The link by @chemgator was a study by the University of Indiana, not the 5 page paper the Big Ten used. The paper the Big Ten used is part of a larger picture. . It is just like the fiction that kids don’t catch or pass the virus. People were spreading that one, too, until camps and schools opened and kids started getting sick. But, In this case, the clotting, damage to epithelial cells, increases in cholesterol levels, and inflammation of the heart has been well documented around the world. The Big Ten wasn’t doing a scientific meta analysis that it needed all the studies.
quick, afforable daily testing could open things up again but unless it is conducted by others we will be at the mercy of the infected people to self isolate. Maybe this will allow for football to be played safely
Only if they can somehow create the same bubble conditions for 70 players that they could for 15... oh, and don't forget, these are not pros, keeping college kids away from all their classmates for 4 or 5 months would be a neat trick.
But but but they’re so much safer with rules, and accountability, and structure... Nine Sooners positive as team returns from break A week off, even though their season hasn’t been cancelled and 9 players return to campus positive. Players will not be monitored 24/7 during the season and this is going to continue to happen. They have a season, they know what needs to be done, they still can’t sit their butts at home. College kids will college kid, football players won’t be able to avoid it once it’s running through campus...
That does not change the fact that when you only get data from 1 cell of an experiment, there really isn't anything to compare it to. That was my pt.
I’m sorry, but I’m not sure I understand the question. Are you implying that once students return to campus there is a possibility of less than 9 infections, thus invalidating the current 9?
My interpretation of this statement by you: "But but but they’re so much safer with rules, and accountability, and structure..." is that the 9 infections demonstrate that they are less safe playing football vs. cancelling the season. Since, they can only do 1 of those 2 things, we'll never know which is safer.
Made it back to one of my favorite hikes today. Ely Peak is just outside of town. Haven't been there this summer yet, so I took the pup out. Here's the peak from the bottom of the hill, near where we started .
There's an interesting point of discussion here. I'm a big proponent of face coverings, but haven't been in a situation where I thought I needed one outdoors. Maybe we are lucky to have been able to avoid crowds. If we were in any kind of populated space, we would wear them. I wonder how others manage the mask situation outdoors.
Any black bears in that area? When we encountered others hiking we just cleared the trail and if anybody passed us flatlanders struggling with the vertical on the hikes in Alaska we typically pulled up and let the dust settle for 5 minutes before we resumed our hike up the hill
Black bears are pretty abundant up here. We get them in our back yard regularly, though we rarely see them. I've spotted about seven bears in eight years; two of them on my property. Last summer they had to trap and put one in our neighborhood down because it attacked a dog and two men. I spotted one on a hike here in town last summer. Our dog didn't spot it, so there was no encounter there. I'm always mindful of bears; carry a pole and produce sounds while hiking. We do alot of primitive hiking, so I asked @ursidman about it a while back. He's an expert. Can't imagine the intensity of hiking in areas populated by brown bears. I'd have to carry a gun.
