This year, the college football drought, the time between the final real football game of the last season and the first of the next season, is 230 days.

We're now at the mid-point of that long slog - it's been 115 days since LSU and Clemson played for the 2019 national title, and in 115 days Notre Dame vs Navy is supposed to kick off the 2020 season in Ireland.

Of course, the CV19 has everything up in the air, and this game has the added twist of being played in Ireland.

Well, let's keep our fingers crossed ....

I think the covid narrative will shrivel up this summer

High-at-risk people will still stay on guard, but once states open up, the fear factor will die

I expect Texas and a few other states to open up very soon

Southern states are slowly opening now. By June, we'll be close. MLB is rumored to start on July 1st.

I hope you guys are right, but ....

(05-07-2020 05:04 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Southern states are slowly opening now. By June, we'll be close. MLB is rumored to start on July 1st.

No way MLB starts on 7/1, with fans.

Michigan governor trying to extend this as long as possible. Stay-at-home extended per her command to May 28.

I'd be shocked if Covid is in the rear-view window here by mid-summer.

Up to the Red states to prove it.

Too many people are conflating “sports being played” with “sports being played with fans in the stands.”

MLB and NBA will likely play games this summer *without* fans in the stands regardless of whether teams are located in states that are locked down or not since they’re probably starting with playing games in a single location (e.g. Las Vegas, Florida, Arizona, etc.).

However, the chances of any sports playing *with* fans in the stands even in states where governors are hellbent in wishing scientific evidence will magically disappear this summer is between slim and none.

To the extent sports are played in the next couple months, it’s all for TV purposes.

(05-07-2020 07:58 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  However, the chances of any sports playing *with* fans in the stands even in states where governors are hellbent in wishing scientific evidence will magically disappear this summer is between slim and none.

Not to get off on a tangent, but that statement assumes an agreement on "ends", namely that the goal of a covid policy is to minimize loss of life at virtually any cost to the economy. That has been the implicit goal, or end, of the "lockdown" policy that virtually all states initially adopted, and that even Trump came to embrace.

But now many are arguing, at least in so many words if not explicitly, that this shouldn't be the end - that the economic cost of minimizing deaths is too high, and that we need a different balance, one that trades-off more deaths for less economic pain. And I think that's what is driving the move to relax lockdowns in some states. Especially since the expected "flattened curve" in many places has turned out to be a long plateau of deaths at a high level rather than a quick sloping downwards despite lockdown policies. Bottom line is, as morbid as it may be to say it, the USA *as a country* can survive 2,500 CV19 deaths a day pretty much indefinitely. We'd still have more monthly births than deaths at that rate. We can't survive the current economic situation for probably even a few months. The government can only write so many $2 Trillion relief checks.

In that regard, science can only be advisory. It can make predictions about possible deaths and economic losses under different levels of government mitigation ranging from full lockdown to no restrictions at all, but which one to choose is a value judgement. FWIW, I still favor a strong lockdown policy because I prefer to minimize deaths, but I am also not suffering economically right now. I can understand how those who are might want a different approach.

University of Tennessee sent out a video basically saying they would be open for students in the fall (without specifically spelling it out-"We look forward to seeing students in the fall on campus"). Now they did have a disclaimer about unforseen events (ie a new spike or government rules).

That still doesn't mean sports or fans.

(05-08-2020 07:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-07-2020 07:58 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  However, the chances of any sports playing *with* fans in the stands even in states where governors are hellbent in wishing scientific evidence will magically disappear this summer is between slim and none.

Not to get off on a tangent, but that statement assumes an agreement on "ends", namely that the goal of a covid policy is to minimize loss of life at virtually any cost to the economy. That has been the implicit goal, or end, of the "lockdown" policy that virtually all states initially adopted, and that even Trump came to embrace.

But now many are arguing, at least in so many words if not explicitly, that this shouldn't be the end - that the economic cost of minimizing deaths is too high, and that we need a different balance, one that trades-off more deaths for less economic pain. And I think that's what is driving the move to relax lockdowns in some states. Especially since the expected "flattened curve" in many places has turned out to be a long plateau of deaths at a high level rather than a quick sloping downwards despite lockdown policies. Bottom line is, as morbid as it may be to say it, the USA *as a country* can survive 2,500 CV19 deaths a day pretty much indefinitely. We'd still have more monthly births than deaths at that rate. We can't survive the current economic situation for probably even a few months. The government can only write so many $2 Trillion relief checks.

In that regard, science can only be advisory. It can make predictions about possible deaths and economic losses under different levels of government mitigation ranging from full lockdown to no restrictions at all, but which one to choose is a value judgement. FWIW, I still favor a strong lockdown policy because I prefer to minimize deaths, but I am also not suffering economically right now. I can understand how those who are might want a different approach.

Oh - I understand the tension between the public health policy versus the economic interests. I’m a finance and economics major that wouldn’t even begin to dispense medical opinions. My best friend from my childhood and several other friends and family members have lost their jobs as a result of this pandemic. I’m on constant edge for my own job - despite being quite busy personally, there’s still the issue that the pandemic is hammering our financials.

By the same token, though, I also have an extended family member (who has a ton of age and health risk factors) that was diagnosed with COVID-19 this past week and it’s unbelievably scary. My own parents are high risk with medical issues and live in an assisted living facility on top of that (although they’re moving out this month back to the home that they own). It’s not so easy to just state that older people should shelter in place while others are free to move because most of us have parents and grandparents that we come into contact with frequently.

Putting aside the overall heath versus economy debate, my issue is that the governors that are beginning to open up their states aren’t even meeting the *Trump* administration’s own guidelines for phased openings (as case rates are still rising in places like Georgia), much less the stricter recommendations from a lot of other medical experts. I’m very concerned that there’s a political motivation in some states to superficially look like we’re opening up the economy again and it’s going to backfire badly in the form of (a) cases start rising again and (b) individuals rationally decide that they’re still not going to go out to restaurants and other businesses until they *personally* feel safe, anyway. That means that those places may be increasing the health risk significantly while not helping the economy because the public isn’t going to go back out be masse until they *feel* safe (and they just don’t yet and probably won’t for quite awhile). The stock market started plummeting in late February (weeks before the US started shutting everything down) and the economic metrics show people were already reducing spending and starting to stay home on their own in the US in early March prior to any government orders going to effect. People already weren’t feeling safe without any government official telling them to do one thing or the other.

There are some polling discussions on podcasts on 538 where they’re looking at the current disconnect between support for government orders (which is starting to fall along party lines) and what people actually are doing personally in terms of social distancing and going out publicly. Essentially, what we’re finding is that there’s actually a negligible difference between both political parties of what they are *personally* doing. So, even among those who might oppose government orders based on ideological principles or straight political reasons, those people are still largely staying home and want to continue to stay home for their *own* safety. As a result, a government declaration that businesses can open again won’t actually get people to go out (even if a lot of people may support such government declaration from a political perspective).

The upshot is that it’s *not* the government orders that have shut down the economy. Instead, it’s the public health crisis that has shut down the economy. Until the general public (regardless of political affiliation) feels safe where they believe the public health crisis has actually been addressed, then they *personally* won’t go out again. Attempting to open things up en masses prior to that point just puts businesses and employees in more danger from a health perspective with little economic gain (as people won’t go out until they personally feel safe regardless of whether there’s a government order or not).

We can debate what “solving the public health crisis” means, which can range from “accepting” new cases at a level that our hospital systems can handle (which might be a shorter time period) to the more draconian standard of needing a vaccine (which could take years). However, the point is that as long as people *feel* unsafe, then our economy isn’t coming back no matter what government orders are or aren’t in place.

(05-07-2020 07:58 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Too many people are conflating “sports being played” with “sports being played with fans in the stands.”

MLB... will likely play games this summer *without* fans in the stands...

Is this really news, though?

(05-08-2020 11:16 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  However, the point is that as long as people *feel* unsafe, then our economy isn’t coming back no matter what government orders are or aren’t in place.

No question, it is behavior that counts.

For example, polls show that a BIG majority of Americans favor lockdown policies, and the % that do so has held very steady since the pandemic hit. But, the University of Maryland's cell phone tracking has shown a major increase in out-of-house activity since around Easter, and this is true across the country, even in very "blue" states where support for lockdowns is highest.

On the other hand, if people clamoring for their "state to open up" then personally respond by being very cautious and staying at home anyway when it does, then we won't get the economic bounceback.

People may express verbally a position for ideological reasons that may not comport with their actual behaviors.