Proposition Joe said:

---

tysker said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

the amount of time left to make the decision continues to dwindle that we might have to plan for reduced capacity

---

Are you a season ticket holder? Are you willing to give up your seats? We have a loge box which is almost completely socially distanced from others by design. The suites are socially distanced. By mid-Sept most students will have already been exposed and likely immune. How does anyone redesign seating to make it equitable? Telling 50% of season ticket holders that they cant attend the LSU game when A&M may be playing for its first 10-win season in forever, is a non-starter. Attendance seems like an all or none deal.

---

If you are approaching this from the viewpoint that it's "all or none" then you aren't approaching this from a logical viewpoint.

Obviously reduced attendance is not something anyone wants. Obviously reduced attendance is a logistical headache.

But this idea that these athletic departments are going to say "we aren't willing to accept 30-50% of the gate, we'll just deal with 0% gate" isn't logical. It's in no way "all or nothing" and our athletic director literally says as much in the linked video.

As for how you handle season ticket holders in that situation - you refund/credit them and sell the reduced capacity games as single games.

---

I'm trying to approach from a pragmatic and equitable vantage point. Are selling your ticket back? How are ADs going to "force" reduction of reserved seating? If you were around for the Kyle Field reseating lawsuits for endowed donors, you know people will fight for what they think they are due.

---

See above. It's easy. Refund/Credit all season ticket holders. Sell reduced capacity games as season tickets (as this allows you to modify seat select to only allow certain seats). Offer season ticket holders an earlier presale for the individual games.

---

twk said:

---

Having 65000 students in residence is going to create a lot greater risk of an outbreak in BCS than having football games with fans would. The students come from all over and live in close quarters. There almost certainly will be spread among the student and staff population, with or without football. The greater risk from the football game is that you get fans who travel in for the game, and spread it to fans who travel to other locations, so you take what might have been a localized outbreak and spread it to multiple locations.

What the decision makers are starting to come to grips with is that we cannot eliminate risk, and instead, have to find a tolerable level of risk given the need for life (and business) to carry on. Although there will be restrictions continuing for some time, we will do things this Fall that seem unthinkable to some people right now.

---

Ranger222 said:

---

twk said:

---

Having 65000 students in residence is going to create a lot greater risk of an outbreak in BCS than having football games with fans would. The students come from all over and live in close quarters. There almost certainly will be spread among the student and staff population, with or without football. The greater risk from the football game is that you get fans who travel in for the game, and spread it to fans who travel to other locations, so you take what might have been a localized outbreak and spread it to multiple locations.

What the decision makers are starting to come to grips with is that we cannot eliminate risk, and instead, have to find a tolerable level of risk given the need for life (and business) to carry on. Although there will be restrictions continuing for some time, we will do things this Fall that seem unthinkable to some people right now.

---

I think you will be surprised in that almost all students will be tested in returning to campus this fall. They will not be able to attend classes without being tested. Employees at universities are doing it now and it will be first applied to professional students, then grad students and finally the broader undergraduate population as they return in August. That pretty must takes this risk away easily, and makes it fairly manageable.

You cannot, however, test everyone coming into a college town for a football game and all 70+ thousand non-student attendees at Kyle Field.

I agree that risk cannot be eliminated, but the tolerable level of risk may not suit your or others desires, and something we all must accept moving forward.

---

tysker said:

---

twk said:

---

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

the amount of time left to make the decision continues to dwindle that we might have to plan for reduced capacity

---

Are you a season ticket holder? Are you willing to give up your seats? We have a loge box which is almost completely socially distanced from others by design. The suites are socially distanced. By mid-Sept most students will have already been exposed and likely immune. How does anyone redesign seating to make it equitable? Telling 50% of season ticket holders that they cant attend the LSU game when A&M may be playing for its first 10-win season in forever, is a non-starter. Attendance seems like an all or none deal.

---

I do think it would be difficult to do social distancing with season ticket holders. Even if you just went down the list by priority points, you'd end up with people in club seating stuck in the bleachers somewhere, and then wanting a refund given the difference in level of seating. For that reason, if we do have to have social distancing in the Fall (and that is not a certainty), then for A&M, it seems to me the thing to do is just have students in attendance. You can spread them out, and they draw tickets the week of the game. They are actually the perfect population for doing this.

---

Then the AD is returning millions of dollars back to donors and allowing students (who pay half price tickets, pay no PSL and don't spend as much money on concessions) to attend in person? While logical it seems as pragmatic as restaurants opening with 25% capacity. Donors may feel cheated given this inequitable solution. If donors stop going to games are they going back? ADs need to think about the long-run too.

---

tysker said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

tysker said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

the amount of time left to make the decision continues to dwindle that we might have to plan for reduced capacity

---

Are you a season ticket holder? Are you willing to give up your seats? We have a loge box which is almost completely socially distanced from others by design. The suites are socially distanced. By mid-Sept most students will have already been exposed and likely immune. How does anyone redesign seating to make it equitable? Telling 50% of season ticket holders that they cant attend the LSU game when A&M may be playing for its first 10-win season in forever, is a non-starter. Attendance seems like an all or none deal.

---

If you are approaching this from the viewpoint that it's "all or none" then you aren't approaching this from a logical viewpoint.

Obviously reduced attendance is not something anyone wants. Obviously reduced attendance is a logistical headache.

But this idea that these athletic departments are going to say "we aren't willing to accept 30-50% of the gate, we'll just deal with 0% gate" isn't logical. It's in no way "all or nothing" and our athletic director literally says as much in the linked video.

As for how you handle season ticket holders in that situation - you refund/credit them and sell the reduced capacity games as single games.

---

I'm trying to approach from a pragmatic and equitable vantage point. Are selling your ticket back? How are ADs going to "force" reduction of reserved seating? If you were around for the Kyle Field reseating lawsuits for endowed donors, you know people will fight for what they think they are due.

---

See above. It's easy. Refund/Credit all season ticket holders. Sell reduced capacity games as season tickets (as this allows you to modify seat select to only allow certain seats). Offer season ticket holders an earlier presale for the individual games.

---

Easy, really? Much easier to type it than actually implement and afford it. I guess you think the TMF is going to make it fair and equitable? The only way I see it as monetarily equitable would be significantly reducing student capacity which is opposite of what the health data suggests. Fair is fair, right?

Are you giving up your tickets and place in line?

---

PJYoung said:

---

Aggie said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

I would go to a stadium or concert now if I could, as the virus poses about as much threat to me as driving there from my house.

---

Statistically.... driving there poses much more of a threat

---

In April Covid-19 was the 3rd leading cause of death in the US behind cancer and heart disease.

---

Bocephus said:

---

Ranger222 said:

---

While an open air stadium in the heat and humidity of Texas certainly has advantages to reduce transmission, we also have to remember the high likelihood of aerosol transmission of the virus, and what is one thing we are known for -- yelling.



https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6919e6.htm

Another thing to consider.

---

How many of those people died?

---

PJYoung said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

Ranger222 said:

---

While an open air stadium in the heat and humidity of Texas certainly has advantages to reduce transmission, we also have to remember the high likelihood of aerosol transmission of the virus, and what is one thing we are known for -- yelling.



https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6919e6.htm

Another thing to consider.

---

How many of those people died?

---

How many of those people now have life long disabilities because of the virus?

---

PJYoung said:

---

tysker said:

---

PJYoung said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

Ranger222 said:

---

While an open air stadium in the heat and humidity of Texas certainly has advantages to reduce transmission, we also have to remember the high likelihood of aerosol transmission of the virus, and what is one thing we are known for -- yelling.



https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6919e6.htm

Another thing to consider.

---

How many of those people died?

---

How many of those people now have life long disabilities because of the virus?

---

How many had life long disabilities before the virus? What if you have the cause and effect backwards?

---

I was referring to the doctor on here that talked about healthy 30 and 40 year olds that will live with what this virus did to their bodies for the rest of their lives. As in, life long medical care.

This virus has been portrayed as death or you're recovered and fine but for thousands of previously healthy individuals that's not true.

---

PJYoung said:

---

tysker said:

---

PJYoung said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

Ranger222 said:

---

While an open air stadium in the heat and humidity of Texas certainly has advantages to reduce transmission, we also have to remember the high likelihood of aerosol transmission of the virus, and what is one thing we are known for -- yelling.



https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6919e6.htm

Another thing to consider.

---

How many of those people died?

---

How many of those people now have life long disabilities because of the virus?

---

How many had life long disabilities before the virus? What if you have the cause and effect backwards?

---

I was referring to the doctor on here that talked about healthy 30 and 40 year olds that will live with what this virus did to their bodies for the rest of their lives. As in, life long medical care.

This virus has been portrayed as death or you're recovered and fine but for thousands of previously healthy individuals that's not true.

---

Quote:

---

The event, which was first reported by The Los Angeles Times in March, demonstrated how contagious and dangerous the coronavirus is, especially among older populations. The median age for those attending the practice that night was 69.

---

Quote:

---

"However, we also found out that singing is quite safe. It was not the cause of the outbreaks of Covid-19 at these concerts ," he said. "Air was only propelled about half a metre in front of a singer, and that is not far enough to cause the infection levels of these outbreaks."

Khler said the virus was probably spread among chorus members because of their close proximity to each other before and after rehearsals and performances. As he pointed out: "These outbreaks among choir members all occurred during the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic, before lockdowns were imposed and before our minds were concentrated on the importance of social distancing. Choir members probably greeted each other with hugs, and shared drinks during breaks and talked closely with each other. That social behaviour was the real cause of these outbreaks, I believe."

---

The_Fox said:

---

PJYoung said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

Ranger222 said:

---

While an open air stadium in the heat and humidity of Texas certainly has advantages to reduce transmission, we also have to remember the high likelihood of aerosol transmission of the virus, and what is one thing we are known for -- yelling.



https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6919e6.htm

Another thing to consider.

---

How many of those people died?

---

How many of those people now have life long disabilities because of the virus?

---

Same as those that died. Zero. You are letting outliers influence your risk assessment. The doctors here were wrong about the risk posed by the virus, just like our government.

---

tysker said:

---

PJYoung said:

---

tysker said:

---

PJYoung said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

Ranger222 said:

---

While an open air stadium in the heat and humidity of Texas certainly has advantages to reduce transmission, we also have to remember the high likelihood of aerosol transmission of the virus, and what is one thing we are known for -- yelling.



https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6919e6.htm

Another thing to consider.

---

How many of those people died?

---

How many of those people now have life long disabilities because of the virus?

---

How many had life long disabilities before the virus? What if you have the cause and effect backwards?

---

I was referring to the doctor on here that talked about healthy 30 and 40 year olds that will live with what this virus did to their bodies for the rest of their lives. As in, life long medical care.

This virus has been portrayed as death or you're recovered and fine but for thousands of previously healthy individuals that's not true.

---

Thats not fair. You were questioning the amount of people that have life-long disabilities due to contracting COVID (edit) as it related to the choir outbreak in Washington at the beginning of March. And then you ask how many young people now have long-term post recovery issues from a disease that is problematic mostly for the elderly and generally unhealthy.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/coronavirus/sns-nyt-coronavirus-choir-20200517-xask2wwy4feohnjez6j2dvkapm-story.html

Quote:

---

The event, which was first reported by The Los Angeles Times in March, demonstrated how contagious and dangerous the coronavirus is, especially among older populations. The median age for those attending the practice that night was 69.

---

Given this information, how many 30-40 years old were in attendance that night?


Also as it relates to football game attendance, singing (yelling) may not be as clear a transmission vector. Proxmity matters more...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/17/did-singing-together-spread-coronavirus-to-four-choirs

Quote:

---

"However, we also found out that singing is quite safe. It was not the cause of the outbreaks of Covid-19 at these concerts ," he said. "Air was only propelled about half a metre in front of a singer, and that is not far enough to cause the infection levels of these outbreaks."

Khler said the virus was probably spread among chorus members because of their close proximity to each other before and after rehearsals and performances. As he pointed out: "These outbreaks among choir members all occurred during the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic, before lockdowns were imposed and before our minds were concentrated on the importance of social distancing. Choir members probably greeted each other with hugs, and shared drinks during breaks and talked closely with each other. That social behaviour was the real cause of these outbreaks, I believe."

---

---

cone said:

---

---

Fitch said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

PJYoung said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

Ranger222 said:

---

While an open air stadium in the heat and humidity of Texas certainly has advantages to reduce transmission, we also have to remember the high likelihood of aerosol transmission of the virus, and what is one thing we are known for -- yelling.



https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6919e6.htm

Another thing to consider.

---

How many of those people died?

---

How many of those people now have life long disabilities because of the virus?

---

Same as those that died. Zero. You are letting outliers influence your risk assessment. The doctors here were wrong about the risk posed by the virus, just like our government.

---

---

Ranger222 said:

---

twk said:

---

Having 65000 students in residence is going to create a lot greater risk of an outbreak in BCS than having football games with fans would. The students come from all over and live in close quarters. There almost certainly will be spread among the student and staff population, with or without football. The greater risk from the football game is that you get fans who travel in for the game, and spread it to fans who travel to other locations, so you take what might have been a localized outbreak and spread it to multiple locations.

What the decision makers are starting to come to grips with is that we cannot eliminate risk, and instead, have to find a tolerable level of risk given the need for life (and business) to carry on. Although there will be restrictions continuing for some time, we will do things this Fall that seem unthinkable to some people right now.

---

I think you will be surprised in that almost all students will be tested in returning to campus this fall. They will not be able to attend classes without being tested. Employees at universities are doing it now and it will be first applied to professional students, then grad students and finally the broader undergraduate population as they return in August. That pretty must takes this risk away easily, and makes it fairly manageable.

You cannot, however, test everyone coming into a college town for a football game and all 70+ thousand non-student attendees at Kyle Field.

I agree that risk cannot be eliminated, but the tolerable level of risk may not suit your or others desires, and something we all must accept moving forward.

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

cone said:

---

---

Man, this chart is really a death blow to some posters. The vast majority of 80 year olds and the majority of 90+ have mild or asymptotic cases. The fatality rate for 90+ is only 10%. I wonder what the flu fatality rate for the 90+ is?

---

ETFan said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

cone said:

---

---

Man, this chart is really a death blow to some posters. The vast majority of 80 year olds and the majority of 90+ have mild or asymptotic cases. The fatality rate for 90+ is only 10%. I wonder what the flu fatality rate for the 90+ is?

---

Have I done my math wrong or does this still equate to 678k deaths if 50% of those over the age of 40 become infected? Using population stats from 2018.

Seems we should be prudent in our reopening strategies.

'Majority' is irrelevant when the minority is still a number in the multiple 100ks.

---

BowSowy said:

---

Also, I'm not sure how this isn't garnering more excitement on here. It's more evidence that this thing is not a big deal for almost everyone. And even for the 80+ crew, it's hospitalization for only 15% of cases.

This person outlines their sources and the way they collected their data here:

---