Interestingly, those players testing positive will be out for 21 days a long time.
You knew they weren’t going to let a National Champion be crowned without a say in the matter.
From everything I’ve read, this change in course was driven by new information from the medical advisors, including the availability of rapid testing that permits the daily checks.
We’ll see if it works. Certainly they’ll benefit from watching what has already happened in college football and what will happen over the next month in the SEC and other leagues.
That’s going to be interesting. Big Ten starts an 8-game schedule on October 23-24. They’d better build in some wiggle room for postponements. The 10th Saturday from October 24 is Christmas Day. Leave one week for postponements, play a conference championship on Christmas Eve then go into the playoffs? Play the conference championship on New Year’s Day?
Edit: The BT Championship game is scheduled Dec. 19, according to SI.com. That leaves zero wiggle room.
From the Big Ten release, here is the protocol that will halt games. It seems to me that 5% and 7.5% are fairly small numbers and could lead to the cancellation of games.
Hmm. I’m not sure what they’re defining as team and population, but let’s say team is the players. Scholarship plus walkons are around 100 at a lot of schools. Six positive tests would be >5%. Is population referring to players plus staff, or the entire student body, or what?
I went to the Big Ten website and read the entire release. Still not clear how they are defining those terms.
Pac-12 will wait for the fires to be put out?
No, they are going to wait until some more power plants are built using windmills or solar-generated plants are completed so they will have enough electricity to play at night. It looks like they may be able to play in 2030.
Glad they are playing, as another step toward fall as we knew it. The cynic in me wants to know what about the heart issues that their medical advisors were so concerned with earlier?
There was an article published in JAMA, a German study, reporting a 78% incidence of myocarditis, in healthy folks who had recovered from Covid. This was quoted by some Big 10 folks at the time.
The article has roundly been criticized, in short it is mathematically impossible and appears to be a complete fraud. As in made up data. JAMA has not retracted the article as far as I know, but they should.
Also the Penn State team doc came out a few weeks ago, claiming some large % of their players with myocarditis. within 24 hours he recanted, since it wasn’t true.
Very painful for me to watch the medical community behave like this.
Thanks for the information, it just seems that possibly the Big Ten adopted a rationale to fit their needs until it did not fit anymore and the conference that prides itself on its’ great research universities might have accepted inferior research.
A healthy friend in his 40s & without pre-existing conditions had Covid in May that caused symptoms of Myocarditis - including weakened the heart wall such that he had a torn Mitral heart valve. The doctors performed emergency open heart surgery to repair the valve & save his life.
We can call this fraud, but according to my friend’s doctors they are experiencing many COVID cases that are evolving into serious if not fatal heart damage.
I did not say that viral myocarditis is fraud. I’ve been treating it for over 20 years now. But most folks had never heard of it until the covid pandemic. Viruses have been the presumed most common cause of myocarditis since the 90’s at least. usually coxsackie and rhino and the usual URI-causing viruses.
no one is claiming that covid doesn’t cause myocarditis. But it does appear that there are people in the medical community who are anxious to overemphasize the rate of covid-induced myocarditis. And it is clear that they have been caught. repeatedly.
Also, I have no idea what happened to your friend, but viral myocarditis is not a valve disease, is not treated by open heart surgery. so you’ve got your story mixed up in some way.
Since the original vote, the Big Ten schools have obtained access to cardiac MRI screening which was a major factor in the change of mind,
Never said myocarditis is a valve disease. It is an inflammation of the heart wall caused by a virus. The myocarditis caused strain on his heart such that there was a tear of the Mitral heart valve that required immediate surgery. In this case COVID was found to be the culprit.
Not sure if I understand your response, if we are to believe the decision was based on legitimate information and studies that identified what they suggested, seemingly it would still be valid, short of some mitigating steps or factors. Are there such steps or factors otherwise my simple mind might conclude that the decision was either a incorrect assumption based on faulty facts or maybe not based on fact?
The MRI screening is a mitigating factor, allowing them to check for damage. Myocarditis very much remains a possibility.
Not meaning to make this a protracted discussion, are you saying that MRI screening became available between the times these two decisions were made or that they acknowledged this procedure in making the decision to play, yet did not acknowledge or accept the procedure back when the season was put on hold?
I have no idea how deep you want to go into this stuff, but this is a very brief discussion of cardiac MRI, covid myocarditis and Big 10 decisions.