fivethirthyeight--2020-06-29--How Do You Play Sports In The Middle Of A Pandemic?

sara.ziegler ( Sara Ziegler , sports editor ) : Cases of COVID-19 are spiking in places across the U.S. that weren ’ t hit hard initially .
Some areas that had reopened are shutting down bars and reducing capacity in restaurants .
People are throwing tantrums in grocery stores when asked to put on masks .
And in the middle of all of that … we ’ re trying to bring back sports .
American sports leagues are just now coming out of their coronavirus hibernation , with some already started and some finalizing their schedules for play .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ players , so every day , it seems like there ’ s another announcement of a team full of athletes afflicted by the coronavirus .
Players ( and staff ) across MLB , the NBA and college athletics have tested positive .
The Orlando Pride of the National Women ’ s Soccer League had to pull out of the Challenge Cup tournament after several positive tests .
And golfers have withdrawn from PGA Tour events two weeks in a row after testing positive — and that ’ s not even counting caddies .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , so we brought together two science journalists and two sports journalists to see if we could figure out what this all means for the safety of the athletes and the reality of the leagues ’ returns .
Maggie Koerth and Kaleigh Rogers have been covering the science and politics of the novel coronavirus since the earliest days of the pandemic , while Neil Paine has been examining its effects on the world of sports .
So let ’ s dig in .
Should we be surprised that athletes have been struck with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the prevalence of cases in the general , nonathlete population ?
maggie ( Maggie Koerth , senior science writer ) : I don ’ t think it ’ s surprising that a bunch of people who share a locker room and run around breathing heavily on each other might contract a virus from one another .
kaleigh ( Kaleigh Rogers , science and politics reporter ) : Exactly .
We know that the virus spreads from prolonged , close contact .
Sports are a natural hot spot .
Even though the actual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the open air , there ’ s enough time spent close together inside that viral spread is inevitable .
Social distancing is effective , but team sports are the opposite of social distancing .
neil ( Neil Paine , senior sportswriter ) : There are also a LOT of pro athletes in these leagues .
Last year , 1,410 players played at least one Major League Baseball game .
The NFL has even more players .
And the NBA and WNBA still number in the many hundreds .
So it was inevitable that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would come back with positive tests as they were eased into these bubbles , right ?
( This is before we even get into the many , many college players out there . )
kaleigh : And most of them have not yet been exposed .
A Stanford study of MLB employees that came out in May found less than 1 percent had tested positive for COVID-19 antibodies .
sara.ziegler : The point about sports being the opposite of social distancing is a good one .
But these positive tests are coming before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ started !
These athletes were theoretically just living their lives as normal people .
kaleigh : Sara , that ’ s a good point and also gets at a big question mark when it comes to plans to resume play : What rules will be placed on athletes off the field ?
I know the MLB plan , at least , is relying on just asking athletes to “ exercise care.
” neil : Saying “ exercise care ” seems like a big ask from a group of people who are young and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the average person ( seeing as they ’ ve basically never run into physical limitations before in their lives , up until this ) .
kaleigh : And Neil , that ’ s not even mentioning college athletes who , along with being young and , y ’ know , in college , also have other obligations like class to contend with .
maggie : And we haven ’ t even added the spectators to the equation either .
West Virginia University recently did a study where they looked at influenza data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you can actually see an increase in flu mortality in a city that ’ s correlated with bringing in a new sports franchise .
Like , sports teams make flu season deaths rise in those cities by between 4 and 24 percent .
Bring in a new team and that flu season ( and every one after it ) had more deaths .
sara.ziegler : Oh , wow !
That does not make me feel great about all the non-pandemic games I ’ ve attended .
maggie : That ’ s building on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Super Bowl ( i.e.
, extending the football season further into peak flu season and increasing time fans spent watching football together , even inside their own houses ) increased flu mortality in a team ’ s home city by 18 percent among people over the age of 65. neil : That ’ s incredible .
Something we never really think about at all .
maggie : Now seems like a nice time to plug flu shots .
Get your flu shot this fall , people .
sara.ziegler : It seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this round of testing have been asymptomatic — or , at least , we ’ re not hearing of many more serious cases , like we did with athletes earlier on in the pandemic .
Does that surprise any of you ?
kaleigh : I think some of that speaks to the high level of physical health that many athletes have to maintain .
If you ’ re already in peak shape , it ’ s not shocking that you ’ re experiencing a less severe infection .
maggie : That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either , given what we know about how this virus operates .
Younger people generally have less severe infection .
And even though there are exceptions to that , it ’ s still generally true .
kaleigh : Yeah , Maggie , those exceptions are still pretty rare .
neil : Will the relatively mild cases among athletes be the saving grace for bringing sports back ?
Or are we just deluding ourselves and a severe case is inevitable ?
kaleigh : Neil and Sara , you ’ d have an answer for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ athletes and more severe cases of COVID ?
I can ’ t imagine being intubated is something anyone who relies on their body for a living wants to experience .
Isn ’ t there also a financial risk to putting players ’ health on the line ?
neil : There ’ s definitely been negotiations to increase the amount of insurance for NBA players .
kaleigh : Severe cases in young , otherwise healthy people are rare , but not unheard of .
And there are lots of reports of lingering impacts from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there have been some more serious cases among athletes .
Von Miller of the Denver Broncos was sick this spring , and he ’ s been worried about the damage to his lungs .
There ’ s just so much we don ’ t know about the long-term effects of the virus .
maggie : I ’ ve also been thinking about all the stories I ’ ve read where “ mild ” nonhospitalized infections were still … not a walk in the park .
kaleigh : Totally , Maggie !
Often , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less than needing a respirator , ” which is a pretty broad range of severity .
maggie : I ’ m waiting for a severe case in a coach , myself .
Or owners .
kaleigh : I think we also need to consider that the people who make sports happen aren ’ t only athletes in the prime of their life .
maggie : Trainers .
Staff .
There ’ s lots of people who work with those athletes who are not 24-year-old demigods .
kaleigh : And then there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting sick , they could be spreading the virus to their families and the wider community .
A young , healthy person getting a mild or asymptomatic case and recovering has never been what we ’ ve been trying to avoid .
sara.ziegler : Right .
The bubbles aren ’ t needed just to keep people inside of them safe — they ’ re needed to keep everyone outside of them safe , too !
neil : I guess that ’ s a big argument in favor of the “ bubble ” approach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing it in a less structured way .
maggie : Bubbles definitely make a lot of sense .
The YMCA has reported ( although this isn ’ t independently confirmed data or anything ) that they ’ ve had no outbreak clusters associated with their childcare centers … and that ’ s partly because they ’ ve been keeping little kids in nine-kid-plus-teacher bubbles that don ’ t interact with other bubbles at the center .
But bubbles are harder for sports teams , I think , when , you know , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the field or court .
sara.ziegler : Bubbles bumping into each other , left and right .
maggie : Maybe it ’ s time for intramural sports ?
Players from the same team just play each other all season .
sara.ziegler : I guess that ’ s sort of the idea with the NBA/WNBA — it ’ s just one very large intramural tournament .
kaleigh : One thing that stands out to me about the plans to reopen are the efforts to test very frequently .
This will surely help curb the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and isolate actively infectious individuals .
And it can help avoid false negatives , because even mild cases are usually detectable if tested in the first five to seven days of infection , according to one expert at UCLA .
But testing is not a panacea .
Some of the spread will have already happened by the time someone tests positive .
And that ’ s where community spread becomes more concerning .
sara.ziegler : Can that regular testing tell us anything about the virus itself that we don ’ t know from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among all of us regular folk ?
kaleigh : Well , one thing I ’ m learning from reporting I ’ m doing for a story ( stay tuned ! )
is that testing is only part of the equation .
There is a lot of useful data we can get from testing , including historical data we can study when this is all over , but in terms of controlling the active outbreak , it ’ s only half of the answer .
Without proper containment and contact tracing , testing can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I would certainly be interested in getting my hands on this data later , after the leagues have had a longer period of testing , and seeing how changes in positives correlate with different behaviors by the team members neil : With player testing , is it valuable because it ’ s everyone in a population pool ( so less bias ) … or less valuable because that population is heavily biased towards the young and very fit ?
kaleigh : In the MLB antibody testing study , for example , the sample @ @ @ @ @ @ @ white .
maggie : If you have this population you ’ re testing regularly , over and over , that might tell us something about which behaviors really are more or less risky .
neil : Good point , Maggie — the time-series aspect of it is probably the most valuable part .
maggie : But , of course , that won ’ t really be available for a while .
It will be interesting in retrospect , though !
And given that COVID-19 is probably not just going to go away any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ term .
kaleigh : We ’ ve learned a lot in the course of this pandemic from “ natural experiments.
” I think about that choir group that met for practice and taught us so much about just how this virus spreads .
neil : One thing is for sure : Researchers love anything that looks like a natural experiment !
So I bet this data shows up in a lot of papers eventually .
kaleigh : To me , the bigger question ( especially as a non-sports person ) is : Is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re making a big effort to take something that is , quite simply , not essential and make it safe enough to bring back during a pandemic.The best course of action would be to just wait it out , but I realize there is a lot of money and emotion on the line .
neil : Yeah .
I think there ’ s the rush to feel a sense of “ normalcy ” again , but mainly it ’ s money .
maggie : Let ’ s not discount the way that lots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to normalcy , too .
Like , sports is a whole damn economy .
The feeling of normalcy people are seeking from it is both symbolic and practical .
neil : We ’ ve talked often about how the losses might be painful for leagues in the short term but they ’ re at least manageable if they finish the season .
But if leagues start to default on these TV contracts promising playoff games , it could have long-lasting consequences .
kaleigh : That ’ s really the tension for a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( and need ) to reopen the economy versus the need to control this pandemic .
sara.ziegler : Yeah , the issues around sports restarting are the same issues that the entire economy faces .
maggie : And downstream businesses , from restaurants to transportation companies to , heck , our colleagues over at ESPN .
kaleigh : And our colleagues here at FiveThirtyEight !
( Though you guys have been doing great work in the absence of any actual sports . )
kaleigh : I can ’ t imagine what I would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stopped .
sara.ziegler : It ’ s been a pretty strange thing , that ’ s for sure .
maggie : Yeah , sorry , Neil .
You guys are doing amazing .
My head was just on those TV contracts .
neil : One of our colleagues said sports are the toy aisle of the journalism store , which is kind of true .
And it ’ s also true that sports are a luxury a functioning country gets to have .
Are we that right now ?
Probably not .
😬 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we can cover other stuff at FiveThirtyEight .
( Hello , economics ! )
But sports-specific websites are really struggling , and I think that ’ s been a factor in the coverage of sports returning .
I ’ m not surprised that people whose livelihoods are tied to sports want them back right away .
neil : And that includes the players too !
maggie : America is in a weird situation of maybe having more culture/money in sports than pretty much any other place … AND having less control over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
kaleigh : But as we saw with Novak Djokovic ’ s tournament , even trying to bring back sports in areas where COVID cases have dipped doesn ’ t guarantee immunity .
neil : Of course , it didn ’ t help that nobody wore masks ( and the person putting on the tournament doesn ’ t believe in vaccines ) .
At least that is one area where NBA Commissioner Adam Silver has the edge !
So , positive tests of prominent athletes are undoubtedly going to continue as long as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Silver said the NBA has “ no choice but to learn to live with this virus.
” Is that true ?
Is this the only option for the NBA and every other league that wants to start up again ?
kaleigh : If leagues want to start up again in 2020 , I can ’ t imagine how they will avoid people in the league getting sick , short of moving everyone to Antarctica and hosting the whole season there .
maggie : I mean , yeah , no one has any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus .
That ’ s sort of reality for us all .
HOW you choose to learn to live with it , though … there ’ s a lot of choice in that .
“ Have to learn to live with the virus ” =/= “ welp , I guess we just go back to normal.
” Unless you decide that ’ s what it means .
And then you ’ re choosing the consequences of that , too .
neil : Yeah , pretending it ’ s not happening is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus .
( As we ’ re seeing a lot of states learn right now . )
kaleigh : Speak for yourself , guys .
I ’ m moving to the South Pole .
maggie : Ironically , Kaleigh , McMurdo seems like it would be a hotbed of virus spread .
But you do you .
kaleigh : Yeah they absolutely would not let me in , coming from New York City .

How Do You Play Sports In The Middle Of A Pandemic?
sara.ziegler (Sara Ziegler, sports editor): Cases of COVID-19 are spiking in places across the U.S. that weren’t hit hard initially. Some areas that had reopened are shutting down bars and reducing capacity in restaurants. People are throwing tantrums in grocery stores when asked to put on masks. And in the middle of all of that … we’re trying to bring back sports.
American sports leagues are just now coming out of their coronavirus hibernation, with some already started and some finalizing their schedules for play. They’re ramping up testing of their players, so every day, it seems like there’s another announcement of a team full of athletes afflicted by the coronavirus. Players (and staff) across MLB, the NBA and college athletics have tested positive. The Orlando Pride of the National Women’s Soccer League had to pull out of the Challenge Cup tournament after several positive tests. And golfers have withdrawn from PGA Tour events two weeks in a row after testing positive — and that’s not even counting caddies.
We wanted to understand these headlines better, so we brought together two science journalists and two sports journalists to see if we could figure out what this all means for the safety of the athletes and the reality of the leagues’ returns. Maggie Koerth and Kaleigh Rogers have been covering the science and politics of the novel coronavirus since the earliest days of the pandemic, while Neil Paine has been examining its effects on the world of sports.
So let’s dig in. Should we be surprised that athletes have been struck with the virus, given what we know about the prevalence of cases in the general, nonathlete population?
maggie (Maggie Koerth, senior science writer): I don’t think it’s surprising that a bunch of people who share a locker room and run around breathing heavily on each other might contract a virus from one another.
kaleigh (Kaleigh Rogers, science and politics reporter): Exactly. We know that the virus spreads from prolonged, close contact. Sports are a natural hot spot. Even though the actual sports-ing often takes place outdoors, in the open air, there’s enough time spent close together inside that viral spread is inevitable. Social distancing is effective, but team sports are the opposite of social distancing.
neil (Neil Paine, senior sportswriter): There are also a LOT of pro athletes in these leagues. Last year, 1,410 players played at least one Major League Baseball game.
The NFL has even more players. And the NBA and WNBA still number in the many hundreds. So it was inevitable that some — or even many — players would come back with positive tests as they were eased into these bubbles, right? (This is before we even get into the many, many college players out there.)
kaleigh: And most of them have not yet been exposed. A Stanford study of MLB employees that came out in May found less than 1 percent had tested positive for COVID-19 antibodies.
sara.ziegler: The point about sports being the opposite of social distancing is a good one. But these positive tests are coming before a lot of the play has even started! These athletes were theoretically just living their lives as normal people.
kaleigh: Sara, that’s a good point and also gets at a big question mark when it comes to plans to resume play: What rules will be placed on athletes off the field? I know the MLB plan, at least, is relying on just asking athletes to “exercise care.”
neil: Saying “exercise care” seems like a big ask from a group of people who are young and probably feel an extra level of invincibility over the average person (seeing as they’ve basically never run into physical limitations before in their lives, up until this).
kaleigh: And Neil, that’s not even mentioning college athletes who, along with being young and, y’know, in college, also have other obligations like class to contend with.
neil: LOL, class.
kaleigh: Surely sometimes, right?
neil: (For sure.)
maggie: Those underwater baskets aren’t gonna weave themselves.
sara.ziegler: 🤣
maggie: And we haven’t even added the spectators to the equation either. West Virginia University recently did a study where they looked at influenza data between 1962 and 2016 and found that you can actually see an increase in flu mortality in a city that’s correlated with bringing in a new sports franchise.
Like, sports teams make flu season deaths rise in those cities by between 4 and 24 percent. Bring in a new team and that flu season (and every one after it) had more deaths.
sara.ziegler: Oh, wow! That does not make me feel great about all the non-pandemic games I’ve attended.
maggie: That’s building on previous research that had found making it to the Super Bowl (i.e., extending the football season further into peak flu season and increasing time fans spent watching football together, even inside their own houses) increased flu mortality in a team’s home city by 18 percent among people over the age of 65.
neil: That’s incredible. Something we never really think about at all.
(Although one takeaway from this whole thing is how underappreciated the risk of the flu is anyway.)
maggie: Now seems like a nice time to plug flu shots. Get your flu shot this fall, people.
sara.ziegler: It seems like almost all of the athlete cases in this round of testing have been asymptomatic — or, at least, we’re not hearing of many more serious cases, like we did with athletes earlier on in the pandemic. Does that surprise any of you?
kaleigh: I think some of that speaks to the high level of physical health that many athletes have to maintain. If you’re already in peak shape, it’s not shocking that you’re experiencing a less severe infection.
maggie: That’s not wildly surprising to me, either, given what we know about how this virus operates. Younger people generally have less severe infection. And even though there are exceptions to that, it’s still generally true.
kaleigh: Yeah, Maggie, those exceptions are still pretty rare.
neil: Will the relatively mild cases among athletes be the saving grace for bringing sports back? Or are we just deluding ourselves and a severe case is inevitable?
kaleigh: Neil and Sara, you’d have an answer for this: Is there any concern about athletes and more severe cases of COVID? I can’t imagine being intubated is something anyone who relies on their body for a living wants to experience.
Isn’t there also a financial risk to putting players’ health on the line?
neil: There’s definitely been negotiations to increase the amount of insurance for NBA players.
(And it won’t be held against NBA players if they choose not to play the rest of the season.)
kaleigh: Severe cases in young, otherwise healthy people are rare, but not unheard of. And there are lots of reports of lingering impacts from more serious infections.
sara.ziegler: And there have been some more serious cases among athletes. Von Miller of the Denver Broncos was sick this spring, and he’s been worried about the damage to his lungs. There’s just so much we don’t know about the long-term effects of the virus.
maggie: I’ve also been thinking about all the stories I’ve read where “mild” nonhospitalized infections were still … not a walk in the park.
kaleigh: Totally, Maggie! Often, “mild” only means “anything less than needing a respirator,” which is a pretty broad range of severity.
maggie: I’m waiting for a severe case in a coach, myself. Or owners.
kaleigh: I think we also need to consider that the people who make sports happen aren’t only athletes in the prime of their life.
maggie: Trainers. Staff. There’s lots of people who work with those athletes who are not 24-year-old demigods.
kaleigh: And then there’s the fact that if they’re getting sick, they could be spreading the virus to their families and the wider community.
A young, healthy person getting a mild or asymptomatic case and recovering has never been what we’ve been trying to avoid.
maggie: Exactly.
sara.ziegler: Right. The bubbles aren’t needed just to keep people inside of them safe — they’re needed to keep everyone outside of them safe, too!
neil: I guess that’s a big argument in favor of the “bubble” approach, compared with the leagues that are doing it in a less structured way.
maggie: Bubbles definitely make a lot of sense. The YMCA has reported (although this isn’t independently confirmed data or anything) that they’ve had no outbreak clusters associated with their childcare centers … and that’s partly because they’ve been keeping little kids in nine-kid-plus-teacher bubbles that don’t interact with other bubbles at the center.
But bubbles are harder for sports teams, I think, when, you know, the bubbles have to play one another on the field or court.
sara.ziegler: Bubbles bumping into each other, left and right.
maggie: Maybe it’s time for intramural sports? Players from the same team just play each other all season.
sara.ziegler: I guess that’s sort of the idea with the NBA/WNBA — it’s just one very large intramural tournament.
kaleigh: One thing that stands out to me about the plans to reopen are the efforts to test very frequently. This will surely help curb the spread somewhat by allowing teams to identify and isolate actively infectious individuals. And it can help avoid false negatives, because even mild cases are usually detectable if tested in the first five to seven days of infection, according to one expert at UCLA. But testing is not a panacea. Some of the spread will have already happened by the time someone tests positive. And that’s where community spread becomes more concerning.
sara.ziegler: Can that regular testing tell us anything about the virus itself that we don’t know from the much more irregular testing going on among all of us regular folk?
kaleigh: Well, one thing I’m learning from reporting I’m doing for a story (stay tuned!) is that testing is only part of the equation. There is a lot of useful data we can get from testing, including historical data we can study when this is all over, but in terms of controlling the active outbreak, it’s only half of the answer. Without proper containment and contact tracing, testing can only do so much.
maggie: I would certainly be interested in getting my hands on this data later, after the leagues have had a longer period of testing, and seeing how changes in positives correlate with different behaviors by the team members
neil: With player testing, is it valuable because it’s everyone in a population pool (so less bias) … or less valuable because that population is heavily biased towards the young and very fit?
kaleigh: Yes, Neil.
sara.ziegler: LOL
kaleigh: In the MLB antibody testing study, for example, the sample was 60 percent male and 80 percent white.
maggie: If you have this population you’re testing regularly, over and over, that might tell us something about which behaviors really are more or less risky.
neil: Good point, Maggie — the time-series aspect of it is probably the most valuable part.
maggie: But, of course, that won’t really be available for a while.
It will be interesting in retrospect, though! And given that COVID-19 is probably not just going to go away any time soon … useful in the long term.
kaleigh: We’ve learned a lot in the course of this pandemic from “natural experiments.” I think about that choir group that met for practice and taught us so much about just how this virus spreads.
neil: One thing is for sure: Researchers love anything that looks like a natural experiment!
So I bet this data shows up in a lot of papers eventually.
kaleigh: To me, the bigger question (especially as a non-sports person) is: Is any of this necessary? We’re making a big effort to take something that is, quite simply, not essential and make it safe enough to bring back during a pandemic.The best course of action would be to just wait it out, but I realize there is a lot of money and emotion on the line.
maggie: Lots and lots of money.
neil: Yeah. I think there’s the rush to feel a sense of “normalcy” again, but mainly it’s money.
maggie: Let’s not discount the way that lots and lots of money represents a return to normalcy, too. Like, sports is a whole damn economy. The feeling of normalcy people are seeking from it is both symbolic and practical.
neil: We’ve talked often about how the losses might be painful for leagues in the short term but they’re at least manageable if they finish the season. But if leagues start to default on these TV contracts promising playoff games, it could have long-lasting consequences.
kaleigh: That’s really the tension for a lot of our reopening decisions: the desire (and need) to reopen the economy versus the need to control this pandemic.
sara.ziegler: Yeah, the issues around sports restarting are the same issues that the entire economy faces.
maggie: And downstream businesses, from restaurants to transportation companies to, heck, our colleagues over at ESPN.
kaleigh: And our colleagues here at FiveThirtyEight! (Though you guys have been doing great work in the absence of any actual sports.)
neil: Hah, yep. (Thank you!)
kaleigh: I can’t imagine what I would do if science and politics just … stopped.
sara.ziegler: It’s been a pretty strange thing, that’s for sure.
maggie: Yeah, sorry, Neil. You guys are doing amazing. My head was just on those TV contracts.
neil: One of our colleagues said sports are the toy aisle of the journalism store, which is kind of true. And it’s also true that sports are a luxury a functioning country gets to have.
Are we that right now? Probably not. 😬
sara.ziegler: We’re lucky here that we can cover other stuff at FiveThirtyEight. (Hello, economics!) But sports-specific websites are really struggling, and I think that’s been a factor in the coverage of sports returning.
I’m not surprised that people whose livelihoods are tied to sports want them back right away.
neil: And that includes the players too!
sara.ziegler: For sure.
maggie: America is in a weird situation of maybe having more culture/money in sports than pretty much any other place … AND having less control over its COVID outbreak than any other place.
kaleigh: But as we saw with Novak Djokovic’s tournament, even trying to bring back sports in areas where COVID cases have dipped doesn’t guarantee immunity.
neil: Of course, it didn’t help that nobody wore masks (and the person putting on the tournament doesn’t believe in vaccines).
At least that is one area where NBA Commissioner Adam Silver has the edge!
sara.ziegler: LOL
So, positive tests of prominent athletes are undoubtedly going to continue as long as there are positive tests of everybody else. Silver said the NBA has “no choice but to learn to live with this virus.” Is that true? Is this the only option for the NBA and every other league that wants to start up again?
kaleigh: If leagues want to start up again in 2020, I can’t imagine how they will avoid people in the league getting sick, short of moving everyone to Antarctica and hosting the whole season there.
maggie: I mean, yeah, no one has any choice but to learn to live with the virus. That’s sort of reality for us all. HOW you choose to learn to live with it, though … there’s a lot of choice in that.
“Have to learn to live with the virus” =/= “welp, I guess we just go back to normal.”
Unless you decide that’s what it means. And then you’re choosing the consequences of that, too.
neil: Yeah, pretending it’s not happening is not a viable way of living with the virus. (As we’re seeing a lot of states learn right now.)
kaleigh: Speak for yourself, guys. I’m moving to the South Pole.
neil: 🐧
maggie: Ironically, Kaleigh, McMurdo seems like it would be a hotbed of virus spread.
But you do you.
kaleigh: Yeah they absolutely would not let me in, coming from New York City.
Subscribe to our sports podcast, Hot Takedown


fivethirthyeight--2020-06-29--The Best Damn Receiver Who Won’t Make The Hall Of Fame

All members of our Hall of Pretty Damn Good Players brought value to their teams in an underappreciated way — it ’ s sort of a requirement for enshrinement , after all .
But few are outright forgotten in the way that former Jacksonville Jaguars wide receiver Jimmy Smith has been since his retirement in 2006 .
Between playing in one of the NFL ’ s smallest markets during his career and fighting a tough battle with addiction afterwards — both of which likely prevented him from the kind of second act in broadcasting enjoyed by many of his receiving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remember just how great Smith was in his prime .
Which is a shame , because he was secretly one of the greatest pass-catchers in NFL history .
From 1996 through 2002 , Smith may have been the best receiver in football .
During that period , he ranked second ( behind Marvin Harrison ) in total catches , first in receiving yards and seventh in touchdown receptions .
According to the True Receiving Yards metric I created with Chase Stuart of FootballPerspective.com — which adjusts a receiver ’ s stats for era @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — only Harrison ( 8,311 TRY ) was more productive over that span than Smith ( 8,271 ) .
Harrison is in the Hall of Fame , along with a number of Smith ’ s other receiving peers : Randy Moss , Terrell Owens , Isaac Bruce , Tim Brown , Cris Carter and , of course , Jerry Rice .
But Smith ’ s Canton case hasn ’ t gone much more traction than making the preliminary lists of candidates .
We ’ ve written before that the Pro Football Hall of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ position ’ s importance — and its statistical benchmarks — have evolved significantly over time , particularly as the passing game grew to take over the modern sport since the 1990s , but the Hall ’ s selection committee has struggled to apply an evolving standard to candidates ’ resumes .
For instance , it might be tempting to write off Smith ’ s lifetime stats — 862 receptions , 12,287 yards , 67 TD catches — as a product of the modern pass-heavy era .
But Smith ’ s career was already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Show on Turf ” St. Louis Rams began to revolutionize the modern passing game ; he hung up his cleats for good two seasons before the 2007 New England Patriots further accelerated that trend .
By and large , Smith — who retired as the seventh-most-prolific pass-catcher ever — was at the vanguard of the productive receivers who would follow , not the other way around .
[ Related : The Football Hall Of Fame Has A Receiver Problem ] Picked out of Division I-AA Jackson State by the Dallas Cowboys in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Smith struggled with medical setbacks — a broken leg , an appendectomy — even as the Cowboys ’ dynasty was flourishing .
By the fall of 1994 , he had been cut by Dallas and also the Philadelphia Eagles , leading to a year out of football .
But the expansion Jaguars offered Smith ’ s career a path forward .
He signed for 1995 and spent the season working his way up the new team ’ s depth chart .
By 1996 , Smith earned a starting role ( alongside ex-Browns WR @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scene with 1,244 yards , as the Jags stunned the NFL with a trip to the AFC Championship Game .
In that season ’ s signature win — a playoff upset at the heavily favored Denver Broncos — Smith had 71 yards and scored the eventual game-winning touchdown .
That set off a stretch of peak seasons for Smith that few other wideouts can top .
According to Pro-Football-Reference.com ’ s Approximate Value ( AV ) metric , Smith had 74 AV in his best run of five consecutive seasons ( from 1997 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Lance Alworth , Antonio Brown and Julio Jones for fifth-best since 1960 .
And Smith ’ s best set of seven straight seasons ( 1996 through 2002 ) earns him sole possession of seventh place since 1960 , trailing only Rice , Harrison , Reggie Wayne , Michael Irvin , Alworth and Moss .
McCardell and Smith — dubbed “ Thunder and Lightning ” — were a historically potent duo at receiver .
In fact , McCardell could make his own HoPDGP case .
But that makes it even more impressive that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from another Pro Bowl-level target .
As Pro-Football-Reference ’ s Doug Drinen once astutely noted , football receivers are teammates … but they are also competitors , vying for the quarterback ’ s attention in addition to fighting off defenders .
So it ’ s telling that Smith never finished behind McCardell in TRY ( whether total or per game ) during any of their six seasons together .
That ’ s also a big reason why Smith finished fourth among players who started their careers in 1950 or later — behind only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on their head-to-head TRY against teammates over their careers ( after adjusting for aging effects ) .
In his prime , Smith was a receiving machine , easily the most important part of a Jaguars team that won the NFL ’ s seventh-most games from 1996 through Smith ’ s retirement after the 2005 season .
( In fact , Smith remains the Jags ’ all-time franchise leader in AV to this day . )
For all of his successes as a player , Smith has fought more than his share of battles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Late in his career , he was suspended under the NFL ’ s substance-abuse policy ; after retiring , he went through even more cycles of rehab , sobriety and relapse , even serving prison time in 2013 .
Opening up to Gene Frenette of Jacksonville.com in 2016 , Smith admitted that his fight against drug addiction is a constant obstacle .
″ [ Being sober ] is not a victory because it ’ s a lifelong battle , ” Smith told Frenette .
“ I ’ m human .
I got struggles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m scared as hell .
Now the real work begins.
” Smith was inducted into the Jaguars ’ ring of honor — known as the Pride of the Jaguars — in 2016 , and he has appeared at various team events in the years since .
The next step for Smith could be Canton , though he appears to have been swept aside in the wave of modern stat-stuffing wideouts who have inflated the statistical requirements for Hall of Fame entry .
According to era-adjusted metrics such as TRY and AV @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conversation of all-time great receivers .
And if nothing else , the Hall of Pretty Damn Good is all about keeping great players like him from slipping through the cracks of history .

All members of our Hall of Pretty Damn Good Players brought value to their teams in an underappreciated way — it’s sort of a requirement for enshrinement, after all. But few are outright forgotten in the way that former Jacksonville Jaguars wide receiver Jimmy Smith has been since his retirement in 2006. Between playing in one of the NFL’s smallest markets during his career and fighting a tough battle with addiction afterwards — both of which likely prevented him from the kind of second act in broadcasting enjoyed by many of his receiving contemporaries — most fans don’t remember just how great Smith was in his prime.
Which is a shame, because he was secretly one of the greatest pass-catchers in NFL history.
HOF resume: Jimmy Smith, WR Category Value Rank at Pos. Career AV 126 20 Peak AV 107 5 JAWS* 116.5 10 PFR HOF Monitor 81.5 30 Weighted AV 101 23 Implied HOF% 47.3% — *JAWS is an average of a player’s career and seven-year peak Approximate Value. Source: Pro-Football-Reference.com
From 1996 through 2002, Smith may have been the best receiver in football. During that period, he ranked second (behind Marvin Harrison) in total catches, first in receiving yards and seventh in touchdown receptions. According to the True Receiving Yards metric I created with Chase Stuart of FootballPerspective.com — which adjusts a receiver’s stats for era, schedule length and team passing volume — only Harrison (8,311 TRY) was more productive over that span than Smith (8,271). Harrison is in the Hall of Fame, along with a number of Smith’s other receiving peers: Randy Moss, Terrell Owens, Isaac Bruce, Tim Brown, Cris Carter and, of course, Jerry Rice. But Smith’s Canton case hasn’t gotten much more traction than making the preliminary lists of candidates.
We’ve written before that the Pro Football Hall of Fame has a receiver problem. The position’s importance — and its statistical benchmarks — have evolved significantly over time, particularly as the passing game grew to take over the modern sport since the 1990s, but the Hall’s selection committee has struggled to apply an evolving standard to candidates’ resumes. For instance, it might be tempting to write off Smith’s lifetime stats — 862 receptions, 12,287 yards, 67 TD catches — as a product of the modern pass-heavy era. But Smith’s career was already halfway over when the 1999 “Greatest Show on Turf” St. Louis Rams began to revolutionize the modern passing game; he hung up his cleats for good two seasons before the 2007 New England Patriots further accelerated that trend. By and large, Smith — who retired as the seventh-most-prolific pass-catcher ever — was at the vanguard of the productive receivers who would follow, not the other way around.
[Related: The Football Hall Of Fame Has A Receiver Problem]
Picked out of Division I-AA Jackson State by the Dallas Cowboys in the second round of the 1992 draft, Smith struggled with medical setbacks — a broken leg, an appendectomy — even as the Cowboys’ dynasty was flourishing. By the fall of 1994, he had been cut by Dallas and also the Philadelphia Eagles, leading to a year out of football. But the expansion Jaguars offered Smith’s career a path forward. He signed for 1995 and spent the season working his way up the new team’s depth chart. By 1996, Smith earned a starting role (alongside ex-Browns WR Keenan McCardell) and exploded on the scene with 1,244 yards, as the Jags stunned the NFL with a trip to the AFC Championship Game. In that season’s signature win — a playoff upset at the heavily favored Denver Broncos — Smith had 71 yards and scored the eventual game-winning touchdown.
That set off a stretch of peak seasons for Smith that few other wideouts can top. According to Pro-Football-Reference.com’s Approximate Value (AV) metric, Smith had 74 AV in his best run of five consecutive seasons (from 1997 through 2001), which is tied with Lance Alworth, Antonio Brown and Julio Jones for fifth-best since 1960. And Smith’s best set of seven straight seasons (1996 through 2002) earns him sole possession of seventh place since 1960, trailing only Rice, Harrison, Reggie Wayne, Michael Irvin, Alworth and Moss.
Jimmy Smith’s peak was among the best ever Most Approximate Value (AV) in a receiver’s best sets of five and seven consecutive seasons, 1960-2019 Best five Seasons Best seven Seasons Player Years AV Player Years AV Jerry Rice 1992-96 91 Jerry Rice 1989-95 121 Michael Irvin 1991-95 86 Marvin Harrison 1999-05 111 Marvin Harrison 1999-03 82 Reggie Wayne 2004-10 105 Reggie Wayne 2004-08 78 Michael Irvin 1991-97 104 Lance Alworth 1963-67 74 Lance Alworth 1963-69 100 Jimmy Smith 1997-01 74 Randy Moss 1998-04 98 Antonio Brown 2013-17 74 Jimmy Smith 1996-02 96 Julio Jones 2014-18 74 Rod Smith 1997-03 94 Rod Smith 1997-01 73 Torry Holt 2000-06 94 Randy Moss 1998-02 73 Wes Welker 2007-13 94 Source: Pro-Football-Reference.com
McCardell and Smith — dubbed “Thunder and Lightning” — were a historically potent duo at receiver. In fact, McCardell could make his own HoPDGP case. But that makes it even more impressive that Smith stayed so hyper-productive lining up across from another Pro Bowl-level target. As Pro-Football-Reference’s Doug Drinen once astutely noted, football receivers are teammates … but they are also competitors, vying for the quarterback’s attention in addition to fighting off defenders. So it’s telling that Smith never finished behind McCardell in TRY (whether total or per game) during any of their six seasons together. That’s also a big reason why Smith finished fourth among players who started their careers in 1950 or later — behind only Rice, Harrison and Owens — based on their head-to-head TRY against teammates over their careers (after adjusting for aging effects). In his prime, Smith was a receiving machine, easily the most important part of a Jaguars team that won the NFL’s seventh-most games from 1996 through Smith’s retirement after the 2005 season. (In fact, Smith remains the Jags’ all-time franchise leader in AV to this day.)
For all of his successes as a player, Smith has fought more than his share of battles with personal demons over the years. Late in his career, he was suspended under the NFL’s substance-abuse policy; after retiring, he went through even more cycles of rehab, sobriety and relapse, even serving prison time in 2013. Opening up to Gene Frenette of Jacksonville.com in 2016, Smith admitted that his fight against drug addiction is a constant obstacle.
″[Being sober] is not a victory because it’s a lifelong battle,” Smith told Frenette. “I’m human. I got struggles. Please help keep me accountable. I’m scared as hell. Now the real work begins.”
[Related: Our Hall Of Pretty Damn Good Players]
Smith was inducted into the Jaguars’ ring of honor — known as the Pride of the Jaguars — in 2016, and he has appeared at various team events in the years since. The next step for Smith could be Canton, though he appears to have been swept aside in the wave of modern stat-stuffing wideouts who have inflated the statistical requirements for Hall of Fame entry.
According to era-adjusted metrics such as TRY and AV, however, Smith belongs in the conversation of all-time great receivers. And if nothing else, the Hall of Pretty Damn Good is all about keeping great players like him from slipping through the cracks of history.
Subscribe to our sports podcast, Hot Takedown


fivethirthyeight--2020-07-01--When Proof Is Not Enough

When Proof Is Not Enough

According to the pundits , the revolution , if you would call it that , began with video .
The first and foremost was the excruciating recording of George Floyd ’ s last moments as Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin publicly pinned the life out of him .
That was on May 25 , but more than a month later , the recordings have continued to disseminate .
Protesters uploaded photos of rubber bullets , their wounds and their mangled faces , while journalists and other concerned members of the public aggregated footage of police brutality into lists and websites @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to jar something loose , for now .
Corporations are pledging to donate millions to racial and social justice causes , legislators have proposed tentative yet unprecedented restrictions on the police , and the Marines and Navy have banned the Confederate battle flag some 150 years after the ending of the war that sparked its creation .
But is this really going to be what commentator Van Jones has called a “ Great Awakening of empathy and solidarity ” ?
And if it is , is it really appropriate to claim that video @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with civic data and teach about the power of data collection , so I want to believe that data ( in the form of video footage depicting police brutality against Black people ) can effect social change .
Just as it is comforting to see corporate and institutional pledges as revolution , it is comforting to attribute power to the millions of glowing screens that have been called as witnesses .
Data showing racism might be useful in clarifying the things we already know to be true , but it is far more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But it is precisely because of my attachment to the power of data collection that I ’ m unconvinced video footage can solely , or even primarily , lead to meaningful change .
I know too well the stories of a century of Black Americans who have presented evidence of violence and racism only to have it summarily denied or ignored .
The idea that structural racism can be proven and overcome by gathering just enough or the right kind of evidence is nothing more than a myth .
Historically , it has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for instance , the study that the Bureau of Labor commissioned famed Black scholar W.E.B .
DuBois to complete in the early 1900s .
Determined to employ sound sociological methods to disprove racist beliefs that Black people were inferior , he and a team of researchers spent three years in Lowndes County , Alabama , gathering data from 5,000 Black families ( approximately 25,000 individuals ) .
It detailed the conditions of life in the region , and was one of the largest sociological studies of rural Black life ever conducted .
When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a handwritten document full of charts and infographics .
Not only did the government bureau refuse to publish the study , but it destroyed the document entirely , claiming it was rejected due to technical matters .
DuBois made the case in his correspondence and autobiography , however , that the bureau rejected the document because it revealed the inconvenient political truth about conditions for Black Americans .
In the case of Sam Faulkner , an innocent 20-year-old Black man who was shot in the head inside his sister ’ s home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence came in the form of testimony from the other cop on the scene as well as bullet fragments .
Yet this was not enough to bring about a conviction , and the officer who killed Faulkner continued to work in the LAPD for two more years .
In 1951 , the Civil Rights Congress appealed to the United Nations for help , asserting that the history of disenfranchisement , lynching , and police brutality that Black people faced in the United States was tantamount to genocide .
The CRC ’ s petition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black Americans but was ignored by the U.N. , which at the time was heavily influenced by the U.S .
In 1969 , Illinois Black Panther Party leader Fred Hampton , 21 , was gunned down in his Chicago apartment after being sedated by an FBI Informant .
A target of the FBI ’ s Counterintelligence Program , he was perceived to be a threat to the nation for negotiating a truce between street gangs , organizing rallies and instituting free breakfast programs for children .
A coroner ’ s jury ruled the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more recent incidents including video footage of police brutality have been doubted .
When Philando Castile was pulled over and shot by police in 2016 , the dashcam footage revealed that Castile , who had been stopped by the police at least 46 times prior for minor infractions , had followed all the instructions that officer Jeronimo Yanez had given him .
Regardless , an NRA spokesperson still blamed Castile for the incident , while conservative commentator Sean Hannity criticized Castile ’ s girlfriend , who was seated beside him in the car @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first place .
These killings , and the many more that reveal just a glimpse of how totalizing anti-Blackness can be , are part of a longer trend .
It is a trend that has claimed countless more names , and still more stories .
By nearly every statistical measurement possible , from housing to incarceration to wealth to land ownership , Black Americans are disproportionately disadvantaged .
But the grand ritual of collecting and reporting this data has not improved the situation .
American history is lined with innumerable instances of what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demand that this suffering be materialized and evidenced by the display of the tortured body or endless recitations of the ghastly and the terrible , ” only for very little to change .
If the data hasn ’ t undone the bias , then surely we must acknowledge that there are deeper forces that tug the levers of change in America .
I am reminded of James Baldwin ’ s response to the 1954 Supreme Court case that ended segregation : “ Had it been a matter of love or justice , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; were it not for the realities of power in this difficult era , it might very well not have occurred yet.
” Love , justice , data — alone , none have been enough .
But perhaps we have asked too much of the evidence in the first place .
Or perhaps we have asked too much of those who wield evidence , and too little of those presented with it .
These are two different groups .
After all , evidence is not intended for the people who have been harmed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the person it burned ?
In most cases , evidence is used to convince an Other of a thing that they did not encounter .
Ironically , data is not very good at this .
In 1949 , two psychologists , Jerome Bruner and Leo Postman , designed an experiment to test people ’ s responses to anomalies , or moments when they faced events that deviated from what they had expected to encounter .
In the experiment , participants were shown sets of playing cards and asked to identify the cards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was that , in addition to regular cards , the sets contained irregular “ trick ” cards in which the color and suit of the cards had been reversed to create incongruities ( like a black three of hearts or a red two of spades ) .
In the early rounds , the participants were quick to identify the cards , in part because they simply could not see the anomalies .
When presented with a trick card like a red six of spades , they would confidently misidentify it as a red @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of spades .
But as they were exposed to the cards for longer periods of time , some participants began to notice that something was off .
They could sense strangeness but could not determine what caused it .
It was only with further exposure that some participants finally experienced what the psychologists called a “ shock of recognition.
” Abruptly and quite clearly , the participants were able to recognize what they had not seen before .
Suddenly they could see that they had been looking at a red six of spades @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on , they were more easily able to identify the anomalous cards , having developed a new perception .
The conclusion : When confronted with something that does not fit the paradigm we know , we are likely to resist acknowledging the incongruity .
This is because we see what we have been primed — through shared education and culture , and our own lived experiences — to see , so that new evidence that we encounter is immediately , as philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn would explain it more than a decade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the conceptual categories prepared by prior experience.
” Kuhn applied this reasoning to explaining the tumultuous nature of scientific revolutions , where he argued that the conceptual categories that ordered scientific research were precisely those that made it so difficult for scientists to accept information that could challenge the frameworks they operated within .
In such moments , logic and experiment alone were not enough to settle the matter .
Kuhn noted , too , that the more time and effort a scientist had already invested in a research paradigm , the more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exhibit toward accepting change .
In other words , the higher the stakes , the greater the resistance .
If wider society recognizes data ’ s limitations , it , too , can move on from overly relying upon it as the only proxy for evidence .
You can see how this is a useful metaphor for considering the United States , racism and the role that data has historically played in unraveling the latter ’ s hold on the former .
Data showing racism might be useful in clarifying the things we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is far more limited in terms of shifting them .
To those who have not experienced the ever more creative forms that structural racism can take , even when presented with evidence of racism , the world may still appear to be full of regular playing cards .
This is complicated , too , by the fact that in life we face different likelihoods of encountering anomalous cards , depending on factors like the color of our skin ( whiteness , of course , lowering frequency of exposure ) and proximity to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and cultural/political capital .
Regardless , any exposure to an anomaly card is more likely to be dismissed if it does not support the expectations of the receiver .
Of course , as in the experiment , there is the opportunity for change .
Perhaps one part of what has characterized this current moment is that some sections of American society have experienced their own moments akin to when the experiment participants first squinted at the trick cards and felt that something now felt off .
At some point , America will have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country not only has long educated its children to deny anti-Blackness and to treat any conversation of racism with silence or wariness but also has exported this worldview around the globe .
For some , that point may have come .
But regardless , a luckless great many of us know that the deck has been stacked from the beginning .
And because we know that no amount of shouting , pleading , calculating or visualizing will persuade those who have been educated and raised to deny this , we have put our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ society recognizes data ’ s limitations , it , too , can move on from overly relying upon it as the only proxy for evidence .
That which can be captured on camera is always incomplete .
It is never the totality of what occurs in our lives , let alone what occurs in our communities .
By considering the vast context and evidence present in the nation ’ s history , we can save ourselves from tacitly reinforcing the idea that structural violence matters only when it can be compressed into a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence .
And , in doing so , we give ourselves new frames for thinking about the many people who have died at the hands of brutality and whose deaths were not recorded .
As we find a fluency in addressing the greater mass of life that is lived outside of our data , we can begin , finally , to fully address the living .

According to the pundits, the revolution, if you would call it that, began with video. The first and foremost was the excruciating recording of George Floyd’s last moments as Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin publicly pinned the life out of him. That was on May 25, but more than a month later, the recordings have continued to disseminate. Protesters uploaded photos of rubber bullets, their wounds and their mangled faces, while journalists and other concerned members of the public aggregated footage of police brutality into lists and websites.
The compilation of evidence has seemed to jar something loose, for now. Corporations are pledging to donate millions to racial and social justice causes, legislators have proposed tentative yet unprecedented restrictions on the police, and the Marines and Navy have banned the Confederate battle flag some 150 years after the ending of the war that sparked its creation.
But is this really going to be what commentator Van Jones has called a “Great Awakening of empathy and solidarity”? And if it is, is it really appropriate to claim that video has been the catalyst? I work with civic data and teach about the power of data collection, so I want to believe that data (in the form of video footage depicting police brutality against Black people) can effect social change. Just as it is comforting to see corporate and institutional pledges as revolution, it is comforting to attribute power to the millions of glowing screens that have been called as witnesses.
Data showing racism might be useful in clarifying the things we already know to be true, but it is far more limited in terms of shifting them.
But it is precisely because of my attachment to the power of data collection that I’m unconvinced video footage can solely, or even primarily, lead to meaningful change. I know too well the stories of a century of Black Americans who have presented evidence of violence and racism only to have it summarily denied or ignored. The idea that structural racism can be proven and overcome by gathering just enough or the right kind of evidence is nothing more than a myth. Historically, it has rarely been the case.
Consider, for instance, the study that the Bureau of Labor commissioned famed Black scholar W.E.B. DuBois to complete in the early 1900s. Determined to employ sound sociological methods to disprove racist beliefs that Black people were inferior, he and a team of researchers spent three years in Lowndes County, Alabama, gathering data from 5,000 Black families (approximately 25,000 individuals). It detailed the conditions of life in the region, and was one of the largest sociological studies of rural Black life ever conducted. When DuBois submitted the final manuscript, it was a handwritten document full of charts and infographics. Not only did the government bureau refuse to publish the study, but it destroyed the document entirely, claiming it was rejected due to technical matters. DuBois made the case in his correspondence and autobiography, however, that the bureau rejected the document because it revealed the inconvenient political truth about conditions for Black Americans.
[Related: The States Taking On Police Reform After The Death Of George Floyd]
In the case of Sam Faulkner, an innocent 20-year-old Black man who was shot in the head inside his sister’s home by Los Angeles police in 1927, evidence came in the form of testimony from the other cop on the scene as well as bullet fragments. Yet this was not enough to bring about a conviction, and the officer who killed Faulkner continued to work in the LAPD for two more years.
In 1951, the Civil Rights Congress appealed to the United Nations for help, asserting that the history of disenfranchisement, lynching, and police brutality that Black people faced in the United States was tantamount to genocide. The CRC’s petition documented years’ worth of atrocities against Black Americans but was ignored by the U.N., which at the time was heavily influenced by the U.S.
In 1969, Illinois Black Panther Party leader Fred Hampton, 21, was gunned down in his Chicago apartment after being sedated by an FBI Informant. A target of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Program, he was perceived to be a threat to the nation for negotiating a truce between street gangs, organizing rallies and instituting free breakfast programs for children. A coroner’s jury ruled the killing a justifiable homicide.
And even more recent incidents including video footage of police brutality have been doubted. When Philando Castile was pulled over and shot by police in 2016, the dashcam footage revealed that Castile, who had been stopped by the police at least 46 times prior for minor infractions, had followed all the instructions that officer Jeronimo Yanez had given him. Regardless, an NRA spokesperson still blamed Castile for the incident, while conservative commentator Sean Hannity criticized Castile’s girlfriend, who was seated beside him in the car, for live-streaming the interaction in the first place.
These killings, and the many more that reveal just a glimpse of how totalizing anti-Blackness can be, are part of a longer trend. It is a trend that has claimed countless more names, and still more stories. By nearly every statistical measurement possible, from housing to incarceration to wealth to land ownership, Black Americans are disproportionately disadvantaged. But the grand ritual of collecting and reporting this data has not improved the situation. American history is lined with innumerable instances of what scholar Saidiya Hartman bemoans as “the demand that this suffering be materialized and evidenced by the display of the tortured body or endless recitations of the ghastly and the terrible,” only for very little to change.
If the data hasn’t undone the bias, then surely we must acknowledge that there are deeper forces that tug the levers of change in America. I am reminded of James Baldwin’s response to the 1954 Supreme Court case that ended segregation: “Had it been a matter of love or justice, the 1954 decision would surely have occurred sooner; were it not for the realities of power in this difficult era, it might very well not have occurred yet.” Love, justice, data — alone, none have been enough.
But perhaps we have asked too much of the evidence in the first place. Or perhaps we have asked too much of those who wield evidence, and too little of those presented with it. These are two different groups. After all, evidence is not intended for the people who have been harmed — why show proof of a fire to the person it burned? In most cases, evidence is used to convince an Other of a thing that they did not encounter. Ironically, data is not very good at this.
In 1949, two psychologists, Jerome Bruner and Leo Postman, designed an experiment to test people’s responses to anomalies, or moments when they faced events that deviated from what they had expected to encounter. In the experiment, participants were shown sets of playing cards and asked to identify the cards’ color and suit. The catch was that, in addition to regular cards, the sets contained irregular “trick” cards in which the color and suit of the cards had been reversed to create incongruities (like a black three of hearts or a red two of spades).
[Related: Why Statistics Don’t Capture The Full Extent Of The Systemic Bias In Policing]
In the early rounds, the participants were quick to identify the cards, in part because they simply could not see the anomalies. When presented with a trick card like a red six of spades, they would confidently misidentify it as a red six of hearts or a black six of spades. But as they were exposed to the cards for longer periods of time, some participants began to notice that something was off. They could sense strangeness but could not determine what caused it. It was only with further exposure that some participants finally experienced what the psychologists called a “shock of recognition.” Abruptly and quite clearly, the participants were able to recognize what they had not seen before. Suddenly they could see that they had been looking at a red six of spades the entire time. From that point on, they were more easily able to identify the anomalous cards, having developed a new perception.
The conclusion: When confronted with something that does not fit the paradigm we know, we are likely to resist acknowledging the incongruity. This is because we see what we have been primed — through shared education and culture, and our own lived experiences — to see, so that new evidence that we encounter is immediately, as philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn would explain it more than a decade later, “fitted to one of the conceptual categories prepared by prior experience.” Kuhn applied this reasoning to explaining the tumultuous nature of scientific revolutions, where he argued that the conceptual categories that ordered scientific research were precisely those that made it so difficult for scientists to accept information that could challenge the frameworks they operated within. In such moments, logic and experiment alone were not enough to settle the matter. Kuhn noted, too, that the more time and effort a scientist had already invested in a research paradigm, the more resistance he or she was likely to exhibit toward accepting change. In other words, the higher the stakes, the greater the resistance.
If wider society recognizes data’s limitations, it, too, can move on from overly relying upon it as the only proxy for evidence.
You can see how this is a useful metaphor for considering the United States, racism and the role that data has historically played in unraveling the latter’s hold on the former. Data showing racism might be useful in clarifying the things we already know to be true, but it is far more limited in terms of shifting them. To those who have not experienced the ever more creative forms that structural racism can take, even when presented with evidence of racism, the world may still appear to be full of regular playing cards. This is complicated, too, by the fact that in life we face different likelihoods of encountering anomalous cards, depending on factors like the color of our skin (whiteness, of course, lowering frequency of exposure) and proximity to the affordances promised by wealth, influence and cultural/political capital. Regardless, any exposure to an anomaly card is more likely to be dismissed if it does not support the expectations of the receiver.
Of course, as in the experiment, there is the opportunity for change. Perhaps one part of what has characterized this current moment is that some sections of American society have experienced their own moments akin to when the experiment participants first squinted at the trick cards and felt that something now felt off. At some point, America will have to confront head-on the fact that the country not only has long educated its children to deny anti-Blackness and to treat any conversation of racism with silence or wariness but also has exported this worldview around the globe. For some, that point may have come.
But regardless, a luckless great many of us know that the deck has been stacked from the beginning. And because we know that no amount of shouting, pleading, calculating or visualizing will persuade those who have been educated and raised to deny this, we have put our efforts in other places.
If wider society recognizes data’s limitations, it, too, can move on from overly relying upon it as the only proxy for evidence. That which can be captured on camera is always incomplete. It is never the totality of what occurs in our lives, let alone what occurs in our communities. By considering the vast context and evidence present in the nation’s history, we can save ourselves from tacitly reinforcing the idea that structural violence matters only when it can be compressed into a form that fits what we recognize as evidence. And, in doing so, we give ourselves new frames for thinking about the many people who have died at the hands of brutality and whose deaths were not recorded. As we find a fluency in addressing the greater mass of life that is lived outside of our data, we can begin, finally, to fully address the living.
How cable news is talking about the protests — and why it matters | FiveThirtyEight


fivethirthyeight--2020-07-02--The Science of Mask-Wearing Hasn’t Changed. So Why Have Our Expectations?

Before every fashion retailer was selling their own cloth face covering , before a piece of fabric over your nose and mouth became a personal political statement , and before Goldman Sachs was saying a national face mask mandate is as good as a lockdown , Lara Martin was unsure whether homemade cloth masks were even a good idea .
The executive director of the United Methodist Committee on Relief , Martin was one of the people I interviewed back in March for a story about the science of masks .
Back then , I found that masks were an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around the novel coronavirus .
Remember , the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the surgeon general once told the general public not to wear masks .
The data that existed on mask effectiveness largely dealt with medical respirators and surgical masks .
It wasn ’ t clear how protective a cloth mask would be , and Martin worried that wearing masks might lead people to feel more safe than they actually were — and make choices that increased their risk of contracting or transmitting COVID-19 .
Today , a lot has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ masks hasn ’ t .
Yes , the CDC now recommends cloth face coverings , the surgeon general starred in a video showing how to make them , and many businesses , and even cities , require them .
Martin herself owns three and wears one every time she goes outside .
But she told me that ’ s not because the evidence has significantly improved .
“ I don ’ t know enough , I don ’ t see enough evidence .
Nothing has changed except that I care about my neighbors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I care about people I don ’ t even know that I come across at the grocery store , ” she said .
“ I am now saying to my community that I care about them , and that actually feels important to me as a scientist.
” Cloth and DIY face masks sit at the intersection where scientific data , public perceptions , and political opinions crash headlong into each other .
Making smart decisions isn ’ t just about having data — it ’ s also about how we interpret the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a spectrum with different relative levels of risk .
Behavioral norms also matter , regardless of how much evidence backs them up .
In the midst of a pandemic , masks are a reminder that science is seldom as simple , or as certain , as we want it to be — and that reasonable public health recommendations are sometimes based on more than just data .
Do cloth face coverings work ?
Probably , to some extent .
But just how much they work depends on the material , how they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re expecting them to accomplish .
And — regardless of what you ’ ve seen in highly shareable memes — we definitely don ’ t know enough to say that wearing these kinds of coverings will reduce risk of transmission by a specific percentage , let alone a high percentage .
Those were the conclusions of an expert report published by the National Academies of Sciences on April 8 , and two of the lead authors of that paper recently told me the science hasn ’ t significantly changed since then .
Some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in certain regions between mask mandates and reduced spread of the coronavirus , but several of those not-yet-peer-reviewed studies have turned out to have important flaws — such as failing to account for factors like other behaviors ( such as higher rates of social distancing ) that went along with wearing masks in those places .
Instead , experts say what has changed is how both the public and public health institutions interpret this situation and the data surrounding it .
“ Back in March , it was difficult to even have anybody @ @ @ @ @ @ @ WHO said the opposite , ” said Jeremy Howard , a data scientist and entrepreneur who has become a major advocate of universal mask requirements .
In response to the lack of support , he launched a bipartisan campaign called Masks4All that lobbied for widespread mask-wearing and argued that masks were a crucial , if not the most important , part of the COVID-19 response .
But Howard has also seen changes in how political actors interpreted his message .
Back in March , he told me , before not wearing a mask @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Howard actually got the most traction talking about the need for masks on conservative news shows .
“ Going against the CDC was very on brand , ” he said .
“ I was on “ The Laura Ingraham Angle ” talking about important masks were , and she was all for it.
” When the political alignments shifted , that support vanished .
Although a majority of Americans report wearing masks regularly , those numbers are 16 percentage points lower among Republicans compared to Democrats .
In the last week , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Republican leaders advocating for mask use and criticizing President Trump for not wearing one .
The politicized landscape has also made it difficult to have a nuanced conversation about mask effectiveness , experts said .
Public health officials who issued mandatory mask-wearing orders have found themselves hounded by intense criticism and even death threats .
More than two dozen have resigned in recent weeks .
At the same time , Michael Osterholm , a public health and disease expert who is worried that mask effectiveness is being over-hyped , has also found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota , told me he ’ s received vulgar emails from people who read his statements questioning the efficacy of cloth masks .
Osterholm said that his position was not that masks shouldn ’ t be worn — he wears one in public , himself — but that there is limited data on how effective DIY cloth masks are at stopping small particles , either from passing through or being forced out the sides of the mask .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ physical distancing and isolation remain the most important tools in stopping the spread of the coronavirus .
But as more Republicans say the worst of the coronavirus is behind us , and usage of masks tracks tightly along the partisan spectrum , Osterholm told me he felt like well-meaning people were making him out to be a pandemic denialist .
The on-off , yes-no nature of this debate has also been frustrating for Dr. Marcella Nunez-Smith , a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Yale .
Circumstances may mean that for some people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not outweigh the risks .
“ There are conversations in a lot of Black and brown communities … ‘ [ Does ] the risk and threat in terms of personal safety go up wearing a mask because of police action and being seen as a threat ?
’ ” she said .
At the same time , though , Nunez-Smith said masks might actually be more important for those communities because the distancing and isolation favored by experts like Osterholm hasn ’ t really been possible .
Black workers are more likely than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ classified as essential .
Because of that , reopening means something different for predominantly Black neighborhoods than it does for white neighborhoods .
That also applies to the idea of social distancing and how practical that even is — something that could account for why self-reported mask usage is higher among nonwhite Americans , despite the possible police risk .
“ These are important contextual conversations , ” Nunez-Smith said .
Ultimately , experts said , all the nuance and complication around masks is a challenge that public health messaging has to face @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make one-size-fits-all recommendations for situations that don ’ t readily lend themselves to a one-size-fits-all reality .
The good news is that there ’ s more agreement than disagreement on where to start .
Just look at Osterholm and Howard , two experts who might easily be seen as having opposing viewpoints in this battle .
Yet they hold similar positions on one issue : They both wish the CDC would have given the public the nuanced information about masks back in March and trusted them to understand it .
Granted , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a complex message , such as : “ We don ’ t know how well cloth masks work , so distancing should come first , but masks are likely to work to some extent and not everyone can distance themselves.
” That ’ s a mouthful and harder to fit on a bumper sticker than “ yes , you should , ” or “ no , you shouldn ’ t. ” But it comes down to what builds trust more : certainty or honesty ?
“ We owe it to the public to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ re getting , ” Osterholm said .
“ We owe it to the public to tell them what we know .
”

Before every fashion retailer was selling their own cloth face covering, before a piece of fabric over your nose and mouth became a personal political statement, and before Goldman Sachs was saying a national face mask mandate is as good as a lockdown, Lara Martin was unsure whether homemade cloth masks were even a good idea.
The executive director of the United Methodist Committee on Relief, Martin was one of the people I interviewed back in March for a story about the science of masks. Back then, I found that masks were an excellent example of the scientific uncertainties swirling around the novel coronavirus. Remember, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the surgeon general once told the general public not to wear masks. The data that existed on mask effectiveness largely dealt with medical respirators and surgical masks. It wasn’t clear how protective a cloth mask would be, and Martin worried that wearing masks might lead people to feel more safe than they actually were — and make choices that increased their risk of contracting or transmitting COVID-19.
Today, a lot has changed. But the science around cloth masks hasn’t.
Yes, the CDC now recommends cloth face coverings, the surgeon general starred in a video showing how to make them, and many businesses, and even cities, require them. Martin herself owns three and wears one every time she goes outside. But she told me that’s not because the evidence has significantly improved. “I don’t know enough, I don’t see enough evidence. Nothing has changed except that I care about my neighbors, I care about my colleagues, I care about people I don’t even know that I come across at the grocery store,” she said. “I am now saying to my community that I care about them, and that actually feels important to me as a scientist.”
Cloth and DIY face masks sit at the intersection where scientific data, public perceptions, and political opinions crash headlong into each other. Making smart decisions isn’t just about having data — it’s also about how we interpret the data we have. Safety moves along a spectrum with different relative levels of risk. Behavioral norms also matter, regardless of how much evidence backs them up. In the midst of a pandemic, masks are a reminder that science is seldom as simple, or as certain, as we want it to be — and that reasonable public health recommendations are sometimes based on more than just data.
Subscribe to our coronavirus podcast, PODCAST-19
Do cloth face coverings work? Probably, to some extent. But just how much they work depends on the material, how they’re used, and what you’re expecting them to accomplish. And — regardless of what you’ve seen in highly shareable memes — we definitely don’t know enough to say that wearing these kinds of coverings will reduce risk of transmission by a specific percentage, let alone a high percentage. Those were the conclusions of an expert report published by the National Academies of Sciences on April 8, and two of the lead authors of that paper recently told me the science hasn’t significantly changed since then. Some studies have come out showing a correlation in certain regions between mask mandates and reduced spread of the coronavirus, but several of those not-yet-peer-reviewed studies have turned out to have important flaws — such as failing to account for factors like other behaviors (such as higher rates of social distancing) that went along with wearing masks in those places.
Instead, experts say what has changed is how both the public and public health institutions interpret this situation and the data surrounding it.
[Related: Where The Latest COVID-19 Models Think We’re Headed — And Why They Disagree]
“Back in March, it was difficult to even have anybody take you seriously when the CDC and WHO said the opposite,” said Jeremy Howard, a data scientist and entrepreneur who has become a major advocate of universal mask requirements. In response to the lack of support, he launched a bipartisan campaign called Masks4All that lobbied for widespread mask-wearing and argued that masks were a crucial, if not the most important, part of the COVID-19 response.
But Howard has also seen changes in how political actors interpreted his message. Back in March, he told me, before not wearing a mask became a signifier of conservative politics, Howard actually got the most traction talking about the need for masks on conservative news shows. “Going against the CDC was very on brand,” he said. “I was on “The Laura Ingraham Angle” talking about important masks were, and she was all for it.”
[Related: What To Look For In A Face Mask, According To Science]
When the political alignments shifted, that support vanished. Although a majority of Americans report wearing masks regularly, those numbers are 16 percentage points lower among Republicans compared to Democrats. In the last week, that’s begun to shift again, with Republican leaders advocating for mask use and criticizing President Trump for not wearing one. The politicized landscape has also made it difficult to have a nuanced conversation about mask effectiveness, experts said. Public health officials who issued mandatory mask-wearing orders have found themselves hounded by intense criticism and even death threats. More than two dozen have resigned in recent weeks.
At the same time, Michael Osterholm, a public health and disease expert who is worried that mask effectiveness is being over-hyped, has also found himself threatened and harassed. Osterholm, the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, told me he’s received vulgar emails from people who read his statements questioning the efficacy of cloth masks. Osterholm said that his position was not that masks shouldn’t be worn — he wears one in public, himself — but that there is limited data on how effective DIY cloth masks are at stopping small particles, either from passing through or being forced out the sides of the mask. Without that information, he said, physical distancing and isolation remain the most important tools in stopping the spread of the coronavirus. But as more Republicans say the worst of the coronavirus is behind us, and usage of masks tracks tightly along the partisan spectrum, Osterholm told me he felt like well-meaning people were making him out to be a pandemic denialist.
The on-off, yes-no nature of this debate has also been frustrating for Dr. Marcella Nunez-Smith, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Yale. Circumstances may mean that for some people the benefits of wearing a mask may not outweigh the risks. “There are conversations in a lot of Black and brown communities … ‘[Does] the risk and threat in terms of personal safety go up wearing a mask because of police action and being seen as a threat?’” she said.
[Related: For Black Americans, Wearing A Mask Comes With Complicated Anxieties]
At the same time, though, Nunez-Smith said masks might actually be more important for those communities because the distancing and isolation favored by experts like Osterholm hasn’t really been possible. Black workers are more likely than other workers to have jobs that are classified as essential. Because of that, reopening means something different for predominantly Black neighborhoods than it does for white neighborhoods. That also applies to the idea of social distancing and how practical that even is — something that could account for why self-reported mask usage is higher among nonwhite Americans, despite the possible police risk. “These are important contextual conversations,” Nunez-Smith said.
Ultimately, experts said, all the nuance and complication around masks is a challenge that public health messaging has to face up to. It’s difficult to make one-size-fits-all recommendations for situations that don’t readily lend themselves to a one-size-fits-all reality.
[Related: How Americans View The Coronavirus Crisis And Trump’s Response]
The good news is that there’s more agreement than disagreement on where to start. Just look at Osterholm and Howard, two experts who might easily be seen as having opposing viewpoints in this battle. Yet they hold similar positions on one issue: They both wish the CDC would have given the public the nuanced information about masks back in March and trusted them to understand it. Granted, that might mean presenting the public with a complex message, such as: “We don’t know how well cloth masks work, so distancing should come first, but masks are likely to work to some extent and not everyone can distance themselves.” That’s a mouthful and harder to fit on a bumper sticker than “yes, you should,” or “no, you shouldn’t.” But it comes down to what builds trust more: certainty or honesty?
“We owe it to the public to help them understand what kind of protections they’re getting,” Osterholm said. “We owe it to the public to tell them what we know.”
How reports of a promising COVID-19 treatment was found to be fraudulent


fivethirthyeight--2020-07-02--Politics Podcast: How The GOP Chose To Be A White Party

In general , the Republican Party gets between 5 and 10 percent of the Black vote and less than a @ @ @ @ @ nationally .
In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , Clare Malone discusses the @ @ @ @ @ made , spanning decades , that made it an overwhelmingly white party .
At key @ @ @ @ @ considered greater outreach to minority voters but ultimately didn ’ t take that path .
@ @ @ @ @ episode by clicking the “ play ” button in the audio player above or by @ @ @ @ @ the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform .
If you are new to podcasts @ @ @ @ @ .
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Mondays and Thursdays .
Help new listeners discover the @ @ @ @ @ rating and review on iTunes .
Have a comment , question or suggestion for “ @ @ @ @ @ ” ?
Get in touch by email , on Twitter or in the comments .

In general, the Republican Party gets between 5 and 10 percent of the Black vote and less than a third of the Hispanic vote nationally. In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, Clare Malone discusses the series of choices the GOP made, spanning decades, that made it an overwhelmingly white party. At key moments in history, Republicans considered greater outreach to minority voters but ultimately didn’t take that path.
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Mondays and Thursdays. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.