GOOD NEWS THREAD

But it seems its just in the conjecture phase and trials haven't even launched? It's unlikely to be ready then any time before the mass vaccine immunization is launched. Plus, big pharma will work against it getting any sort of accelerated testing because of their large financial investment in the vaccine.
You are probably right. From a business perspective, the recent surveys shows that only 30% of Americans are willing to take the vaccine.
 

Dargle

SILVER ELITE
This study, which reports that the "the incidence of COVID-19 among youth soccer athletes after reinitiating participation during the summer of 2020 is relatively low," is a step-up from the Surf Sports study (someone at the University of Wisconsin put their name behind it, it involved larger numbers, it involved teams that are playing full contact games etc).

https://ortho.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/COVID-19-in-Youth-Soccer.pdf

It has flaws. For example, ECNL paid for the study, so there is some risk of bias. It does not identify the locations where the teams played to control for covid hotspots v areas where covid isn't very prevalent at all. It has to rely upon either the clubs or the local authorities for contact tracing. It only discusses whether kids get covid, acknowledging that asymptomatic spread to family members or other members of the community could have occurred and potentially at a high rate than for the players.

Nevertheless, it is some kind of data that could be shown to policymakers. My guess is it would be most useful in downgrading the riskiness of soccer in states that have fleshed out which sports can return at each level of opening up for the state or county. In California, it won't help much until they do that since they aren't doing much to differentiate sports other than solo sports.
 
This study, which reports that the "the incidence of COVID-19 among youth soccer athletes after reinitiating participation during the summer of 2020 is relatively low," is a step-up from the Surf Sports study (someone at the University of Wisconsin put their name behind it, it involved larger numbers, it involved teams that are playing full contact games etc).

https://ortho.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/COVID-19-in-Youth-Soccer.pdf

It has flaws. For example, ECNL paid for the study, so there is some risk of bias. It does not identify the locations where the teams played to control for covid hotspots v areas where covid isn't very prevalent at all. It has to rely upon either the clubs or the local authorities for contact tracing. It only discusses whether kids get covid, acknowledging that asymptomatic spread to family members or other members of the community could have occurred and potentially at a high rate than for the players.

Nevertheless, it is some kind of data that could be shown to policymakers. My guess is it would be most useful in downgrading the riskiness of soccer in states that have fleshed out which sports can return at each level of opening up for the state or county. In California, it won't help much until they do that since they aren't doing much to differentiate sports other than solo sports.
Someone should send this study along with a strongly worded letter to the governor. That way he can add it to the pile of letters that he already doesn’t read from county boards or anyone with a thought that doesn’t involve hurting kids, this states economy or people’s mental health.
 

dad4

PREMIER
This study, which reports that the "the incidence of COVID-19 among youth soccer athletes after reinitiating participation during the summer of 2020 is relatively low," is a step-up from the Surf Sports study (someone at the University of Wisconsin put their name behind it, it involved larger numbers, it involved teams that are playing full contact games etc).

https://ortho.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/COVID-19-in-Youth-Soccer.pdf

It has flaws. For example, ECNL paid for the study, so there is some risk of bias. It does not identify the locations where the teams played to control for covid hotspots v areas where covid isn't very prevalent at all. It has to rely upon either the clubs or the local authorities for contact tracing. It only discusses whether kids get covid, acknowledging that asymptomatic spread to family members or other members of the community could have occurred and potentially at a high rate than for the players.

Nevertheless, it is some kind of data that could be shown to policymakers. My guess is it would be most useful in downgrading the riskiness of soccer in states that have fleshed out which sports can return at each level of opening up for the state or county. In California, it won't help much until they do that since they aren't doing much to differentiate sports other than solo sports.
Thanks for the link.

I'd say the big limitation is that the study relied on self-reporting to find out whether players have covid. Soccer players in the study had covid at a rate lower than the general population. And significantly lower at that. About 35% lower on a population of 90,000.

Either soccer is protective, or self reporting does a very poor job of identifying covid cases.
 

Soccerfan2

SILVER ELITE
I wonder why are the restrictions on soccer so tight? There are softball, baseball and basketball scrimmages, games and even tourneys happening all around us in our county and nearby counties in NorCal. Meanwhile we are still holding no contact practices, can’t scrimmage and can’t play games. I don’t understand the difference. The clubs are working with the counties to get practice/play plans approved. So, are the soccer clubs just not advocating as strongly as the other sports are? There can’t be any significant difference in risk between the sports. Are the counties just not responsive or timely in approving modifications as we move up to red tier? Are the other sports just choosing to act beyond what the county has actually authorized? Is there anyone on here that works for a county that has actual knowledge of what’s going on?
 

Dargle

SILVER ELITE
Thanks for the link.

I'd say the big limitation is that the study relied on self-reporting to find out whether players have covid. Soccer players in the study had covid at a rate lower than the general population. And significantly lower at that. About 35% lower on a population of 90,000.

Either soccer is protective, or self reporting does a very poor job of identifying covid cases.
You're right that this is another question mark in the study, but I didn't think it's the biggest problem. If you hold constant the rate of voluntary, asymptomatic, testing, then the difference would be attributable to symptomatic testing.

There are at least two possible interpretations of that difference:

1. It simply may be that obese people or those with other underlying conditions are more likely to be symptomatic, and therefore get tested, while kids generally are less likely to be symptomatic and kids who play sports (no reason to think soccer is uniquely protective) are less likely to be obese or have other underlying conditions, making them even less likely to develop symptoms and get tested.

2. On the other hand, it may be that people playing on a soccer team are less likely to report that they have symptoms for fear of not being able to play and being blamed for causing the entire team and coaches to quarantined for 14 days. So, the Covid rate may be the same if they had been tested, but they simply don't get tested even if they have symptoms.

Number 2 is plausible and would definitely skew the numbers. Given that many of the symptoms are somewhat difficult to hide, however, especially for someone playing soccer games at a high level, you would expect the testing differential to be less pronounced. So, I expect it's probably more a function of Number 1, which is why I didn't think the self-reporting of testing was as problematic as you did.
 
Either soccer is protective, or self reporting does a very poor job of identifying covid cases.
Only if you assume the population for the study represents a proportionate cross-section of state. Is there a reason to assume that in this case? In the bay area of SF, it certainly appears that the lower the economic status, the lower the level of participation - at least on the girls' side. Sadly, COVID impact is significantly higher among those of lower economic status.

I'll say what I always say. If the risk was significant, we'd know in a hurry. The risk isn't zero, but it's small. The only argument is "how small"?
 
More good news.....

Source: Coronavirus tests negative for Week 1 Kansas City Chiefs-Houston Texans


The NFL passed a significant test in dealing with the coronavirus. Tests on all Houston Texans and Kansas City Chiefs players, coaches and team employees from Week 1 came back negative this week, a source told ESPN's Adam Schefter.
 

Grace T.

PREMIER
Game changer if this holds up.....seroprevalence and asympomatic are being massively underestimate, Asia seems to in particular have a lot of dark matter, that dark matter may be accounted for by cross immunity/T-cell immunity.

 
Top