foxbat

Somewhat to the contrary in recent studies. Some have split the youth level into kids under 10 and those in school older than 10 and have seen differences in transmission potential. A recent study, out of South Korea, showed that, while kids 10 and under seem to transmit at lower levels than adults, kids that are 10-18 seem to transmit at a similar level as adults. Most studies that I've seen in the past have lumped kids into the under 18 age group. It'd be interesting to see what the numbers look like in the Iceland study looks like accounting for further subdivision. Another trend that is starting to show is the number of case appearing in younger people compared to what we saw earlier in the onset. Deaths are not yet tracking at earlier levels, and may not, but hospitalizations are on the upswing again and, in several places, putting healthcare resources under strain ... e.g., over 40 hospitals in Florida are at capacity in ICU beds, Houston has already maxxed out and is accepting adult patients at the children's hospital due to resource constraints, etc. One of the bigger issues that I think tend to get lost in the back-and-forths that I've seen is that folks are looking at the outcome of a study and not the reasoning behind it. For example, there's a recent study out of Germany that says that says that transmission rates are lower for kids, but if you read through the details you see that German schools are practicing mandatory face coverings and social distancing AND as a society, they are doing the same on a very constant basis. Those results really can't be applied to the US moving forward since we don't seem to do social distancing anymore than at a minimal level as well as masking ... and given that those issues are not even treated as health issues anymore and much more about politics, the outputs aren't likely to be replicated with a difference in inputs. Article on older student transmission rate ... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/18/health/coronavirus-children-schools.html Article looking at increase in younger population, not school age, contraction ... https://www.vox.com/2020/7/18/21328358/covid-19-cases-by-age-florida-arizona-texas-miami Article from German study about school kids and transmission ... https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/14/schools-coronavirus-infection-rate-low-german-study-finds.html Site that allows you to look at groupings by age among other things ... allows you to see changes in hospitalizations over time ... https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/COVIDNet/COVID19_5.html

👍

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01891-8 Potential impact in triggering diabetes too.

Along with that, here's a link that @Irishman posted too about kids at camp in GA with infections. https://www.macon.com/news/coronavirus/article244158667.html

Agreed. I even carry this beyond the field and into everyday life with my kids. Even if an adult tells my kids to call them by their first name, my kids know to add Mister or Miss in front of it ... like Mr. Sam or Miss Samantha. Maybe that's a Southern thing.

They're either pulling your leg or they aren't doing it right. Delivery may differ on time, but the balance is carried in effective support, contact, and admin.

How is @Irishman's link to a story about campers and staff in Georgia contracting COVID opinion?

When you say youth league, are you talking about junior high / middle school or younger? I've coached 18 seasons in the LCC youth program, 3rd-6th, and across that time, there have been six head coaches and an interim head coach. In all that time, we never ran the offenses/defenses of the high school. We actually would check in with the head coaches to see if there was something that they wanted us to do specific to the program and almost everyone of them wanted us to focus on the same thing ... safety, good technique, fostering the love of the game, building camaraderie and working as a team, building confidence, learning accountability, etc. It goes to both the technique issues and also the culture that you mentioned. The numbers, plays, schemes were all things that the coaches said were easier to do provided that the foundations/fundamentals, along with the culture buy-in were sound.

Some local churches used a reservation system when they first resumed in-person services. Some churches allowed only their own parishioners while others allowed anyone to reserve seating. As restrictions have loosened ... e.g., more folks allowed at gatherings ... they have started allowing "walk ups" and some parishes that were limited to their own parishioners have also started allowing non-parishioners too. Something similar could potentially be applied if there is to be restricted seating for sports.

Yes, but they have to attend school for a minimum of a single course and are subject to the same "on-campus" days that their non-homeschooled classmates are. They also have to pass the same state tests requirements as their non-homeschooled classmates. I would expect that one thing that might change with regard to the COVID situation is a rewording of IHSAA guidelines that is tied to "acceptable attendance" measures as determined by the school as tied to their general delivery methods ... i.e., if the school as a whole goes to online instruction, which they are able to count as DOE days for state funding purposes, then student athletes would be counted as "in class" for purposes of IHSAA eligibility. It would be something, since it would be tied to the general population delivery, that would likely only be enacted in extreme circumstances.

West Lafayette would likely disagree with you.

And the grind might well be rougher on smaller schools as you've got plenty of kids playing both ways and at some schools. It'll be tough on most kids, but the 1A kid who's the QB, safety, punter, kicker, and bus driver will be worn come Christmas of 2021.

If it's the likes of 3A schools like Chatard and West Lafayette, I'd think so

^^^^ This ^^^^

Before we all shoot from the hip, let's read the sources that folks are using. You may not agree with them, but the number is there ... see below with the red circle. That's where the 9% came from ... not from @Plymouthfan91 own calculations. Similarly, there's a problem in your using the total population and the current deaths as it is mixing population with sample and would pre-suppose that EVERYONE in the US has already contracted COVID AND had the eventual resolution. Also, the 135,838 divided by 331 million would yield a rate of .041% which would certainly be less than .5%, but misleading somewhat in seemingly attempting to paint 135,838 as the cap in the .5% range. Even using the total COVID cases and applying the deaths against it, you run into a number somewhere around 4.2% ... this would assume that all of the non-recovered/discharged folks ended up being recovered/discharged and none of them died. Extrapolate that to the population as a whole and you run into somewhere around over 13 million dead ... and that's at the 4.2% rate. With that said, the 135K+ deaths that we currently have includes folks who were part of the front-end of the pandemic before social distancing/lockdown, etc. In essence, the potential death rate if you CONTRACT COVID seems to be somewhere in the 9% upper range and 4.2%, or possibly lower, taking to account that the 4.2% is currently spanning a minimum of two different response environments. Looking at the post lockdown/social distancing numbers would, potentially, give a better indication of lower end. Nonetheless, applying 4.2% against the country population and you come up with a number north of 13 million deaths. Even taking a death rate after contraction of just 2%, it ends up being some 7 million+. Ultimately, what is more important in the overall scheme of figuring out "return to normal" is determining the likelihood of ANYONE getting this. The # of tests done in the US is around 40 million. Of that, we have around 3.2 million cases. As such, extrapolating that out, you have around a 7.9% rate of HAVE COVID vs. tested for. That number is likely to be a bit high because folks being tested likely think they have it or are pre-supposed to get tested. Nonetheless, it's where we mainly are on testing, so assuming roughly a similar infection and death rate, you are looking at around a .3% death rate of those that die vs. those tested and using tested as a surrogate for the population. That still clocks in at just under 1 million people against the population. Going back to @Plymouthfan91's original post, whether you are talking about 1 million dead or 7 million dead or 13 million dead, those numbers are worth being smart about especially when you consider that last year was one of the worst years on record for flu deaths and that was around 80,000 ... we are already at 50% more than that with COVID so far.

If the Bears were playing there, then you're in luck as I'm not sure they actually play football. 😀 Lord, I apologize for that.

Coach (Checking For Concussion): "Smith, what day is it?" Smith: "Gameday!" Coach: "He's OK to play." 😀

That and to avoid the "random" cavity search.😀

OOB guys.

Not a question of emotions. It's a question of that stuff being in OOB and out of the football forum.

It's probably not so much the baseball, but all the travel and stuff between games ... I always feel that I spend more time driving and waiting for games to start and practices to end than I actually do watching baseball. Like you said, the best part though is being with my boys.

Just saw four baseball games in the last two days and the only reason it wasn't six is because both of my boys were in different cities today. I have a feeling I'm going to get my fill of baseball easily before the end of summer at this rate.

No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night. 😀

That's where the presidential Twinkie stores have been held since FDR started hoarding them in the run-up to WWII ... maybe THAT explains why President Trump was down there. 😀

In that same site, they lay out exactly what they are referring to in terms of looking at the historical context ... and it is not the idea that the brakes should be put on until that answer is completely and definitively discovered. Rather than focusing on the stopping point, it might be good to figure where to start ... and some of those are extremely easy. As a matter of fact, if the approach was, "It is acknowledged that there are MANY of these monuments that exist for other-than-historical reasons" as opposed to "You want to erase history," it would provide a starting point. From that same site, where you quoted their stance, note that they actually give a good accounting of the general classification of the statues/monuments and the reasoning behind many of them. Per their own statement, they don't seek to address each and every one, but the first place to start is to recognize the history behind the plethora of these and to be very honest in recognizing that." From their site, https://www.atlantahistorycenter.com/research/confederate-monuments/historical-introduction-confederate-monuments-and-symbolism ... emphasis is mine: When discussing Confederate monuments, it is useful to group them into three general categories. The first category is Phase One monuments, or early funereal monuments erected from the 1860s through the 1880s. Often placed in cemeteries and taking the form of obelisks, arches, or fountains, these monuments were typically intended to commemorate Confederate dead. Usually erected by ladies’ memorial associations, these monuments served as centerpieces for activities, such as Confederate Memorial Day. The profound impact that the Civil War had on the white Southern population must be considered when examining these monuments. At least 20% of all white men of military age in the Confederacy died during the war. Because almost every white family in the South experienced loss, there was a great desire to create mourning spaces. The majority of remaining Confederate monuments are of a different character and purpose. These Phase Two monuments, erected from the 1890s through the 1930s, coincide with the expansion and consolidation of the white supremacist policies of the Jim Crow era. These monuments often feature celebratory images meant to justify the Confederate cause as a moral victory. Put simply: an equestrian statue of a Confederate general in front of a courthouse or capitol building is not about mourning or loss. It is about power and who was in charge. The strategic placement of monuments at public sites was meant as an official and permanent affirmation of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy. Lost Cause mythology promoted the idea that the Confederacy achieved a moral victory in the Civil War. The myth denied the role of slavery as the primary cause of the war and ignored freedom as an achievement of U.S. victory. The Lost Cause myth tries to delete the African American perspective from the historical narrative. It discounts the fact that a significant number of Southerners (if not a majority) were opposed to the ideology and concept of the Confederacy, given the stark reality that nearly 40% of the Southern population was enslaved. A new period of Confederate monuments (which we call Phase Three monuments) followed the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision mandating desegregation in the case Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954. As a show of “massive resistance,” segregationists revived Confederate imagery. For example, the Confederate battle flag was incorporated into the Georgia state flag in 1956, a Confederate battle flag was flown over the state capitol building in South Carolina in 1961, and new monuments were created. These included Stone Mountain, purchased by the state of Georgia in 1958 specifically to create a Confederate monument. Confederate imagery was used as a rallying point for proponents of segregation. Understanding the historical context of Confederate monuments is an important starting point when discussing possible actions taken in response to them. Rather focus on where we stop, it is appropriate to ask, in the 21st century, where do we start? There are plenty of those Phase Two and Phase Three monuments, statues, etc. that are low-hanging fruit for starting points. There may be some of those Phase One statues that also are in that Phase Two/Three majority grouping and there could certainly be a small number of Phase Two/Three statues that fall into more of a "mourning space" category ... although note that the reasoning behind the Phase Two/Three categorizing is less about when they came into being and WHY they came into being in those periods. There are even some that may well be classified Phase One that really became Phase Two because of movement to intimidate or from mourning space to power space. It's just like doing spring cleaning. Very few people ask "When are we going to stop cleaning?" They instead start with the stuff that is broken, not wanted, obviously a bad choice when purchased, no longer necessary. Are there some things that give us problems during spring cleaning that can't be easily categorized? Certainly, and I'll give a direct example of that from my own house. I have five kids ... the youngest kid is 9 and my oldest turns 22 in a week. We still have the baby bed in our garage that every one of them slept in as a baby. My wife just cannot part with it at this point. It can't be donated due to safety issues and it isn't something that we would feel comfortable giving to a neighbor/relative/friend because the safety component can't be guaranteed. With that said, it no longer has a place in the main house as its usefulness is no longer there; however, my wife is still emotionally attached to it, so it resides in the garage for the time being. As a compromise with me ... I'm not attached to it and it's just taking up room in the garage ... my wife has looked at perhaps having her dad, who is a wood worker, converting it into something like a light stand or plant stand or something else. With that said, there are also plenty of other things that we've had from the kids that have been donated, given away, sold, thrown way, etc. If we stopped to ask the question, where does the spring cleaning end or had gotten hung up on that one baby bed, we would have never progressed forward. Ultimately it's about acknowledgement that there is a major issue there and starting to do something about. Doesn't have to be all or none, but the more that the idea persists to stonewall the issue, no pun intended, the more the response on the other side gets pushed toward all-or-none and more extreme expected response. There then becomes little likelihood that it either gets worse or ends in a result that seems damn near draconian in nature.