New Research on Covid Transmission

This "research" is nothing more than propaganda by Surf.
This would never pass any type of peer-review necessary to be published in a reputable medical journal.

There are so many flaws in this. Where to start?

First, the source of the study and the ones responsible for the data collection and reporting have an incredible conflict of interest-- Surf (and all other soccer organizations) have a vested interest in playing soccer. This is like asking whether tobacco-industry sponsored research is flawed/biased. The answer is... yes.
Second, I highly doubt that there was random testing going on in the study population. They were simply relying on self-reporting. We know there are many individuals with asymptomatic infections, especially in the pediatric age group. So many more people likely had infections-- they just didn't know, and the study was almost certainly not designed to find the true infection rate or transmission rate (this would require widespread testing of the athletes at multiple time points).
Third, and this point has been addressed in the thread already-- lots of these activities (like playing soccer outside) are "pretty safe" but not "absolutely safe". And if you add up a lot of "pretty safe" activities together with an infection rate that is relatively high in the general population, you get an outbreak that affects other segments of society that we have deemed important.

The most recent virus surge in July for OC was directly related to relaxing of social distancing. And yes, the infection rate went up a lot, and the number of patients in hospital ICUs went up a lot. This isn't rocket science.

If we just "open up" and let people's sense of personal liberties decide what they do, our hospitals will quickly be overwhelmed. And, yes, people in their 40s and 50s are suffering permanent debilitating infections and dying from this infection.

The frustrating thing from my perspective is that people's lack of adherence to the guidelines is simply prolonging this whole mess. If we could get the infection rate down to a very low level, we could open up. But people don't want to make the sacrifice and we all suffer the consequences-- we're stuck in this purgatory of low but not low enough. Hopefully an effective vaccine emerges at the end of this year or early next year.
 
zebrafish said:
This "research" is nothing more than propaganda by Surf.
This would never pass any type of peer-review necessary to be published in a reputable medical journal.

There are so many flaws in this. Where to start?

First, the source of the study and the ones responsible for the data collection and reporting have an incredible conflict of interest-- Surf (and all other soccer organizations) have a vested interest in playing soccer. This is like asking whether tobacco-industry sponsored research is flawed/biased. The answer is... yes.
Second, I highly doubt that there was random testing going on in the study population. They were simply relying on self-reporting. We know there are many individuals with asymptomatic infections, especially in the pediatric age group. So many more people likely had infections-- they just didn't know, and the study was almost certainly not designed to find the true infection rate or transmission rate (this would require widespread testing of the athletes at multiple time points).
Third, and this point has been addressed in the thread already-- lots of these activities (like playing soccer outside) are "pretty safe" but not "absolutely safe". And if you add up a lot of "pretty safe" activities together with an infection rate that is relatively high in the general population, you get an outbreak that affects other segments of society that we have deemed important.

The most recent virus surge in July for OC was directly related to relaxing of social distancing. And yes, the infection rate went up a lot, and the number of patients in hospital ICUs went up a lot. This isn't rocket science.

If we just "open up" and let people's sense of personal liberties decide what they do, our hospitals will quickly be overwhelmed. And, yes, people in their 40s and 50s are suffering permanent debilitating infections and dying from this infection.

The frustrating thing from my perspective is that people's lack of adherence to the guidelines is simply prolonging this whole mess. If we could get the infection rate down to a very low level, we could open up. But people don't want to make the sacrifice and we all suffer the consequences-- we're stuck in this purgatory of low but not low enough. Hopefully an effective vaccine emerges at the end of this year or early next year.
Click to expand...
I thought the Surf white paper was pretty good for what it was.

It was not a very good submission to an academic journal. It was also not a very good recipe for hummus.

I agree we need academic work on this, but why expect a soccer club to be able to provide that?
 
zebrafish said:
This "research" is nothing more than propaganda by Surf.
This would never pass any type of peer-review necessary to be published in a reputable medical journal.

There are so many flaws in this. Where to start?

First, the source of the study and the ones responsible for the data collection and reporting have an incredible conflict of interest-- Surf (and all other soccer organizations) have a vested interest in playing soccer. This is like asking whether tobacco-industry sponsored research is flawed/biased. The answer is... yes.
Second, I highly doubt that there was random testing going on in the study population. They were simply relying on self-reporting. We know there are many individuals with asymptomatic infections, especially in the pediatric age group. So many more people likely had infections-- they just didn't know, and the study was almost certainly not designed to find the true infection rate or transmission rate (this would require widespread testing of the athletes at multiple time points).
Third, and this point has been addressed in the thread already-- lots of these activities (like playing soccer outside) are "pretty safe" but not "absolutely safe". And if you add up a lot of "pretty safe" activities together with an infection rate that is relatively high in the general population, you get an outbreak that affects other segments of society that we have deemed important.

The most recent virus surge in July for OC was directly related to relaxing of social distancing. And yes, the infection rate went up a lot, and the number of patients in hospital ICUs went up a lot. This isn't rocket science.

If we just "open up" and let people's sense of personal liberties decide what they do, our hospitals will quickly be overwhelmed. And, yes, people in their 40s and 50s are suffering permanent debilitating infections and dying from this infection.

The frustrating thing from my perspective is that people's lack of adherence to the guidelines is simply prolonging this whole mess. If we could get the infection rate down to a very low level, we could open up. But people don't want to make the sacrifice and we all suffer the consequences-- we're stuck in this purgatory of low but not low enough. Hopefully an effective vaccine emerges at the end of this year or early next year.
Click to expand...
Well said....what is sad is there is such simple stuff that could make the difference. I went down the hill to work with my daughter and there were 2 teams training. I believe 1 was a rec. team and the other was a prominent club team. There was no social distancing with the rec. team and the club team was sitting shoulder to shoulder in a half circle around the unmasked coach and there were parents there in a group with no masks on. There is no benefit to breaking the guidelines they did, and I think those actions are worse then the potential exposure from actually playing the game. It was just plain stupid! It is so easy to sit 6 ft apart and the same conversation or whatever was taking place could have been achieved.
 
Keepermom2 said:
There was no social distancing with the rec. team and the club team was sitting shoulder to shoulder in a half circle around the unmasked coach and there were parents there in a group with no masks on. There is no benefit to breaking the guidelines they did, and I think those actions are worse then the potential exposure from actually playing the game. It was just plain stupid! It is so easy to sit 6 ft apart and the same conversation or whatever was taking place could have been achieved.
Click to expand...
I see this as what will kill the opportunity to play games in CA this fall. The actual soccer - training and games - have a very low risk (my opinion based on training in TX and AZ and games in TX). However, socialization before, during, or after training/games has a significant risk. From what I can gather by what has been posted, the restrictions put in by TX are more strict and followed better than what I am hearing from people in CA.
 
Today we had our doctors (including some highly placed doctors) give an update to our school. They confirmed that pediatric doses have not started testing and the government is planning on putting kids lower on the list. Their best guess was fall of 2021 for a pediatric vaccine. So if you believe the kids have to be absolutely safe before they are allowed to play or go to school, we are only 1/3 of the way through this. Yes, things will get better as transmissions lower with more people catching it and vaccines and new therapies, but we aren't getting to total kid safety/no kid transmission until well towards the end of 2021.
 
Copa9 said:
When there is a world wide pandemic.
Click to expand...
Yes, Copa, the pandemic is why soccer was restricted without any studies/evidence that indicated playing soccer transmitted the virus. My point is that now we have evidence - quite a bit actually given how long they have been playing soccer in Texas - that soccer is a very low-risk activity. So, how much evidence is enough to "overturn" a decision based on no evidence?
 
Grace T. said:
Today we had our doctors (including some highly placed doctors) give an update to our school. They confirmed that pediatric doses have not started testing and the government is planning on putting kids lower on the list. Their best guess was fall of 2021 for a pediatric vaccine. So if you believe the kids have to be absolutely safe before they are allowed to play or go to school, we are only 1/3 of the way through this. Yes, things will get better as transmissions lower with more people catching it and vaccines and new therapies, but we aren't getting to total kid safety/no kid transmission until well towards the end of 2021.
Click to expand...
An adult vaccine could lower case rates enough that the risk for kids is lower.

Also, we worry about kids mostly because they might give it to an adult. If that adult is 50% or 80% immune, there is less to worry about.
 
Grace T. said:
Today we had our doctors (including some highly placed doctors) give an update to our school. They confirmed that pediatric doses have not started testing and the government is planning on putting kids lower on the list. Their best guess was fall of 2021 for a pediatric vaccine. So if you believe the kids have to be absolutely safe before they are allowed to play or go to school, we are only 1/3 of the way through this. Yes, things will get better as transmissions lower with more people catching it and vaccines and new therapies, but we aren't getting to total kid safety/no kid transmission until well towards the end of 2021.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately this is going to last a lot longer vs what the stay at home and wait for a vaccine think
 
dad4 said:
An adult vaccine could lower case rates enough that the risk for kids is lower.

Also, we worry about kids mostly because they might give it to an adult. If that adult is 50% or 80% immune, there is less to worry about.
Click to expand...


You only think this because you're a middle of the roader.

If you really think soccer/contact sports/schools are higher risk, schools would still be germ factories where kids (where only those that had it would be immune) could pass it to each other and where we'd have to shut down teams/schools if there's even an outbreak of a handful of cases. If we buy into these assumptions (as California, but not you, seemingly has), we are a good year away from kid's lives returning somewhat back to normal.
 
Grace T. said:
You only think this because you're a middle of the roader.

If you really think soccer/contact sports/schools are higher risk, schools would still be germ factories where kids (where only those that had it would be immune) could pass it to each other and where we'd have to shut down teams/schools if there's even an outbreak of a handful of cases. If we buy into these assumptions (as California, but not you, seemingly has), we are a good year away from kid's lives returning somewhat back to normal.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t matter too much what CA thinks now. If cases drop below 100 per day, people will relax and schools will open.

The bigger risk is that we get a half-useful vaccine that only half of us take.

Middle of the road is great. You have a nice view of the semi trucks coming from both sides.
 
dad4 said:
Middle of the road is great. You have a nice view of the semi trucks coming from both sides.
Click to expand...

Generally agree but there is this quote from my youth: "Walk right side, safe. Walk left side, safe. Walk middle sooner or later you get squished like grape."
 
So what happens when you can't attend a Galaxy game, go into a bar or restaurant, many, many other activities without proof that you have been vaccinated for the virus? I think that is a real possibility, it absolves them of any worry if a breakout occurs. I am not advocating it but I see it as a way many of these places cover their asses for the foreseeable future.
 
Socal United said:
So what happens when you can't attend a Galaxy game, go into a bar or restaurant, many, many other activities without proof that you have been vaccinated for the virus? I think that is a real possibility, it absolves them of any worry if a breakout occurs. I am not advocating it but I see it as a way many of these places cover their asses for the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...
What would happen is we all get our shots and this bloody thing goes away.

For the 95% of us who aren't rabidly anti-vax, it would be awesome.
 
Socal United said:
So what happens when you can't attend a Galaxy game, go into a bar or restaurant, many, many other activities without proof that you have been vaccinated for the virus? I think that is a real possibility, it absolves them of any worry if a breakout occurs. I am not advocating it but I see it as a way many of these places cover their asses for the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...

But kids won't be able to show such proof until fall 2021 until the earliest which if you are right for them this lockdown is going to be a long one, even as adults return to bars, restaurants, Galaxy games and Disneyland.
 
Copa9 said:
Didn't finish, when there is a world wide pandemic you need accurate, scientific, verifiable, data, peer reviewed proof that it is low risk, not a bunch of PR people for Surf or soccer parents saying it is low risk. There is still much to be learned about this virus.
Click to expand...
So, do we only know that someone got the virus after a peer-reviewed study exists? Where's espola? This is nonsense. If the soccer activities described by STX above haven't led to a known outbreak it's because there wasn't one. I agree there's more to learn about the virus, but we know all we need to know about the spread from the activity of playing soccer. The risk is low or we'd know by now that it is not. Thank Texas for that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top