New Research on Covid Transmission

kickingandscreaming said:
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.
Click to expand...
Why do you think you would know? If 100,000 people across Texas went to soccer tournaments and 450 of them got covid over the next 2 weeks, what makes you think you would know about it? Even if all 450 got tested, Texas had over 100,000 new covid cases in the last 2 weeks. How would you find 450 in that sea of over 100,000 cases? Now remember that most cases don’t get tested. How would you find 50 cases in a sea of 100,000 cases?

Unless Texas has a rigorous reporting program for the immediate family of all participants, you and I would have no way to know whether there were 2 or 2000 cases of covid linked to soccer this spring.
 
kickingandscreaming said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're trying really hard to feel comfortable with the position you like. My suggestion for how we can all feel better about this - you should move to Texas.
 
espola said:
You're trying really hard to feel comfortable with the position you like. My suggestion for how we can all feel better about this - you should move to Texas.
Click to expand...

@kickingandscreaming is using a critical component of the denialist’s repertoire. When a denialist lacks scientific support for their position, what do they do when science vs. nuh uh isn’t exactly a compelling argument? They make up straw man arguments to tear down what science has already proven with the “see, there’s still a lot to learn so therefore we should ignore everything science has already proven about the subject”. Sure, science has shown it is highly transmissible. Sure, science has proven that it is transmissible long before there are symptoms. Sure, science has proven that kids get it and can transmit it to their parents, and parents can and do transmit it to people they come in contact with, including their parents, their co-workers and the person sitting next to them at the bar. Sure, science has shown that the US is tracking 400k deaths in 12 months because Americans won’t do what every single other country that has significantly reduced community spread has done.

But has a peer review study specifically proven that it was Caitlyn at the Solar tournament gave it to Katelyn, who then gave it to her mom, who then took it to work at the nursing home and killed all the residents? No? Well, ok then, let’s all go back to our bars, and school, and playing soccer as if nothing is happening. If science hasn’t definitively proven that Katelyn was the one who gave it to her mom who then gave it to everyone in that rest home where everyone died, clearly there’s no evidence
to justify Katelyn doing anything differently. And if Katelyn need not do anything differently, that means no one else needs to either.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t think my kids should do anything differently until a peer reviewed article proves they were personally responsible for killing a bunch of people.
 
dad4 said:
Why do you think you would know? If 100,000 people across Texas went to soccer tournaments and 450 of them got covid over the next 2 weeks, what makes you think you would know about it?
Click to expand...
I am not sure what you state above has to do with what Texas is doing. They are training with very specific protocols and the games they do play have very strict protocols for players and fans. There have been no reported outbreaks. I am not saying the risk is zero, just that the act of playing soccer is a low risk. I believe we should proceed with an abundance of caution w.r.t. the virus. My point is simply that there is NO evidence that playing soccer transmits COVID and significant evidence - weeks of trainings/games and no reported outbreaks - that the risk is small.

If soccer games and trainings are resumed in CA, my concern is with social activities typically associated with soccer. Sitting around in close proximity and having conversations - especially indoors - is a high-risk activity.
 
EOTL said:
@kickingandscreaming is using a critical component of the denialist’s repertoire. When a denialist lacks scientific support for their position, what do they do when science vs. nuh uh isn’t exactly a compelling argument? They make up straw man arguments to tear down what science has already proven with the “see, there’s still a lot to learn so therefore we should ignore everything science has already proven about the subject”. Sure, science has shown it is highly transmissible. Sure, science has proven that it is transmissible long before there are symptoms. Sure, science has proven that kids get it and can transmit it to their parents, and parents can and do transmit it to people they come in contact with, including their parents, their co-workers and the person sitting next to them at the bar. Sure, science has shown that the US is tracking 400k deaths in 12 months because Americans won’t do what every single other country that has significantly reduced community spread has done.

But has a peer review study specifically proven that it was Caitlyn at the Solar tournament gave it to Katelyn, who then gave it to her mom, who then took it to work at the nursing home and killed all the residents? No? Well, ok then, let’s all go back to our bars, and school, and playing soccer as if nothing is happening. If science hasn’t definitively proven that Katelyn was the one who gave it to her mom who then gave it to everyone in that rest home where everyone died, clearly there’s no evidence
to justify Katelyn doing anything differently. And if Katelyn need not do anything differently, that means no one else needs to either.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t think my kids should do anything differently until a peer reviewed article proves they were personally responsible for killing a bunch of people.
Click to expand...
I think you have it backwards. The ones asking for a peer reviewed study are mostly in the stay safe camp. We’re still doing distanced practice and solo videos.

We want the study because we’re following the rules and would like Kaitlyn and Catelyn to be able to play again. At least 1v1. We will invite Kaytelyn and Caitlynne after the science says that 2v2 is safe. Maybe later they could challenge Aidan, Aiden, Caiden, and Brayden to 4v4. But only if it’s safe. ;)
 
I may be getting old, but I remember back in the day when we used to say "flatten the curve" and we worried about people dying in hospital hallways because doctors had to decide who lived and died since we weren't going to have enough ventilators. Now the young bucks these days say "we need to vaccinate everyone!" and they have to wait for lab results from comprehensive peer reviewed studies instead of actual real world results, which us old timers thought were sufficient. I miss the good ole days.
 
dad4 said:
I think you have it backwards. The ones asking for a peer reviewed study are mostly in the stay safe camp. We’re still doing distanced practice and solo videos.

We want the study because we’re following the rules and would like Kaitlyn and Catelyn to be able to play again. At least 1v1. We will invite Kaytelyn and Caitlynne after the science says that 2v2 is safe. Maybe later they could challenge Aidan, Aiden, Caiden, and Brayden to 4v4. But only if it’s safe. ;)
Click to expand...

Yes, intelligent people are asking for more science and peer review because, you know, more info is always better in less.

Denialists, however, are pointing to the lack of definitive proof on a straw man issue not because they want more science. Rather, they’re doing so to rationalize continuing idiocy in the face of overwhelming scientific proof to the contrary. Claiming that there is no peer review study on something that is really a non-issue provides a fake patina of being “pro science” when they’re actually the exact opposite.
 
watfly said:
I may be getting old, but I remember back in the day when we used to say "flatten the curve" and we worried about people dying in hospital hallways because doctors had to decide who lived and died since we weren't going to have enough ventilators. Now the young bucks these days say "we need to vaccinate everyone!" and they have to wait for lab results from comprehensive peer reviewed studies instead of actual real world results, which us old timers thought were sufficient. I miss the good ole days.
Click to expand...
Yes, consensus is elusive. In fairness, there is still a lot that is unknown and people have very different risk tolerances and see the risks very differently. I like the fact that I can see different perspectives here.
 
EOTL said:
@kickingandscreaming is Sure, science has proven that it is transmissible long before there are symptoms. Sure, science has proven that kids get it and can transmit it to their parents, and parents can and do transmit it to people they come in contact with, including their parents, their co-workers and the person sitting next to them at the bar. S
Click to expand...

I love it when the lockdowners forever quote "science" but deny it when it doesn't suite their position. If you look at the studies I put up in the bad news thread, science is also showing that asymptomatic and presymptomatic spread are very small components of the outbreak. Yes, it does happen. It explains why Israel and a few other locations had outbreaks at their schools, but why overwhelmingly the rest of the world has managed to open schools safely. But if we are looking for the threats, science is proving that asymptomatic spread is not the main problem (unless, of course, the goal is to get to zero spread as some on the pro-lockdowners seem to suggest in which case everything is a problem). By screaning kids for symptoms, limiting the people present, and playing exclusively outdoors, we can minimize risk in soccer.
 
kickingandscreaming said:
Yes, consensus is elusive. In fairness, there is still a lot that is unknown and people have very different risk tolerances and see the risks very differently. I like the fact that I can see different perspectives here.
Click to expand...
I totally understand the difference in risk tolerances. That's why I've always supported choice and not just the option that is based on the opinions of the most feeble minded. Which is more selfish and narrow minded? Like you said, we didn't need a lab to issue a comprehensive peer reviewed study to shutdown, then we shouldn't need one to open up. Actual real world results should be sufficient and it still leaves open the option for everyone to participate in the "reopening", or not. Not having full soccer play barely moves the needle for me, but not having in-person education puts me way past redline, particularly when the science overwhelmingly supports in-person learning.
 
The only thing that bothers me about in person learning is that inevitably, someone is going to test positive-then guess what? School shuts down again, rinse, repeat. All the open close, open close, is so disruptive to their learning. I guess this is where you hope the schools have their stuff together so this is seamless. I don't know what the answer is anymore.
 
Glitterhater said:
The only thing that bothers me about in person learning is that inevitably, someone is going to test positive-then guess what? School shuts down again, rinse, repeat. All the open close, open close, is so disruptive to their learning. I guess this is where you hope the schools have their stuff together so this is seamless. I don't know what the answer is anymore.
Click to expand...
Said it before and Ill say it again.....

If they can protect a cashier in a supermarket checkout line that sees hundreds of random people everyday within a 6ft radius and they are OK ... how can they not protect teachers seeing the exact same smaller number of low risk kids? I smell politics in this one. Or.. maybe when the teachers explain again how important they are and why they need raises we give that money to the true heros in the grocery store.
 
watfly said:
I may be getting old, but I remember back in the day when we used to say "flatten the curve" and we worried about people dying in hospital hallways because doctors had to decide who lived and died since we weren't going to have enough ventilators. Now the young bucks these days say "we need to vaccinate everyone!" and they have to wait for lab results from comprehensive peer reviewed studies instead of actual real world results, which us old timers thought were sufficient. I miss the good ole days.
Click to expand...
Excellent work
 
R
watfly said:
I may be getting old, but I remember back in the day when we used to say "flatten the curve" and we worried about people dying in hospital hallways because doctors had to decide who lived and died since we weren't going to have enough ventilators. Now the young bucks these days say "we need to vaccinate everyone!" and they have to wait for lab results from comprehensive peer reviewed studies instead of actual real world results, which us old timers thought were sufficient. I miss the good ole days.
Click to expand...
Just wait, it’s such an easy readable their response. The vaccine will be released and their next position will be: vaccine is unsafe it was made too quick; vaccine is unreliable; vaccine is not effective enough; they will continue to move the goal posts. As parents we can’t allow that to happen to our kids it’s garbage. Long term mental health is the biggest issue for children.
 
tjinaz said:
Said it before and Ill say it again.....

If they can protect a cashier in a supermarket checkout line that sees hundreds of random people everyday within a 6ft radius and they are OK ... how can they not protect teachers seeing the exact same smaller number of low risk kids? I smell politics in this one. Or.. maybe when the teachers explain again how important they are and why they need raises we give that money to the true heros in the grocery store.
Click to expand...
They can’t protect the cashiers. The cashiers are getting sick.

The working class neighborhoods in NYC had far higher antibody rates than the wealthier areas. One part of Queens had over 50% get it. Most of the people there were essential workers- like cashiers.
 
dad4 said:
They can’t protect the cashiers. The cashiers are getting sick.

The working class neighborhoods in NYC had far higher antibody rates than the wealthier areas. One part of Queens had over 50% get it. Most of the people there were essential workers- like cashiers.
Click to expand...
Just NYC is a very small sample size and a dubious one at that. NYC is the very worst environment for this and is atypical. There have to be over 500,000 cashiers of various types throughout the country and I don't see them wanting to close the stores as they are all sick.
 
Glitterhater said:
The only thing that bothers me about in person learning is that inevitably, someone is going to test positive-then guess what? School shuts down again, rinse, repeat. All the open close, open close, is so disruptive to their learning. I guess this is where you hope the schools have their stuff together so this is seamless. I don't know what the answer is anymore.
Click to expand...
I thought the exact same thing today. It's all one big tease and playing yo yo with the kids emotion. That's why it will take a vaccine to come out and play in Cali. It is what it is. My friend in the AC biz is super busy. However, he has no one to help him with his little kids. I wonder what kind of power a AC Guy Union Group would have right now with the heat at 106? They could ask and demand many things on us and get what they want most likely because they would have us by the balls like other unions. Poor AC guy has no choice but to risk his life to put food on the table. Gnarly!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top