How to Play Softball During a Pandemic

[clemenslee1]

The CDC guidelines are likely based upon being able to control outbreaks should they occur e.g. they are basing safe on when social distancing is no longer necessary which in turn is based upon being able to control potential outbreaks.

Edit: I am hoping this discussion of personal risk is relevant to the board since it relates to how one decides when our kids can play again..

I was just thinking that, I don't want to have another thread shut down. I just personally believe these conversations are important for everyone in the sport to make decisions about returning to play ball. No matter whether you are coach, player, parent, director etc.

 

[Gtrips07]

There is plenty the CDC has dropped the ball on ... [lengthy section on politics redacted] ... but you are showing a lack of understanding on how “modeling” works.

When you write a line-up, you are most likely using modeling. How often do you get it 100% right?

Different type of modeling; I use risk modeling every day.

Mathematical models should be able to model data both historical dats and predict future, the current models can do neither. First the shutdown was to prevent an overload of the hospital and care system. Now it is because of the potential second wage.

Also the model assumes one size fits all, which isn't the case. What should happen in New York City doesn't necessarily need to happen in Laramie Wyoming.


And if the models were correct Sweden's healthcare system would have been overwhelmed a long time ago.







Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[_MIA_]

Also the model assumes one size fits all, which isn't the case. What should happen in New York City doesn't necessarily need to happen in Laramie Wyoming.

Not sure what differences you are talking about but there are parameters which take into account differences between regions, including population density and even some social effects (not sure exactly how these are done). One of the issues with the initial calculations was they underestimated how well the country would do with social distancing. The uncertainty involved in the model parameters (including giving accurate statistical representation for the uncertain parameters) along with the nature of the resulting solutions (logistic curves) is the biggest issue with getting the models to be accurate.

Now if what you say about not being able to match historical data is true, and I haven't seen that, that is a bigger issue. One problem could be the equations they are using to develop the resulting curves are likely to be based upon the viral dynamics of the flu.

Edit: This probably is not softball relevant so sorry..cannot help myself

 

[softball dad 6]

Just for fun, let us do some back of the envelope math here to quantify the probability that at least one person will be infected with COVID at a softball tournament. Let us just pick my state, OK to do the calculations e.g. we are just assuming everyone at the tournament is from Oklahoma and differences between different counties within the state are ignored.

As of today there are 3618 reported cases in OK and the population of the state is 3.957 million. So the ratio of infected is 3618/3957000=0.000914 hence the ratio of uninfected is 1.0-0.000914=0.9991. To determine the probability that at least one person in a tournament with 500 people attending is infected you raise 0.9991 to the power 500 which gives 0.6329. Subtracting this number from 1 gives 0.3671 e.g there is a 36.71 % chance that a person attending the tournament is infected. If instead that tournament has 250 attendees that number goes to 20.44 % while if that number is 1000 that number goes up to 60%.

Now if you attend 3 such tournaments with 500 people the expected likelihood that at least 1 infected person will attend one of those tournaments is then (1.0-0.6329^3)=0.7465, e.g. about 75%.

Pattar,

Your calculations assume that all the people that have tested positive for COVID 19 will be shedding virus and pose a risk to infect others on the same day (the day of the tournament). If you use this model the odds of getting infected will continually get worse over time as more positive cases in OK are reported. Based on my reading you are most likely to pose a risk to spread the disease for 14 days after you are infected. I believe this is the basis for the 2 week snapshots as that gives you an idea of how many infectious people are in the populations at a given time. Of course the biggest wild card is the number of infected people that are not tested and do not know it. The bigger this number is the better off we are. It would mean the disease is not as contagious as previously thought. I know this seems backwards but the more people that have the disease the more exposure so the lower the r value. The hospitalization and case fatality rates would also decrease since the denominator would change. Most importantly it would mean we are closer to achieving herd immunity.
I think it is important for everyone to make decisions that are best for them and their families. This disease has affected a lot of people. I hope we are able to get back on the softball fields at some point this summer with a reasonable degree of safety.

 

[_MIA_]

Pattar,

Your calculations assume that all the people that have tested positive for COVID 19 will be shedding virus and pose a risk to infect others on the same day (the day of the tournament). If you use this model the odds of getting infected will continually get worse over time as more positive cases in OK are reported. Based on my reading you are most likely to pose a risk to spread the disease for 14 days after you are infected. I believe this is the basis for the 2 week snapshots as that gives you an idea of how many infectious people are in the populations at a given time. Of course the biggest wild card is the number of infected people that are not tested and do not know it. The bigger this number is the better off we are. It would mean the disease is not as contagious as previously thought. I know this seems backwards but the more people that have the disease the more exposure so the lower the r value. The hospitalization and case fatality rates would also decrease since the denominator would change. Most importantly it would mean we are closer to achieving herd immunity.
I think it is important for everyone to make decisions that are best for them and their families. This disease has affected a lot of people. I hope we are able to get back on the softball fields at some point this summer with a reasonable degree of safety.

Again I wasn't giving odds of getting infected..only the odds that somebody infected will be at a tournament you attend. What you talk about above is all true but relates to the risk of getting infected which is obviously the important number (and unfortunately much more difficult, if not impossible, to calculate) and which does (positively) correlate with the numbers I gave but also takes into account other things (included what you mentioned).

 

[BlaineAB]

From CIDRAP. Getting back to normal softball could be a challenge.

 

[_MIA_]

View attachment 17363

From CIDRAP. Getting back to normal softball could be a challenge.

As an exercise, lets just say we find out before a second wave hits that the hospitalization and mortality rates for TB age girls is similar to the flu. If you only take a self-centered view of things (not saying you should..just an exercise remember ) , or your situation is such that you and your family rarely if ever come in contact with high risk individuals, would that change your view on when it is reasonable to go back playing?

 

[texasheat]

As of today there are 3618 reported cases in OK and the population of the state is 3.957 million. So the ratio of infected is 3618/3957000=0.000914

Right off the bat your numbers are no bueno because you are taking the total number of cases and applying that to how many are infected but a lot of those 3618 reported cases are already over it so they are not presently infected and therefore no longer contagious. You would have to use the total number of people currently infected and as a result, contagious, in order to come up with an accurate number.

 

[_MIA_]

Right off the bat your numbers are no bueno because you are taking the total number of cases and applying that to how many are infected but a lot of those 3618 reported cases are already over it so they are not presently infected and therefore no longer contagious. You would have to use the total number of people currently infected and as a result, contagious, in order to come up with an accurate number.

Good point..active cases is 1157. So the probability in OK for 500 people would be 13.6 %

 

[JayW]

That number is no good either because the reported cases are presumably in quarantine. The ones to worry about are asymptomatic unreported cases or even symptomatic unreported cases.