17, the death per infection rate for people ages 20-49 is .0092% - not even close to 1%. And that includes people with prior existing escalators.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
You need to look at updated charts.
For 40-45 it’s just under 1%, e.g. the purple line on this chart. Saying it’s “not even close” is incorrect. Saying 1% represents the rate of the entire country is also incorrect according to the numbers tracked by age by the CDC.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm
important to keep in mind that “GIGO” still applies, so it doesn’t help accuracy of the data set that some (red) states are under-reporting COVID & instead reporting deaths by literal symptom causation & not associating it with COVID for re-opening purposes. So someone in their 30s having the type of abnormally large stroke normally associated with a geriatric and due to COVID may be reported in FL as only “stroke” hurts data integrity.
but for the sake of discussion that link shows you that just under 1000 deaths out of 125K were 40-45, which is Tom Brady’s age group.
not sure what that’s worth arguing about. It is what it is.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Your decimal seems to be in the wrong place. I guess lumping in 20-39 ages helped lower it?
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm
1000 out of 125k is just under 1% for 40-45.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Per CDC statistics here are the infection fatality rate estimates per age group:
5-9 years of age .0016%
10-19 years of age .00032%
20-49 years of age .0092%
50-64 years of age .14%
65 years and over of age 5.6%
Total of all ages .64%
Do people still want to argue that young healthy people are at just as much risk as the elderly?
5-9 years of age .0016%
10-19 years of age .00032%
20-49 years of age .0092%
50-64 years of age .14%
65 years and over of age 5.6%
Total of all ages .64%
Do people still want to argue that young healthy people are at just as much risk as the elderly?
Last edited by a moderator:
DallasDMac
Footballguy
This would be awesome. I'm not sure how or who makes the actual tests, so as you said, no idea if it is possible. But this would certainly reduce the strain on the surging states and their testing capacity right now and make the whole thing more palatable.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
You are looking at the percentage of total deaths (that age group does make up 1%) not the rates of death per infections.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Per CDC through June 17 breakdown of deaths by age:
Under 1 .008%
1-5 .005%
5-14 .013%
25-34 .676%
35-44 1.72%
45-54 4.815%
55-64 11.909%
65-74 20.76%
75-84 26.640%
85 years and older 33.322%
And 42% of all deaths occurred in nursing homes.
Under 1 .008%
1-5 .005%
5-14 .013%
25-34 .676%
35-44 1.72%
45-54 4.815%
55-64 11.909%
65-74 20.76%
75-84 26.640%
85 years and older 33.322%
And 42% of all deaths occurred in nursing homes.
Last edited by a moderator:
DallasDMac
Footballguy
I'm sorry if you think pointing out incorrect anecdotal statements is "being a jerk", and I mean that in all seriousness. There are several states in dire straights right now, and testing is part of the issue in more than a handful of them. Obviously your area isn't being affected and so your viewpoint is tainted by that. I'm in a very bad area right now, and my viewpoint is tainted by that. But a blanket statement like "testing isn't an issue" is fundamentally wrong and I simply stated as much. My intent wasn't to turn it in to a pissing contest. As such, I'll drop it.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
My area was the hardest hit state in the nation. And you're a jerk because you would rather be snarky and act like I was leaving out information instead of reading what was said - There was nothing incorrect about my statement.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Because we don’t have enough testing to know with any degree of accuracy the rate of deaths per infection. It’s in impossible data point to establish without that data.
there’s simply not enough testing to know this.
I guess it’s like Trump said, the only reason we have so many infections is because we’re doing testing?
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
That's the percentage of deaths in that age group versus overall deaths. That doesn't speak to the likelihood of Tom Brady dying if he got Covid-19. That would come from the first chart (deaths per infection rate) which shows he'd have a .0092% of dying.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
So we should ignore CDC statistic and rely on hyperbole posted on a fantasy football message board?Because we don’t have enough testing to know with any degree of accuracy the rate of deaths per infection. It’s in impossible data point to establish without that data.
there’s simply not enough testing to know this.
I guess it’s like Trump said, the only reason we have so many infections is because we’re doing testing?
I don't think you understand the data and are just interested in hearing yourself. If anything more testing would actually lower the death rates while increasing the number of cases.
I'm done with this thread.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
So specific to an earlier discussion, I just checked my league page. We collectively voted to:
1. Hold an online draft with Zoom for the social aspect
2. Collect only fees to cover the website/league renewal
3. if the season is cut short for any reason, there will be no additional fees collected & no payouts.
Everyone favored this. A couple wanted “zoom-only” until I spelled out how crappy that would be for the person putting stickers on the board (me) and doing data entry for 300 picks (IDP)
1. Hold an online draft with Zoom for the social aspect
2. Collect only fees to cover the website/league renewal
3. if the season is cut short for any reason, there will be no additional fees collected & no payouts.
Everyone favored this. A couple wanted “zoom-only” until I spelled out how crappy that would be for the person putting stickers on the board (me) and doing data entry for 300 picks (IDP)
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
I didn’t say that. i said there’s a chance. No one knows. No one. So using the NFL to experiment with a life & death scenario seems ethically questionable.
I understand the data pretty well - I’m the only one who’s been posting links to it in here. You’re assuming that more testing would lower the rates. You don’t know that. For someone calling people “jerks” you may want to try being more polite to others.
We all say that at one time or another. I look forward to your future posts in here.
Lmao this would imply that the only infections are cases resulting in death. It would imply a 100% death rate for ages 1-100. It’s just not even close to how any of this works. You don’t understand the data my dude.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Yes, it’s early & I posted rate of death by age.
my bad.
But I’m also not the one claiming COVID has a lower rate than the seasonal flu my dude.
https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid#case-fatality-rate-of-covid-19-compared-to-other-diseases
Last edited by a moderator:
Is anyone posting that the death rate is lower than the flu across all ages? It’s certainly isn’t me or Dr. O. Is that link of data from Feb/March supposed to have any value? You literally just said that we need more testing to produce more accurate data then you post a link that takes out 3-4 months worth of data and millions upon millions of tests? Gtfo with that.
Edit- it wasn’t early last night when you posted that Tom Brady has a 1% chance of dying from Covid. What data did you use to reach that conclusion?
Last edited by a moderator:
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
I reserve the right to be dumb anytime of day. as an American citizen perhaps my duty.
As for the flu comparison, many have stated that the percentage is less than the flu.
Last edited by a moderator:
You have the intelligence to wear a mask, that already puts you above a way too high % of American citizens. You may have misunderstood the mortality data at certain ages. Does this change your stance on how likely it is for a player to get severely ill from Covid?
Take this kind of comment to the many other threads we have on this in our other forums.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
I’ve seen global charts that indicate 1% for the 4245 age range, and as high as 3% for the 50-year-old age range. I take those numbers to heart being 49, turning 50 in two months.
granted, I’m no Adonis. there is no doubt that I have a higher chance of dying from this NFL player, provided they don’t have underlying conditions.
I think “severely ill” is more likely than death.
But for FF & estimations of whether there’ll be a season, the quarantines are the likely killer.
logistically it presents a massive problem for continuity of the schedule.
DallasDMac
Footballguy
Whatever. You totally left out a KEY element of what was posted to shape your narrative. But give yourself whatever free pass you want. I tried to drop it but you seem intent on being a #### so have at it. I'm not going to be goaded in to a time out so it's probably best for both of us if I simply ignore your posts from here on out.
- Status
