A number of schools have reported positive tests for coronavirus as student-athletes begin returning to campus this week to resume voluntary in-person workouts.
The University of Iowa reported 1 positive test among 237 tests conducted on student-athletes, staff, and coaches who returned to campus. Alabama has reported 5 positive tests among its football players, Auburn has reported 3, while Oklahoma State and Iowa State have also reported positive tests.
At Iowa State, one student worker in the athletics department tested positive initially, and four student-athletes from different sports “experienced symptoms after being in close contact with individuals outside of the athletics department who have been infected.”
In all cases, schools have implemented isolation protocols in an attempt to stop the spread.
Schools have not released the identity of those who have tested positive, and most programs are being very secretive about which student-athletes are returning to campus and when. A spokesperson for the University of Iowa says that no swimmers have returned to campus yet.
So far, the only confirmed reports of NCAA swimmers resuming on-campus workouts are Louisville and Texas A&M, both of which were expected to resume training under strict guidelines on Monday.
Most schools are using a tiered system to return student-athletes to campus for voluntary physical workouts this summer after the NCAA lifted its ban on in-person activities on June 1. Every school reported so far is requiring coronavirus testing before student-athletes, staff, or coaches can resume on-campus workouts.
Like many other schools, Iowa is prioritizing fall sport athletes in its return. Wisconsin is doing the same, with football and volleyball being the first to return, followed by basketball teams, and declined to say when the school’s swimming & diving programs are returning to campus.
For Iowa, with 1 positive test among 237, the tested infection rate among those returning to campus is lower than the national average. In total, 1 in about 165 Americans have tested positive for the coronavirus, though the rate of 1 in 237 at Iowa is likely higher than the national rate of those who are currently infected.
Will this reduce the Freshman 20 down to 14lbs?
Given the often irresponsible behavior towards the recommended practices in helping to slow the spread of this virus by the adults in 18-24yo age bracket, it’s just as likely the student athletes will contract the virus outside of athletics than within. Also, given that the virus is nearly harmless for that same age group, any restrictions on college athletes must be considered an effort as part of the the broader restrictions and not for the safety of student athletes.
I think your first point is a salient one that I hope colleges are considering in their plans:
If you put a bunch of 18-24 year olds together on a college campus and expect that they’re going to, as a group, abide by social distancing guidelines, you’re mistaken. Especially because they know they’re not going to die from it.
Humans are dumb.
If they are symptomatic then quarantine. If they are asymptomatic then not much to worry about according to the WHO: https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/931984
The WHO had to walk back their statement about asymptomatic spread.
The COVID mortality rate for college age individuals is virtually zero. The flu has a greater mortality rate for this particular demographic.
It is still contagious . Would you let ppl in a training program with chickenpox ?
I wouldn’t close down the school because 3 people tested positive for chicken pox…
What about those old favourites , TB & Syphillus ? Let’s face it , Schools really do not want students & definiely not on campus . They want profitable football teams & endowments . Tenure for everyone
As a follow up have any of these athletes had symptoms worse than the flu?? My guess is no, we have to open up!
“My guess”
That’s all I needed to know about your comment.
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/06/08/us-navy-test-shows-60percent-of-carrier-crew-have-coronavirus-antibodies.html
400 volunteers for those antibody tests that have shown to be inconsistent and not reliable when they were hoping for 1,000. I’d hardly hold that 60% firmly. Also, what does this article have to do with anything?
We’ve know how contagious ships are and an aircraft carrier with extremely tight living spaces and no way to socially distance in the middle of the sea is a terrible place to be in a breakout
No, the anti body tests work quite well. Not sure where you got that info from. Similar population to a college campus age wise. More contagious environment. The one person that dies was 41, obese and a smoker. Yet another data point that it is safe to reopen colleges in relatively normal fashion.
Students are part of the issue but why risk faculty/staff, coaches etc. not just that. You’re bringing an influx of 10-15,000 sometimes 20,000+ new people to a college town. You’re then risking that town which will have its fair share of older populations.
I think it’s pretty close minded to think the only issue is whether the students are safe or not. There’s hundreds-thousands of people who make colleges run who are at risk.
Going off the actual numbers from CDC. The risk for those under 50 years old is something like 3 in 10,000. For those under 65 it’s 8 in in 1000. In May states the average age of death is around 84.
Point being, risk can never be zero.
Sweden, much maligned saw less than 500 deaths (in a nation of 10 million) from people under the age of 70 and 60% of their deaths were over the age of 86 (almost entirely in nursing homes). Sounds like I’m not going to change your mind which is fine. More info is always better than less.
Best solution: protect the at risk (those over the age of 70 and/or those with multiple… Read more »
I’m just trying to support why these universities are making changes. Every university is putting plans in place for a reason. The risk is obviously great enough for these changes to be made. If they weren’t, universities would go full normal so that there was no risk to more money lost. This is a virus we still don’t have a safe amount of information on to make assumptions. Researchers are all coming to different sides and/or answers as well which shouldn’t be comforting for anyone with any fixed mindset.
Also, antibody reliability.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/cdc-says-antibody-test-results-wrong-half-the-time-2020-5%3famp
I’m wondering where you live. Many states have been open for over a month. Even those that are not officially open might as well be. Containment is over. Somewhere between 5 and 10 percent of the population has or had it. That colleges are still coming up with plans doesn’t mean much. That’s what they do. Most of them sit on the shelf and gather dust.
What people tend to overlook when discussing campuses (particularly elementary-through high, but also college) opening, is that they aren’t contained systems.
Yes, there is a low mortality rate for those kids. But they interact with people in the community and they interact with family. I live in a college town. My kids swims at the local university pool, and two of his school teammates swim at a different university pool in a nearby town. The kids on campus eat, shop, and interact and spread germs in our town. My kid is going onto campus to practice. He goes to his school. He interacts with kids who swim at a different university pool.
I am higher risk. My swimmer actually… Read more »
We’ve already blown it on containment, so we can let things gradually reopen as long as hospitals can keep up with the volume of new cases.
Why Auburn in the title, but nothing about them in the article?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/three-auburn-football-players-test-positive-for-covid-19-upon-return-to-campus-for-workouts/amp/
Headline of this article is very misleading
We have to accept there will be some positive tests.
Good news, according to the CDCs own statistics, it’s not as deadly as previously thought, particularly amongst the young and healthy.
I agree, but with each new phase, we are going to have students come to campus with the virus and then another set of students testing positive 7-10 days later. Based on this, I’m not sure having students return in phases is the right thing to do or not.
Why not? It’s a controlled environment.
And that doesn’t even discuss the parts that you just responded to about age/health of this subset
Then again, there’s just dead or not dead. Not sorta dead. Different than wet and dry. There’s no damp. The big factor for schools is liability. They’re not (yet) getting a break on potential liability that some states have given nursing homes and private corporations. They’re going to have to contact trace every positive kid coming in, isolate them, and test an entire dorm of contacts. There likely won’t be just “some” positive tests. Good news for Alabama though — they’re one of the 14 states who are now spiking in cases. Five of the states that are spiking are in the SEC.
Miracle Max disagrees (I couldn’t resist with sorta dead 🙂 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SamgviMdxes
Would also note that HISWIMCOACH’s favorite Sweden is not exactly thrilled about the outcome of their approach.
Look at the actual stats for a nation of 10 million:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107913/number-of-coronavirus-deaths-in-sweden-by-age-groups/
Now divide by a factor of 100 for UT (assuming we even have a second wave).