New Research on Covid Transmission
- Thread starter Anon9
- Start date
Interesting study. But it's highly flawed.
First San Diego only allowed soccer under day camp rules during study so social distancing, masks, grouped activities were mandated. No games happened.
What is the rate if transmission during open practice and games?
What is the rate of transmission between teans from different cities?
It's also summer and high heat low humidity kills the Virus. What happens in fall when weather is more favorable to viral spread?
We are not going to get any answers because pro teams that are playing real games are doing so in strictly closed bubbles.
First San Diego only allowed soccer under day camp rules during study so social distancing, masks, grouped activities were mandated. No games happened.
What is the rate if transmission during open practice and games?
What is the rate of transmission between teans from different cities?
It's also summer and high heat low humidity kills the Virus. What happens in fall when weather is more favorable to viral spread?
We are not going to get any answers because pro teams that are playing real games are doing so in strictly closed bubbles.
More of a position piece than a scientific study.
Some pro/semi leagues have been playing locally in USL and other leagues. Some limited outbreaks so far and corrective measures taken and they will be continuing on. In another 2-3 months there should be more real world data on the risks of actually game play for that group which is mostly adults but there is some high school aged players participating.
Dallas has been training normally for about 3 months now. Been playing games and traveling and doing tournaments for about 6 weeks.
What is the rate if transmission during open practice and games? So far, 0%.
What is the rate of transmission between teams from different cities? So far, 0%
It's also summer and high heat low humidity kills the Virus. What happens in fall when weather is more favorable to viral spread? Good question, and definitely something to keep an eye on. It's hot as hell here, and that may be contributing to the apparent safety so far.
We are not going to get any answers because pro teams that are playing real games are doing so in strictly closed bubbles. I don't think a pro or college environment (where players live, eat, train, meet, and also play soccer together) is the best proxy for this. If you look at other high school sports where the sleep/eat/train/meet part of the equation is removed, I think it becomes more of an apples to apples comparison. Texas high schools did a study of the more than 165,000 instances of kids who participated in football practices this summer, and there were 4 cases of player-to-player transmission due to the workouts. That means about 1 in about 16,000, or a 0.006%, of players who participated in a practice caught the virus. That's probably a better comparison to use for soccer risk than most other things I've seen.
zebrafish
SILVER ELITE
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.
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.
Jose has returned
SILVER ELITE
will he come to the Galaxy though?I was reading last night that Messi wants out. And wants out now.
Lionel Messi wants out at Barcelona after Champions League disaster, per report
The Argentine's contract is set to expire after next seasonwww.cbssports.com
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?
I'll pay $500 towards his salary.
Keepermom2
GOLD
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.
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
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.
New study out of China. Asymptomatic spread is much smaller risk than symptomatic. It means screening kids for actual symptoms should reduce the risk of outdoor activities, like youth soccer.
When there is a world wide pandemic.
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.
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
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?
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.
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.
Desert Hound
DA
Unfortunately this is going to last a lot longer vs what the stay at home and wait for a vaccine think
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.
Even that definition is problematic. If you define epidemic as a disease causing excess deaths year over year of all causes, the US is technically no longer in an epidemic. It's all words.
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.