100% of the MLB population is being tested. Much less so in the general population, obviously.Is it me and my perception that the number of professional athletes contracting the virus is greater than that of the general population? Probably not a fair and quantifiable question/answer is it?
So if we look at the population that has been tested, how do they compare? Is MLB releasing that info?100% of the MLB population is being tested. Much less so in the general population, obviously.
Seems that way to me. It looks like the positive test rate among players is 5-10% (2 to 4 per 40 man roster). There's no way 5-10% of the people in the country have a current infection. The simplest explanation is that a lot of players live in Florida, Texas, and Arizona, where the numbers are way higher than the country as a whole.Is it me and my perception that the number of professional athletes contracting the virus is greater than that of the general population? Probably not a fair and quantifiable question/answer is it?
It was 1.2% of all tests.Seems that way to me. It looks like the positive test rate among players is 5-10% (2 to 4 per 40 man roster). There's no way 5-10% of the people in the country have a current infection. The simplest explanation is that a lot of players live in Florida, Texas, and Arizona, where the numbers are way higher than the country as a whole.
This was the initial reporting but it seems like many more have been reported since then, and that first reporting didn't include all of the teams.
Good thing we got rid of Price. oh wait . .Left handed pitchers appear to be an at-risk demographic
This.This was the initial reporting but it seems like many more have been reported since then, and that first reporting didn't include all of the teams.
My bad: I thought the initial test run was complete, and the we were just learning more about who was in that positive crowd.This.
As we get more reports, the number goes up. That "38" figure was immediately suspect as I believe there were reports well into the high 20s of specific numbers on specific teams, and that was only on limited teams
There was no way to know otherwise unless you were counting reportsMy bad: I thought the initial test run was complete, and the we were just learning more about who was in that positive crowd.
So 60 something is 2.4% if 31 was 1.2.Eno Sarris says the current number is in the 60s somewhere:
View: https://twitter.com/enosarris/status/1280622669759569920?s=21
Not sure where 1.2% came from in the original numbers, but 60 player rosters, 30 teams is 1800 players, 60 out of that is 3.3%.So 60 something is 2.4% if 31 was 1.2.
Don't forget a lot of these MLB players have no symptoms, so I think maybe what we can take from this is that there are decidedly more people infected in the main population than know it (but we already knew that, we just don't have numbers for it).The positive rate in Massachusetts (only testing people with symptoms or who have been in contact with a confirmed COVID case) is like only 1.8%.
So, I am surprised the MLB number is as high as it is. You'd think that this group of people, with resources at their disposal in the top 1% of everyone in the country, would have a lower rate of infection.
I don't know the answer, but my guess if you took out people in group living situations, healthcare workers, and essential workers who have no choice but to go to work the positive rate would be much, much lower than 1.8%.
There is actually a lot of data about this. There have been studies in Germany, New York, Geneva and Boston as well as data from the CDC. In short, multiple cases by about 10.Don't forget a lot of these MLB players have no symptoms, so I think maybe what we can take from this is that there are decidedly more people infected in the main population than know it (but we already knew that, we just don't have numbers for it).
They expect 5% to test positive for CV-19 or positive for antibodies?At my office, where we are about to test several hundred people, we've been told to expect 5ish% positive tests. This is by state health officials. So none of this sounds out of the norm.
You’re missing team staff coaches trainers etc who got testedNot sure where 1.2% came from in the original numbers, but 60 player rosters, 30 teams is 1800 players, 60 out of that is 3.3%.
concurYeah, so I said this back to my fantasy league back in March, and I'll say it again:
There will be no baseball in 2020.
Or, as someone else here (?) put it: over/under on games played this year: 0.5.
I'm taking the under.
How about 1.75 million?I hope we never reach the 2-4 million deaths they predicted.
I mostly agree but even though the NJ/NY/MA outbreak was worse than the European cities, it is now contained. It’s been the American reopening that has failed.Two big caveats before this post: not a doctor and certainly not a professional athlete.That being said, I currently live in Spain where professional sport has returned and so far rather successfully in terms of players not getting infected, staying healthy, etc.
Spain's first major outbreak occurred in Madrid and Barcelona in the second week of March, as many of you know. About one week later New York City and Seattle saw similar outbreaks.
Lastly, referring back to one of my caveats, it just seems like there is just too much of the virus around in the States. Questions as to how professional athletes can be infected despite all the care and measures taken to keep them safe proves just how virulent Covid is. The US spent 4 months pretending the virus would stay where it was, and now it hasn't. And it will continue not to.
Anyway, it's sad, and I do hope things improve such that we can enjoy baseball again soon. I miss it, despite it always starting at 2am for me. In the meantime, if you pick a Spanish soccer team, pick Atletico, not Real.
We must have different facts. In America it is almost 132,000. Worldwide 545,000.How about 1.75 million?
You think we're done?We must have different facts. In America it is almost 132,000. Worldwide 545,000.
I said, How about 1.75 million? as you had established you didn't want 2-4 million. You have shown that you are against multiple millions of deaths, I was trying to determine what level you were comfortable wtihI hope we never reach the 2-4 million deaths they predicted.
And then you posted this ^^ which has nothing to do with my questionWe must have different facts. In America it is almost 132,000. Worldwide 545,000.
618,223I said, How about 1.75 million? as you had established you didn't want 2-4 million. You have shown that you are against multiple millions of deaths, I was trying to determine what level you were comfortable wtih
Now THAT'S the kind of specificity we look for on analytical boards like this618,223
Yup I see how you took what I meant. My point was they keep changing everything about the pandemic. It`s not near what they have predicted but still could go crazy. First mask were bad, now they are good. The mask statement is wrong, Sorry. Hydroxychloroquine was bad, now it`s good. Pandemics are harder to predict than the weather. The positive tests are up but the death rate is going down. If they had been able to test from the start we would have a higher rate back at the beginning.You said:
I said, How about 1.75 million? as you had established you didn't want 2-4 million. You have shown that you are against multiple millions of deaths, I was trying to determine what level you were comfortable wtih
And then you posted this ^^ which has nothing to do with my question
This really isn't the forum for this, but the pandemic was not that is hard to predict. Much of the rest of the world was able to get things more or less under control. Something was/is distinctly different in the US, and it sure as hell wasn't an unpredictable virus.Yup I see how you took what I meant. My point was they keep changing everything about the pandemic. It`s not near what they have predicted but still could go crazy. First mask were bad, now they are good. Hydroxychloroquine was bad, now it`s good. Pandemics are harder to predict than the weather. The positive tests are up but the death rate is going down. If they had been able to test from the start we would have a higher rate back at the beginning.
https://www.tampabay.com/news/health/2020/07/07/teen-attended-gathering-given-unproven-drugs-before-covid-19-death-reports-say/Yup I see how you took what I meant. My point was they keep changing everything about the pandemic. It`s not near what they have predicted but still could go crazy. First mask were bad, now they are good. Hydroxychloroquine was bad, now it`s good. Pandemics are harder to predict than the weather. The positive tests are up but the death rate is going down. If they had been able to test from the start we would have a higher rate back at the beginning.
...First mask were bad, now they are good. Hydroxychloroquine was bad, now it`s good.
I looked it up it was mainly because of the shortage for medical professionals. So it wasn`t bad....
I know that the second point has been quoted a couple of times, but when were masks ever considered bad?
This really is the heart of the problem. Some media is saying what you are, and it could be true. Others are saying early on hospital were getting $10,000 in reimbursements from medicare to put covid. I believed this because all of a sudden no one was dying of things such as pneumonia or influenza.And the death rate is down in large part because those states are marking ‘other’ as cause of death instead of Covid if at all possible.
This is were I educated myself a little.https://www.tampabay.com/news/health/2020/07/07/teen-attended-gathering-given-unproven-drugs-before-covid-19-death-reports-say/
Maybe educate yourself a little better on this subject? Maybe you were being tongue in cheek?