Jump to content

Covid-19 strikes again


SubZero

Recommended Posts

Edgewater latest COVID-19 victim; Eagles shut down for 2 weeks; Seminole game canceled

 

should be aware that covid-19 could derail the season a bit once again, or is this a rare item. 

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/highschool/football/os-sp-hs-edgewater-covid-19-shut-down-20210812-h3ck2h55vfcvljqbec456w66uy-story.html#ed=rss_www.orlandosentinel.com/arcio/rss/category/sports/highschool/

Link to comment
Share on other sites


7 minutes ago, DarterBlue2 said:

We can only hope that the worst is happening now, and that by mid to late September, Covid-19 will recede. If it lingers, then the season will be badly affected. 

Former FDA commissioner,  Dr. Scott Gottlieb predicts that will happen in a couple of weeks.  Hope you are off a couple  weeks of Darter and we see cases receding in late August early September.  We can pray for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Ray Icaza said:

Former FDA commissioner,  Dr. Scott Gottlieb predicts that will happen in a couple of weeks.  Hope you are off a couple  weeks of Darter and we see cases receding in late August early September.  We can pray for that.

Any fan of high school football can agree with that!

I hope Dr. Gottlieb is right and his view is not influenced by the fact he is a Board Member at one of the three leading vaccine manufacturers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The *only* way the season will not be severely impacted is if they stop testing asymptomatic people. Any place regularly testing everyone regardless of symptoms or vaccination status will experience identical outcomes to 2020. We do not have any tools or any mechanisms for preventing positive PCR tests. The tools we have only serve to significantly reduce the severity of a SARS-CoV-2 infection. That SHOULD be a big deal. But, power hungry administrators do not like to hand back power once they have it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right to the extent you see different protocols in different counties; we encountered these same policies last year regarding testing.  Those counties that want to search out asymptomatic people will find them, thus suspension of games/practices.  Neighboring counties like Orange and Osceola saw the effects last year with few games jeopardized down here but not the same to our north.  The hope is the surge will pass quickly and some sense of normalcy will return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Skyway/Ray,

I need you guys to help me understand something.   And I want me (and everyone else) to try to adhere to Forum rules and keep politics out of this as much as humanly possible.   My questions are being asked purely from a scientific standpoint. 

As I understand it, "asymptomatic people" are people who have been exposed to a virus, who are currently carrying the virus, yet who do not display any symptoms associated with the virus.  In short, they've got the bug, but it's not bothering them.  Is that correct? 

Assuming I got the first part right, and again, purely from a scientific standpoint, a person who is "asymptomatic" is capable of transmitting the virus to others, correct? 

If so, isn't the reason why people are tested (for purposes of travel, the Olympics or any other sports) is to determine whether someone does, in fact, have the virus, whether they be symptomatic or asymptomatic, right? 

Now, my recollection is that there is some period of time when someone who has the virus is capable of transmitting the virus to others, right?   But, if I'm right on this point, that also means there may be times (either at the beginning of a person's virus life cycle or at the end) where someone could test positive for the virus, but not be capable of transmitting the virus.   Is there a test that determines (a) if someone has the virus and (b) if so, if that person capable of transmitting the virus to others?   Seriously, is the testing that sophisticated that it can tell not only whether a person has the virus but whether they are capable of transmitting it? 

I've always assumed that the purpose of testing "everyone on the team, including coaches and staff" is to determine whether anyone tests positive, regardless of whether they are symptomatic or asymptomatic.   The point of doing this for high school football, I believe, is to eliminate the possibility of a single game becoming a "super-spreader event."  Understandably, there may be other ways to skin the cat, but I've always thought this was the primary purpose of testing.  (Caveat:  are any counties/teams testing their athletes on a regular basis?  Again, I'm not concerned with whether they should or shouldn't be doing this, but I really don't think anyone at the high school level is doing this, are they? I know this is going on at the professional and collegiate level, but high school?).

Last question:   if someone tests (false) positive as the result of a PCR test, but they aren't really carrying the virus, isn't there a way they can find that out (i.e., by taking a more sophisticated/reliable test)? 

So, I'm just trying to figure this out and learn something.   Is anyone in the state doing mass testing?  If not, how are asymptomatic kids being tested?  But, regardless of the answer, if asymptomatic people have been tested and have tested positive, isn't it a good thing that we know that before they get on the field with upwards of 100 other kids (between their teammates and the players on the opposing team)? 

Help me understand the science. 

Thanks. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Perspective said:

Skyway/Ray,

I need you guys to help me understand something.   And I want me (and everyone else) to try to adhere to Forum rules and keep politics out of this as much as humanly possible.   My questions are being asked purely from a scientific standpoint. 

As I understand it, "asymptomatic people" are people who have been exposed to a virus, who are currently carrying the virus, yet who do not display any symptoms associated with the virus.  In short, they've got the bug, but it's not bothering them.  Is that correct? 

Assuming I got the first part right, and again, purely from a scientific standpoint, a person who is "asymptomatic" is capable of transmitting the virus to others, correct? 

If so, isn't the reason why people are tested (for purposes of travel, the Olympics or any other sports) is to determine whether someone does, in fact, have the virus, whether they be symptomatic or asymptomatic, right? 

Now, my recollection is that there is some period of time when someone who has the virus is capable of transmitting the virus to others, right?   But, if I'm right on this point, that also means there may be times (either at the beginning of a person's virus life cycle or at the end) where someone could test positive for the virus, but not be capable of transmitting the virus.   Is there a test that determines (a) if someone has the virus and (b) if so, if that person capable of transmitting the virus to others?   Seriously, is the testing that sophisticated that it can tell not only whether a person has the virus but whether they are capable of transmitting it? 

I've always assumed that the purpose of testing "everyone on the team, including coaches and staff" is to determine whether anyone tests positive, regardless of whether they are symptomatic or asymptomatic.   The point of doing this for high school football, I believe, is to eliminate the possibility of a single game becoming a "super-spreader event."  Understandably, there may be other ways to skin the cat, but I've always thought this was the primary purpose of testing.  (Caveat:  are any counties/teams testing their athletes on a regular basis?  Again, I'm not concerned with whether they should or shouldn't be doing this, but I really don't think anyone at the high school level is doing this, are they? I know this is going on at the professional and collegiate level, but high school?).

Last question:   if someone tests (false) positive as the result of a PCR test, but they aren't really carrying the virus, isn't there a way they can find that out (i.e., by taking a more sophisticated/reliable test)? 

So, I'm just trying to figure this out and learn something.   Is anyone in the state doing mass testing?  If not, how are asymptomatic kids being tested?  But, regardless of the answer, if asymptomatic people have been tested and have tested positive, isn't it a good thing that we know that before they get on the field with upwards of 100 other kids (between their teammates and the players on the opposing team)? 

Help me understand the science. 

Thanks. 

 

How did that science make Orange counties covid numbers better than Osceola or Palm Beach better that Polk?  Why did the Big 10 suspend their season until pressure due to SEC refusing to do so. Especially stats regarding young people with hospitalizations and deaths.  No intent to be political, just haven't seen how those policies made a difference.  If you have science to show statistical difference I will be open to revise my position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Perspective said:

Skyway/Ray,

I need you guys to help me understand something.   And I want me (and everyone else) to try to adhere to Forum rules and keep politics out of this as much as humanly possible.   My questions are being asked purely from a scientific standpoint. 

As I understand it, "asymptomatic people" are people who have been exposed to a virus, who are currently carrying the virus, yet who do not display any symptoms associated with the virus.  In short, they've got the bug, but it's not bothering them.  Is that correct? 

Assuming I got the first part right, and again, purely from a scientific standpoint, a person who is "asymptomatic" is capable of transmitting the virus to others, correct? 

If so, isn't the reason why people are tested (for purposes of travel, the Olympics or any other sports) is to determine whether someone does, in fact, have the virus, whether they be symptomatic or asymptomatic, right? 

Now, my recollection is that there is some period of time when someone who has the virus is capable of transmitting the virus to others, right?   But, if I'm right on this point, that also means there may be times (either at the beginning of a person's virus life cycle or at the end) where someone could test positive for the virus, but not be capable of transmitting the virus.   Is there a test that determines (a) if someone has the virus and (b) if so, if that person capable of transmitting the virus to others?   Seriously, is the testing that sophisticated that it can tell not only whether a person has the virus but whether they are capable of transmitting it? 

I've always assumed that the purpose of testing "everyone on the team, including coaches and staff" is to determine whether anyone tests positive, regardless of whether they are symptomatic or asymptomatic.   The point of doing this for high school football, I believe, is to eliminate the possibility of a single game becoming a "super-spreader event."  Understandably, there may be other ways to skin the cat, but I've always thought this was the primary purpose of testing.  (Caveat:  are any counties/teams testing their athletes on a regular basis?  Again, I'm not concerned with whether they should or shouldn't be doing this, but I really don't think anyone at the high school level is doing this, are they? I know this is going on at the professional and collegiate level, but high school?).

Last question:   if someone tests (false) positive as the result of a PCR test, but they aren't really carrying the virus, isn't there a way they can find that out (i.e., by taking a more sophisticated/reliable test)? 

So, I'm just trying to figure this out and learn something.   Is anyone in the state doing mass testing?  If not, how are asymptomatic kids being tested?  But, regardless of the answer, if asymptomatic people have been tested and have tested positive, isn't it a good thing that we know that before they get on the field with upwards of 100 other kids (between their teammates and the players on the opposing team)? 

Help me understand the science. 

Thanks. 

 

"asymptomatic" as I refer to it means someone without symptoms and unknown infection status. For example, Los Angeles Unified school district is subjecting each and every student and each and every staff member to testing every week, with absolutely no regard for whether they have symptoms, have been vaccinated, have prior immunity etc. As long as that is allowed to go on, and with the quarantine rules as they are now, that school district will probably be shut down before I finish typing this message. In Florida, districts are generally entire counties. So, if you know which counties are following a similar protocol to L.A. Unified, you can be certain their seasons will be destroyed.

A major problem we've faced for the duration of the pandemic is that the PCR tests do NOT indicate whether someone is actually infectious. They COULD be, or perhaps not. Asymptomatic transmission is possible, but generally quite unlikely. The fears and rules around trying to stop asymptomatic transmission are entirely based on this idea of "out of an abundance of caution".

A key difference between now and 2020 is the severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Serious illness among vaccinated people is extremely rare. Unvaccinated people are unvaccinated as a matter of personal choice an overwhelming majority of time. So, the harsh truth is that safety measures are really being done to protect the people who've chosen not to protect themselves. Those of us who are vaccinated or have already been infected can expect to test positive many times throughout their life, but they can also expect to have *at worst* a common cold/flu assuming they have prior immunity. With the PCR tests as they are now (they're being retired for several reasons, including the fact that they frequently fail to distinguish between SARS-CoV-2 and influenza), positive tests are going to be a dime a dozen. But, again, the only people at severe risk are those who've chosen not to take advantage of the tools (vaccines) made available to them. There needs to be some adjustment based around that fact, and yet I don't see that happening in some places. The idea of severely disrupting daily life and holding vaccinated/previously infected people hostage so as to protect people who've chosen not to protect themselves SHOULD be highly controversial at a minimum. But it's not for many people because their minds have more than a year's worth of training on how to interpret and respond to "cases". "Cases" shouldn't carry the same significance now that they did last year.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ray Icaza said:

How did that science make Orange counties covid numbers better than Osceola or Palm Beach better that Polk?  Why did the Big 10 suspend their season until pressure due to SEC refusing to do so. Especially stats regarding young people with hospitalizations and deaths.  No intent to be political, just haven't seen how those policies made a difference.  If you have science to show statistical difference I will be open to revise my position.

How did that science make Orange counties covid numbers better than Osceola or Palm Beach better that Polk? 

I can't speak on conditions last season at all the Orange County schools, but a big reason that Winter Park HS avoided being the cause of suspensions of any football games last season due to Covid was that they placed their football team in a "bubble" and had them take school provided on-line learning. The problem this year is that the school provided on-line learning is no longer an option. The football players are attending classes this semester and students, with written permission from their parent(s), may opt out of wearing masks at school. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As both Perspective and Skyway point out, the key stat is "Asymptomatic".   Just because we didn't test as often and didn't catch a handful of cases that were identified in another county doesn't mean we didn't have asymptomatic as well but the net effect was nill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ultimately, we have to reach a point where a rationale for perceiving others to be a threat worthy of severe punishment must be established in order to enact that punishment. *Any*, and *every* person you pass while walking down the sidewalk COULD very well suddenly assault you. They COULD rob a bank. They COULD sexually assault someone. And there never has been and never will be a way to determine with 100% certainty who may do those things and who may not. Guess what? The fact that every individual *MAY* be a threat to do horrible things to others has NEVER been sufficient to simply jail people "out of an abundance of caution". Not in America, anyway (in many other parts of the world). What is the rationale for perceiving an asymptomatic, potentially vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 person is a threat to murder others with SARS-CoV-2? Is it the fact that people have turned decisively neurotic, and are terrified of their own shadow? It doesn't seem to me that that should suffice in America.

*Make no mistake, if/when you tell someone they have to lock themselves in their apartment by themselves for two weeks, and are not allowed to participate in any activities they cherish, you are inflicting tremendous punishment. Trigger warning: this still applies EVEN IF you're really fucking terrified of the 'Rona.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ray Icaza said:

As both Perspective and Skyway point out, the key stat is "Asymptomatic".   Just because we didn't test as often and didn't catch a handful of cases that were identified in another county doesn't mean we didn't have asymptomatic as well but the net effect was nill.

the key stat is "Asymptomatic".

I think the key stat is actually "rate of vaccination". Asymptomatic means the individual is positive for the virus, just not exhibiting symptoms; they can still contaminate others just as easily as an individual that is positive and exhibiting the effects of the virus. On some occasions, vaccinated individuals can catch the virus and transmit it to others, but this is rare. Unvaccinated individuals are still the overwhelming majority of people testing positive, in the range of 95-99% of all infected individuals.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, HornetFan said:

the key stat is "Asymptomatic".

I think the key stat is actually "rate of vaccination". Asymptomatic means the individual is positive for the virus, just not exhibiting symptoms; they can still contaminate others just as easily as an individual that is positive and exhibiting the effects of the virus. On some occasions, vaccinated individuals can catch the virus and transmit it to others, but this is rare. Unvaccinated individuals are still the overwhelming majority of people testing positive, in the range of 95-99% of all infected individuals.  

This is patently false. And it's time people like you are backed into a corner and forced to cough up what you perceive is the evidence to support such a claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, HornetFan said:

the key stat is "Asymptomatic".

I think the key stat is actually "rate of vaccination". Asymptomatic means the individual is positive for the virus, just not exhibiting symptoms; they can still contaminate others just as easily as an individual that is positive and exhibiting the effects of the virus. On some occasions, vaccinated individuals can catch the virus and transmit it to others, but this is rare. Unvaccinated individuals are still the overwhelming majority of people testing positive, in the range of 95-99% of all infected individuals.  

That is partly true, they can/will surely pass this virus to others. However the rate of transmission is not as high as those with obvious symptons.

The people who are not part of the anti-everything cult will be smart and follow sound, medical advice. Those who are a part of the anti-everything cult will continue to be who they are.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@LakelandGator, I chose not to pin your quote due to it being extremely lengthy on my computer screen. However, you are exactly correct on the matter. We need sound, reasonable logic in order to reach everyone, and ensure that our vaccination rate in Florida continues to grow steadily.

I will say this only as a concession, just to ensure that my point is clear. I do not intend to start any fights on this board. As such, with that in mind, this will be my only post on this specific topic. As a life-long conservative Republican, I find myself more and more disappointed every day with the anti-mask rhetoric of my party and the hesitancy of these people to get vaccinated. At the beginning of the pandemic, I was a staunch advocate of football and other sports being cancelled due to the extreme risk posed by COVID-19, and the risks associated with being packed together closely in stands and inside. It seems to me that the people who are desirous of being vaccinated and following proper rules do not reflect the same values that I hold. 

I only hope that we continue to make strides in the fight against COVID-19, and that no more unnecessary deaths need to occur due to complete ignorance from people who do not wish to adhere to proper protocols. I hope you are all staying safe and healthy in these challenging times. :wub:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


  • Posts

    • I was actually itching to treat some wager some money on some sports matches that are happening above-board now. I wanted to let you guys identify that I did spot what I ruminate on to be the kindest site in the USA. If you fall short of to get in on the spirit, check it out-moded: [url=https://pokeronline.guru/online-gambling/]https://pokeronline.guru/online-gambling/[/url]
    • Perhaps the best RB in Tampa Bay iin 2023 saw his program close, and is looking for a home. If he stays in the area,Venice is a good bet. (Lakeland may be as well).
    • And if that same newsletter asked the Osceola County Sheriff Department, what do you think the response would be? If you asked, members of the Chamber of Commerce? (Essentially a union of businesses) If you asked a group of nurses? If you asked a group of lawyers? Also a union cares about the working conditions of their members, but the working conditions of teachers are the learning conditions of students as well. People are attracted to careers because of the values that come with those careers. Political Parties attract people based on their values. So it shouldn't be surprising that certain professions attract certain people in certain careers. You act as if the principal's first question when we have a 5,000+ teachers shortage in this state is "who do you vote for? And are you a member of the union?"
    • I feel like y'all are always solid so I don't see y'all going no worse than 7-3. Biggest question mark for Cocoa is their O-line since they are only returning 1 and on the defensive side they only return their blue chip edge in their front 7 
    • Coach Wiseman, let me just preface this by saying that you were the best HC Sarasota's program has had in the last 20+ years. You brought them from being a perpetual losing program to the doorstep of competing with Venice for a district title and a deep playoff run. SHS will curse the day they fired you now that they are back in a rut. You are a true class act, and nothing will ever convince me otherwise.  Our backfield is certainly sparse right now. We do have Dorian Jones, a rising sophomore runningback whom did considerably well considering his limited playing time last season. Our offense will need an overhaul with the graduation of 3 offensive linemen and almost our entire receiving corps. Our defensive line will be strong with the return of Ke'shawn Vaughn, Elijah Jones, and Asharri Charles. Our linebacking corps graduates virtually everybody but should have at least one bright spot with the return of Ben Zarkawiecz. Our defensive backfield is still a work in progress with the graduation of Lester and Platt. At the moment, we have more question marks than exclamation points. And that's not a good feeling with the kind of competition Venice is going to face. 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...