MBB: NESCAC

[Vandy74]

Amherst just cancelled all spring sports.  Sort of wonder what would've happened if the men's hoops team had actually made the playoffs?    Wonder what will happen with the women's team, which is still alive.  Leave it to my alma mater to feel like they need to make the most rash decision possible.

The Amherst women's ice hockey team is also still active.  They extended their season by defeating Middlebury in the NESCAC finals to earn the AQ.

[mathteacherjedi]

I mean, I guess they might keep the playoff teams on campus until their season is over.  But I can't imagine them sending everyone on campus home except for spring student athletes. Kind of defeats the purpose of the closure. It's a shame for the athletes, but then again, it's a shame for all the students, who all have important activities going on outside of their academics. This is not to say Amherst made the wrong call, or that other schools won't be doing the same in the coming days and weeks.

As for sports, I assume its only a matter of time until NCAA starts canceling athlete travel and tournaments all together. Every big sporting event breaks all the public health guidance about large gatherings. Boston just cancelled its St. Patrick's Day parade, SXSW has been rescheduled to the fall, the Indian Wells tennis tournament was cancelled. 

[amh63]

Going to the conference scoreboard for sports events provides little clarity; in particular upcoming events.  Tennis teams have cancellations.  Amherst's women's basketball team cites they will host but the location is not given. 
Not much clarity via Amherst's prez announcement....except that  school public places such as museums, dining halls will be closed to general public.  Sure parents will not get refunds via online classes .

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I mean, I guess they might keep the playoff teams on campus until their season is over.  But I can't imagine them sending everyone on campus home except for spring student athletes. Kind of defeats the purpose of the closure. It's a shame for the athletes, but then again, it's a shame for all the students, who all have important activities going on outside of their academics. This is not to say Amherst made the wrong call, or that other schools won't be doing the same in the coming days and weeks.

As for sports, I assume its only a matter of time until NCAA starts canceling athlete travel and tournaments all together. Every big sporting event breaks all the public health guidance about large gatherings. Boston just cancelled its St. Patrick's Day parade, SXSW has been rescheduled to the fall, the Indian Wells tennis tournament was cancelled.

Again, these cancellation are not medical in nature; they are largely economic and PR related.  SXSW was worried people wouldn't come and they'd lose money.  People are going to go to the D1 basketball tournament.  We've still not seen any guidance from the CDC that spectators should be barred from events.

I think you'll see more things like the NBA putting in distance requirements for athlete interviews to show they are giving lip service to something people are overly scared of, but keep fans in the seats where they need ticket sales.

[nescac1]

The problem is that, in light of the long incubation period, the oft-unremarkable symptoms, and the high rate of contagion, if you wait until mass contagion clearly manifests, it's likely too late to contain (see Italy, compared to South Korea).  And because so few Americans have been tested, we have no idea of how pervasive the spread is here.  Zero.  So it's not correct to say a cancellation of a large event is not "medical-related."  Look, there are no easy answers here regarding the proper balance between caution and overreaction. But frankly, preventing huge numbers of people from gathering for purely leisure activities seems like the lowest-hanging fruit, in terms of a cost-benefit analysis.  As much as we all love hoops, it's not life or death. But elderly or infirm people who contract this virus die at terrifying rates. 
 
Here's what Trump's former Homeland Security Advisor (whose portfolio included pandemic response) wrote just yesterday:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/09/its-now-or-never-us-if-it-hopes-keep-coronavirus-burning-out-control/

I'd rather err on the side of overreaction and take the heat later than the converse.  It's becoming more and more clear that the U.S. is severely underreacting, if anything.  A month or so of short-term pain seems likely to spare many months of egregious, irreversible harm.  All of this is to say, it's more likely that those who are criticizing these closures will look foolish in the long run ... and I'd much rather be wrong by reacting too severely than not enough.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Then keep vulnerable people home.  I've never been accused of being a conservative, but this feels like individual responsibility.  The schools shouldn't ban all fans because some people might get sick.  Let people choose for themselves.  Sick people should stay home, we should say that  A LOT.  We should also say, "If you're in the population of people most likely to suffer, please be careful!"  I just don't get the bans.  We're well beyond containment.  It just seems hard to believe they could slow the spread enough to get the vaccine ready before there's widespread exposure.  If it were a month away, maybe.  Are they just banking on summer and warm weather killing it off?  That's not happened with SARS or MERS, the closest relatives of this thing.

I've just worked under the assumption we're all going to be exposed at some point - likely before the vaccine is available.  To me, we're trying to prevent an impossibility.  Let's just be as safe as we, individually, can.

I totally get if a school doesn't want gatherings on campus  - I disagree with it, but I might feel different if I were responsible for that campus.  I'm just saying that not every campus feels that way - if you want to ban fans, let someone else host.

[nescac1]

Ryan, no.  Contagion doesn't work that way.  If a non-vulnerable person gets sick, any vulnerable person they contact is placed at risk.  E.g., a brother or child of a health care worker, who then mass infects patients, or a food service employee, who mass infects customers.  No one can just opt out of getting a disease.  And treating this as inevitable ignores the massive toll rapid and overwhelming exposure levels will take on our health system.  Again, read what is happening in Italy.  This is a report from the front lines, from a medical professional.  Do you really think fans attending sporting events is worth THIS outcome.  America is not taking this seriously enough, not even close, and it starts at the very top.  I hope we don't pay a severe price.  But each day that goes by that we bury our heads in the sand and fail to take even relatively painless preventative measures puts people at greater and greater risk.

https://twitter.com/silviast9/status/1236933818654896129?s=21

I mean, if Ireland can cancel St. Patrick's Day, America can survive one or two months without festivals, sporting events, concerts, and so on.  Containment seems to be working in South Korea.  It can at least slow the spread of this disease dramatically.  Which is critical for our health care system to function.  If Amherst is wrong, the costs are real but very small.  If Amherst's critics are wrong, on the other hand ...

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Ryan, no.  Contagion doesn't work that way.  If a non-vulnerable person gets sick, any vulnerable person they contact is placed at risk.  E.g., a brother or child of a health care worker, who then mass infects patients, or a food service employee, who mass infects customers.  No one can just opt out of getting a disease.  And treating this as inevitable ignores the massive toll rapid and overwhelming exposure levels will take on our health system.  Again, read what is happening in Italy.  This is a report from the front lines, from a medical professional.  Do you really think fans attending sporting events is worth THIS outcome.  America is not taking this seriously enough, not even close, and it starts at the very top.  I hope we don't pay a severe price.  But each day that goes by that we bury our heads in the sand and fail to take even relatively painless preventative measures puts people at greater and greater risk.

https://twitter.com/silviast9/status/1236933818654896129?s=21

I mean, if Ireland can cancel St. Patrick's Day, America can survive one or two months without festivals, sporting events, concerts, and so on.  Containment seems to be working in South Korea.  It can at least slow the spread of this disease dramatically.  Which is critical for our health care system to function.  If Amherst is wrong, the costs are real but very small.  If Amherst's critics are wrong, on the other hand ...

I guess maybe I'm just pessimistic (of course all pessimists would say they're realists, right), but the results as described in that link seem inevitable.  The only variable being how quickly it happens.  Maybe I'm wrong about that, and, if so, then these precautions are justified - but with infections in 80 countries and the incubation period and the percentage of infected people who are asymptomatic, it just feels like these precautions are fighting an unwinnable battle.

I get that some people would want to take them anyway to say "we did all we could."  I tend to look at the outcomes and say why expend the money and energy to prevent the inevitable?

The one argument that makes the most sense to me - and the one the CDC is warning about - is whether a certain area has the medical capacity to treat the number of patients who may need professional care.  That, to me, is the real tragedy of the twitter thread you linked.  We may not be able to properly care for all the people who will need it.  But that also speak to inevitability.  If we've passed the point of containment, wouldn't these efforts be better put to expanding hospital capacity than trying to prevent inevitable mass infection?

Those are questions well above who attends a basketball game, obviously - it just feels like some of these responses are attempting to bail out a sinking cruise-liner when perhaps we should be readying the lifeboats?

I reread that and it even depresses me, but if this is already inevitably going to disrupt some people later, will disrupting everyone now in addition be the best course of action?

I'm not qualified to make that call, but the people who are qualified seem to be saying "don't overreact," which to me, speaks of an inevitability people like the Amherst President aren't quite ready to admit.

I get that response.  I understand the mentality and the passion behind it; I'm just not sure it's the best course of action.


The message seems to be "we know we're all going to get exposed eventually, we just don't want it happening to you on our watch."

Again, maybe I'm wrong about that, but that's my perspective at the moment.

[nescac1]

I hate to be a broken record, but again, mass short-term contagion is not inevitable.  We can look at differing responses to contagious outbreaks in different regions throughout history as a guide.  Or just look to Italy    / Iran vs South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan.  We may already be on the Italy path. But I'd sure rather aim for South Korea. 

[CNU85]

Ryan, no.  Contagion doesn't work that way.  If a non-vulnerable person gets sick, any vulnerable person they contact is placed at risk.  E.g., a brother or child of a health care worker, who then mass infects patients, or a food service employee, who mass infects customers.  No one can just opt out of getting a disease.  And treating this as inevitable ignores the massive toll rapid and overwhelming exposure levels will take on our health system.  Again, read what is happening in Italy.  This is a report from the front lines, from a medical professional.  Do you really think fans attending sporting events is worth THIS outcome.  America is not taking this seriously enough, not even close, and it starts at the very top.  I hope we don't pay a severe price.  But each day that goes by that we bury our heads in the sand and fail to take even relatively painless preventative measures puts people at greater and greater risk.

https://twitter.com/silviast9/status/1236933818654896129?s=21

I mean, if Ireland can cancel St. Patrick's Day, America can survive one or two months without festivals, sporting events, concerts, and so on.  Containment seems to be working in South Korea.  It can at least slow the spread of this disease dramatically.  Which is critical for our health care system to function.  If Amherst is wrong, the costs are real but very small.  If Amherst's critics are wrong, on the other hand ...

NESCAC1 - thank you for your input. I am seeing things in a slightly different light and am starting to agree with a lot of what you are saying. Or at least if I'm not agreeing, I can certainly understand your point.  And I also understand what Ryan is saying about let someone else host in this case. And to your point, then you are just shifting the exposure to another state and venue. This virus is more deadly than the flu by tenfold (thirty times more deadly I believe is one stat I read), but currently not as widespread as Influenza A and B. There is so much information, and thus confusion, about this entire situation. My wife and I have a trip planned to the UK in May to see our son-in-law perform in a concert tour. I have trip insurance but not sure if cancelling for a virus is covered. We have my wife's elderly parents living with us. So, we assume we will be ok on the trip, but one consideration is what if we bring it back with us? We get the sniffles and they suffer more serious consequences. So until we get closer to travel day.......we wash our hands. I go to work, and this Friday I will attend the CNU men's basketball game.

I'm also an adjunct Finance professor at CNU. The university is making plans for teaching on line to combat this virus if it becomes necessary. CNU currently offers ZERO on line courses. So it looks like on Saturday I'm heading to a training session on how to make that work.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I hate to be a broken record, but again, mass short-term contagion is not inevitable.  We can look at differing responses to contagious outbreaks in different regions throughout history as a guide.  Or just look to Italy    / Iran vs South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan.  We may already be on the Italy path. But I'd sure rather aim for South Korea.

And that may well be true.  I'm certainly in no place to know.  Biology was literally the worst grade of my life.  I'm just curious as to why the CDC doesn't think these actions are yet warranted.  Either they believe exposure is inevitable or they believe the virus itself is less dangerous to the population as a whole.  A lot of people are on the latter side of that; I tend to be on the former.

[nescac1]

I'm no expert either.  Believe me, I very much hope this all turns out to be an overreaction.  That's the best possible outcome!  We still know little about the epidemiology of this novel disease, after all.  But I just think we need to learn from the countries who have succeeded in controlling their outbreaks (and even moreso from those who haven't).  And the costs of underreaction are potentially immense. 

Regarding the CDC, I don't want to get deep into politics here, and I have no specific knowledge about that agency, but as someone who has worked in three different administrations, both Dem and GOP, it's abundantly clear to me that this particular administration is unique in terms of exerting immense pressure on agencies across the government to reach politically-driven, rather than scientifically-driven (or more generally fact-driven), conclusions.  See, e.g., the recent hurricane fiasco.  It pains me to say it, but a healthy dose of skepticism is warranted. 

P.S. just saw that Harvard cancelled the rest of the semester as well.  Folks at Harvard ain't dumb.

[amh63]

Back again.
The town of Amherst is home to UMass-Amherst where 35,000 students/faculty/workers work/live.  Thought about several venues there that could hold the upcoming D3 women games.  There is also Springfield College about 30 minutes down the road.  However, how does this impact the
Fans/parents wrt the Wuhu C/19 issue?  There is also the factor of medical facilities to support ill people.
The Holyoke/Springfield/Northampton reagion is chock full of colleges, big and small,  that would overwhelm the available medical facilities.....including the Veterans Hospital nearby and the big hospitals  around the Hartford region.
My medical classmates continue discussions online...lots of opinions.  Seems many politicians are taking self-isolation approach...in Washington.

[Colby Hoops]

I think we'll be lucky if we can crown a champ this year for D3. The Ivy League just cancelled its conference tournament.

There are a lot more school closures on the horizon.

[jamtod]

I hate to be a broken record, but again, mass short-term contagion is not inevitable.  We can look at differing responses to contagious outbreaks in different regions throughout history as a guide.  Or just look to Italy    / Iran vs South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan.  We may already be on the Italy path. But I'd sure rather aim for South Korea.

And that may well be true.  I'm certainly in no place to know.  Biology was literally the worst grade of my life.  I'm just curious as to why the CDC doesn't think these actions are yet warranted.  Either they believe exposure is inevitable or they believe the virus itself is less dangerous to the population as a whole.  A lot of people are on the latter side of that; I tend to be on the former.

I'm quite sympathetic to the frustrations of closing games down to fans with little notice or the stupidity of letting Amherst host when we know a week out they are not allowing fans.
Beyond that, I think some of the opinions you and Dave have expressed on the podcast are ill-informed and potentially reckless, or at least just narrow-minded based on whatever sources you've been tracking and talking to.

There's a fine line between overreaction and underreaction in this regard and I'm not one to dive into politics - but some of the recent CDC decisions around testing and other areas in regard to this are baffling to many of the educated experts (which I am not one of).