Balta1701

That....was worse.

That....was not a particularly good pitch.

The positivity rate is a terrible way to look at this when you're testing 1000 people every 2 days. You shouldn't have a lot of positives testing the same people over and over, and you're not specifically targeting people who are symptomatic. There's literally no calibration out there for whether that's good or bad.

I'm extra glad they included the Phillies. Even if someone there caught it from the Marlins, they wouldn't show any positive tests yet. Having the Phillies negative and all the Marlins sick definitely implicates either the travel or the clubhouse as probable infection points.

1. Yes, a player could theoretically opt in, but after today...? 2. The only way the White Sox could do something like that would be to offer him a new contract for future years, but if it was implied it was contingent on him playing this year they'd almost certainly face a grievance and lose it.

It varies from person to person hugely, but here's the list from the CDC (emphasis mine): https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/symptoms.html

If this season isn't going to matter...Dylan Cease is out there pitching today.

Another team to show a large outbreak.

The rules were basically designed to avoid this. MLB was willing to accept single cases, maybe even spreading it to 1 or 2 people on a team. They were very clear that they couldn't develop protocols for what to do if it began knocking out whole teams - the basic plan was to take advantage of the social distancing built into the game and design protocols to prevent spreading in other team settings. Having outbreaks associated with teams was the #1 thing they wanted to avoid. So, unless they're going to do quite a bit more to prevent them, an outbreak after the first games tells you that this isn't going to be an isolated incident.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/athletics/article/Protocols-overlooked-during-A-s-on-field-15433958.php It is actually against the rules and the press in the area noted.

With the Braves catchers having gotten it...I think masks should be on in the playing field as well. At least on the infield, while hitting, and for all the umpires.

If it's only "a bit", then this still won't work. They need "a lot".

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6930e1.htm

There was a little discussion of this concept back in May but basically the whole league said they didn't want to have to isolate from their families for 4+ months. The NBA and NHL are getting away with it because they have nearly completed seasons already.

I think we already know there was in-game spread. The Marlins played the Braves in their exhibition games last week, the Braves catchers went down with symptoms and now all the Marlins are down. Wonder which team had it first. The fish could have picked it up from the Braves' catcher.

FWIW, the owners right now have to consider whether they want to continue paying full game checks if they are no longer convinced they can get playoff revenue.

You're not understanding what i said, I did not say you needed to have it stopped. You're not going to keep it out of any sport without a bubble, but the question was - does it expand within the sport itself. The answer today is "Yes". If people were getting it, but it wasn't being spread amongst the teams, then it was at least under control. Spreading amongst the players during game activities means MLB has lost control of it.

No it isn't. You draw the line at your ability to control it. If the virus is expanding out of control, then you are on the wrong side of that line. That's literally how MLB wrote their safety procedure document - trying to keep the virus from being out of control even though it was guaranteed to be present.

Both now recommend them and say there is evidence that mask wearing slows down transmission rates. https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent

1. Any player has the full legal right to refuse to have this condition identified as the reason they're out, because it's not an injury suffered as part of the game. That's been the league's interpretation of HIPAA law - the league can't say they have it without the player's permission. 2. Moncada played 2 games after a short spring, and even for the asymptomatic individuals the virus can take a toll on the body, so extra rest was totally appropriate.

So more test results still coming later today, and could be even more people just from the Fish?

Their countries got it under control far more than us, so they were going to have fewer cases coming in. Furthermore, they did have issues. For example, one team from Bundesliga was quarantined entirely for 2 weeks.

There's virtually zero way to prove, to the level of fining someone, where an infected individual got it.

When it Regularly takes 4-5 days for a person to test positive after an exposure, a 2-3 day shutdown deals with transmission from last week’s exhibition games but not from games over the weekend.

6 feet is also not some magic number. It’s based on work done in the 1930s before there was even knowledge of aerosolized virus particles. It’s convenient because it’s the size of a person and an easy standard to hold to and it converts easily to metric, so it’s often good enough, but there’s no antiviral brick wall at 6 feet around you.