Balta1701

For reference...yes, I'm rather scared. At this point, I believe we have good information about how it is spread and how it isn't, how deadly it is overall, and how it attacks the body in most cases. We do not understand all of the effects, particularly long-term, on people, nor do we have any reliable treatments other than the breathing/ventilation techniques that have been tried so far.

I think it says a fair amount that the players want a penalty-free opt out for anyone who wants to take it.

Jesus christ. This is a closed expressway, by order of the city, so the truck shouldn't have even been on there. A bunch of people saying there's at least a confederate flag somewhere on the truck.

And every opponent for those players, and every opponent for those players. And then you have to test them again, because sometimes they have gotten it but it hasn't built up enough in their system yet to trigger a positive test. This is why some leagues want to test everyone every single day, but to do that for MLB requires something like a $100 million testing program with testing sites at every ballpark. MLB's original proposal was to do all the players every 3 days and all the grounds crews less often, shipping their test kits to a facility in Arizona so results might not be back for 24 hours. If you have very low incidence in the country where the odds of a player getting it are low that might even work, but as widespread as it is in this country, it's easy to see how one player could get it and it could spread rapidly through several teams before you realize what has happened, even if you're testing every 3 days.

They're not going to bring the full AAA squads into spring training, so those players won't necessarily be ready to go will they? Are they running training camps with the full 150 people or are they just doing the big league roster with a few extra people?

By the way, regarding starting Spring Training in Arizona...major spike in cases there happening right now. https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2020/05/29/covid19-in-arizona-may-29/

And as long as they spend the next 5 years isolated, not playing baseball, and in quarantine, I fully believe that low death rate will continue because the low infection rate will remain.

How many american men have actually had the disease? Which of these is closer, 100% or 1%?

So you either believe that every single male 25-34 in this country has had the disease or you don't understand the concept of "a 3 hour baseball game being a place where rapid spreading among a bunch of people could be very likely".

Where the heck are you getting 1 out of 75000? Are you literally counting the entire 25-34 year old population of the US and assuming they have all been infected? There are currently 542 deaths in that age range. If the death rate for that age range was 1 out of 75000, then there would have to have been 40,650,000 cases in that age range to produce 542 deaths. If the death rate was 0.1%, then there would have had to be 540,000 cases in that age range in this country, and statistically, with 900 players, you'd have a reasonable shot at someone dying in baseball if everyone got it.

I believe yesterday was the first day that Texas passed you in cases. Congrats to both states on achieving their goals!

Even if they all survive, Blake Snell's point was that a substantially higher, unknown number survive but experience severe, career-threatening complications. A guy isn't playing baseball in the next few years if his lungs are permanently damaged, or he winds up with kidney disease. Maybe that's a risk you take in some situations, but for a 75% paycut, or a guy who is 1 year away from free agency...there's at least going to be some people who hesitate.

I agree with you, ownership should pay all of those people.

The poorest owner has what, 10x those funds available?

One more for you, same journal. More at link if anyone is interested. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/why-do-some-covid-19-patients-infect-many-others-whereas-most-don-t-spread-virus-all

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/05/27/science.abc6197 Science magazine article (pretty readable) on masking:

So at least for the Angels, since 50% of the team is 1 player...

You are correct...0 will go in either case this year. Will they turn on the TV for them is a more important question. If you're a Trailblazers fan and Lillard says "I'm not playing", is that worth watching on TV? (https://sports.yahoo.com/damian-lillard-doesnt-plan-to-participate-in-resumed-nba-season-if-blazers-dont-have-true-opportunity-to-make-playoffs-144736029.html)

How good is baseball this year if Trout, Cole, Springer, Betts, Bryant, Snell, Lindor, and other guys who either are taking huge paycuts or who are free agents-to-be all sit out the year? The minority that is the most affected by the pay cuts or at the largest risk for career damage might not be able to win a vote, but they can completely destroy baseball as we know it.

If I was an employer with an office building or something like that...with a workforce that wasn't low-wage people, I'd worry way more about liability if I didn't require some extensive safety procedures. Maybe the 20 people who sue me after getting sick because I let unmasked people into my office don't win in the end, but how much do I spend on legal fees fighting those cases? There's a reason why it's a major priority of the Congressional Republicans to offer some sort of immunity.

Alexei may not have been a "Very good" player, but he was absolutely a "Good" player for a number of years. Alexei also had the potential to be a very good to great player, so not reaching that potential was disappointing, but he was absolutely a fine player to have on our roster. If Tim Anderson had a career as productive as Alexei's we would be content. Not thrilled or delighted, but absolutely content.

While the players likely aren't at risk of dying nearly as much as the rest of the population, the risk isn't zero, and it's now well known that there are serious complications in a number of cases that we don't really have a good ability to predict. If, hypothetically, we had worst case scenario and it raced through the whole league - 900 players, nearly all get it. There's a reasonable probability 1 to 2 die (0.1 to 0.2% death rate for healthy, young individuals). Bad enough as it is, but then at least several dozen have long-term organ damage, including kidney and lung damage, and maybe a couple come down with various other post-disease complications like the stuff they've recognized in a few hundred kids so far. That's what Blake Snell was talking about. That's what, a 5% chance that this season, for way less money, dramatically damages you physically and leaves you in really bad shape for the rest of your career. Is that worth the risk? If you've convinced the players that you have a fully operational testing and safety system, then maybe only ones like Carrasco opt out (leukemia last year), but if you're Mike Trout, would you take a 75% pay cut and risk something that could cost you the rest of your career and even damage your life? If you're someone who's a year away from Free Agency, with no long-term security, wouldn't you be extremely nervous about that?

You're in good shape on declining rate but the number of positive cases that are untraceable is still too high. If you open things up too rapidly and cases level out at this spot because you can't limit the spread of new cases, then you never reach the next phase.