If just San Franciscans attended a game, a crowd of 9000 would have almost 20 positive people. That's with a conservative estimate about what our current testing indicates (the assumption is there are more positive cases than has actually been tested for). It's probably closer to 100 people.
I'm gonna diverge mDuo13's excellent calculation and follow go with another common measure, 28% false negatives. I actually think we should assume the 67% since presumably a sympotomatic person wouldn't go. But like mDuo13, I'll be optimistic.
That means, in fact there will likely be 22 positive cases every game.
Even assuming they all mask, how much is mask effectiveness diminished when screaming? BBC says shouting might produce 30 times more aerosols. So let's go with 20.
Now those 22 people are like 450 people.
Now let's say they drink beer 50% of the time, so are unmasked. And they scream at those times.
Now it's like there's 550 people.
Individuals produce thousands, possibly a hundred thousand virions per minute. The aerosols can stay airborne for 6 hours, easily expanding beyond 6' and accumulating throughout the game and beyond for the custodial staff.
Here's why I would not choose to go, at this point:
Today, there were over 9000 newly confirmed cases of covid-19 in the state of California. Estimates vary for how long a person is contagious with the disease, but if we make the reasonable assumption that cases are highly contagious for 5 days on average, there are probably on the order of 45,000 highly contagious covid cases in the state of 39 million residents right now. In other words, about 0.11% of the populace is highly contagious. (Obviously, since I'm using statewide numbers, the risks vary by region. Lakers fans are at higher risk than Warriors fans, for example.) More importantly, the risk will change as the virus becomes more or less widespread in the coming month and a half. (Probably more than less, but we can hope.)
If you select 9000 Californians at random, you'll get about 9 highly contagious people on average. The odds you'll get at least one are real close to 99.99.
The virus seems to be most contagious about one day before symptom onset, which is a bummer because standard PCR tests for covid-19 have a false negative rate of around 38% on the same day as symptom onset and, worse, as much 67%, before then. (They're better later into the illness.) But let's assume the GSW tests are much better and have a 10% false negative rate on people who are contagious.
That means you have about a 1 in 3 chance, every game, that a highly contagious person got admitted into the arena despite being tested.
Most likely, even when that does happen, the vast majority of the fans in attendance come out without the virus. But given what we've seen about transmission in indoor spaces vs. lax mask discipline, especially with things like singing and shouting, it would not be surprising if dozens of people came down with the virus. People who are drinking and have just been told they tested negative are not likely to be all that careful.
Now imagine concessions and aisle staff, who interact with these fans several nights a week. What are their chances of getting it and passing it on the next game?
Yeah, as long as the case rate is as bad as it is right now (or worse), I will not be going to any gatherings of thousands of people.
Risk assessment is a matter of 2 dimensions - probability and seriousness. In this case, how likely is it that attendees will contract or spread COVID, and what would be the impact of contracting/spreading it? By testing before attending a game (and, presumably, wearing masks at the game) the probability of contracting/spreading it is reduced. Progress has already been made at reducing mortality (see: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/10/20/925441975/studies-point-to-big-drop-in-covid-19-death-rates) and further understanding of the disease will reduce the seriousness for most people.
I believe this is part of what is driving the people who pooh-poohed mask wearing and social distancing (in North Dakota, for example). They didn't know anyone who had it, thought the probability of getting it was low, and even if they did get it, so what - they would be asymptomatic or get over it quickly! Of course, their hospitals are now full and people are dying.
On the other hand, the fact is that mortality is becoming less.
Lacob is absolutely correct in promoting this plan. But people responsible for our public health have a different calculus. Even if, for example, the city of San Francisco thought the probability of creating super-spreader events was low, the seriousness (x number of people dying or having long-term health problems) is high.
Science has a role to play in elucidating probability and seriousness, but it really falls to our leaders to make the decisions about whether the overall risk to the society is acceptable. In this, they must weigh the downside (risk) of being too cautious - for example, loss of a business that brings a lot of tax revenue to the City, loss of employment for many, etc.....
Would I go to a live game. Probably, but my wife would divorce me if I did, so probably not.
No way I would set foot in an arena until I have been vaccinated. Despite what Dr. George Rutherford says, a "close to perfect" plan doesn't mean it is a good plan. San Francisco has, to date, avoided the worst of the pandemic and it has done so almost entirely by keeping people away from each other. What I would suggest is that if it is such a great plan, the Warriors should pick up the liability for anybody that gets sick with COVID-19 within 2 weeks of attending a game.
It’s what the US needs. We need a way to live up to Gov Newsoms promise to be guided by science. Kudos to the Warriors for aggressively trying to come up with a way to have in person events again. This only works if we get that tech out everywhere eventually.
On a side note: what is the acceptable risk factor for a rushed vaccine? Are we good if we can get to a .05% death rate? If we give it to 200 million folks we’d actively kill off 100k from complications?
Hopefully the Warriors plan can be scaled and we can at least buy time. If it works, they truly would be living up to their light years talk.
Just read this and the ESPN article and I’m curious how they handle seating configurations. Say, as a season ticket holder, if you opt in, are you assured an empty seat on either side of your party? What about in front or behind? Seems like you’d have to move people around.
Oh, and if I still lived in the Bay Area, I’d probably decline an invite to attend a game live at this point. Had season ticket many years ago, but I’ve really come to enjoy games on TV with my Ipad close by to follow stats and occasionally check Twitter.
How are people supposed to get to Chase? There's little to no parking in the area, and public transit is not a great option for a lot of people right now.
They have already charged most of (all?) the season ticket holders. If there are no fans allowed they would have to refund that money (or apply it towards the tickets next season).
If the arena is open and there are games being held, they can tell the season ticket holders "see, there are games, you should go! Oh, you choose not to? Tough luck! We keep the money though."
I have no comorbidities and would attend a game tonight.
Quit watching/listening to the fear porn from the MSM and get on with your lives!
https://covid19risk.biosci.gatech.edu
If just San Franciscans attended a game, a crowd of 9000 would have almost 20 positive people. That's with a conservative estimate about what our current testing indicates (the assumption is there are more positive cases than has actually been tested for). It's probably closer to 100 people.
I'm gonna diverge mDuo13's excellent calculation and follow go with another common measure, 28% false negatives. I actually think we should assume the 67% since presumably a sympotomatic person wouldn't go. But like mDuo13, I'll be optimistic.
That means, in fact there will likely be 22 positive cases every game.
Even assuming they all mask, how much is mask effectiveness diminished when screaming? BBC says shouting might produce 30 times more aerosols. So let's go with 20.
Now those 22 people are like 450 people.
Now let's say they drink beer 50% of the time, so are unmasked. And they scream at those times.
Now it's like there's 550 people.
Individuals produce thousands, possibly a hundred thousand virions per minute. The aerosols can stay airborne for 6 hours, easily expanding beyond 6' and accumulating throughout the game and beyond for the custodial staff.
How about this plan: We all buy tickets that enable the Warriors to pay their players and staff to work as contact tracers?
Every ticket buyer is given a detailed sabrmetric summary of each staff and player's tracing data (just numbers) privacy maintained.
Here's why I would not choose to go, at this point:
Today, there were over 9000 newly confirmed cases of covid-19 in the state of California. Estimates vary for how long a person is contagious with the disease, but if we make the reasonable assumption that cases are highly contagious for 5 days on average, there are probably on the order of 45,000 highly contagious covid cases in the state of 39 million residents right now. In other words, about 0.11% of the populace is highly contagious. (Obviously, since I'm using statewide numbers, the risks vary by region. Lakers fans are at higher risk than Warriors fans, for example.) More importantly, the risk will change as the virus becomes more or less widespread in the coming month and a half. (Probably more than less, but we can hope.)
If you select 9000 Californians at random, you'll get about 9 highly contagious people on average. The odds you'll get at least one are real close to 99.99.
The virus seems to be most contagious about one day before symptom onset, which is a bummer because standard PCR tests for covid-19 have a false negative rate of around 38% on the same day as symptom onset and, worse, as much 67%, before then. (They're better later into the illness.) But let's assume the GSW tests are much better and have a 10% false negative rate on people who are contagious.
That means you have about a 1 in 3 chance, every game, that a highly contagious person got admitted into the arena despite being tested.
Most likely, even when that does happen, the vast majority of the fans in attendance come out without the virus. But given what we've seen about transmission in indoor spaces vs. lax mask discipline, especially with things like singing and shouting, it would not be surprising if dozens of people came down with the virus. People who are drinking and have just been told they tested negative are not likely to be all that careful.
Now imagine concessions and aisle staff, who interact with these fans several nights a week. What are their chances of getting it and passing it on the next game?
Yeah, as long as the case rate is as bad as it is right now (or worse), I will not be going to any gatherings of thousands of people.
Risk assessment is a matter of 2 dimensions - probability and seriousness. In this case, how likely is it that attendees will contract or spread COVID, and what would be the impact of contracting/spreading it? By testing before attending a game (and, presumably, wearing masks at the game) the probability of contracting/spreading it is reduced. Progress has already been made at reducing mortality (see: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/10/20/925441975/studies-point-to-big-drop-in-covid-19-death-rates) and further understanding of the disease will reduce the seriousness for most people.
I believe this is part of what is driving the people who pooh-poohed mask wearing and social distancing (in North Dakota, for example). They didn't know anyone who had it, thought the probability of getting it was low, and even if they did get it, so what - they would be asymptomatic or get over it quickly! Of course, their hospitals are now full and people are dying.
On the other hand, the fact is that mortality is becoming less.
Lacob is absolutely correct in promoting this plan. But people responsible for our public health have a different calculus. Even if, for example, the city of San Francisco thought the probability of creating super-spreader events was low, the seriousness (x number of people dying or having long-term health problems) is high.
Science has a role to play in elucidating probability and seriousness, but it really falls to our leaders to make the decisions about whether the overall risk to the society is acceptable. In this, they must weigh the downside (risk) of being too cautious - for example, loss of a business that brings a lot of tax revenue to the City, loss of employment for many, etc.....
Would I go to a live game. Probably, but my wife would divorce me if I did, so probably not.
No chance
No way I would set foot in an arena until I have been vaccinated. Despite what Dr. George Rutherford says, a "close to perfect" plan doesn't mean it is a good plan. San Francisco has, to date, avoided the worst of the pandemic and it has done so almost entirely by keeping people away from each other. What I would suggest is that if it is such a great plan, the Warriors should pick up the liability for anybody that gets sick with COVID-19 within 2 weeks of attending a game.
It’s what the US needs. We need a way to live up to Gov Newsoms promise to be guided by science. Kudos to the Warriors for aggressively trying to come up with a way to have in person events again. This only works if we get that tech out everywhere eventually.
On a side note: what is the acceptable risk factor for a rushed vaccine? Are we good if we can get to a .05% death rate? If we give it to 200 million folks we’d actively kill off 100k from complications?
Hopefully the Warriors plan can be scaled and we can at least buy time. If it works, they truly would be living up to their light years talk.
Just read this and the ESPN article and I’m curious how they handle seating configurations. Say, as a season ticket holder, if you opt in, are you assured an empty seat on either side of your party? What about in front or behind? Seems like you’d have to move people around.
Oh, and if I still lived in the Bay Area, I’d probably decline an invite to attend a game live at this point. Had season ticket many years ago, but I’ve really come to enjoy games on TV with my Ipad close by to follow stats and occasionally check Twitter.
LOVE. THAT. IMAGE.
How are people supposed to get to Chase? There's little to no parking in the area, and public transit is not a great option for a lot of people right now.
I'm NOT surprised they want to do this.
They have already charged most of (all?) the season ticket holders. If there are no fans allowed they would have to refund that money (or apply it towards the tickets next season).
If the arena is open and there are games being held, they can tell the season ticket holders "see, there are games, you should go! Oh, you choose not to? Tough luck! We keep the money though."