Would you attend a 49ers game this coming season if you had to sign a waiver taking respo?

Why would you have to sign a waiver? There wasn't viruses in the world last year? The year before? There was never viruses before in history? It just happened this year?

The NFL wouldn't do that so it's not really a valid question. The back of tickets for baseball games basically say they are not responsible for injuries to fans so they viewed that as a waiver. The courts said otherwise as people sued for injuries from batted balls and fights. The courts ruled that teams are responsible for the safety of the fans. In this case, a waiver wouldn't absolve the team from keeping people safe. But as I said before, it doesn't make much difference since you wouldn't be able to prove you got the virus at the game.

If they allowed fans there would be some that go but I don't see teams allowing a full stadium and I don't know how they could fairly decide which 12-15 thousand get to go. Having that few people at a game would almost be worse than none. You all know how did it was at Levis with half the stands full. Imagine only about 15% of the stands full.

Originally posted by StOnEy333:
I haven't missed a home game in 22 seasons. I personally would have no problem attending a game under restrictions, or even if they just said business as usual, come on in.

That said, I don't expect fans to be attending games at the start of the season. And if that's the case, so be it. But I'll be ready and willing whenever they'll let us back.

In my judgement, even if fans were allowed back, so many fans have become so fearful of contracting this virus and dying, that there would be very few fans back, at least in the early weeks.

Originally posted by dj43:
In my judgement, even if fans were allowed back, so many fans have become so fearful of contracting this virus and dying, that there would be very few fans back, at least in the early weeks.

I would have thought that too until I saw the way people were flocking back into restaurants and bars as they were allowed to open. We have a constant battle going on inside of us between fear and desire. Desire has a lot of power.

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:

Originally posted by dj43:

In my judgement, even if fans were allowed back, so many fans have become so fearful of contracting this virus and dying, that there would be very few fans back, at least in the early weeks.

I would have thought that too until I saw the way people were flocking back into restaurants and bars as they were allowed to open. We have a constant battle going on inside of us between fear and desire. Desire has a lot of power.

In fact, I never met a person in my life who was feared of it. They actually know that the risk of getting seriously ill is low. Like the COD data for NYC.

Originally posted by Mayor:
In fact, I never met a person in my life who was feared of it. They actually know that the risk of getting seriously ill is low. Like the COD data for NYC.

I've never met anyone that's had the virus but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. On the contrary, I know a lot of people that are worried about it. My guess is you are younger so I understand the difference. I took a lot more risk when i was in my younger years.

I would NOT attend a 49er game if I had to waive my right to respiration.

What kind of a ridiculous question is that??!!???

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:

The NFL wouldn't do that so it's not really a valid question. The back of tickets for baseball games basically say they are not responsible for injuries to fans so they viewed that as a waiver. The courts said otherwise as people sued for injuries from batted balls and fights. The courts ruled that teams are responsible for the safety of the fans. In this case, a waiver wouldn't absolve the team from keeping people safe. But as I said before, it doesn't make much difference since you wouldn't be able to prove you got the virus at the game.

If they allowed fans there would be some that go but I don't see teams allowing a full stadium and I don't know how they could fairly decide which 12-15 thousand get to go. Having that few people at a game would almost be worse than none. You all know how did it was at Levis with half the stands full. Imagine only about 15% of the stands full.

Pretty good guess. Only stadium seating chart for covid safety I have seen to date is Kyle stadium, in College Station, Tx, home of the Tex Aggies. Stadium seats 102,000. They have proposed every other row and every 4th seat, making it 6' distance between seats. And every other row gives you about 6' between seated rows.

So 1/2 of 72,000 is 36,000 and then 1/4 of that is 9000 fans at Levi . Off the top of my head that is 1/8 the seats and 12% . From that, when you consider all the hassle of fans waiting in line, behind 6' marker tapes (like at most grocery stores right now), only there would need to be 9000 tape markers(every 6 ft) for those in line, and then doing a thermal screen (very doable ) of clumps of people, and anybody with elevated Temp has to be screened for p02(percent oxygen saturation in blood and if less than 95-96% and with elevated temp, you likely have covid). The pulse oximeter looks like a clothes pin and slips on the index finger rapidly and immediate readings. Very doable.

But getting the city/county a waiver, same for ownership, and then being one of 9000 fans in stands...no food nor drinks, bathrooms monitored for social distancing, yadda, yadda....who really wants to do all that and be taking a sizeable risk on top of everything else?

Note also that Gavin Newsome suddenly changed horses in midstream when he said no sports until late , maybe Oct/Nov, suddenly got religion when he realized no games meant no taxes on any Televised games nor any fans in attendance. Projected 49er losses for 2020 if no games, no fans...~ $208 million. And suddenly uncle Gavin thot that June 1st would be a fine time for football to return to airwaves at Levi's, as well as any taxes on whatever income is generated by TV or sparse fan attendance. Of course, this all includes wearing face masks required.

Ask any lawyer, waivers ain't worth the paper they are written on

Agree, but you know , the city/county and ownership would STILL want some document with the word "Covid 19" on it and a signature stating the fan entering holds city, county and ownership harmless...ie you recognize the potential danger and are willing to take responsibility for whatever happens..

Originally posted by glorydayz:

Originally posted by Niners_D:

Originally posted by glorydayz:

Originally posted by Mooseman:
Fill the stadium, Go at your own risk. This virus is overblown. A few years back we had a heavy flu season with deaths around 60 to 80 thousand with vaccines.

I bet a you our deaths are much less than reported. It's so easy to put covid on the death certificate . Colorado has already admitted that mistakes have been made.

Don't want to minimize death, but destroying a economy is wrong. Just f**king use common sense

Wouldn't the death of employee's and costumers destroy the economy?

Just wondering...?

Bear with me, this is long, but I want to watch football so the math is much more important than say sleeping or something:

I refuse to touch the political (it is an election year), looking at the hard data, if individuals use caution, the risks don't seem to be as great as the original fears.

NYC is the best sample group since they have had by far the most antibody testing or people who have had the virus. So the most recent data I have found from NYC is fairly dated at this point, but 24.7% of people tested positive for the antivirus as of April 27 (previously had the virus per the CDC's site on antibodies)
Here is a link to the report of the number of people tested:
https://www.livescience.com/covid-antibody-test-results-new-york-test.html
Googling NYC, the population of the city itself is around 8,399,000. So 8,399,000 x .247 = 2,047,000 who have had the virus there.
Moving on to the JohnsHopkins data as of today, 28,232 have died in NYC including the people assumed to have died of the virus but were never tested.
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html
Back to the numbers, 28,232 deaths is 1.3791890571568% of 2,047,000 so much lower than originally feared now that we can test more widely. Please consider that the 24.7% of people tested there is a few weeks old and per Governor Cuomomo as of today they are conducting 20,000 tests daily in NYC:
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/new-yorkers-need-to-get-tested-cuomo-says-700-statewide-sites-test-for-covid-19/2420689/
Once that new data comes in the 1.379% mortality rate will come down even further. So it will still be worse than the flu, but again not as bad as originally feared.

Who should avoid the Niner's game in order to prevent becoming a potential statistic? Realistically it is the 'at risk' people as defined here by the CDC:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-at-higher-risk.html

The age-based data was available on the CDC website but it looks like they are screwing with it right now so the deaths specific to Covid19 are not posted at this time. I'll check back and update when they are.

Bottom line: If you don't have any pre-existing conditions and are in the under 60 crowd, that mortality rate goes down significantly.

***I am not a doctor, just a guy who is highly incentiveized to do math since football is involved.***

CDCs definition of antibodies:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/testing/serology-overview.html. ;

Great post Niners_D,

Looking at the data you provided the one thing that is missing is the fact that the population you mentioned; people under sixty with no pre-existing conditions. This population also interacts with the over 60 crowd and people with pre-existing conditions, most probably live with individuals from these vulnerable populations. With that said what do we do in these situations? Let some people endanger the lives of others?

But I hear you, if our civilization was all grown up and could make the right (informed) decisions simply most of the time, it could all work.

I love football and would go to games or watch games on T.V if given the opportunity. So I hope we have a season, national moral may depend on it.
Thanks for leaving the politics out of this my brother.

Looks like the CDC has updated their data showing the causes of death via various respiratory issues separately, including or combined with Covid19. I've found this useful as it gives the best data that the CDC has available to them and can help fans make a good independent determination as to whether game day attendance is worth the risk based on their age group. Personally as a healthy person with no underlying conditions I feel comfortable with taking the risk myself but will not be bringing my dad this year who is in his mid 70s.

After you go to the website click on the 'Export' button, from there you have options to view with 'CSV' or 'CSV for Excel'.

https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Counts-by-Sex-Age-and-S/9bhg-hcku

Originally posted by glorydayz:
Great post Niners_D,

Looking at the data you provided the one thing that is missing is the fact that the population you mentioned; people under sixty with no pre-existing conditions. This population also interacts with the over 60 crowd and people with pre-existing conditions, most probably live with individuals from these vulnerable populations. With that said what do we do in these situations? Let some people endanger the lives of others?

But I hear you, if our civilization was all grown up and could make the right (informed) decisions simply most of the time, it could all work.

I love football and would go to games or watch games on T.V if given the opportunity. So I hope we have a season, national moral may depend on it.
Thanks for leaving the politics out of this my brother.

To your other points, I agree with you and that is a challenge that my wife and I have had numerous discussions on. Both my parents and her mom have wanted to get together but my wife is afraid that if we have had any exposure that they could get infected. My response has been that it is important for us to fully disclose to them where we have been and potential exposure so that they can determine for themselves if it is worth the risk, I don't think that is up to me or my wife to decide for them.

The responsible approach of game attendees would be to have a strict approach to social interactions for two weeks following the game(s). Masks, distancing, limited grocery store trips, etc. Will we see a spike after games? I would think so, but it also seems like NYC is closer to herd immunity than the rest of us, but you also make a good point that not everyone will make responsible decisions after the games.