Official *MLB Season Delayed* Thread

[madducks]

Not sure if serious.

I read that as sarcasm. But then again, i'm fluent in sarcasm.

[TranaGreg]

ZERO chance of that happening, alas

didn't say which year ...

[revo]

I read this morning that even when the outbreak subsides in the US, that doesn't mean it's over. People won't be immune to it after they get it and recover, like the chicken pox. Even after it subsides, gatherings of 50+ people may still be recommended to not happen for another long-term period, as the virus could simply have a re-outbreak. That means large gatherings will not be possible until there is a vaccine, which according to most reports is at least 14 months away from being made widely available.

That makes it likely all major sports will have to play in empty stadiums or arenas, if they're played at all. There's obviously more than 50 people in an organized game with two teams, so it just may not be possible to play under safe CDC recommendations.

If the four major sports decide to throw in the towel for this year, which IMO stands a good chance of happening, then what about the TV contracts? Surely the networks won't pay billions of dollars to a sports league for the rights to air games that won't happen. What happens then? There's only so much advertising to air during the 1,000th consecutive showing of "The Sandlot." Who knows if there are pandemic clauses in the TV contracts, but assuming they make some deal with the leagues to either get a partial refund or they just broadcast a future season at a cut rate, then you might see some lower-tier franchises just close up shop (I'm looking at you Rays & Pirates!)

[Judge Jude]

"People won't be immune to it after they get it and recover, like the chicken pox."

I haven't come across any expert who either has concluded that - or the opposite, frankly. would be interested in who is claiming that.

[TranaGreg]

"People won't be immune to it after they get it and recover, like the chicken pox."

I haven't come across any expert who either has concluded that - or the opposite, frankly. would be interested in who is claiming that.

Yeah, I recently read that this is still an open question ...

[Ken]

I read a couple days ago about someone who has had it twice.

Also there are multiple strands already right?

[chancellor]

If the four major sports decide to throw in the towel for this year, which IMO stands a good chance of happening, then what about the TV contracts? Surely the networks won't pay billions of dollars to a sports league for the rights to air games that won't happen. There's only so much advertising to air during the 1,000th consecutive showing of "The Sandlot." What happens then? Who knows if there are pandemic clauses in the TV contracts, but assuming they make some deal with the leagues to either get a partial refund or just airing another season at a cut rate, then you might see some lower-tier franchises just close up shop (I'm looking at you Rays & Pirates!)

It’ll be very interesting to figure out what’ll happen if MLB or the networks pull out. This is clearly a Force Majeure event; but what the remedies are I have no idea.

As for playing in front of empty stands, that clearly gives an advantage to the Rays among good teams. They have to do that most of the time at home anyway.

[revo]

"People won't be immune to it after they get it and recover, like the chicken pox."

I haven't come across any expert who either has concluded that - or the opposite, frankly. would be interested in who is claiming that.

The UK is already backtracking on their "herd immunization" strategy as they just (finally!) closed schools.

Here's one article that discusses if you can get re-infected:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2020/03/15/can-you-get-infected-by-coronavirus-twice-how-does-covid-19-immunity-work/#234266445c0f

And the report just released by London's Imperial College suggests suppression is always needed until the vaccine is proven to work effectively.

Whether you can get it twice or not is not really the point, even if I did say that. It's more that suppression of crowds will continue to be necessary to stem the outbreak from flaring up again after it initially subsides. And what is a "crowd?" Well, that's 10 or 50 or 250 or 500, depending on who you want to believe. But if we get through this and stupidly have it spread again because sports teams and their hangers-on travel all over the place and re-infect the population, there will be hell to pay.

It seems erring on the side of caution means cancelling all major sporting activities, since there will be 50+ people even without fans in attendance, for the remainder of this year -- and pray you don't have to do it again next year.

[Judge Jude]

it seems that the majority of the population is going to get it anyway (even if we don't notice it).

but unlike the flu, this one tends to infect at a massive rate - hence overwhelming hospitals and accelerating the death toll.

even if we took the rest of the year off, I think that's just delaying the inevitable. if I understand correctly, you isolate until the rate of hospitalizations subsides. then eventually, enough people have gotten it so that the inevitable number of serious new cases is manageable.

that's as with the flu, where thousands die each year - many no doubt impacted by getting it from somebody who went to a ballgame or concert and passed it on - but we don't isolate because of it. whether we can have sporting events with crowds in the summer or fall depends on hospital capacities as much as anything. and that's an unknown, so far.

nobody is going to be willing to destroy the economy for years just because they want to make sure great-grandma won't get this bug. great-grandma's gonna die of something anyway. we all will.

there is a balance that the society is going to have to figure out.

[Steve 2.0]

great-grandma's gonna die of something anyway. we all will.

.

Spoiler Alert, JJ!

[Kevin Seitzer]

it seems that the majority of the population is going to get it anyway (even if we don't notice it).

but unlike the flu, this one tends to infect at a massive rate - hence overwhelming hospitals and accelerating the death toll.

even if we took the rest of the year off, I think that's just delaying the inevitable. if I understand correctly, you isolate until the rate of hospitalizations subsides. then eventually, enough people have gotten it so that the inevitable number of serious new cases is manageable.

that's as with the flu, where thousands die each year - many no doubt impacted by getting it from somebody who went to a ballgame or concert and passed it on - but we don't isolate because of it. whether we can have sporting events with crowds in the summer or fall depends on hospital capacities as much as anything. and that's an unknown, so far.

nobody is going to be willing to destroy the economy for years just because they want to make sure great-grandma won't get this bug. great-grandma's gonna die of something anyway. we all will.

there is a balance that the society is going to have to figure out.

I definitely agree with a lot of what you wrote, but one wrinkle with this virus is that there's a 15% chance of great grandma (or my mother, in this case, who is 86 and has heart issues) dying from coronavirus, whereas her chances if she gets the flu are more like 1-2%. I think it's a really hard decision to basically consign a large swath of the elderly to death even if the economics say that's the right choice for the overall good.

[GwynnInTheHall]

I can't believe that this is an actual conversation.

[Judge Jude]

oh, it's brutal.

I saw an Italian doctor on TV yesterday who flatly said, "If you're 80 or older, you don't get a hospital bed. We save it for the 45-year-old."

he was depressed as he said it - but he said it. that's what we're trying to avoid if possible.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Having to choose who to treat in the moment is triage, what you're talking about is what's more cost effective.

[Sour Masher]

Having to choose who to treat in the moment is triage, what you're talking about is what's more cost effective.

True, but I think JJ will likely be right about this. I think most folks are on board now, but once this round is over, maybe in 8 weeks, and things flare up again, I think there is gonna be backlash for many places on doing this again. These "cost analysis" conversations are gonna happen at the highest levels, but also at the family and individual level as well. At a certain point, those two groups will converge and everyone will look at where we are and may come to a different decision than what we are doing now.