Image ImageImage Image

Second "bubble" in Chicago

Moderators: HomoSapien, Ice Man, AshyLarrysDiaper, Tommy Udo 6 , GimmeDat, dougthonus, DASMACKDOWN, Payt10, kulaz3000, fleet, RedBulls23

User avatar
MrFortune3
Head Coach
Posts: 6,219
And1: 1,873
Joined: Jul 03, 2010
         

Re: Second 

Post#61 » by MrFortune3 » Sat Jul 4, 2020 2:39 pm

jc23 wrote:
Jcool0 wrote:
Little Nathan wrote:Is it going to be competitive, though?


Why wouldnt it be?


lol for Chicago it hasnt been all season.


I can’t with you :lol: :lol: :lol:
Moon
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,671
And1: 12
Joined: Oct 29, 2001

Re: Second "bubble" in Chicago 

Post#62 » by Moon » Sat Jul 4, 2020 3:44 pm

2nd bubble or just passing gas? You know I would probably watch the Bulls play the Windy City Bulls or the local high school team but, thats not going to make it smell any better. It will remind me that the Bulls are the cheapest, uncreative team in the NBA. My guess is they will sell advertising based on Former Bulls championships long gone. Great entertainment for people who have trouble sleeping at night.
Wingy
General Manager
Posts: 9,292
And1: 1,156
Joined: Feb 15, 2007

Re: Second "bubble" in Chicago 

Post#63 » by Wingy » Sat Jul 4, 2020 3:51 pm

dice wrote:boy, if players on teams that actually have something to play for are uncomfortable with returning, how must the crap teams feel about having to quarantine in chicago just to play garbage competition?


It’s a joke. Whole thing’s a farce...even in Orlando.
User avatar
HomoSapien
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 28,005
And1: 16,409
Joined: Aug 17, 2009
 

Re: Second "bubble" in Chicago 

Post#64 » by HomoSapien » Sat Jul 4, 2020 4:46 pm

This seems obvious to me, but wouldn’t it be safer to play these games on a contained/closed to public outside court?
ThreeYearPlan wrote:Bulls fans defend HomoSapien more than Rose.
User avatar
dougthonus
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 46,918
And1: 7,058
Joined: Dec 22, 2004
Contact:

Re: Second "bubble" in Chicago 

Post#65 » by dougthonus » Sat Jul 4, 2020 6:17 pm

HomoSapien wrote:This seems obvious to me, but wouldn’t it be safer to play these games on a contained/closed to public outside court?


As opposed to a closed to the public indoor court? I'm not sure if it would make a difference or not. An enclosed indoor court is a pretty huge amount of space for the number of people in the room, I think you'd get enough benefit of air circulation.

Outdoor courts also are considerably bigger injury risks unless you built a hardwood floor outside (which I suppose you could certainly do given the amount of money you're spending. Wind also impacts the game much more with NBA three point lines, the games don't matter, so maybe that doesn't matter, but I think it screws with the game enough that you wouldn't do it. I know I won't play outside anymore as a general rule and will only play inside. I'd imagine if a total mediocre C-Level lifetime fitness player feels that strongly about outdoor courts that a huge amount of NBA players concur.
User avatar
HomoSapien
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 28,005
And1: 16,409
Joined: Aug 17, 2009
 

Re: Second "bubble" in Chicago 

Post#66 » by HomoSapien » Sat Jul 4, 2020 7:26 pm

dougthonus wrote:
HomoSapien wrote:This seems obvious to me, but wouldn’t it be safer to play these games on a contained/closed to public outside court?


As opposed to a closed to the public indoor court? I'm not sure if it would make a difference or not. An enclosed indoor court is a pretty huge amount of space for the number of people in the room, I think you'd get enough benefit of air circulation.

Outdoor courts also are considerably bigger injury risks unless you built a hardwood floor outside (which I suppose you could certainly do given the amount of money you're spending. Wind also impacts the game much more with NBA three point lines, the games don't matter, so maybe that doesn't matter, but I think it screws with the game enough that you wouldn't do it. I know I won't play outside anymore as a general rule and will only play inside. I'd imagine if a total mediocre C-Level lifetime fitness player feels that strongly about outdoor courts that a huge amount of NBA players concur.


From everything we know about Covid, it's infinitely clear that you're safer outside with people than inside. Obviously, the hope is that everyone inside the bubble is healthy and safe and eliminates all that risk to begin with, but let's see if that's actually the case.

As for the courts, there's no question it's better to play on indoor courts than outdoor courts, but we're in weird times as it is. If I remember correctly, the league played a few exhibition games outdoors several years back.
ThreeYearPlan wrote:Bulls fans defend HomoSapien more than Rose.
User avatar
dougthonus
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 46,918
And1: 7,058
Joined: Dec 22, 2004
Contact:

Re: Second "bubble" in Chicago 

Post#67 » by dougthonus » Sat Jul 4, 2020 9:31 pm

HomoSapien wrote:From everything we know about Covid, it's infinitely clear that you're safer outside with people than inside. Obviously, the hope is that everyone inside the bubble is healthy and safe and eliminates all that risk to begin with, but let's see if that's actually the case.


The science behind being safer outdoors than indoors is a matter of air movement and circulation though, inside a massive gym the size of the space relative to the number of people probably gives you a pretty similar result as long as you aren't letting fans in.

Also, if you create a bubble, odds are this also gives you a pretty similar result.

Either way, I'd say on aggregate, the players are probably safe in the bubble than if they weren't in the bubble given that most people (NBA players or otherwise) are engaging in far riskier behavior than these players would be exposed to. Hell, I'm engaging in far riskier behavior just by having to go to the grocery store once a week.

As for the courts, there's no question it's better to play on indoor courts than outdoor courts, but we're in weird times as it is. If I remember correctly, the league played a few exhibition games outdoors several years back.


Yeah, I guess it just depends how much risk you think this mitigates. The reasons why inside is worse than outside don't generally seem to be applicable in this case. I'd imagine that if any players get COVID while in the bubble the whole bubble is in question.
User avatar
dougthonus
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 46,918
And1: 7,058
Joined: Dec 22, 2004
Contact:

Re: Second "bubble" in Chicago 

Post#68 » by dougthonus » Sat Jul 4, 2020 9:34 pm

Interesting side note about COVID and the NBA in general is the blanket tests for players actually came back reasonably high for COVID testing, it's probably about 10% of the players tested had it (thought they tested 300 players and 25 initially had it and more have had it since), almost none of them were symptomatic based on the reports I've read. I wonder how many of those players already had it previously and recovered? The fact that 10% had it without knowing means that the players, as a group, are likely not practicing particularly safe practices as this percentages is considerably higher than the normal population.

It would be interesting if besides COVID testing if they also did anti-body testing across the league to see how much herd immunity the league might have too.
transplant
RealGM
Posts: 11,440
And1: 3,053
Joined: Aug 16, 2001
Location: state of perpetual confusion
       

Re: Second "bubble" in Chicago 

Post#69 » by transplant » Sun Jul 5, 2020 11:05 pm

I have to be honest with you guys, I'd just as soon see all sports in the US hold off until we have an effective vaccine. There's a decent chance that someone's gonna die and I don't have the stomach for it.
Until the actual truth is more important to you than what you believe, you will never recognize the truth.

- Blatantly stolen from truebluefan
User avatar
MikeDC
Pro Prospect
Posts: 834
And1: 201
Joined: Jan 23, 2002
Location: DC Area

Re: Second "bubble" in Chicago 

Post#70 » by MikeDC » Mon Jul 6, 2020 1:51 pm

At some point pretty early in this whole disaster I started thinking out the prospects of a "bubble" and pretty quickly decided it was nearly unworkable unless people were willing to submit to draconian enforcement.

The basic problem is though every interaction carries a small risk, there are tons of interactions. Even if all the NBA players, camera crews, and other supporting staff are sequestered, there's still all of the resort and hotel staff who presumably aren't sequestered. And neither are their friends and family, kids, parents, roommates, etc.

Between that and the fact that much transmission comes through asymptomatic carriers, you would literally have to allow no entry or exit to the bubble except with a test and quarantine period. Which they obviously can't/won't strictly enforce.
ATRAIN53
Head Coach
Posts: 6,040
And1: 1,566
Joined: Dec 14, 2007
Location: Chicago

Re: Second "bubble" in Chicago 

Post#71 » by ATRAIN53 » Tue Jul 7, 2020 2:12 pm

sco wrote:The NBA NIT turney!

Admit it. We'd watch.


LOL the Not In Tournament Tournament.

Sad but totally true......
User avatar
dougthonus
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 46,918
And1: 7,058
Joined: Dec 22, 2004
Contact:

Re: Second "bubble" in Chicago 

Post#72 » by dougthonus » Wed Jul 8, 2020 11:47 am

MikeDC wrote:At some point pretty early in this whole disaster I started thinking out the prospects of a "bubble" and pretty quickly decided it was nearly unworkable unless people were willing to submit to draconian enforcement.

The basic problem is though every interaction carries a small risk, there are tons of interactions. Even if all the NBA players, camera crews, and other supporting staff are sequestered, there's still all of the resort and hotel staff who presumably aren't sequestered. And neither are their friends and family, kids, parents, roommates, etc.

Between that and the fact that much transmission comes through asymptomatic carriers, you would literally have to allow no entry or exit to the bubble except with a test and quarantine period. Which they obviously can't/won't strictly enforce.


It's hard to say, and I might be being optimistic, but it feels to me that if you had all non-bubble people wearing N95 masks 100% of the time and bubble people wearing them in any situation where they have to make contact with an non-bubble person, I think you'd have a very good chance of success. Add in fever tests for anyone entering the bubble and regular testing and I think you'd maybe not provide a 100% safe environment, but I think you would provide a much safer environment than what the players would be in outside of the bubble.

I'm not sure what safety protocols they'll issue of course, but based on the last time I looked into the latest research on the spread (which granted was a couple weeks ago), wearing a N95 mask is nearly 100% effective in limiting the spread, and while you can get it from asymptomatic people, it spreads much less frequently with them than with symptomatic people.

Granted, hard to say, it is one of those things where the bubble works right up until the point where it doesn't.
User avatar
dougthonus
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 46,918
And1: 7,058
Joined: Dec 22, 2004
Contact:

Re: Second "bubble" in Chicago 

Post#73 » by dougthonus » Wed Jul 8, 2020 11:50 am

transplant wrote:I have to be honest with you guys, I'd just as soon see all sports in the US hold off until we have an effective vaccine. There's a decent chance that someone's gonna die and I don't have the stomach for it.


Counter point to this:

The bubble is likely orders of magnitude safer than not being in the bubble for the players. Roughly 10% of those tested were positive while not living in a bubble. As a group, they seem to be high risk takers, and the bubble would enforce a much lower risk lifestyle than what most players are likely doing today.

As a group, they also likely have the lowest risk factors of anyone for bad outcomes. I'm not actually familiar with a single in his prime athlete in any sport having a serious case of this.

As I noted, it feels hypocritical to me to say I can't stomach an NBA athlete taking on this risk while living in a bubble and having a tremendously strong respiratory system, but I can stomach a walmart or restaurant or some other employee taking this risk when they have a fraction of the protections in place and most would have higher risk factors.
ATRAIN53
Head Coach
Posts: 6,040
And1: 1,566
Joined: Dec 14, 2007
Location: Chicago

Re: Second "bubble" in Chicago 

Post#74 » by ATRAIN53 » Wed Jul 8, 2020 1:57 pm

transplant wrote:I have to be honest with you guys, I'd just as soon see all sports in the US hold off until we have an effective vaccine. There's a decent chance that someone's gonna die and I don't have the stomach for it.


agreed. it's just not worth the risk - but there is a TON of $$$$ involved.

$$$$ is what makes the world function so they will try hard to make this happen.

I just feel guilty celebrating stuff like Luka Doncic going off in a game while people are dying in the middle of a global pandemic.

I kinda figured if we ever had a glbal pandemic - sports would be the least of our concerns.
turns out that's not true and why this has happened over and over in history and will keep happening-

Leaders ignore warnings in the interest of money, power, land, women.......

I thought it was funny to read a tweet about how every sci fi movie with a global disaster always starts with some scientist sounding warning and then being ignored by the gov until I realized it's true and what is currently happening.

I miss sports but I would rather see al this time and energy put into saving lives and this feels like it's a unecessary risk just for my entertainment.
User avatar
MikeDC
Pro Prospect
Posts: 834
And1: 201
Joined: Jan 23, 2002
Location: DC Area

Re: Second "bubble" in Chicago 

Post#75 » by MikeDC » Wed Jul 8, 2020 2:24 pm

dougthonus wrote:
MikeDC wrote:At some point pretty early in this whole disaster I started thinking out the prospects of a "bubble" and pretty quickly decided it was nearly unworkable unless people were willing to submit to draconian enforcement.

The basic problem is though every interaction carries a small risk, there are tons of interactions. Even if all the NBA players, camera crews, and other supporting staff are sequestered, there's still all of the resort and hotel staff who presumably aren't sequestered. And neither are their friends and family, kids, parents, roommates, etc.

Between that and the fact that much transmission comes through asymptomatic carriers, you would literally have to allow no entry or exit to the bubble except with a test and quarantine period. Which they obviously can't/won't strictly enforce.


It's hard to say, and I might be being optimistic, but it feels to me that if you had all non-bubble people wearing N95 masks 100% of the time and bubble people wearing them in any situation where they have to make contact with an non-bubble person, I think you'd have a very good chance of success. Add in fever tests for anyone entering the bubble and regular testing and I think you'd maybe not provide a 100% safe environment, but I think you would provide a much safer environment than what the players would be in outside of the bubble.

I'm not sure what safety protocols they'll issue of course, but based on the last time I looked into the latest research on the spread (which granted was a couple weeks ago), wearing a N95 mask is nearly 100% effective in limiting the spread, and while you can get it from asymptomatic people, it spreads much less frequently with them than with symptomatic people.

Granted, hard to say, it is one of those things where the bubble works right up until the point where it doesn't.


The point where it doesn't work is that it only takes 1 person in a thousand(s?) to make the system break. One person being asymptomatic and not having a fever, and/or one person not wearing the mask properly, or not washing his hands enough. One person leaving the virus on a toilet that someone else is going to use. Etc.

Most of these systems are only as safe as the weakest link, and when you're talking about thousands of people, it becomes a statistical certainty that mistakes will be made. Thus, think the only "safe" way is to sequester everyone. Double the staff size (or whatever is necessary) and have them work a week or two on, and a week or two off, with quarantine and testing in between entering and leaving the bubble.

We know that there are limits to how diligent people are with masks, and we know that fever testing isn't completely effective, and we know testing for the virus isn't completely effective. So, if you want a "fail-safe" system, you have to account for that, and extend the bubble around everyone.

dougthonus wrote:As I noted, it feels hypocritical to me to say I can't stomach an NBA athlete taking on this risk while living in a bubble and having a tremendously strong respiratory system, but I can stomach a walmart or restaurant or some other employee taking this risk when they have a fraction of the protections in place and most would have higher risk factors.


It feels different because the NBA player would be taking this risk for "entertainment" purposes. Do we want someone to die in the course of entertaining us? Nope. Not at all.

But logically, people should probably get over the feeling and be less emotional about it, because the "entertainment" here has a lot of social value. Beyond the players themselves, there's all the other people it's supporting, who are a lot closer to the folks working in the restaurant or walmart than the players themselves.

Beyond that, there's simply the matter that it would be good for people to watch and engage in a social activity, which is what sports are. We can see, statistically, that in our secluded lives, things like crime, depression, drug abuse, and domestic violence are going up. That kind of death and suffering doesn't have the visibility of COVID death and suffering, but it's happening all the same, and we should want to put a stop to it as well. So, basically, there are trade-offs that are worthwhile to be made.
User avatar
dougthonus
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 46,918
And1: 7,058
Joined: Dec 22, 2004
Contact:

Re: Second "bubble" in Chicago 

Post#76 » by dougthonus » Wed Jul 8, 2020 2:31 pm

MikeDC wrote:The point where it doesn't work is that it only takes 1 person in a thousand(s?) to make the system break. One person being asymptomatic and not having a fever, and/or one person not wearing the mask properly, or not washing his hands enough. One person leaving the virus on a toilet that someone else is going to use. Etc.


My understanding is that the risk just isn't that high in most of those ways, and I just don't think one person would break the system necessarily. You'd need one person who was sick enough to spread the virus (likely symptomatic not asymptomatic) and not wearing a mask properly and contacting someone else who's not wearing a mask properly. I think that chain isn't that hard to keep going.

Again, I don't think our information is perfect on this, and I could be wrong, but I think these players are generally taking much, much bigger risks in their daily lives right now.

Most of these systems are only as safe as the weakest link, and when you're talking about thousands of people, it becomes a statistical certainty that mistakes will be made. Thus, think the only "safe" way is to sequester everyone. Double the staff size (or whatever is necessary) and have them work a week or two on, and a week or two off, with quarantine and testing in between entering and leaving the bubble.


I agree that would be much better.

We know that there are limits to how diligent people are with masks, and we know that fever testing isn't completely effective, and we know testing for the virus isn't completely effective. So, if you want a "fail-safe" system, you have to account for that, and extend the bubble around everyone.


I agree with this too.

I don't think the system is set up is fail safe, but I think it is safer than you are crediting. Granted, I agree with your overall point still that I wouldn't be surprised to see the bubble pop and this whole thing fall apart. I just also wouldn't be surprised if it works as planed and that any cases are caught and minimized.

It really depends a lot on how diligent everyone is willing to be. I think that will really come down primarily to diligence on the player/coach end. Everyone else will be pretty easy to enforce IMO.
User avatar
dougthonus
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 46,918
And1: 7,058
Joined: Dec 22, 2004
Contact:

Re: Second "bubble" in Chicago 

Post#77 » by dougthonus » Wed Jul 8, 2020 2:48 pm

ATRAIN53 wrote:agreed. it's just not worth the risk - but there is a TON of $$$$ involved.


Why is it not worth the risk compared to all my local restaurants offering in-dining seating now? The precautions here are dramatically higher than what other businesses are taking to remain open, the amount of value driven by sports to me is much higher than the amount of value of in-dining restaurants remaining open relative to the amount of people put at risk.

I just feel guilty celebrating stuff like Luka Doncic going off in a game while people are dying in the middle of a global pandemic.


I don't mean to minimize the outcome of this global pandemic, it's certainly bad and has negative consequences, but it isn't exactly the plague going through nations wiping out 1/3rd of the population with entire towns dying. It's on track to kill less than half as many people in the US as cancer or heart disease will this year.

When people talk about global pandemics though, they were thinking of things like the plague or some super disease that spreads quickly and kills a much higher percentage of the people whom get it. Like if you had this, but with the death rate of SARS, and it also hit healthy people as bad as unhealthy people, that's what the phrase global pandemic feels like it would mean based on any global pandemic movie you see.

I miss sports but I would rather see al this time and energy put into saving lives and this feels like it's a unecessary risk just for my entertainment.


I would say a few things about that:
1: The risk to the players in the bubble is probably less than their median risk outside the bubble based on their behaviors.

2: The NBA will literally entertain millions with probably 1000 people put "at risk" and of those 1000, again, seeing point #1, most of them are probably at less risk than what they would be doing at home, and the ones who are very paranoid and risk avoidance will opt out and remain at less risk most likely.

3: Compared to allowing restaurants to have dine in capability which has a 1:1 risk/entertainment ratio of 1 million people being at risk for 1 million people being entertained, it's unfair to say this form of entertainment is high risk relative to the value it brings compared to what we are allowing elsewhere, especially when the protocols appear much safer than what restaurants can do.

In a nutshell, to me, bringing back sports is a no-brainer relative to other economic activity we are allowing to happen. The value it brings to the society compared to the number of people creating that value and being put at risk is very high and the risk these people are taking on is much lower than what most minimum wage workers are subjected to all over the country today.

Granted, maybe you are against many other businesses being open and would shut those down too, and this is a basketball forum and not a restaurant forum, so you aren't talking about that, but I think if we're going to allow 90% of the businesses that are open to remain open that sports adds a lot of value relative to the risk.
User avatar
MikeDC
Pro Prospect
Posts: 834
And1: 201
Joined: Jan 23, 2002
Location: DC Area

Re: Second "bubble" in Chicago 

Post#78 » by MikeDC » Wed Jul 8, 2020 2:55 pm

dougthonus wrote:
MikeDC wrote:The point where it doesn't work is that it only takes 1 person in a thousand(s?) to make the system break. One person being asymptomatic and not having a fever, and/or one person not wearing the mask properly, or not washing his hands enough. One person leaving the virus on a toilet that someone else is going to use. Etc.


My understanding is that the risk just isn't that high in most of those ways, and I just don't think one person would break the system necessarily. You'd need one person who was sick enough to spread the virus (likely symptomatic not asymptomatic) and not wearing a mask properly and contacting someone else who's not wearing a mask properly. I think that chain isn't that hard to keep going.

Again, I don't think our information is perfect on this, and I could be wrong, but I think these players are generally taking much, much bigger risks in their daily lives right now.

Most of these systems are only as safe as the weakest link, and when you're talking about thousands of people, it becomes a statistical certainty that mistakes will be made. Thus, think the only "safe" way is to sequester everyone. Double the staff size (or whatever is necessary) and have them work a week or two on, and a week or two off, with quarantine and testing in between entering and leaving the bubble.


I agree that would be much better.

We know that there are limits to how diligent people are with masks, and we know that fever testing isn't completely effective, and we know testing for the virus isn't completely effective. So, if you want a "fail-safe" system, you have to account for that, and extend the bubble around everyone.


I agree with this too.

I don't think the system is set up is fail safe, but I think it is safer than you are crediting. Granted, I agree with your overall point still that I wouldn't be surprised to see the bubble pop and this whole thing fall apart. I just also wouldn't be surprised if it works as planed and that any cases are caught and minimized.

It really depends a lot on how diligent everyone is willing to be. I think that will really come down primarily to diligence on the player/coach end. Everyone else will be pretty easy to enforce IMO.


I just edited a bit to the end of the post you're responding to, but, think of it this way.
1. Why not make it fail-safe? Everyone acknowledges that taking the extra step would increase safety, and it is a well understood procedure. Just an expensive one. But the cost of failure (breaking the bubble) is astronomically higher. Literally in the billions of dollars, apparently. I don't see any reason to play with fire. Just consider it a cost of doing business, don't skimp on safety.

2. To give an idea of the gravity of the problem, suppose, as you say, the guy/gal checking you out at the grocery/store/restaurant/etc is taking a bigger risk and probably has more at stake. Despite this, I see these guys not wearing masks, and not wearing them properly pretty frequently. This tells us that enforcement is a significant issue, because even when people have a strong interest in doing something right, they don't.

3. And the bottom line is, for every NBA player, there will probably be several additional people. Preparing food, using the same toilets, cleaning rooms and so forth. It's well established that asymptomatic people can be contagious, and that the virus spreads through central AC, large open spaces, food contact, and restrooms. When you do the math on the number of interactions, I don't see how leaving room for error is ok.
User avatar
MikeDC
Pro Prospect
Posts: 834
And1: 201
Joined: Jan 23, 2002
Location: DC Area

Re: Second "bubble" in Chicago 

Post#79 » by MikeDC » Wed Jul 8, 2020 3:05 pm

To draw a parallel, we know that driving leads to a lot more fatalities than flying.

But, this is because much more effort is put into making sure planes are safe. With a plane, a lot more things can go wrong, the fault tolerance is pretty low, and the results tend to be catastrophically bad for more people. Thus, nobody even considers getting on a plane that's not checked and re-checked in a thousand ways. There's a much more heightened sense of safety. I actually had a flight delayed once because the pilot simply didn't buy on on what the ground crew told him was "fine".

This is the kind of effort and mindset that needs to be put into building a COVID Bubble.
User avatar
dougthonus
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 46,918
And1: 7,058
Joined: Dec 22, 2004
Contact:

Re: Second "bubble" in Chicago 

Post#80 » by dougthonus » Wed Jul 8, 2020 3:18 pm

MikeDC wrote:I just edited a bit to the end of the post you're responding to, but, think of it this way.
1. Why not make it fail-safe? Everyone acknowledges that taking the extra step would increase safety, and it is a well understood procedure. Just an expensive one. But the cost of failure (breaking the bubble) is astronomically higher. Literally in the billions of dollars, apparently. I don't see any reason to play with fire. Just consider it a cost of doing business, don't skimp on safety.


I agree, they shouldn't skimp on safety if they can avoid ti.

2. To give an idea of the gravity of the problem, suppose, as you say, the guy/gal checking you out at the grocery/store/restaurant/etc is taking a bigger risk and probably has more at stake. Despite this, I see these guys not wearing masks, and not wearing them properly pretty frequently. This tells us that enforcement is a significant issue, because even when people have a strong interest in doing something right, they don't.


I agree, though I think this would be easier to more tightly regulate, but I could be wrong.

3. And the bottom line is, for every NBA player, there will probably be several additional people. Preparing food, using the same toilets, cleaning rooms and so forth. It's well established that asymptomatic people can be contagious, and that the virus spreads through central AC, large open spaces, food contact, and restrooms. When you do the math on the number of interactions, I don't see how leaving room for error is ok.


I agree you should remove as much error as possible. I don't know why you've brought up toilets multiple times, as far as I know there is no evidence that it spreads that way.

Another step is that MRV 13 filters will filter out the virus, you could upgrade the filtration of the hotels to MRV 13 likely relatively cheaply given how much money is at stake here.

Return to Chicago Bulls