PonyFans.com

Applying current CDC general population percentages would predict between 5-10 SMU students will die from COVID. I think there a quite a few reasons to assume that university students will have higher transmission rates compared to general population, so this range might be a tad conservative. The CDC numbers have COVID death:case percentages are much lower than half of one percent. Using half of one percent (0.005) would predict 50-55 student deaths.

Low percentages obscure the fact that a >1 amount of lives are at stake when considering large populations. Maybe five students (the difference between 7 deaths and 12 deaths) might be prevented by mask and distance requirements during all SMU sporting events this year. (We joke about our grey-hair fans, and we’re not even considering their exposure and increased vulnerability.) So yes, maybe we can limit exposure and possibly reduce >1 transmissions/deaths, but that would require students to surrender minor personal and social comforts to community-protection interests. If you are not willing to do that, how is that not selfish? And what kind of “brother”, “sister” or “family” are you if you are unwilling to prevent more death of classmates? Not one I would want.

How ‘bout those Mustangs?

gostangs wrote:

Nacho wrote:It is a problem. They spread it to all other age groups. Distressing that they have so little regard for others. Everyone by now knows what they should be doing to protect everyone.

This is actually the selfish attitude. Students are being denied a normal college experience by people who are scared of a disease that is dangerous to a very small population - less than one half of one percent - and that at risk population can easily protect themselves instead of asking the world to stop for them.

Exactly! That's why DUI's should be legal for college kids. It denies them their college experience.

82Pony wrote:

gostangs wrote:

Nacho wrote:It is a problem. They spread it to all other age groups. Distressing that they have so little regard for others. Everyone by now knows what they should be doing to protect everyone.

This is actually the selfish attitude. Students are being denied a normal college experience by people who are scared of a disease that is dangerous to a very small population - less than one half of one percent - and that at risk population can easily protect themselves instead of asking the world to stop for them.

Exactly! That's why DUI's should be legal for college kids. It denies them their college experience.

Like

I have been wearing a mask even when fauci laughed at the idea. When data has come out that the deaths are less lethal than the flu (which has a vaccination) to the pop under 65, it's hard to be like "yeah throw them out". Thats even including that the CDC says 94% of those deaths had a significant preexisting condition. If one has that, you would think one would hunker in the bunker. I would hardly attribute, given the risk factors, a DUI to this...

ponyboy wrote:How ‘bout those Mustangs?

Great start and scary finish. Need to find a way to play all 4 quarters! Glad to win but thankful that Memphis only played 1 game a month ago.

SMUer wrote:Applying current CDC general population percentages would predict between 5-10 SMU students will die from COVID. I think there a quite a few reasons to assume that university students will have higher transmission rates compared to general population, so this range might be a tad conservative. The CDC numbers have COVID death:case percentages are much lower than half of one percent. Using half of one percent (0.005) would predict 50-55 student deaths.

Low percentages obscure the fact that a >1 amount of lives are at stake when considering large populations. Maybe five students (the difference between 7 deaths and 12 deaths) might be prevented by mask and distance requirements during all SMU sporting events this year. (We joke about our grey-hair fans, and we’re not even considering their exposure and increased vulnerability.) So yes, maybe we can limit exposure and possibly reduce >1 transmissions/deaths, but that would require students to surrender minor personal and social comforts to community-protection interests. If you are not willing to do that, how is that not selfish? And what kind of “brother”, “sister” or “family” are you if you are unwilling to prevent more death of classmates? Not one I would want.

That is an interesting analysis. Per the CDC, the death rate from Covid for kids aged 0-19 is .00003 percent. Admittedly, college student ages extend to roughly 22 or 23 - but I will assume the death rate for those students is largely in line with the 0-19 age group. By my math, that means roughly .3 students would die, not the 50-55 you have suggested. You may still be of the opinion that these students are selfish, but at least put realistic numbers when making your point. Personally, I'd be be doing the same thing as these kids since I only enjoyed 2 years of football due to the death penalty.

SMUer wrote:Applying current CDC general population percentages would predict between 5-10 SMU students will die from COVID. I think there a quite a few reasons to assume that university students will have higher transmission rates compared to general population, so this range might be a tad conservative. The CDC numbers have COVID death:case percentages are much lower than half of one percent. Using half of one percent (0.005) would predict 50-55 student deaths.

Low percentages obscure the fact that a >1 amount of lives are at stake when considering large populations. Maybe five students (the difference between 7 deaths and 12 deaths) might be prevented by mask and distance requirements during all SMU sporting events this year. (We joke about our grey-hair fans, and we’re not even considering their exposure and increased vulnerability.) So yes, maybe we can limit exposure and possibly reduce >1 transmissions/deaths, but that would require students to surrender minor personal and social comforts to community-protection interests. If you are not willing to do that, how is that not selfish? And what kind of “brother”, “sister” or “family” are you if you are unwilling to prevent more death of classmates? Not one I would want.

just curious - why would you apply general population percentages to a student body - when if there is one thing we know about this disease it does not effect younger people nearly as dramatically? There is not likely to be anywhere close to 4-5 of our students dying form covid - in fact it is very likely zero. If you want to make the case they can infect someone else I get it - but the students are definitely not in danger. Its like asking all of them not to drive because statistically one of them will die in a car wreck.

Let the students do whatever they want at the game as long as they are contained to the lawn. Are we going to act like they aren't gathering at parties/houses/bars outside of the game? Just enforce the mask rule.

The students aren't just going maskless on the lawn. They are going maskless in the concourse and in the beer lines, and around the Mi Cocina food truck, around older people.

All of them are going to be in confined indoor spaces this week, around older professors and other SMU staff

Please tell me the country on earth who have managed to restrict infections such that only young people are getting infected and older people aren't. Oh, that country, state, ,or city doesn't exist. Period.

Nobody in the history of disease has every managed to allow community spread amongst one age group and prevented it from impacting the other age groups. Ever.

If nobody has ever been able to do it before, I highly doubt that we will be able to do it now. Over the summer, we already knew that for the most part it was older people dying. But yet we couldn't prevent people from dying - 15K in Texas, 200K across the US.

If you want to make the argument that masks shouldn't be required on a hot day in open air environments because the risk of transmission is low, that is a legit point of discussion.

But if you are going to try and argue that we will be the first country on earth to ever prevent community spread of a disease to a specific segment of the population, to put it nicely... the odds of that actually happening are incredibly low and it isn't really a viable option.

Jason, I agree with you in theory. But unless we're prepared to hold our citizens at gunpoint, from a practical perspective you're just not going to be able -- for an extended period anyway -- to force restrictions on them. And shaming will only go so far, police enforcement will only go so far.

From their article "Do Quarantines Work?", here's NPR on the Spanish Flu Epidemic in the early 20th C:

This global pandemic, which killed an estimated 50 million, prompted quarantine and isolation, as well as school cancellations in Europe and a ban on public gatherings in parts of the U.S. These methods merely held the disease at bay temporarily and were "hugely socially disruptive," according to medical historian Markel.

The kids, rightly, don't feel any personal threat. Is this selfish? Probably.

By the way, it wasn't just our students that were ignoring social distancing and mask wearing at games. Take a look at OU and many others.

If the President can get it, any of us can get it.

Short of an effective vaccine (which is no slam dunk), if you're not "the boy in the bubble", you're going to be exposed to COVID-19. The only valid argument I've seen for all the social distancing and mask wearing has been the original argument given (and now forgotten): the limitation on hospital beds and medical personnel.

210,000 people have died of COVID-19 so far and increasing by about 1,000 each day.
so wear a mask and social distance.

Only 353 of whom were aged 15-24 years old.