Social Distancing Doubles?

Nostradamus

Bionic Poster
Been to Nat'ls playing each other for 5 yrs. No one going anywhere but Coronaville this year. Have one with a sour lime and a smile
we will have Socal and Norcal championships this year instead. and division winner will meet in the final in LA. Sponsored by TW. with each player receiving prize money of $10,000(same as stimulus money) and gold medal.
 

Ronaldo

Bionic Poster
we will have Socal and Norcal championships this year instead. and division winner will meet in the final in LA. Sponsored by TW. with each player receiving prize money of $10,000(same as stimulus money) and gold medal.
That's awesome! We got a free room and breakfast.
 

MathGeek

Hall of Fame
I have my boat set up to maintain social distancing, and do a pretty good job keeping a 6 ft distance from most of my guests - over 10 of them since all this began.

But once in a while, a situation occurs where we need to get closer than 6 ft to catch the fish. Recently a big fish got wrapped around the anchor line and we both needed to be in the front half of the boat to resolve it and catch the fish.

It was over in a few seconds and we did what we needed to do to catch the fish.

Live your life. It's not as if a few seconds close to one person is a big risk. Most trips to sporting goods stores and grocery stores have more close contact with more people.

Don't sweat the small stuff. Pay your sports. Have fun. Be careful. Use common sense. If you really think you or your partner might be sick, stay home.
 

Cashman

Hall of Fame
Seriously, if you told me that the other three people on the court in an outdoor tennis match were in fact Corona-positive, I would still play the match.
Why is it always the elderly people we are all trying to protect who take silly risks?
 

mctennis

Hall of Fame
@stringertom

1 butt wiggle of server = Serving out wide
2 butt wiggles of server = Serving at the T
3 butt wiggles of server = Body serve
1 butt wiggle of partner = Acknowledge server's butt wiggles
2 butt wiggles of partner = Will poach
3 butt wiggles of partner = Will not poach

(Above not recommended for men)
The "signal twerk", works every time.....
 

mctennis

Hall of Fame
Not sure what the combination/ system would work for doubles. All sorts of questions arise when you put 4+ people on a court. How about drill sessions and "drop in" sessions at the clubs? Can't isolate the tennis balls everyone is using. Everyone touching the door handles, gates, court dividers , etc. Locker room situations with distancing, showers, saunas, hot tubs, etc. The indoor areas are a big question as to how these things will be handled by the club owners.
No one wants to get sick, or worse yet, bringing that home to your family. Young and old are dying from this. So it is not just the older people dying from it or needing hospitalization and respirators. I am not sure how long the clubs can exist just on outdoor courts alone.
I think the public courts will be the worst. People getting too close to each other from the other courts, tempers will flare up for sure.
 
D

Deleted member 768841

Guest
It definitely gives a new meaning to “stick to your side”
 

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
Aren't you over 50? You're the high risk age group for this thing.
You said "elderly."

I wouldn't say a person is "high risk" based solely on age over 50. I have lots of factors working for me. Like being female, strong immune system, no chronic conditions, healthy, good weight.

Let me tell ya something, sonny. As you get older, you're at higher risk for lots of things. You can cower in fear, or you can squeeze as much enjoyment as you can while you can.

Me, I'm playing tennis , period.
 
Last edited:

Cashman

Hall of Fame
I wouldn't say a person is "high risk" based solely on age over 50.
Studies seem to disagree on that. People over 50 are requiring hospitalisation and dying at a much higher rate than younger people regardless of physical fitness or lack of underlying conditions.
 

stapletonj

Hall of Fame
It's not like 6ft is some magic number that will ward of a virus. It's a recommended barrier only. Why not 7 ft? Why not 10 ft? The reality in doubles is that if you do get that close it's for a VERY short period of time. I've got zero problems playing doubles now.
You can discuss strategy at 6 ft apart if you speak quietly, plan before you play. It's really a non-issue.
also turn your back to your opponents, dont directly face each other, just common sense
 
Aren't you over 50? You're the high risk age group for this thing.
Age is a risk factor; it's not the only risk factor.

Risk groups are further divided beyond "high" and "low"; it's a continuum.

Then you have to factor in co-morbidities [hypertension, diabetes, obesity, etc].

And how good your immune system is [Vitamin D seems to be a big factor].

Looking at it in a binary high/low way encourages people in the supposedly low-risk group to take more risks and discourages those in the supposedly high-risk group from living their life.
 

TTMR

Hall of Fame
Wear gloves at all times when playing. Refrain from spitting on the court or ball. Aim spittle towards appropriate garbage receptacle or grassy knoll area beyond fence.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
I have lots of factors working for me. Like being female, strong immune system,
  • Several studies have shown that more men are dying from COVID-19 than women.
  • Experts say part of the reason is women tend to have stronger immune systems than men.
  • They add that men also tend to engage in more risky behavior such as ignoring physical distancing, and they don’t take symptoms as seriously.
 

WildVolley

Legend
  • Several studies have shown that more men are dying from COVID-19 than women.
  • Experts say part of the reason is women tend to have stronger immune systems than men.
  • They add that men also tend to engage in more risky behavior such as ignoring physical distancing, and they don’t take symptoms as seriously.
Darn straight. Social distancing is for p*****s!

Seriously, why aren't we trying to spread the thing in low virus load situations? In my part of the world, healthy people under 35 are essentially at zero risk of death. If we'd had them catch this and then isolate for a few weeks, we'd probably have herd immunity by now.

Instead, we're told that cowering in fear for the rest of our life is the only logical path. Nonsense.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
Darn straight. Social distancing is for p*****s!

Seriously, why aren't we trying to spread the thing in low virus load situations? In my part of the world, healthy people under 35 are essentially at zero risk of death. If we'd had them catch this and then isolate for a few weeks, we'd probably almost have herd immunity.

Instead, we're told that cowering in fear for the rest of our life is the only logical path. Nonsense.
What make you think people under 35 will agree to isolate? They were the ones protesting and flouting the rules from day 1.
 

WildVolley

Legend
What make you think people under 35 will agree to isolate? They were the ones protesting and flouting the rules from day 1.
We shouldn't assume they'd isolate. We old folks could just hide in our hovels and have food delivered until the waves of infection pass over.

In my community, I saw lots of teens out and about in groups after the schools were shut down. Hopefully, some of those kids were infected already and are now immune, and no longer community spreaders.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
We shouldn't assume they'd isolate. We old folks could just hide in our hovels and have food delivered until the waves of infection pass over.

In my community, I saw lots of teens out and about in groups after the schools were shut down. Hopefully, some of those kids were infected already and are now immune, and no longer community spreaders.
There has been a burst of teenage hangouts here since last week. No mask no nothing. Just enjoying themselves.
 

Dartagnan64

Legend
This is the Chinese restaurant study being referred to https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/20/health/airflow-coronavirus-restaurants.html

Outdoors the risk is minimal. I drove into MD today to play...not doubles though.
Issue with that study is that at the time it was done, there was community spread and it's uncertain if the 9 people infected in that restaurant all got it from the one identified patient. They may have picked it up elsewhere. They hypothesized the ventilation blew the virus around but it's possible the patient just infected the closest people and the others were infected elsewhere. Or they could have gotten it in the washroom. May have had nothing to do with the ventilation.

That being said, as with almost every respiratory virus on the planet, outdoors transmission is minimal and most people get sick from indoor congregation with the unwell. That and handshakes.
 

Dartagnan64

Legend
Seriously, why aren't we trying to spread the thing in low virus load situations? In my part of the world, healthy people under 35 are essentially at zero risk of death. If we'd had them catch this and then isolate for a few weeks, we'd probably have herd immunity by now.
130 million US young people all quarantined at once (not just social distanced but truly quarantined). 3% needing hospitalization (4 million people). Mortality rate based on Spanish data is about 0.2% of younger people with known disease die (260,000). If you even assume that for every counted case there are 10 unverified, that leaves 26,000 dead. And unknown numbers with sequelae such as autoimmune disease, stroke, chronic lung disease.

That's not terribly practical either. Not sure many parents are going to sign up their kids for that lottery.

It's a huge conundrum. The virus is too aggressive to ignore but not so aggressive that worldwide quarantine is mandatory. Finding that sweetspot to limit economic destruction but protect lives is something every nation is struggling with.
 

WildVolley

Legend
130 million US young people all quarantined at once (not just social distanced but truly quarantined). 3% needing hospitalization (4 million people). Mortality rate based on Spanish data is about 0.2% of younger people with known disease die (260,000). If you even assume that for every counted case there are 10 unverified, that leaves 26,000 dead. And unknown numbers with sequelae such as autoimmune disease, stroke, chronic lung disease.

That's not terribly practical either. Not sure many parents are going to sign up their kids for that lottery.

It's a huge conundrum. The virus is too aggressive to ignore but not so aggressive that worldwide quarantine is mandatory. Finding that sweetspot to limit economic destruction but protect lives is something every nation is struggling with.
I don't accept your numbers as accurate.

In California, the current evidence is that we had community spread of the virus before Italy or Spain. We haven't had similar death rates among the young. Where I live, 0 people between the age of 0-19 have died out of a population of 3 million. So why can't I just counter with data that says the fatality rate for infected between the age of 0-19 is 0% for the infected? I'd sign my kids up for that lottery.

A lot of people here are no longer socially distancing. If what you believe is true, we should see a big spike in problems among the young.
 
In my community, I saw lots of teens out and about in groups after the schools were shut down. Hopefully, some of those kids were infected already and are now immune, and no longer community spreaders.
- We don't get immunity from the common cold just because we've had a cold...and coronavirus is in the same family. So how can I conclude that people having CV are now immune?

- Recovered patients have been tested and a statistically significant # have very low levels of anti-bodies, implying weak or non-existent immunity.

So there are 2 problems: whether immunity exists at all and if so, for how long?
 

WildVolley

Legend
- We don't get immunity from the common cold just because we've had a cold...and coronavirus is in the same family. So how can I conclude that people having CV are now immune?
The common belief is that getting a cold virus and recovering does provide you (for some period of time) with immunity from that strain of virus. The problem is that there are multiple virus mutations in the cold virus families.

We only care about the current virus because of the risk of death or the necessity of expensive treatments involving ICUs. If the thing mutates into something that isn't killing people or requiring hospitalization, why should I care about it?

- Recovered patients have been tested and a statistically significant # have very low levels of anti-bodies, implying weak or non-existent immunity.
Give me the cite. I'm not buying this.

So there are 2 problems: whether immunity exists at all and if so, for how long?
If people aren't dying or needing hospitalization, who cares about your hypothetical problems?

Where I live, the current risk is to people over the age of 80, mostly in nursing homes. In places like NYC, Pennsylvania, etc., much of the problem is due to health officials purposefully putting sick people into close contact with very high risk populations. What does that have to do with the rest of us?
 
Seriously, why aren't we trying to spread the thing in low virus load situations? In my part of the world, healthy people under 35 are essentially at zero risk of death. If we'd had them catch this and then isolate for a few weeks, we'd probably have herd immunity by now.
- Would you volunteer? Would you volunteer your kids? Have you read accounts of recovered patients, whose symptoms definitely sounded non-flu like in severity and duration?

Then there's the long-term damage being reported [ie severely reduced lung capacity].

I don't want to catch this bug; I don't care how high my chances are of survival. it's nasty and formidable.

- Herd immunity requires about an 80% infection, given the R0 of CV. The US is currently at...0.4% so we need a 200x increase to achieve herd immunity. No country is even close. Spain is the leader among large population countries at 0.6%. As Roy Scheider said in *Jaws*: "We need a bigger boat."

Several studies have raised the possibility that the infection rate is much higher and that's conceivable although the studies I see touted [ie the Stanford one] were horribly run [sample completely non-random, for example].
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
- Would you volunteer? Would you volunteer your kids? Have you read accounts of recovered patients, whose symptoms definitely sounded non-flu like in severity and duration?

Then there's the long-term damage being reported [ie severely reduced lung capacity].

I don't want to catch this bug; I don't care how high my chances are of survival. it's nasty and formidable.

- Herd immunity requires about an 80% infection, given the R0 of CV. The US is currently at...0.4% so we need a 200x increase to achieve herd immunity. No country is even close. Spain is the leader among large population countries at 0.6%. As Roy Scheider said in *Jaws*: "We need a bigger boat."

Several studies have raised the possibility that the infection rate is much higher and that's conceivable although the studies I see touted [ie the Stanford one] were horribly run [sample completely non-random, for example].
You are scaring me.
 

WildVolley

Legend
- Would you volunteer? Would you volunteer your kids? Have you read accounts of recovered patients, whose symptoms definitely sounded non-flu like in severity and duration?

Then there's the long-term damage being reported [ie severely reduced lung capacity].
Based on symptoms, I've been around multiple people who have been infected. Severity has varied, but none needed hospitalization. In the same family, some were coughing up blood and having asthma like symptoms while others just got a mild sore throat. The original spreader in the family never developed much of a cough, but first became suspicious when he noticed he couldn't taste his food, and realized it was due to lack of ability to smell. He was playing with the dog and realized he was almost instantly out of breath.
 
The common belief is that getting a cold virus and recovering does provide you (for some period of time) with immunity from that strain of virus. The problem is that there are multiple virus mutations in the cold virus families.
Seems like immunity is higher for that cold season. But by next year's season, is there any elevated immunity?

We only care about the current virus because of the risk of death or the necessity of expensive treatments involving ICUs. If the thing mutates into something that isn't killing people or requiring hospitalization, why should I care about it?
You should care about mutations because of the potential for it to become more lethal or transmissible. Apparently, that happened in the Spanish Flu pandemic [I haven't researched it so this is heresay].

Give me the cite. I'm not buying this.
Fair enough; it was in one of Martenson's videos but they aren't indexed so finding it will take some time. But I will find it even if I have to rewatch every video back to late January.

Side question: why don't you buy it? Is it because the data doesn't make logical sense or because it conflicts with your current belief system?

If people aren't dying or needing hospitalization, who cares about your hypothetical problems?
The people who try to factor such things in to prepare for the future.

Back in January, people didn't care about CV because it was happening in a distant foreign country; any problems for us were hypothetical. Until they weren't.

Where I live, the current risk is to people over the age of 80, mostly in nursing homes. In places like NYC, Pennsylvania, etc., much of the problem is due to health officials purposefully putting sick people into close contact with very high risk populations. What does that have to do with the rest of us?
The risk increases with age, all other things being equal, probably starting in the 30s. There's no magic line at 80. If you just quarantined those >= 80, who would care for them? Wouldn't that likely involve a cohort that were < 80?
 
You are scaring me.
Forewarned is forearmed: being scared is OK [assuming the data upon which it's based is valid] since it hopefully leads to action to protect oneself and one's family/community.

Fear leading to inaction can be deadly.

Fear leading to irrational action can also be deadly [as I'm sure @WildVolley will agree; "irrational" being in the eye of the beholder].
 
Based on symptoms, I've been around multiple people who have been infected. Severity has varied, but none needed hospitalization. In the same family, some were coughing up blood and having asthma like symptoms while others just got a mild sore throat. The original spreader in the family never developed much of a cough, but first became suspicious when he noticed he couldn't taste his food, and realized it was due to lack of ability to smell. He was playing with the dog and realized he was almost instantly out of breath.
There is a sub-form on Reddit dedicated to CV survivor stories; I haven't read it [no pun intended] yet.
 

WildVolley

Legend
...You should care about mutations because of the potential for it to become more lethal or transmissible. Apparently, that happened in the Spanish Flu pandemic [I haven't researched it so this is heresay].
If this were like the Spanish Flu, I'd be much more frightened.

Side question: why don't you buy it? Is it because the data doesn't make logical sense or because it conflicts with your current belief system?
I don't buy it because almost everything I've been told or read about in the media during this scare has turned out to be false.

Back in January, people didn't care about CV because it was happening in a distant foreign country; any problems for us were hypothetical. Until they weren't.
We know a lot more about this now than we did in January. Almost all the predictions have been wrong.

I've been closely following my local county statistics. They don't at all match with what we were told would happen. I don't live in NYC.

The risk increases with age, all other things being equal, probably starting in the 30s. There's no magic line at 80. If you just quarantined those >= 80, who would care for them? Wouldn't that likely involve a cohort that were < 80?
Where I live, about half of all deaths are over 80, even though that accounts for a small fraction of the number of "confirmed" infections.

Testing here is still rare. Everyone I know who had it based on symptoms is now fine. None have been included in the official count.
 

WildVolley

Legend
There is a sub-form on Reddit dedicated to CV survivor stories; I haven't read it [no pun intended] yet.
Don't.

When I realized I'd been around people who very likely were infected, I went into severe paranoia and hypochondria for a while. I was washing everything and believed I was getting a fever, a sore throat, and a headache. A couple days later I calmed down and have been fine since.

I went back to playing tennis and have been living a fairly normal life for about the last month. The only weirdness is all the mask wearing in stores.
 
Give me the cite. I'm not buying this.
Coronavirus: low antibody levels raise questions about reinfection risk

Scientists in Shanghai say some recovered patients show no signs of the neutralising proteins
Early-stage findings could have implications for vaccine development and herd immunity


This is Martenson's video but he cites the source within.

Yes the results are early-stage and not comprehensive. Still, they are troubling because they don't fit the standard pattern of immunity and thus, standard assumptions might have to be tossed out the window.
 
If this were like the Spanish Flu, I'd be much more frightened.
The Spanish Flu Pandemic started out as "just the flu". Then it mutated.

What eventually became known as the Great Depression started out just as any other downturn.

My point is that we have hindsight clarity but a lot less foresight.

I don't buy it because almost everything I've been told or read about in the media during this scare has turned out to be false.
Fair enough. I learned about CV from Martenson and his style is not to scare but to present data and to attempt to make reasonable conclusions, some of which turned out to be wrong and I fully accept that possibility because no one has a crystal ball. But I was psychologically prepared thanks to his warnings.

We know a lot more about this now than we did in January. Almost all the predictions have been wrong.
See above. Acting intelligently on incomplete information is critical: if I wait for perfect information, I will never act because I will never have such information. Or, by the time I do, it will be too late to do anything constructive [yup, I should have evacuated when the hurricane warning came].

I've been closely following my local county statistics. They don't at all match with what we were told would happen. I don't live in NYC.



Where I live, about half of all deaths are over 80, even though that accounts for a small fraction of the number of "confirmed" infections.

Testing here is still rare. Everyone I know who had it based on symptoms is now fine. None have been included in the official count.
I think we're getting over the hump. I also think the hump would have been a lot higher and more extended had we done nothing. I can't prove that, though, but that's what I base my decision-making on.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
Forewarned is forearmed: being scared is OK [assuming the data upon which it's based is valid] since it hopefully leads to action to protect oneself and one's family/community.

Fear leading to inaction can be deadly.

Fear leading to irrational action can also be deadly [as I'm sure @WildVolley will agree; "irrational" being in the eye of the beholder].
But how long can we just hide inside?
 
But how long can we just hide inside?
Martenson framed it as a 3-part problem:
- Getting R0 below 0 so CV will stop spreading
- Not crushing the economy
- Not crushing the healthcare system

What he didn't really come out and say is that there might not be a solution that fits all 3 criteria. If so, you're into triage: what exactly and how much do we sacrifice in one category to gain in another?

And no one has the answer.

On one extreme, you could ignore it and continue on and let the chips fall where they may.

On the other extreme, you could lock everything down until R0 was crushed and then open back up. China did that in Hubei although there are signs of a 2nd wave beginning since they re-opened a few weeks ago.

Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, New Zealand, and various others seem to have solved the equation using many of the same tactics [masks, halting in-bound infections, social distancing, extensive testing, contact tracing, etc]. Many other countries that didn't adopt these measures or not nearly to the same extent seem to be having a much more difficult time taming CV.

And there are all points in between.

And when flu season starts up again in Nov, what will happen then?
 

MathGeek

Hall of Fame
You said "elderly."

I wouldn't say a person is "high risk" based solely on age over 50. I have lots of factors working for me. Like being female, strong immune system, no chronic conditions, healthy, good weight.

Let me tell ya something, sonny. As you get older, you're at higher risk for lots of things. You can cower in fear, or you can squeeze as much enjoyment as you can while you can.

Me, I'm playing tennis , period.
Sounds like my wife. When an older lady needed to step away from leading the local tennis group, my wife stepped in and took it over. Been playing twice a week straight through the last couple months. Yes, we're over 50. But we've worked very hard to stay healthy and not "high risk" over the past decade.

Age is a risk factor; it's not the only risk factor.

Risk groups are further divided beyond "high" and "low"; it's a continuum.

Then you have to factor in co-morbidities [hypertension, diabetes, obesity, etc].

And how good your immune system is [Vitamin D seems to be a big factor].

Looking at it in a binary high/low way encourages people in the supposedly low-risk group to take more risks and discourages those in the supposedly high-risk group from living their life.
For most Americans, being a type 2 diabetic is a CHOICE. A choice to eat too much, exercise too little, and eat the wrong foods. Hypertension is also often a CHOICE.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
Sounds like my wife. When an older lady needed to step away from leading the local tennis group, my wife stepped in and took it over. Been playing twice a week straight through the last couple months.
You are not familiar with the way Cindy writes.

"Me, I'm playing tennis , period." does not mean she is playing tennis like your wife for the last couple of months. It was supposed to be a statement about the future. Cindy would never flout any laws anywhere or for that matter, even the most obscure rules of etiquette.
 
For most Americans, being a type 2 diabetic is a CHOICE. A choice to eat too much, exercise too little, and eat the wrong foods. Hypertension is also often a CHOICE.
Choice is a factor, probably a major factor. But there's also genetics, culture, environment, etc.

I try to worry about the things I can control. I can't control genetics [at least, not yet] and it's very difficult to overcome cultural norms even if you're aware of them. Environment can be changed but it's not easy and some just don't have it in them [but they can adapt if forced].

Choice I can control to the greatest extent out of the four so that's what I focus on.
 

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
MathGeek,

before you can say diabetes is a “choice,“ you have to consider whether someone really has a choice.

If you live in a food desert, are poor, don’t have access to facilities and people who help you exercise, work multiple jobs, and your area is crime-ridden, you cannot use diet and exercise to avoid certain diseases.

lets not assume everyone lives a privileged life just because you do.
 

Dartagnan64

Legend
I don't accept your numbers as accurate.

In California, the current evidence is that we had community spread of the virus before Italy or Spain. We haven't had similar death rates among the young. Where I live, 0 people between the age of 0-19 have died out of a population of 3 million. So why can't I just counter with data that says the fatality rate for infected between the age of 0-19 is 0% for the infected? I'd sign my kids up for that lottery.

A lot of people here are no longer socially distancing. If what you believe is true, we should see a big spike in problems among the young.
Because larger numbers in Spain mean you can do a more accurate assessment of risk. When California gets to 250,000+ cases and 25,000+ deaths, their age related stats will be more meaningful. If a country had 2 cases and one was a baby that died would you say the infant mortality from this disease is 50%. Choosing to pick stats from less reliable (i.e. lower numbers of cases) sources to suit a narrative has been a problem all along with these internet arguments.

And how much is a "lot of people" not socially distancing. We talking 95%? or 5%?
 
Top