Is a 2021 season going to happen?

[redfoxalum]

I don’t see young healthy people being prioritized for a vaccine so I don’t think an athletes only on campus model will work. Very pessimistic about lax in 2021 absent a major change in personal behavior ie masks social distancing which is driving hot spots. That said, let’s see if football and basketball can be even partially successful.

Masks and social distancing are not the issue or the answer. The failure to accept or follow science and data is the problem. Young people should not even be a candidate for the vaccine.
The vid has relatively no impact on them. The virus is seasonal and reaches resistance at approximately 20 percent. closing schools and isolating the young is the opposite of what we should be doing. If there is no lax, it will be due to fear and loathing not because of the Vid.

Having said that, I put the odds of a 2021 lax season at 60-40.

Your degrees and/or extensive experiences in medicine, epidemiology, infectious disease and virology are???

You don't need any degree whatsoever to understand the basic data about this virus that is readily available. And, which absolutely and obviously supports what Reddogg has said above. I'm not sure why so many people seem to have a vested interest in perpetuating that fear, and trying to shout down those who speak out against it. It is especially obnoxious when that effort to drown out dissent comes in the form of questions about medical degrees and whether one is "qualified" to speak on the subject. You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

If there is no lax in 2021, it will be due to the reality of what occurs from now through ~ the first month of the spring semester, not fear and loathing. At some point activities like non revenue intercollegiate sports must resume despite the presence of the virus, but that point is not the U.S.'s current pace of 1k deaths and over 40k new cases per day.

Literally nothing about the readily available data supports Reddogg. Let's take the word of experts at MIT and Johns Hopkins on the efficacy of masks and social distancing over Reddogg.

https://medical.mit.edu/covid-19-update ... masks-work

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/ ... ed-to-know

Not many people have a vested interest in perpetuating fear, many people have a vested interest in reality. The reality is it's impossible to know if a novel virus is seasonal, its potential long term effects, or its resistance point. Maybe it doesn't have an effect on many young people, but they certainly can spread it to vulnerable people.

A lot (good or bad) can happen between now and February: increase in testing, decrease in time for test results to come back, development and availability of therapeutics and vaccines, Government actions, and the general population's compliance with adhering to expert recommendations (washing hands, masks, social distancing).

[wgdsr]

I apologize for the length of this but there were a lot of vaccine posts. Swine flu vaccine is not really relevant in terms of the time frame and safety of developing COVID vaccine (and you probably meant 68 not 76 for past "swine flu"). There have been influenza vaccines since the 40s. There is very little difference year to year in the basics of the circulating influenza viruses. They are numerous, falling into one of the sub types of influenza A or B. They are distinguished by the minor difference in their hemagglutinin and neuraminidase surface proteins. The viral strain is named based on the specific one of these that it has, hence H1N1 or H3N2, etc. In most cases, antibodies against one do not provide significant immunity against another strain though some have partial protection which can reduce the severity of infection. Most strains arise in Asia over the summer. Usually, 1 or 2 end up being the dominant strains that spread around the world in a given year. ID folks and pharma study the strains in the summer/fall and tries to predict which will be the dominant ones. The annual flu vaccine protects again H1N1, H3N2 and 2 other influenza Bs. It takes months to create a global supply of doses. Therefore they have to put their chips down and start manufacturing well before the dominant strains for that year have fully declared themselves. Sometimes the guess (it is obviously more than a guess but by no means a sure thing) will be wrong and one of the dominant strains will not be in that year's vaccine. That will be a "bad year" for the flu and people will gripe how the flu vaccine doesn't work. How bad it is will depend on the virulence of the uncovered strain. The "swine flu" of 2009 have a very unique H1N1 subtype with little cross-immunity. By the time a specific monovalent vaccine to it was made it had already spread and caused much morbidity/mortality. There was however nothing special about the process of developing a vaccine to it. Coming back to COVID, to make a flu vaccine vs a different strain is extremely easy now that there is such an accumulated knowledge of the virus and an infrastructure. It still takes a long time to manufacture it but there is no need for efficacy trials or safety trials, they use the same vehicles and the safety/dosing/population idiosyncrasies are well know. It is meaningless to talk about how fast a "swine flu" vaccine was made, it is just another influenza, same process as the year before and after. There have not been any routine coronavirus vaccines (primarily because they are usually so mild). This is all from scratch and at an unthinkable pace due to modern molecular techniques. There are numerous short cuts being taken, being encouraged to be taken. That is fine and understandable and they are not going to roll out a shot when people start anaphylaxing in the office. There will however be no data on long-term issues (and yes, with a new vaccine, initial Phase 4 or follow-on trials can last for years before it hits the market). It will most likely be up to everyone to make their own decisions (most likely, there will be interesting legal battles regarding industries trying to mandate it I am sure) as to the risks and benefits of getting it. I myself will be required to get it and I would do so regardless but it should be understood in its context.

thanks for input.
i was speaking about 1976:
https://www.discovermagazine.com/health ... u-outbreak
they considered it a novel strain, and immediate enough of a problem and possible pandemic to pass a law, push it on a high risk population, and use a live virus vs a dead one to get it to folks quick.
that was the association.
they did have attendant problems likely as a result of the rush and action and political pull.

we weren't talking about how fast a vaccine is made. we were talking about it being vetted for the population that was taking it.

any and all other differences in the development of newer vaccines and platforms is understood.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I apologize for the length of this but there were a lot of vaccine posts. Swine flu vaccine is not really relevant in terms of the time frame and safety of developing COVID vaccine (and you probably meant 68 not 76 for past "swine flu"). There have been influenza vaccines since the 40s. There is very little difference year to year in the basics of the circulating influenza viruses. They are numerous, falling into one of the sub types of influenza A or B. They are distinguished by the minor difference in their hemagglutinin and neuraminidase surface proteins. The viral strain is named based on the specific one of these that it has, hence H1N1 or H3N2, etc. In most cases, antibodies against one do not provide significant immunity against another strain though some have partial protection which can reduce the severity of infection. Most strains arise in Asia over the summer. Usually, 1 or 2 end up being the dominant strains that spread around the world in a given year. ID folks and pharma study the strains in the summer/fall and tries to predict which will be the dominant ones. The annual flu vaccine protects again H1N1, H3N2 and 2 other influenza Bs. It takes months to create a global supply of doses. Therefore they have to put their chips down and start manufacturing well before the dominant strains for that year have fully declared themselves. Sometimes the guess (it is obviously more than a guess but by no means a sure thing) will be wrong and one of the dominant strains will not be in that year's vaccine. That will be a "bad year" for the flu and people will gripe how the flu vaccine doesn't work. How bad it is will depend on the virulence of the uncovered strain. The "swine flu" of 2009 have a very unique H1N1 subtype with little cross-immunity. By the time a specific monovalent vaccine to it was made it had already spread and caused much morbidity/mortality. There was however nothing special about the process of developing a vaccine to it. Coming back to COVID, to make a flu vaccine vs a different strain is extremely easy now that there is such an accumulated knowledge of the virus and an infrastructure. It still takes a long time to manufacture it but there is no need for efficacy trials or safety trials, they use the same vehicles and the safety/dosing/population idiosyncrasies are well know. It is meaningless to talk about how fast a "swine flu" vaccine was made, it is just another influenza, same process as the year before and after. There have not been any routine coronavirus vaccines (primarily because they are usually so mild). This is all from scratch and at an unthinkable pace due to modern molecular techniques. There are numerous short cuts being taken, being encouraged to be taken. That is fine and understandable and they are not going to roll out a shot when people start anaphylaxing in the office. There will however be no data on long-term issues (and yes, with a new vaccine, initial Phase 4 or follow-on trials can last for years before it hits the market). It will most likely be up to everyone to make their own decisions (most likely, there will be interesting legal battles regarding industries trying to mandate it I am sure) as to the risks and benefits of getting it. I myself will be required to get it and I would do so regardless but it should be understood in its context.

Thanks.

[Reddogg]

The data(plural)are not easy to follow without a scientific background. The young are at increasing risk and are highly contagious. Not fear and loathing...caution! You don't need a weatherman to tell you the wind direction but, you damn better listen to a meteorologist if you want to know where a Hurricane is going!

Here we go with the grammar police and the appeal to authority. Data can be followed with either "is" or "are" so get off your high horse.

There is almost no chance of people under the age of 24 from dying from COVID, almost no indications of lasting issues for the young, and picking the random example as the rule is misleading. Lax tournaments are happening regularly in NJ and Maryland (and other states) and there has been no indication of increased transmission, increases hospital rates or deaths from these events. Trust me, you would have heard about it. Why have cases started declining in AZ, Florida and Texas without lockdown just as they did in NJ, NY with lockdown? There is a lot of compelling information showing seasonality and natural immune response through t-cell recognition of Covid. Treatments are improving. The actual experiences of schools in Europe show no problems for kids or teachers-- Great news in my view.

The cost of the "in an abundance of caution approach" is often overlooked. The current approach is unscientifically hurting the young and disproportionately impacting lower socioecomic groups, and leading to increased mental health problems. The virus is going to virus just like haters are going to hate. The curve for cases and deaths from around the world is substantially the same no matter what measures are taken. Take precautions but follow the data, science and logic. The young are essentially immune and should be leading the way to beating the virus. The old and unhealthy should take extra precautions. There is way to do both but no will. Fear and loathing is the new American way.

[Cooter]

I’d put the chances of a 2021 season somewhere between none and no chance in hell.

Unlike football, the schools actually save money by cancelling non-revenue sports. Easiest call a conference or AD ever has to make. Throw in reduced liability and it’s pretty clear what will happen.

They could save that money any season, but they still have lacrosse.

Recently, we saw ESPNU televise high school lacrosse scrimmages, so the desire for live sports content seems high.

The Big Ten and ACC both have networks, and after basketball gets over, they will be looking for sports content. So there is some motivation to have Spring non-revenue sports for the power conferences.

Further, if fans are not allowed at the games it would increase the viewership on these networks.

[calourie]

The impact of having schools in various places opening up over the course of the next month and one half should provide a ton of insight as the the future of on campus education and the efficacy of intercollegiate sports sometime by the end of October at the very latest, which will probably provide a greater predictability into the extent and timing of a return to more or less normal as regards spring sports as well. Put me in the camp of the hopeful skeptic, if there is such a thing.

[BigTom4]

I’d put the chances of a 2021 season somewhere between none and no chance in hell.

Unlike football, the schools actually save money by cancelling non-revenue sports. Easiest call a conference or AD ever has to make. Throw in reduced liability and it’s pretty clear what will happen.

They could save that money any season, but they still have lacrosse.

Recently, we saw ESPNU televise high school lacrosse scrimmages, so the desire for live sports content seems high.

The Big Ten and ACC both have networks, and after basketball gets over, they will be looking for sports content. So there is some motivation to have Spring non-revenue sports for the power conferences.

Further, if fans are not allowed at the games it would increase the viewership on these networks.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but television viewership will have zero impact into whether or not we will have a 2021 lacrosse season. Unfortunately, the sport is not at that level of popularity yet. The ratings they bring in, while improving, are still insignificant to these networks. They could easily swap out those time slots with a basketball re-run or a cornhole championship and have the same or better ratings.

[bauer4429]

Got to be honest I think I could see more colleges drop non-revenue sports like lacrosse, especially to eliminate liability. I think I saw somewhere the NCAA ruled players would not have to sign waivers and universities would have to cover player Covid related costs. Colleges will not be as willing to take that risk for non-revenue generators. Top lacrosse programs would be all set, but the bottom feeders certainly would be at risk.

[Wheels]

Got to be honest I think I could see more colleges drop non-revenue sports like lacrosse, especially to eliminate liability. I think I saw somewhere the NCAA ruled players would not have to sign waivers and universities would have to cover player Covid related costs. Colleges will not be as willing to take that risk for non-revenue generators. Top lacrosse programs would be all set, but the bottom feeders certainly would be at risk.

I think it's the other way around. The non-revs are only non-revs to athletic departments. They're revenue generators for the university as a whole (via enrollment, room, and board). The problem with college athletics is that universities keep two sets of books, which create perverse incentives. Athletic departments, because of they way their budgets are set up, must keep football and basketball. Football in general is a far more costly and far riskier endeavor on any college campus than any other sport. It's not even close, even when there's not a pandemic.

[bauer4429]

I respectfully disagree. Football and basketball programs attract sponsors. Nike has an agreement to give Texas and Michigan $10 million a year through 2032. They are compelled to do this for football and basketball programs. I think you are forgetting that huge piece of the pie. As much as I love lacrosse, the sport does not have that same draw. Yes, they may get more income in tuition and fees from non-revenue sports but they won’t get that type of sponsorship. The Final Four is also a big money maker. Football and basketball will not be cut, nor will female athletic programs that are required for balance .... all non-revenue male sports however will be at risk.

[flyerfan17]

Apropos of nothing, UMass football was due 1.9 million from Auburn for going there to get destroyed this November...

[10stone5]

...the NCAA ruled players would not have to sign
waivers and universities would have to cover
player Covid related costs.

I don’t see any way that passes muster.

[10stone5]

Apropos of nothing, UMass football was due 1.9 million from Auburn for going there to get destroyed this November...

I don’t think people realize thats exactly why UMass
moved up, in football,
otherwise there was nothing in UMass’ prior record
that would justify the move.

[bauer4429]

...the NCAA ruled players would not have to sign
waivers and universities would have to cover
player Covid related costs.

I don’t see any way that passes muster.

I agree..... without waivers colleges will not want to take the risk. They are in the business of making money. Pretty much every sport will be cancelled because they will not want the liability.

[Laxbuck]

Very optimistic there will be a season. There is a testing strategy that can get us out of this mess. Saliva or nasal secretion testing that requires no equipment, cost=$1, and results in 10 minutes. it detects those who are infectious, the only ones that matter frankly. Testing can be done daily and those who test positive isolate until their f/u test a few days later. As soon as they test negative they are no longer infectious and can return to normal activities. FDA needs a pathway to approval and mass production can ramp up quickly.

That is not coming anytime soon.

Why?

[Laxbuck]

...the NCAA ruled players would not have to sign
waivers and universities would have to cover
player Covid related costs.

I don’t see any way that passes muster.

How is the general student population any different?

[Wheels]

I respectfully disagree. Football and basketball programs attract sponsors. Nike has an agreement to give Texas and Michigan $10 million a year through 2032. They are compelled to do this for football and basketball programs. I think you are forgetting that huge piece of the pie. As much as I love lacrosse, the sport does not have that same draw. Yes, they may get more income in tuition and fees from non-revenue sports but they won’t get that type of sponsorship. The Final Four is also a big money maker. Football and basketball will not be cut, nor will female athletic programs that are required for balance .... all non-revenue male sports however will be at risk.

Again, if you're thinking about funding an athletic department not a university, then what you're saying is absolutely true (including the sponsorships). If you're thinking about funding a university, non-revs give you more bang for your buck from an enrollment perspective. Less discount (i.e., scholarship) on the tuition. This is the fundamental disconnect that happens when athletic departments have separate budgets from their universities.

[Drcthru]

Very optimistic there will be a season. There is a testing strategy that can get us out of this mess. Saliva or nasal secretion testing that requires no equipment, cost=$1, and results in 10 minutes. it detects those who are infectious, the only ones that matter frankly. Testing can be done daily and those who test positive isolate until their f/u test a few days later. As soon as they test negative they are no longer infectious and can return to normal activities. FDA needs a pathway to approval and mass production can ramp up quickly.

That is not coming anytime soon.

Why?

Explain a test that uses no equipment!

[RedFromMI]

Very optimistic there will be a season. There is a testing strategy that can get us out of this mess. Saliva or nasal secretion testing that requires no equipment, cost=$1, and results in 10 minutes. it detects those who are infectious, the only ones that matter frankly. Testing can be done daily and those who test positive isolate until their f/u test a few days later. As soon as they test negative they are no longer infectious and can return to normal activities. FDA needs a pathway to approval and mass production can ramp up quickly.

That is not coming anytime soon.

Why?

Explain a test that uses no equipment!

Something along the lines of a pregnancy test - the "equipment" is within the test, and just a very specialized indicator.

[bauer4429]

Got to be honest I think I could see more colleges drop non-revenue sports like lacrosse, especially to eliminate liability. I think I saw somewhere the NCAA ruled players would not have to sign waivers and universities would have to cover player Covid related costs. Colleges will not be as willing to take that risk for non-revenue generators. Top lacrosse programs would be all set, but the bottom feeders certainly would be at risk.

I think it's the other way around. The non-revs are only non-revs to athletic departments. They're revenue generators for the university as a whole (via enrollment, room, and board). The problem with college athletics is that universities keep two sets of books, which create perverse incentives. Athletic departments, because of they way their budgets are set up, must keep football and basketball. Football in general is a far more costly and far riskier endeavor on any college campus than any other sport. It's not even close, even when there's not a pandemic.
[/quote}

This isn’t making sense to me .... aren’t athletic departments part of the university ???