So nothing really has changed for them, LOL20% would actually be an increase for Illinois for some games but...
So nothing really has changed for them, LOL20% would actually be an increase for Illinois for some games but...
This is a school, as you know, that already struggles to get students in the stands. If there is a season the students will be even more likely to stay at the bars (which are a blast out there).20% would actually be an increase for Illinois for some games but...
News outlets spin things how they want. He is the original quote that they ran with - "This week, health officials have traced some of the 36 Lake Zurich High School students who recently tested positive for COVID-19 to three summer athletic camps."https://www.kenoshanews.com/news/above-average-daily-covid-19-increase-in-county-no-outbreaks-associated-with-sports/article_a7a98521-2b14-5315-9670-a9112312ceb1.htmlThi sis the best I can find: https://abc7chicago.com/health/36-students-in-lake-zurich-hs-sports-camps-test-positive-for-covid-19/6318080/
It does say 36 have tested positive and they are waiting on results of 350 more and that's from yesterday. No mention of a death though.
This entire exercise (going conference only, minor conferences canceling fall sports), feels like slow motion dominoes that will eventually knock over fall P5 football.
Reduced capacity is a must. Not only for physical distance but getting in/out will take much longer.Yeah I read that about Illinois earlier and thought the same thing. The social distancing in the stands shouldn't be too hard to accomplish. Not trying to knock them. That whole 6 feet thing in the concourses and in other areas though. I want football but just wish people would wise up also. You hear a lot about 'wear your mask' but it seems like the whole 6 feet distancing aspect isn't always mentioned along with it and as I'm sure a lot of you know by going 'out' to stores etc it seems like the whole 6 feet thing never existed for a lot of folks.
I mean the graph says it all. If Canada, UK, Germany, and Japan tested the same amount as us (and kept their same % of positive tests) this is how the cases per million would break down: US - 11,000, UK - 3,200, Japan - 5,300, Germany - 4,000, Canada 4,500. So no, its not because we're testing more - its just way more widespread here than the countries able to move forward with semi-normal life.
I mean the graph says it all. If Canada, UK, Germany, and Japan tested the same amount as us (and kept their same % of positive tests) this is how the cases per million would break down: US - 11,000, UK - 3,200, Japan - 5,300, Germany - 4,000, Canada 4,500. So no, its not because we're testing more - its just way more widespread here than the countries able to move forward with semi-normal life.
If Canada, UK, Germany, and Japan tested the same amount as us (and kept their same % of positive tests) this is how the cases per million would break down: US - 11,000, UK - 3,200, Japan - 5,300, Germany - 4,000, Canada 4,500.
My data is from here: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/Hang on a minute.
You can't leave that first "if" statement hanging but then simultaneously give per capita infection rates. Either you normalize for per capita testing ratios or you don't; there are no valid hypothetical extrapolations otherwise.
Did I miss something from that graph? Where is a measure of normalized per capita covid testing on that thing (or anywhere else)?
My data is from here: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
This site has cases per million and tests per million. Pretty easy to find out how many tests per positive case. So the assumption is, if they did 137,000 tests per million (like the US), and their tests per case remained the same, how many cases per million would they be at. And like I said, ours is more than double of any of the countries on the NCAAs graph.