Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
CDC suggestion of restricting youth sports in MI
#1
From a Michigan news article:
During a coronavirus-related news conference, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky recommended that restrictions should be put in place in Michigan to help slow virus spread -- specifically within youth sports.
The CDC director pointed out that "CDC guidance specifically suggests refraining from youth sports that are not outside and cannot be conducted at least six feet apart.”

K-12 schools top the list of coronavirus outbreak locations in [Michigan]. High schools are particularly problematic.

[In Michigan] Since January, basketball, hockey and wrestling have had the highest number of COVID cases and clusters, with 376 cases linked to basketball and 256 to hockey.



During the recent NCAA tournament, I felt ESPN did a decent job of reporting that Santa Clara County chose to restrict sports, including the Stanford women's basketball team, without expressing a judgement of it.   Feelings about that restriction were divided on the discussion group for fans.

Everyone wants kids to go to school and to play sports.  The difference of opinion is about the health risk involved.  Because COVID is a new disease and we all have been learning, the difference of opinions is natural.  Furthermore, some of us are less risk-averse and some are more risk-averse.

Over the past 14 months, there have been a number of opinions expressed about whether children get COVID, or if they could spread it if they got it, or if they spread it in schools, etc.  I think it is clear that children do get the disease and they spread it amongst themselves and to others.

While children do have milder cases and rarely die, they are part of the reservoir of the virus, sustaining the spread throughout the population.  As for effects on children, we still are learning about long term effects of the disease.  Recently there have been the studies showing psychological effects to a third of those that had COVID (including mild cases).  I don't know yet whether there is any evidence that this does or does not apply to children.
Reply
#2
(04-08-2021, 11:49 AM)M_T Wrote: From a Michigan news article:
During a coronavirus-related news conference, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky recommended that restrictions should be put in place in Michigan to help slow virus spread -- specifically within youth sports.
The CDC director pointed out that "CDC guidance specifically suggests refraining from youth sports that are not outside and cannot be conducted at least six feet apart.”

K-12 schools top the list of coronavirus outbreak locations in [Michigan]. High schools are particularly problematic.

[In Michigan] Since January, basketball, hockey and wrestling have had the highest number of COVID cases and clusters, with 376 cases linked to basketball and 256 to hockey.



During the recent NCAA tournament, I felt ESPN did a decent job of reporting that Santa Clara County chose to restrict sports, including the Stanford women's basketball team, without expressing a judgement of it.   Feelings about that restriction were divided on the discussion group for fans.

Everyone wants kids to go to school and to play sports.  The difference of opinion is about the health risk involved.  Because COVID is a new disease and we all have been learning, the difference of opinions is natural.  Furthermore, some of us are less risk-averse and some are more risk-averse.

Over the past 14 months, there have been a number of opinions expressed about whether children get COVID, or if they could spread it if they got it, or if they spread it in schools, etc.  I think it is clear that children do get the disease and they spread it amongst themselves and to others.

While children do have milder cases and rarely die, they are part of the reservoir of the virus, sustaining the spread throughout the population.  As for effects on children, we still are learning about long term effects of the disease.  Recently there have been the studies showing psychological effects to a third of those that had COVID (including mild cases).  I don't know yet whether there is any evidence that this does or does not apply to children.
And they point to a tournament in Florida in December and a tournament in Minnesota as proof? I call BS. Across the country, millions of kids have participated safely in sports over the last 9 months (well only two months in CA). Where's that data in the reports? Suicides amongst kids are way up. Emergency room mental health visits amongst kids are way up. Oddly, that data is missing as well. Two of my daughters friends (both heavily into extracurriculars put on hold by Newsom) are in rehab. With my own kid, her spirits are soaring now that she has a chance to play and compete. Take that away, especially as she has just been diagnosed with a pretty severe health condition, and she'll be devastated.
Reply
#3
I am sorry to hear about your daughter's health condition.

You have a good point. Mental health, physical health, social health, education and economics should actually factor in on public health decisions. We don't have a framework for that. What we have are politicians in a highly polarized environment. Politicians conflate health measures with freedom, some make restrictions that are just plain stupid, like closing bars at 10:00 PM (when, presumably the virus comes out of hiding or something).

The EPA actually does very complicated estimation of public good. Take a power plant for example. It produces something economically valuable, the electricity and jobs. It produces pollution of various forms depending upon the type. Regulation of the emissions is computed by estimating the cost of the negative factors. It appears it is not that hard to estimate the number of premature deaths in an area if a coal plant opens up. It's harder to put a value on that, but there are accepted numbers. Could this be applied locally to epidemiology?

For now, you still get to weigh the risks for your family and do what is appropriate. Let's hope it stays that way.
Reply
#4
Thanks. She's in great spirits and we'll get it resolved. At least it's not an "emergency" and we can choose the when, that way she can still compete, which has been a saving grace for her.

To your point, logic in the decision making process has been lacking, as has the view of the holistic impact. Even after mental health emergencies began to rise at hospitals, the powers that be wouldn't accept that the lockdowns were having an impact. The EPA has been looking at issues for decades, our health czars were clearly overwhelmed and overmatched by the situation they faced. . ..
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)