Limited seating, masks, temperature checks? What can SU football fans expect at the Carrier Dome this fall

[EnviroSciGuy]

We don’t have a huge crowd game on the schedule for 2020. And lots of the loyal core are gonna opt for TV this year for obvious reasons. 16k football 10k hoops is probably as much as they can sell especially considering 1/3 of those numbers will be forced to remain in nosebleeds.

I just hope no one who opts out loses priority.

I'm pretty confident that there will be an effective and available vaccine by the end of the year. I think the pent up energy of people on lockdown will result in an attendance spike once it's safe to attend games again, whether they are playing Colgate, UMBC, or an ACC foe.

 

[dollarbill44]

Lots of people are saying lots of stuff about UV lights. I’ve been working with them for 20 years in air conditioning systems. UV absolutely works. The issue is the exposure time. In an hvac, the air is moving at 400 to 500 ft per minute. As you might imagine at that velocity, the air has a much shorter exposure time than the 8 min or 25 mins quoted in the study. Therein lies the problem. Need lots of intensity because of the shorter duration time in an hvac system.

Separately there are about 50 companies all making claims to kill the virus with their technology. I’d be weary about most of the claims.

I would be wary too, if it was a company making the claims, but this was a scientific lab test at an Ivy league school. I get the feeling you didn't fully read my post. Im also not sure why you're limiting the application to hvac systems. According to the article, Far UVC (wavelengths below the 224 mm) can't penetrate human skin or eyes, so it's safe to use as a lamp in public occupied spaces.
I suggest reading the article about the test.

 

[orange_in_VA]

I'm pretty confident that there will be an effective and available vaccine by the end of the year. I think the pent up energy of people on lockdown will result in an attendance spike once it's safe to attend games again, whether they are playing Colgate, UMBC, or an ACC foe.

I'm pretty confident 40% of Americans won't even take the vaccine and another 20% won't be able to afford it if they wanted to.

 

[cusefan88]

The long-term problems associated with getting COVID are still unknown. Even for young people who recover/have no issue, we don't know if there will be health issues down the road.

There's just so much unknown.

 

[rocklloyd]

I would be wary too, if it was a company making the claims, but this was a scientific lab test at an Ivy league school. I get the feeling you didn't fully read my post. Im also not sure why you're limiting the application to hvac systems. According to the article, Far UVC (wavelengths below the 224 mm) can't penetrate human skin or eyes, so it's safe to use as a lamp in public occupied spaces.
I suggest reading the article about the test.

I read your post. The reason why I brought up Hvac systems is because putting them in a space with stagnant air makes no sense. You need to move the air to clean the air.

 

[EnviroSciGuy]

I'm pretty confident 40% of Americans won't even take the vaccine and another 20% won't be able to afford it if they wanted to.

I certainly hope we are not at that level of idiocracy. As for cost, that will not be an issue.

 

[upperdeck]

some of the vaccine being developed have a delivery mechanism that makes them really cheap. once you remove profit from the equation they are not that expensive..

we spent 3 trillion trying to fix the economy. they would have to cost almost 10K to be that expensive..

 

[upperdeck]

I think we have a vaccine by sept/oct in some form. Even a limited effectiveness one makes a big deal.. Imagine if it only works on 20-40 yr old people and you limit 80% of what is happening right now.

You have like 10 of these in phase 3 testing now.

 

[JRHEETER]

How is a vaccine effective though if the antibodies only last in our bodies for 2-3 months?

I think we need to look more for treatment rather than vaccine still.

 

[TexanMark]

some of the vaccine being developed have a delivery mechanism that makes them really cheap. once you remove profit from the equation they are not that expensive..

we spent 3 trillion trying to fix the economy. they would have to cost almost 10K to be that expensive..

Some reason this vaccine deployment method is getting pushback

 

[SuFTW]

I'm issued N95 and P100(oil proof). 95% and 99.7%. When not attached to droplets, the virus is .13 mm, the masks filter to .3 mm. Good for particles attached to moisture but nothing is 100%. Dont kid yourself that you are fully protected. All different levels, of better than nothing. The more folks wearing, the better.

Just to correct for the record, microns not millimeters.
Not sure if already posted but nice article from USAToday.

Fact check: No, N95 filters are not too large to stop COVID-19 particles

This attempt to discredit a central piece of protective gear used around the globe fails to account for several fundamental scientific principles.

www.usatoday.com

“The COVID-19 particle is indeed around 0.1 microns in size, but it is always bonded to something larger.

The virus attaches to water droplets or aerosols (i.e. really small droplets) that are generated by breathing, talking, coughing, etc. These consist of water, mucus protein and other biological material and are all larger than 1 micron.

“Breathing and talking generate particles around 1 micron in size, which will be collected by N95 respirator filters with very high efficiency,

The N95 filter indeed is physically around the 0.3 micron size. But that doesn’t mean it can only stop particles larger than that. The masks are actually best for particles either larger or smaller than that 0.3 micron threshold.“

 

[NineOneSeven]

So...CDC now says that for everyone positive test of COVID that has been diagnosed, there’s like 10 others that are unfounded. If this is actually true that would take that mortality rate to almost equal of the flu...without a treatment or a vaccine.

does this newest study hurt or help footballs chances in the fall?

What does that first sentence mean?

 

[kcsu]

You have to be careful making your conclusion based on what the cdc said about infections. The numerator of the equation, which is deaths, is thought by most experts to be low. Some think it is actually 20-50% higher and one study had it even higher.

post the study please.

 

[upperdeck]

So my question is that while we dont know exactly how many have died from the virus we do have a number on total deaths over the time frame and can compare that to the last few years. Has that number come out.

Even the nursing home deaths a subset of the people who died were probably also the same ones who were at risk already. even on our local one with a small number of people someone does every month just from age and other issues. the flu, pneumonia, etc. Of the 6000 who died you may have found that 10% of what ever number it is would have died normally over the same time period but from other causes they already had.

 

[NineOneSeven]

So my question is that while we dont know exactly how many have died from the virus we do have a number on total deaths over the time frame and can compare that to the last few years. Has that number come out.

Even the nursing home deaths a subset of the people who died were probably also the same ones who were at risk already. even on our local one with a small number of people someone does every month just from age and other issues. the flu, pneumonia, etc. Of the 6000 who died you may have found that 10% of what ever number it is would have died normally over the same time period but from other causes they already had.

More death has occurred over the last 6 months than “Normally” would.

 

[upperdeck]

I would expect that to be true. just wonder how many more.

 

[721Comstock]

So my question is that while we dont know exactly how many have died from the virus we do have a number on total deaths over the time frame and can compare that to the last few years. Has that number come out.

Even the nursing home deaths a subset of the people who died were probably also the same ones who were at risk already. even on our local one with a small number of people someone does every month just from age and other issues. the flu, pneumonia, etc. Of the 6000 who died you may have found that 10% of what ever number it is would have died normally over the same time period but from other causes they already had.

So, because some of those people "were going to die anyway", it's OK that they died sooner?

News flash - we are ALL going to die, eventually.

(related: we are all made of water. )

What's the "allowable" amount of weeks/months/years that its ok to cut somebody's life short by?

 

[dan7800]

News flash - we are ALL going to die, eventually.

Speak for yourself.

 

[upperdeck]

you assume that to be true as well.. i am talking big picture. you cant throw out huge numbers of people who died and say well they all died because of this. thats not true. 1% 5% 10% we dont know.. And yes most of the them died sooner, but again not all were gonna live 10 more years either.

We also cut down on thousands of deaths because of less traffic deaths and thats a huge number as well,

The only thing we know is that had we done better we could have cut the number of deaths even lower with better prep.

 

[DPCuse]

So, because some of those people "were going to die anyway", it's OK that they died sooner?

News flash - we are ALL going to die, eventually.

(related: we are all made of water. )

What's the "allowable" amount of weeks/months/years that its ok to cut somebody's life short by?

I think the point is, we don’t stop the country to prevent every contagious death. If we all quarantined, wore masks, closed businesses and socially distanced, we could stop virtually all flu deaths. Tens of thousands of people die every year from the flu in the US even with a vaccine so that number has apparently been deemed to be an acceptable level by someone. So what amount isn’t? 50K, 75K, 100K, 200K? Not sure...and who decides?

 

[RandomGuy]

Not according to the study. A dose of 222 mm at 2 millijoules/cm2 showed virus inactivity of 90% after 8 minutes and 99.9% after 25 minutes. They used a single 12 watt bulb at 22 cm from the tube containing the virus. Obviously, the Dome would likely require several bulbs at a higher wattage, but it might very well be feasible.
The study...
"suggests that it may be feasible and safe to have the lamps providing continuous low-dose far-UVC exposure in public places – potentially reducing the probability of person-to-person transmission of coronavirus as well as other seasonal viruses such as influenza. "
The Columbia University study results were released yesterday (6/24) on nature.com.

Interesting. Thanks for the info.

You'd think there would be places where this could be used as an additional safety measure. (Hospitals, Classrooms,etc. with 30 minute wait times between classes). Any deterrent is good news.

I wonder the wattage requirements at each distance, to be above 1.7millijoules/cm2. ? Anyone want to do the math?

Far-UVC light (222 nm) efficiently and safely inactivates airborne human coronaviruses - Scientific Reports

A direct approach to limit airborne viral transmissions is to inactivate them within a short time of their production. Germicidal ultraviolet light, typically at 254 nm, is effective in this context but, used directly, can be a health hazard to skin and eyes. By contrast, far-UVC light...

www.nature.com

 

[SUforme]

Way to go USA.

Here's how to stop the virus from winning

Case surges, overrun hospitals, and a second lockdown this summer could deal a heavy blow to the United States. Here's what we need to turn the tide.

www.nationalgeographic.com

 

[FRANKIEFAN]

Maybe the mortality rate is the same, but the transmission rate then must be much higher. I'm not implying anyone here is necessarily saying this, but for folks saying that we totally overreacted I will ask them when is the last time a hospital had to be built in Central Park in NYC with a lockdown for the flu?

Totally agree. And when NYC was getting hit no one knew what we were dealing with.

The sad part is the people who should be most relieved it’s not that bad are the ones doubling down on the fear.

 

[TexanMark]

you assume that to be true as well.. i am talking big picture. you cant throw out huge numbers of people who died and say well they all died because of this. thats not true. 1% 5% 10% we dont know.. And yes most of the them died sooner, but again not all were gonna live 10 more years either.

We also cut down on thousands of deaths because of less traffic deaths and thats a huge number as well,

The only thing we know is that had we done better we could have cut the number of deaths even lower with better prep.

The average life expectancy once you get into a SNF is about 18 months. Covid-19 cut short most of those lives by months versus years. However, still doesn't excuse the horrible nursing home policy by NY, NJ, MA, CA, MI, etc...

 

[upperdeck]

yeah policy was a bit short sited in a crisis but it didnt last very long either. Had we had the facilities to send them elsewhere sooner it never happens.