Bobref

Lots of “risky“ research going on, whether you’re talking about chemicals, viruses, nuclear materials, etc. That’s sort of the nature of scientific research, depending on the focus of the research. And $7.4 million for research over 11 years is chump change. I don’t see what the big deal is.

My wife is a pediatric nurse practitioner at a hospital in Chicago.

Could you possibly be any more cryptic? A little amplification would be nice.

Good for you. I wish all officials would be studying game film in June. i look forward to hearing how you reconcile mandatory vaccinations with “my body, my choice.”

Would it be prudent instead for the IHSAA to take some measures to try and increase attendance at Regionals and Semistates? If there’s no opportunity for growth at the Finals, that would seem to be an alternative.

For clarity, the DE you refer to is @DannEllenwood, not @DanteEstonia, yes?

[crickets]🦗

You might find this interesting, but I am not one of those that is against a return to competition. I would just like to hear someone in authority tell it like it really is. Something like this: ”Yes, we have a plan for return to competition. We understand that by resuming high school football we will almost certainly experience increasing positives, despite the fact that our return to competition guidelines attempt to minimize that.Some kids will get sick. Some will transmit the virus to others, including the vulnerable and, as a result, some people will be hospitalized, and the odds are that some will die. However, we believe on balance that a return to high school football provides value to society that exceeds the likely downside. Therefore, we will be playing this Fall.” Isn’t that what’s really happening?

It is now a virtual lock that we will have high school football this Fall. Post your comments, observations, hopes, fears, etc., as we try to find the “new normal.” Observation: there is no possible way the high school football season can proceed safely. The pros and NCAA make a better case for the return to competition, since the cornerstone of their guidance is frequent and thorough testing of even asymptomatic individuals coupled with isolation protocols. Yet several colleges have already suspended their summer programs because of large numbers of positives. There won’t be any such testing at the high school level. If you doubt it, read this article by former Munster High School Trainer John Doherty. https://www.nwitimes.com/sports/sports-medicine-even-athletes-must-be-vigilant-to-ravages-of-covid-19/article_1c678744-361d-5ce9-8baa-e37e76a39f63.html He quotes Dan Slotar, a fellowship-trained infectious disease specialist, as follows: “I’ve been an advocate for reentry and reopening of society in general but with certain caveats,” he said. “Some sports are easier to contemplate restarting without the need for as aggressive testing as professional athletes have the luxury of access to. So there is obviously going to be a spectrum. Cross country and golf are one extreme and wrestling would be the other extreme. I would be hesitant about contact sports like football or even basketball without testing. I don’t how that can be addressed on the high school level.” (emphasis supplied) Comment: the return to competition is driven almost wholly by economics. The IHSAA got no revenue from the boy’s basketball tournament. They miss the boy’s football tournament and they’re going to be bankrupt. Schools are in the same boat. Without that revenue, athletic departments are simply unable to function. So, I hope we have a great season. But don’t kid yourself. People are going to die who would not have died otherwise. I hope it’s worth it.

Unless it was Robert Faulkens or Bobby Cox your information is likely going to be superseded this week.

I find your response disconcerting. 😜

The observers have been advised that we will receive officiating guidelines this week. It has been emphasized that these are “guidelines,” subject to a lot of fine tuning before August. Stay tuned. By the way, there were plenty of times when I was officiating when I wished I had been wearing a mask! 🤣

I would think it would be very difficult to attempt to draw any valid conclusions from the data, since the only real endpoint is who won the game at the finals. And there’s always going to be the issue of who is the better team. Assuming the statistics that show a disproportionate percentage of wins by Indy area schools over the years, who is to say that the Indy teams aren’t just better?

Let’s see if your “analysis” can stand up to a little cross-examination, just for the heck of it. Do you have any kids attending public schools? Did you know that a public school student in Indiana, by the time he hits the 6th grade, is required to show proof of multiple vaccinations against diseases like pertussis, polio, measles, varicella (chicken pox), mumps, rubella, Hepatitis A and B, diphtheria, tetanus, etc.? That’s a lot of needle sticks. Your body, your choice. How do you feel about that?

You couldn’t be more wrong, and your analogy to abortion could not be farther off the mark.

I like it, too. It makes a lot of sense. One thing they’re going to do is shuffle the schedule to attempt to maximize attendance. For example if 2 Ft. Wayne teams make it to the finals in different classes, they will schedule those games back to back to draw as many Ft. Wayne fans as possible.

This has now officially gone too far.

We have a new leader in the clubhouse for the greatest non sequitur in the history of the GID.

@Howe and @DannEllenwood, still maintain that there’s no science behind the concept of universal masking? You need to travel outside the boundaries of the State of Denial. This study was published yesterday. If it’s too complicated for you, let me know and I’ll dumb it down. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6498/1422 Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Kimberly A. Prather1, Chia C. Wang2,3, Robert T. Schooley4 See all authors and affiliations Science 26 Jun 2020: Vol. 368, Issue 6498, pp. 1422-1424 DOI: 10.1126/science.abc6197 Correctly fitted masks are an important tool to reduce airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2, particularly in enclosed spaces, such as on this Moscow Metro train in Russia. PHOTO: SERGEI FADEICHEV/TASS VIA GETTY IMAGES Respiratory infections occur through the transmission of virus-containing droplets (>5 to 10 µm) and aerosols (≤5 µm) exhaled from infected individuals during breathing, speaking, coughing, and sneezing. Traditional respiratory disease control measures are designed to reduce transmission by droplets produced in the sneezes and coughs of infected individuals. However, a large proportion of the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) appears to be occurring through airborne transmission of aerosols produced by asymptomatic individuals during breathing and speaking (1—3). Aerosols can accumulate, remain infectious in indoor air for hours, and be easily inhaled deep into the lungs. For society to resume, measures designed to reduce aerosol transmission must be implemented, including universal masking and regular, widespread testing to identify and isolate infected asymptomatic individuals. Humans produce respiratory droplets ranging from 0.1 to 1000 µm. A competition between droplet size, inertia, gravity, and evaporation determines how far emitted droplets and aerosols will travel in air (4, 5). Larger respiratory droplets will undergo gravitational settling faster than they evaporate, contaminating surfaces and leading to contact transmission. Smaller droplets and aerosols will evaporate faster than they can settle, are buoyant, and thus can be affected by air currents, which can transport them over longer distances. Thus, there are two major respiratory virus transmission pathways: contact (direct or indirect between people and with contaminated surfaces) and airborne inhalation. In addition to contributing to the extent of dispersal and mode of transmission, respiratory droplet size has been shown to affect the severity of disease. For example, influenza virus is more commonly contained in aerosols with sizes below 1 µm (submicron), which lead to more severe infection (4). In the case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), it is possible that submicron virus-containing aerosols are being transferred deep into the alveolar region of the lungs, where immune responses seem to be temporarily bypassed. SARS-CoV-2 has been shown to replicate three times faster than SARS-CoV-1 and thus can rapidly spread to the pharynx, from which it can be shed before the innate immune response becomes activated and produces symptoms (6). By the time symptoms occur, the patient has transmitted the virus without knowing. Identifying infected individuals to curb SARS-CoV-2 transmission is more challenging compared to SARS and other respiratory viruses because infected individuals can be highly contagious for several days, peaking on or before symptoms occur (2, 7). These “silent shedders” could be critical drivers of the enhanced spread of SARS-CoV-2. In Wuhan, China, it has been estimated that undiagnosed cases of COVID-19 infection, who were presumably asymptomatic, were responsible for up to 79% of viral infections (3). Therefore, regular, widespread testing is essential to identify and isolate infected asymptomatic individuals. Airborne transmission was determined to play a role during the SARS outbreak in 2003 (1, 4). However, many countries have not yet acknowledged airborne transmission as a possible pathway for SARS-CoV-2 (1). Recent studies have shown that in addition to droplets, SARS-CoV-2 may also be transmitted through aerosols. A study in hospitals in Wuhan, China, found SARS-CoV-2 in aerosols further than 6 feet from patients, with higher concentrations detected in more crowded areas (8). Estimates using an average sputum viral load for SARS-CoV-2 indicate that 1 min of loud speaking could generate >1000 virion-containing aerosols (9). Assuming viral titers for infected super-emitters (with 100-fold higher viral load than average) yields an increase to more than 100,000 virions in emitted droplets per minute of speaking. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for social distancing of 6 feet and hand washing to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2 are based on studies of respiratory droplets carried out in the 1930s. These studies showed that large, ∼100 µm droplets produced in coughs and sneezes quickly underwent gravitational settling (1). However, when these studies were conducted, the technology did not exist for detecting submicron aerosols. As a comparison, calculations predict that in still air, a 100-µm droplet will settle to the ground from 8 feet in 4.6 s, whereas a 1-µm aerosol particle will take 12.4 hours (4). Measurements now show that intense coughs and sneezes that propel larger droplets more than 20 feet can also create thousands of aerosols that can travel even further (1). Increasing evidence for SARS-CoV-2 suggests the 6 feet CDC recommendation is likely not enough under many indoor conditions, where aerosols can remain airborne for hours, accumulate over time, and follow airflows over distances further than 6 feet (5, 10). Infectious aerosol particles can be released during breathing and speaking by asymptomatic infected individuals. No masking maximizes exposure, whereas universal masking results in the least exposure. In outdoor environments, numerous factors will determine the concentrations and distance traveled, and whether respiratory viruses remain infectious in aerosols. Breezes and winds often occur and can transport infectious droplets and aerosols long distances. Asymptomatic individuals who are speaking while exercising can release infectious aerosols that can be picked up by airstreams (10). Viral concentrations will be more rapidly diluted outdoors, but few studies have been carried out on outdoor transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Additionally, SARS-CoV-2 can be inactivated by ultraviolet radiation in sunlight, and it is likely sensitive to ambient temperature and relative humidity, as well as the presence of atmospheric aerosols that occur in highly polluted areas. Viruses can attach to other particles such as dust and pollution, which can modify the aerodynamic characteristics and increase dispersion. Moreover, people living in areas with higher concentrations of air pollution have been shown to have higher severity of COVID-19 (11). Because respiratory viruses can remain airborne for prolonged periods before being inhaled by a potential host, studies are needed to characterize the factors leading to loss of infectivity over time in a variety of outdoor environments over a range of conditions Given how little is known about the production and airborne behavior of infectious respiratory droplets, it is difficult to define a safe distance for social distancing. Assuming SARS-CoV-2 virions are contained in submicron aerosols, as is the case for influenza virus, a good comparison is exhaled cigarette smoke, which also contains submicron particles and will likely follow comparable flows and dilution patterns. The distance from a smoker at which one smells cigarette smoke indicates the distance in those surroundings at which one could inhale infectious aerosols. In an enclosed room with asymptomatic individuals, infectious aerosol concentrations can increase over time. Overall, the probability of becoming infected indoors will depend on the total amount of SARS-CoV-2 inhaled. Ultimately, the amount of ventilation, number of people, how long one visits an indoor facility, and activities that affect airflow will all modulate viral transmission pathways and exposure (10). For these reasons, it is important to wear properly fitted masks indoors even when 6 feet apart. Airborne transmission could account, in part, for the high secondary transmission rates to medical staff, as well as major outbreaks in nursing facilities. The minimum dose of SARS-CoV-2 that leads to infection is unknown, but airborne transmission through aerosols has been documented for other respiratory viruses, including measles, SARS, and chickenpox (4). Airborne spread from undiagnosed infections will continuously undermine the effectiveness of even the most vigorous testing, tracing, and social distancing programs. After evidence revealed that airborne transmission by asymptomatic individuals might be a key driver in the global spread of COVID-19, the CDC recommended the use of cloth face coverings. Masks provide a critical barrier, reducing the number of infectious viruses in exhaled breath, especially of asymptomatic people and those with mild symptoms (12) (see the figure). Surgical mask material reduces the likelihood and severity of COVID-19 by substantially reducing airborne viral concentrations (13). Masks can also protect uninfected individuals from SARS-CoV-2 aerosols and droplets (13, 14). Thus, it is particularly important to wear masks in locations with conditions that can accumulate high concentrations of viruses, such as health care settings, airplanes, restaurants, and other crowded places with reduced ventilation. The aerosol filtering efficiency of different materials, thicknesses, and layers used in properly fitted homemade masks was recently found to be similar to that of the medical masks that were tested (14). Thus, the option of universal masking is no longer held back by shortages. From epidemiological data, places that have been most effective in reducing the spread of COVID-19 have implemented universal masking, including Taiwan, Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and South Korea. In the battle against COVID-19, Taiwan (population 24 million, first COVID-19 case 21 January 2020) did not implement a lockdown during the pandemic, yet maintained a low incidence of 441 cases and 7 deaths (as of 21 May 2020). By contrast, the state of New York (population ∼20 million, first COVID case 1 March 2020), had a higher number of cases (353,000) and deaths (24,000). By quickly activating its epidemic response plan that was established after the SARS outbreak, the Taiwanese government enacted a set of proactive measures that successfully prevented the spread of SARS-CoV-2, including setting up a central epidemic command center in January, using technologies to detect and track infected patients and their close contacts, and perhaps most importantly, requesting people to wear masks in public places. The government also ensured the availability of medical masks by banning mask manufacturers from exporting them, implementing a system to ensure that every citizen could acquire masks at reasonable prices, and increasing the production of masks. In other countries, there have been widespread shortages of masks, resulting in most residents not having access to any form of medical mask (15). This striking difference in the availability and widespread adoption of wearing masks likely influenced the low number of COVID-19 cases. Aerosol transmission of viruses must be acknowledged as a key factor leading to the spread of infectious respiratory diseases. Evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 is silently spreading in aerosols exhaled by highly contagious infected individuals with no symptoms. Owing to their smaller size, aerosols may lead to higher severity of COVID-19 because virus-containing aerosols penetrate more deeply into the lungs (10). It is essential that control measures be introduced to reduce aerosol transmission. A multidisciplinary approach is needed to address a wide range of factors that lead to the production and airborne transmission of respiratory viruses, including the minimum virus titer required to cause COVID-19; viral load emitted as a function of droplet size before, during, and after infection; viability of the virus indoors and outdoors; mechanisms of transmission; airborne concentrations; and spatial patterns. More studies of the filtering efficiency of different types of masks are also needed. COVID-19 has inspired research that is already leading to a better understanding of the importance of airborne transmission of respiratory disease.

Freedom is awesome. It’s so awesome that I think I’ll exercise my right to free speech by going into a packed movie theater and yelling “fire!” just to see what happens. After all, I’m free and all the other people can shift for themselves. Freedom comes with some responsibility attached to it.

I hate to say I told you so, but those states that were in such a big hurry to “re-start” are paying the price now, like Texas, Arizona, and Florida: https://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20200626/florida-bans-drinking-at-bars-again-as-covid-19-cases-spike Florida bans drinking at bars again as COVID-19 cases spike The Five O’Clock Club at 1930 Hillview St. in Sarasota’s Southside Village recently reopened. Florida bars are being forced to close again as coronavirus cases spike. [PROVIDED PHOTO] By Zac Anderson Political Editor Posted at 11:33 AMUpdated at 1:02 PM Halsey Beshears, the secretary of the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, made the announcement about bars on Twitter Friday. Florida is banning drinking at bars again as the state experiences a big surge in coronavirus cases. Halsey Beshears, the secretary of the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, made the announcement about bars on Twitter Friday. “Effective immediately, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation is suspending on premises consumption of alcohol at bars statewide,” Beshears tweeted. Florida’s bars were shutdown for two months to try and contain the spread of the coronavirus. Gov. Ron DeSantis allowed them to reopen in early June, but since then Florida has experienced a big wave of new coronavirus cases. Florida again shattered the daily record for new cases Friday, with the state Department of Health reporting more than 8,000. Effective immediately, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation is suspending on premises consumption of alcohol at bars statewide. Bars were included in Phase 2 of the governor’s reopening plan, which also allowed movie theaters, bowling alleys, tattoo parlors and other businesses to reopen. The decision to ban drinking at bars is a reversal from what DeSantis said last week about rolling back reopening efforts. “We’re not rolling back,” DeSantis said at a news conference. DeSantis said earlier this week that DBPR would crack down on bars and other establishments that were not following reopening guidelines. The agency revoked the liquor license of a bar near the University of Central Florida where multiple employees and patrons contracted the virus. But the governor’s office appears to have concluded that stronger enforcement was not enough amid the flood of new coronavirus cases. Florida continues to set daily records for new cases, with the state topping 4,000 cases in a single day for the first time, then 5,000 and now 8,000, all in the span of just the last week. Florida has become one of the worst coronavirus hotspots in the nation. DeSantis has been playing down the surge in cases by noting that many of those infected are younger and less likely to be seriously ill. He also has pointed to the availability of hospital beds, but bed availability has started declining in parts of the state. The worsening outbreak has alarmed many health officials and policymakers. Cites and counties across the state have enacted, or are considering, new mask regulations that require facial coverings in certain public settings. DeSantis has opposed a statewide mask rule. Closing bars to everything but to-go orders is the most significant example of easing back on reopening, but it is not the only one. Sarasota Memorial Hospital announced Thursday that it will ban visitors again starting today at 6 p.m.. Sarasota Memorial was treating 36 COVID-19 patients on Thursday, more than triple the number of patients hospitalized with the disease at the beginning of the month

Although the penalty for this foul used to be 15 yds. (now 5), it was never an automatic 1st down.