My general thoughts on fan attendance:

If you choose to attend, you understand that you wont be social distancing. You accept the risk and willingly choose to go. As do the others that are there with you. Period, end of story.

I do feel like attending a sporting event would be fine even at this early stage IF everybody wore masks. I don't know how feasible that is but I guess if you were kicked out for not complying it would be possible.

I still don't think sports are coming back this fall (with fans) but I hope I'm wrong.

On the bright side I was finally able to move my seats at Kyle Field into a better location this week.

Outdoor sporting events in the summer sun? That is a very low risk event.

Where can I buy a ticket?

I don't think anyone disagrees with that, the concern is the person you come into contact a week later at the grocery store or doctors office who wasn't afforded the same decision.

Keegan99 said:

---

Outdoor sporting events in the summer sun? That is a very low risk event.

Where can I buy a ticket?

---

100,000 people shoulder-to-shoulder screaming in unison makes it slightly more risky than a typical outdoor event.

I get that it's a reasonable assumption to think that 100K gathering will cause some spread. But then again, is it? I'd still like some actual numbers. As selfish and insensitive as this sounds, I'd hate to cancel the football season over a few cases. We can't go 100% full all out to stop this thing. It needs to be treated as every other disease at this point. Yes, take the proper precautions. Keep monitoring hospitals and their supplies. But in general, begin to move on with life.

So I'd really like to know. In the 100 degree Texas heat, what are the odds it's even in Texas(and the majority of the country) at that time, and if it is ever so slightly, will a few people exposing themselves cause a major outbreak to risk overwhelming the hospitals in the Summer or even early fall? Again, even if there are 100K, the odds of actual exposure to someone with the virus is probably still quite low. I'd be shocked if more than a couple dozen had it, and even more shocked if they gave it to multiple people.

Remember, we aren't trying to eradicate this thing. Nothing short of a vaccine or her immunity over 2-3 years will do that. We are trying to make sure not to overwhelm the hospitals and in 99% of the country, we haven't come close, nor will we ever come close even with sporting events this fall IMO. But please run the numbers with the best data we can.

oragator said:

---

I don't think anyone disagrees with that, the concern is the person you come into contact a week later at the grocery store or doctors office who wasn't afforded the same decision.

---

I mean, those people will know that people they come into contact with may have been to a football game. They're free to stay in if the climate is too much for them.

oragator said:

---

I don't think anyone disagrees with that, the concern is the person you come into contact a week later at the grocery store or doctors office who wasn't afforded the same decision.

---

That's not why we sheltered in place though. Again, it was to slow the rate and flatten the curve to allow hospitals to be able to treat everyone and not be overrun. They won't be. That guy at the grocery store doesn't have to go there either as it's his choice and he knows there already is a risk of his contracting the virus in the store anyway. My dad goes for my mom. Both in their 80's. This was never about eliminating a particular person's risk of contracting the virus from a policy stand point. That is just the facts. The grocery shopper's health doesn't preclude the rights of others. And I am not saying the game was a right, but our ability for the "pursuit of happiness" actually is a right and we now can get back to doing just that in my opinion. Things like attending games, concerts and other events are an example of that.

And I already know I risk getting sick visiting a doctor's office and knew it well before Covid-19! Who doesn't understand that?

oragator said:

---

I don't think anyone disagrees with that, the concern is the person you come into contact a week later at the grocery store or doctors office who wasn't afforded the same decision.

---

If people are going out to grocery stores, they are taking the risk of being exposed to somebody that has picked it up somewhere and didn't know about it. Whether that be at a ball game, at the park, at the office, or from the mailman.

Population density > heat and humidity when discussing transmissibility

Here is the concern about sporting events other than whether its your own personnel choice to attend or not, and specifically drilling down to things like SEC football games: aside from just the large crowd gathering, you bring in people from different and diverse geographical areas to watch and attend the game. People will be coming from different population centers throughout the south and beyond to watch. Not just Houston, Dallas and Austin but New Orleans, Atlanta, Oklahoma City and elsewhere.

That leaves open the potential for 1) the spread to be taken from the location of the game to those population centers or, and more likely, 2) people coming from those areas bringing the virus with them and causing a new local spread.

Its quite challenging to grasp that very location and region are on a different time scales -- some areas may be clear and just fine while others still hotspots, even into the fall. Can't really control who is coming to game, where they have come from and what their travel history has been. One person from one area, even outside Texas, lets say New York, could set it off and now College Station has a major outbreak from one home A&M football game. I think the dangers of people traveling into your area and sparking a local outbreak will probably be the biggest fear and one administrators will have to grapple with in how they bring major sporting events back.

If it was just 100K College Station residents attending when you know local infection rates and transmissibility is low its one thing. 100K people all coming from different locations into your area is the real problem, if you think your region has everything under control (same with college students returning -- big universities have diverse populations from a lot of different areas and most college towns around the SEC doing just fine right now).

First off,
I'd rather have college football moved to spring for now. Gives us more time to develop a better treatment or if we get lucky, a vaccine. Also, it's more likely everyone will be comfortable playing then. I don't want to go 12-0 but have an asterisk bc Oregon wants to wait til the spring to play.

Secondly, and independent from the first point,
Everyone at the football game would have to wear masks. I don't think you can justify letting so many people into one place without it.

Thirdly,
You can absolutely socially distance at a football stadium. Unfortunately the stadium would have to be at 50-66% capacity which would suck. However, I think there would be a drop in demand to go to games from old army if we are still dealing with covid19 in the way we are projected to.

oragator said:

---

I don't think anyone disagrees with that, the concern is the person you come into contact a week later at the grocery store or doctors office who wasn't afforded the same decision.

---

Then you stay home.

You think people are going to wear masks in 100 degree heat in Kyle Field??