My guess is if one used up their eligibility but still is working o n a degree or starting a graduate program might find it worthwhile but I'm with you that most will go for the paycheck.
TL;DR: I am a math nerd...
Thanks. for the data, Navy. An interesting detail is how the money is distributed. Using data from 2017 - 2018, of $465,065,075, 79% ($368,713,961) went to the top 5 conferences:
Southeastern Conference $88,144,099
Pac-12 Conference $74,697,653
Big 12 Conference $69,847,925
Big Ten Conference $68,871,187
Atlantic Coast Conference $67,153,097
99% ($458,790,790). to the top 10:
American Athletic Conference $25,623,896
Mountain West Conference $18,219,631
Mid-American Conference $16,815,366
Conference USA $15,411,101
Sun Belt Conference $14,006,835
Here are the numbers for the rest:
Notre Dame University $2,813,182
Brigham Young University $310,053
U.S. Military Academy $310,053
University of Massachusetts $310,053
Big Sky Conference $281,216
Big South Conference $281,216
Colonial Conference $281,216
Mid-Eastern Conference $281,216
Missouri Valley Conference $281,216
Ohio Valley Conference $281,216
Southern Conference $281,216
Southland Conference $281,216
Southwestern Athletic Conference $281,216
Glad you're back. Stay health brother.
In this case, since it is a spring sport, they would also have fall tuition as well. Unless they need an extra year to graduate, I doubt it would be wide to add more debt just for one last hurrah.
The question is what is include in the cost? Scholarships are essentially a transfer payment and not a real cost since the marginal cost of one more student is small. Athletic payroll is essentially a fixed cost since most schools are going to fire and then try to rehire staff. Food and housing is a variable since it can be avoided by not extending eligibility.
Until the methodology of how the costs were calculated are know it's hard to say what is a fixed and variable cost and thus the true costs of extending eligibility.
The funny thing about cooling towers is they are used by many power plants, not just nukes; and all nukes do not have cooling towers. Thermoelectric plants need cooling water, whehter its from a river, ocean / bay or cooling tower.
the above should read:
As a result, operators at TMI were not made aware of what had occurred at Davis Besse and the lessons learned.
I agree, it seems very age dependent based on the available numbers. However, getting sick and getting infected are two seperate things. Even if one person doesn't get sick but is infected they still can spread C19 and with an R0 above 1 you will keep getting higher and higher rates of infection and people getting sick.
This what we called in the Navy a "No sh*t"
Great question. How close? Not sure, but the Davis Besse event was very similar to TMI, in that a loss of feed water accident and stuck open pressurizer relief. In Davis Besse's case, operators realized what was going on in time to take proper corrective action and prevent a serious accident.
TMI is a sister plant to Davis Besse, both are B&W PWRs. Prior to TMI, the nuclear industry was very insular. While the NRC as well as manufacturers issued event reports, there was no real review for lessons learned by plants and actions taken to prevent similar events. Despite the Navy nuclear programs's influence, the "It can't happen here" was a prevalent attitude. As a result, operators at TMI were made aware of what had occurred at Davis Besse and the lessons learned.
TMI changed that. When I did my PWR Senior Reactor Operator certification, TMI was discussed in detail, not just for that event but its broader implications such as how to recognized inaccurate instrument readings.
TMI also convinced the industry that an accident at one plant impacted all of them. The nuclear industry created the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) as a way to share lessons learned and improve performance. If you look at pre and post INPO plant performance you can see a marked improvement after INPO was established.
One would expect the rate to decrease as better information on total infections, et. al. becomes available since right now most data is point data.
Two key points in the NEJM article:
If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.
It may eventually be closer to flu, and probably will. But if it is at the pandemic level it would mean 2x the deaths from it than flu if it was closer to the 1958 pandemic. The 68 numbers are more in line with others but that may be due to people having some immunity based on its similarity to other flu viruses people have been exposed to earlier.
No one is saying it will reach the SARS or MEWRS level.
The efficiency of transmission for any respiratory virus has important implications for containment and mitigation strategies. The current study indicates an estimated basic reproduction number (R0) of 2.2, which means that, on average, each infected person spreads the infection to an additional two persons. As the authors note, until this number falls below 1.0, it is likely that the outbreak will continue to spread.
That is the real key, IMHO. C19 is much more transmittable resulting in an exponential increase in cases if people come in contact with it. That results in a lot more infections than the seasonal flu, absent social distancing. Even if the death rate becomes the same the result of more infections is a much higher total death numbers. that, coupled with the lack of a vaccine and limited or no existing immunity is why I believe it is misleading to compare it to seasonal; flu, especially in terms of risk to the population.
The comparison is simply a misleading way to make the risk look lower than it may be. To me, that's like saying running a stop sign in a neighborhood is the same as running one on a regularly trafficked road.
Nota good idea (TM) IMHO. It would be brutally hot for the players, especially in the south, and player safety must be the overriding factor. Players would need to be getting into shape, learning playbooks, etc. pretty soon to be ready by July.
In addition, students would not be back in school and family vacations would conflict with games. Attendance would take a big hit. TV schedules would have to be revised. I doubt they could pull it off given the time constraints and uncertainty over when C19 will be over.
I did an inspection of TMI 1 a number of years after the accident. One of my coworkers was on shift the night of the accident.
Actually, it's an estimate based on data and studies such as the 2010 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey to help determine infection rates. As an estimate, it has upper and lower bounds due to uncertainty in the numbers.
One point that gets overlooked in te discussion is the R0 value, or how many people an infected person will infect. Flu is around 1.3, C19 is estimated to be 2-3; which make isolation important to stop the spread given the mortality rates seen with C19 and the lack of a vaccine to lower the risk of infection.
At this point, it's about risk management.
I had one of the Javelin/AMX models and it was fast, and the looks were a bit quirky but grew on you. One problem was at high speeds the front end got real light.
IIRC, the two bolt on seats in the deck allowed to avoid the tariff on light trucks...
I knew a girl at OSU that had a purple Gremlin. Fortunately, she was pretty than the car.
Nor wines for that manner...
Not to mention Sophia Loren or Gina Lollabrigida
Completely off topic:
It's interesting to see how popular media changes words meaning.
Trolling was more like a practical joke. What is now called trolling used to be called flame baiting, which any jerk could do. In the early days of Usenet et. al. trolling was the art of posting something that sounded authoritative but was wrong enough to get someone to go "What? I have to correct that..." and post without thinking." The Usenet Group alt.folklore.urban, along with addressing urban folklore like Craig Shergold, Gang Initiations involving flashing headlights, devoted a lot of time to the fine art of trolling.
A classic troll was:
Star Trek screws up science all the time. Look when the shuttle crosses the Enterprise,, you see a shadow, in the vacuum of space.
Or, before Eternal September:
Let me explain the US university system. You have, at the top, state schools such as Ohio State, next are city schools such as University of Chic ago, and finally junior colleges/universities such as Leland Stanford Junior University. Hope this helps...
Then you just sit back with some popcorn and enjoy the show...
No back to the regularly scheduled banter...
Saying it is no more deadly than the flu is misleading for several reasons:
1. There is a vaccine for the flu so many people get a much milder case or none at all; even so it still kills a number of people
2. Flu would does overwhelm hospitals, despite high infection rates, given point 1
3. There is a vast difference in death rates by age, so average deaths are misleading
4. The death rate for C19 is > 10x flu, based on current numbers, so no lockdown would result in significant numbers of deaths and far outpace the flu
Far more may have died from the flu, but for the number of infections incurred it is a small enough risk that we go on with business. If you extrapolate the death rate for C19 from the flu's rate, we could see > 600K deaths from C19. That is a risk that we do not want to take.
I have worked with plenty of people who couldn't find their ass with both hands....
I remember seeing that live...
I don't know about lots of people, but at least one person does.
Social distance prevents further infections, so when the disease runs its course in infected persons it ends since there are no new infections to continue to develop and spread.
Did I miss your sarcasm font?
While I see your points the danger in that line of thinking is that the rate we are seeing assumes a certain set of conditions and may not be applicable to a different set of conditions; i.e. lifting lockdowns and returning to normal. We don't even know where on the infection/death curve we are - will deaths continue to rise rapidly? We simply do not know the ratio of mild / asymptomatic case to more serious one to get a good handle on the actual number of infections.
In addition, we risk falling prey to Simpson's Paradox. While the rate is calculated over the population as a whole, the population is made up of sub groups with very different physical characteristics, so an average rate can be very misleading. If you use the average, C19 is more than 10x as deadly as the flu; which under current conditions would result in over 3 million hospitalizations and over 220K deaths.
Given all the uncertainty and the consequences of being wrong, I think using the current number to drive policy decisions in loosing restrictions is not a good idea.