Coronavirus Pandemic

Forgottonia
No amount of testing will take the place of bad decisions by students or anyone else. That’s why the disease is so difficult to control in a population that has free will.

U of I is now well over the 1000 cases in 2 weeks that many were pointing at Alabama for.
 
Brucks is giving you the number U of I is reporting. If you prefer someone else’s data rather than Illinois, it may disagree.
The new data enhances Brucks data. Cases are one thing, But, hospitalization (I.e.severity) is important, too. There is no disagreement. Thankfully, the students are not hospitalized.
 
Likes: illini80
I have previously addressed the relative importance of cases vs. hospitalizations in a post that now sits in the coronavirus thread, where this one is destined to end up as well. But that post needs an update!

The general idea of that post was that non-hospital outcomes for college kids are a good thing, but college kids are not in a bubble, and the R numbers give us a good idea of how many people will be catching the virus from the current cases. When i posted about Alabama on August 30th, i said:
Assuming the general state of Alabama R number of .86 applies to the students (which i doubt), those 1000 students are going to infect another 860 people, and they will infect 740 more.​

But that link doesn't show an Alabama R number of .86 anymore. A week ago Alabama's thousand cases were going to spread the virus to 860 people. That was bad, but it was trending lower... Now, a week later with the back-to-school cases factored in, Alabama's R number stands at 1.06. Now those 1000 cases stand to infect 1060 people and we are back to things spiraling. If the students were bubbled, and only going to pass the virus to other students who would also be ok (though i don't think 'currently not hospitalized' is necessarily the best measure for that), it would be great. But they are not bubbled, they will pass it to non-students, and the misery of all those who want football (and other normalcy) will continue indefinitely.

Unfortunately, after an aggressive response and months of low per-capita cases, Illinois now sits with an R number of 1.11, tied for the 6th worst in the nation.
 
With Illinois' R number 6th worst in the country at the moment (per Sept. 2, 2020 data for all you latecomers), i am left hoping that the U of I's test has far fewer false negatives than the tests being used elsewhere. I would feel far better about the trends if it was just a matter of everyone else missing positives, but that doesn't seem likely.
 
The new data enhances Brucks data. Cases are one thing, But, hospitalization (I.e.severity) is important, too. There is no disagreement. Thankfully, the students are not hospitalized.
Yet it impacts the decision on starting the various sports seasons at the University. The likelihood of playing is inversely related to the number of cases on campus.
 
Likes: illini80
Houston, Texas
With Illinois' R number 6th worst in the country at the moment (per Sept. 2, 2020 data for all you latecomers), i am left hoping that the U of I's test has far fewer false negatives than the tests being used elsewhere. I would feel far better about the trends if it was just a matter of everyone else missing positives, but that doesn't seem likely.
Here's a more updated version. Illinois is still high but not as bad now as it was four days ago.

https://rt.live/

Looks like a different algorithm is used between the two sites. rt.live never had Illinois that high in the past since mid-July
 
Last edited:
I have previously addressed the relative importance of cases vs. hospitalizations in a post that now sits in the coronavirus thread, where this one is destined to end up as well. But that post needs an update!

The general idea of that post was that non-hospital outcomes for college kids are a good thing, but college kids are not in a bubble, and the R numbers give us a good idea of how many people will be catching the virus from the current cases. When i posted about Alabama on August 30th, i said:
Assuming the general state of Alabama R number of .86 applies to the students (which i doubt), those 1000 students are going to infect another 860 people, and they will infect 740 more.​

But that link doesn't show an Alabama R number of .86 anymore. A week ago Alabama's thousand cases were going to spread the virus to 860 people. That was bad, but it was trending lower... Now, a week later with the back-to-school cases factored in, Alabama's R number stands at 1.06. Now those 1000 cases stand to infect 1060 people and we are back to things spiraling. If the students were bubbled, and only going to pass the virus to other students who would also be ok (though i don't think 'currently not hospitalized' is necessarily the best measure for that), it would be great. But they are not bubbled, they will pass it to non-students, and the misery of all those who want football (and other normalcy) will continue indefinitely.

Unfortunately, after an aggressive response and months of low per-capita cases, Illinois now sits with an R number of 1.11, tied for the 6th worst in the nation.
Thanks for tihis additional information. And, I think that the COVID-19 thread and 2020 Football are presently linked. That’s unfortunate.

The R number is a measure of positive cases. So . . . . same issue. No hospitalizations. So, why is the start up the season inversely proportionate to the number of cases? (I agree that our governor and U of I president are making their decisIon on this, but should this be the criteria?)
 
Thanks for tihis additional information. And, I think that the COVID-19 thread and 2020 Football are presently linked. That’s unfortunate.

The R number is a measure of positive cases. So . . . . same issue. No hospitalizations. So, why is the start up the season inversely proportionate to the number of cases? (I agree that our governor and U of I president are making their decisIon on this, but should this be the criteria?)
BINGO!!!
 
The R number is a measure of positive cases.
The R number is in essence, how many additional infections each case is going to result in. If it is zero, there is no spread. If it is below 1 and stays there, the spread is being limited and cases numbers will eventually reach zero. If it is over 1, the spread is not being limited and case number will continue to climb.

To reach normalcy, we need both low case numbers and a low R number. A high R number among college kids (even in the hypothetical situation where none are negatively impacted) is bad because they aren't on College Kid Island, they are right here with us in the larger population where we have had 189000 deaths. Thinking that it's fine because the students don't need the hospital is kind of like saying, 'don't worry about the malaria, the mosquitos are doing great!'
 
Let’s not pretend there is a “scientific” side vs. a side “ignoring the data” anymore, like there was in March and April, though. We’ve depressingly moved into two completely deranged groups - one that barely takes a serious virus seriously and another that ignores the simple fact that we can’t continue on in a semi-locked down state until 60-70% of the country is vaccinated ... and it’s infuriating.
 
Let’s not pretend there is a “scientific” side vs. a side “ignoring the data” anymore, like there was in March and April, though. We’ve depressingly moved into two completely deranged groups - one that barely takes a serious virus seriously and another that ignores the simple fact that we can’t continue on in a semi-locked down state until 60-70% of the country is vaccinated ... and it’s infuriating.
Not meaning to pick a fight with you here Nightman. You have a long history here worthy of respect, so i hope this is taken as respectful discussion, which will probably be deleted soon...

So i think my best response is a simple one... Which do you believe will save more lives, "a semi-locked down state until 60-70% of the country is vaccinated," or whatever your middle path alternative is? If your middle path will save more lives, we need to know it and put it into place pronto! Avoiding lockdown with better health outcomes is the best of both worlds!

But if your middle path solution between your two 'deranged' factions means even more people dying, then i don't appreciate being called deranged. You don't like it, NOBODY LIKES IT!!!!, but every yahoo out there “ignoring the data” acting in their own self-interest is prolonging your agony, and everyone " in a semi-locked down state" is doing their damned best to end it.
 
I see it as a airplane seatbelt analogy.

Act like you could spread the virus without knowing it. Forget personal rights, forget feelings about masks. If someone cares about freedom they are more free in a mask than banned from the grocery store.

I think people are settling for a warped version of "normal"(nothing about watching cfb with empty stadiums is fun or healing). We could have near normal back in a month or two, instead I have family I barely talk to asking to see our new infant during a pandemic.
 
Not meaning to pick a fight with you here Nightman. You have a long history here worthy of respect, so i hope this is taken as respectful discussion, which will probably be deleted soon...

So i think my best response is a simple one... Which do you believe will save more lives, "a semi-locked down state until 60-70% of the country is vaccinated," or whatever your middle path alternative is? If your middle path will save more lives, we need to know it and put it into place pronto! Avoiding lockdown with better health outcomes is the best of both worlds!

But if your middle path solution between your two 'deranged' factions means even more people dying, then i don't appreciate being called deranged. You don't like it, NOBODY LIKES IT!!!!, but every yahoo out there “ignoring the data” acting in their own self-interest is prolonging your agony, and everyone " in a semi-locked down state" is doing their damned best to end it.
It’s not a matter of moral appeals or good policies on paper anymore, dude. If we learned tomorrow there’d literally never be a vaccine, we’d all stop caring and go back to pre-COVID routines. If we learned tomorrow that we’d all be magically vaccinated in one week, everyone would shelter in place for one week. We are obviously somewhere in between, and it’s only natural for society to draw closer to the former outlook than the latter with each passing week.

Destroying people’s livelihoods and the economy and hurting the mental health of many Americans were absolutely no-brainers in March and even April to “save lives” ... less so in August, as other factors start to be considered ... it’ll be even less so in January 2021. It’s not about what “should be,” it’s about what’s realistic. If our normal civilization is still this shut down in 6-7 months, you’re just going to insight enough people to revolt and totally ignore the measures to the point that they’re useless. Public policy must adapt to be realistic to people’s willingness to go along with safety measures, and we can sit at home and Zoom each other about how selfish or dumb those people are, but ... it won’t change anything. It’s so much more worth our while, IMO, to throw our effort behind safely moving in a direction toward normal life than to unrealistically expect the whole country to continue to live like this. Whether we want to admit it or not, “stay home to save lives” isn’t effective indefinitely ... people need a light at the end of the tunnel to make a sacrifice. Initially, that was “don’t overwhelm the healthcare system,” and now it’s ... what, “We can’t have a spike in cases!”? That’s just unrealistic, IMO...
 
Forgottonia
It’s not a matter of moral appeals or good policies on paper anymore, dude. If we learned tomorrow there’d literally never be a vaccine, we’d all stop caring and go back to pre-COVID routines. If we learned tomorrow that we’d all be magically vaccinated in one week, everyone would shelter in place for one week. We are obviously somewhere in between, and it’s only natural for society to draw closer to the former outlook than the latter with each passing week.

Destroying people’s livelihoods and the economy and hurting the mental health of many Americans were absolutely no-brainers in March and even April to “save lives” ... less so in August, as other factors start to be considered ... it’ll be even less so in January 2021. It’s not about what “should be,” it’s about what’s realistic. If our normal civilization is still this shut down in 6-7 months, you’re just going to insight enough people to revolt and totally ignore the measures to the point that they’re useless. Public policy must adapt to be realistic to people’s willingness to go along with safety measures, and we can sit at home and Zoom each other about how selfish or dumb those people are, but ... it won’t change anything. It’s so much more worth our while, IMO, to throw our effort behind safely moving in a direction toward normal life than to unrealistically expect the whole country to continue to live like this. Whether we want to admit it or not, “stay home to save lives” isn’t effective indefinitely ... people need a light at the end of the tunnel to make a sacrifice. Initially, that was “don’t overwhelm the healthcare system,” and now it’s ... what, “We can’t have a spike in cases!”? That’s just unrealistic, IMO...
I think your points are valid, but I understand AD's points too. There are scientists and Drs I respect on both sides of this issue. How is the public supposed to make an informed decision?
 
Let’s not pretend there is a “scientific” side vs. a side “ignoring the data” anymore, like there was in March and April, though. We’ve depressingly moved into two completely deranged groups - one that barely takes a serious virus seriously and another that ignores the simple fact that we can’t continue on in a semi-locked down state until 60-70% of the country is vaccinated ... and it’s infuriating.
To be clear, I personally think the B1G can and should be playing, BUT I do understand the reluctance to do so due to medical reasons.
 
The middle ground is taking precautions to slow the spread while also avoiding ruining people's livelihoods and mental health. How do we do that exactly? No idea. :D

The article above talks about millions of dollars of revenue being depleted in college towns across America. So what's worse? People losing careers and businesses they have worked tooth and nail to establish/obtain (which could lead to ghost towns), or an increase in cases that could affect the most vulnerable members of our population?

Tough freakin questions to answer.
 
The middle ground is taking precautions to slow the spread while also avoiding ruining people's livelihoods and mental health. How do we do that exactly? No idea. :D

The article above talks about millions of dollars of revenue being depleted in college towns across America. So what's worse? People losing careers and businesses they have worked tooth and nail to establish/obtain (which could lead to ghost towns), or an increase in cases that could affect the most vulnerable members of our population?

Tough freakin questions to answer.
Solution is to quit trying to make this happen now and start planning to make it happen in couple more months. It seems clear that the big ten was completely unprepared this go around.