My guess is the tour makes it to completion. Might be a few positive tests along the way, and I could even see a team or two being knocked out. But I doubt they buckle to the pressure to cancel the event mid-way. All speculation -- we'll find out one way or the other soon enough.

The interesting thing is the existence of the crazy fans all cramming the route, are, in effect, a message to the govt to actually keep the race rolling, in that people are saying, "hey we want normal, and we're less worried about dying than in April, so let us go enjoy". In the process they might be doing stupid things, but if the population at large felt the risk of dying and hospitalization was super high, they would not all bike and hike up 10km mountains en mass as they have been doing. That's not logic for not cancelling, but there is a psychology aspect that may come into play.

This is not just any event in France. Tour de France is part of the national identity in many ways (I think you can only really get it if you have spent extended time in France during this event). But if it looks like hospitals are getting loaded up, then the pressure will be on. If the rider bubble has managed to stay largely clear in spite of the fans, then there will be pressure to keep the race rolling and manage the fans. Let's see what results come out after today's rider bubble testing of all 600.

Fingers crossed.

I never said there was a guarantee that new cases will plateau at 5000, in fact clearly stated that was an assumption. What we do know is it is basically impossible to get to (or at least maintain) zero new cases (NZ made that pretty clear). So, for any given level of controls there will be some kind of "steady-state" level of infections, which obviously we would like as low as possible, but that clashes with the reality of what level of controls will large populations religiously follow for an indefinite period of time? This is backstopped by expected political action (harder controls) if cases rise to some level (depends on the country). My personal assumption is that if deaths stay under about 75 people per day (does not get too close to 100) for large European countries (France, Spain, Italy), we will not see a wide scale lockdown, but would probably see some additional restrictions. Based on the bounds I gave you, we would have to see reported cases get into the range of 10-12K per day for a somewhat extended period to get deaths to that level and I don't see it, or at least not before the TdF is over. I think people in the EU are responsible enough that the recent increases is going to cause some voluntary actions (people behave more strictly with their isolating), because I truly believe the most important part of keeping cases down is voluntary compliance (by making the personal choice to minimize contact with others, regardless of masks or distances, just staying home is the best defense).

As far as why we won't see. a significant increase in deaths (even with new cases in the range of 5-10K per day), I very clearly explained that using what is pretty well established consensus evidence at this point (as well as stating my assumptions), but there were a lot of numbers which may be hard for some people to understand. There is no "average" death rate for COVID, the death rate is highly specific to demographics groups (primarily with age), with at least 1-2 orders of magnitude in difference of death rate between the groups. If we can keep infections in those over 60 very low, death rates will never get close to what we say before. And I am not saying the deaths don't matter or this isn't a serious disease, I am just saying there is a lot of misunderstanding about the death rates among the general public, because the overall average means nothing and once you get beyond averages many people are incapable (or unwilling) to take the time to understand the numbers (based on your reply, you may fall into this category).

My point being, relax, I think it is very likely the TdF makes it to Paris (I don't think we are going to see an earth shattering change in cases in the next 2 weeks; cases may very well continue to rise, but slowly enough to prevent as severe an action as stopping the Tour). Likewise, there is a certain "inertia" to an event in progress, it is lot harder to cancel the tour with four days to do than it is to not start it. I'll admit Pinot being out of contention hurts, because I do truly believe if a Frenchman was in contention (but not actually in yellow) it would strengthen the inertia for the event to continue (not saying this is a deciding policy factor, but like any difficult choice there are many considerations). Likewise, the Tour is visible on a World scale, cancelling it would basically be the French government admitting they made a mistake in allowing it in the first place. I also am not sure what the riders think, one assumption in my thinking is that only the government would cancel the race, I think they can keep the rider bubble intact and if they do, the riders would not call for a cancelation, nor would ASOs or the UCI (too much money at stake). I'd be more concerned about the Giro and Vuelta. As we are observing there are clearly upticks in cases in Europe, we will have to see.

How much are you willing to bet the Tour gets to Paris? I'll go 100 Euros on my forecast, how much is yours worth;)

In fairness I seriously doubt that. ~31K people have died in France (worldometer). France has a population of ~67M. About 20% of the population is over 65. (source).

20% of 67M is ~13.4M. 31K is ~0.04% of 13.4M.

So, no, all the old people in France haven't died yet.

Sure there is. Divide the total number of deaths in any given cohort by the size of the cohort. That's the average death rate for that cohort.

Nicely stated.

I agree to a certain extend, let me explain..
In Denmark 600-ish people (maybe 700, not completely sure) have died from covid-19 (small population), But we had a mild flu season during Fall/winter, so 2000 people less died from the flu, compared to the year before. Then came lockdown and general social distancing along with awareness of disinfecting. Net result is a Record low number of deaths in Numbers. You could argue that all the weakest old people have died from covid-19, But AI Think in general the death toll is much lower than it “should” have been because of restrictions and awareness (very much depending on local restrictions/recommendations). Not only from covid-19, But Also from common cold a flu (basically any virus that May potentially be lethal, given the right corcumstances). If this years flu is more harsh than last years, we May say a higher fatality on that account. Not only because of more survivors from last year, But Also because the flu won’t spread as fast, meaning less immune people, which May extend the duration. Instead of healthy people catching it in november, maybe it’s middle of december. And spending time with the family during Christmas May kill off some of the old and weak. Here covid-19 is hitting Numbers compared to april, But then again, 10-12 times as many people are tested Daily. And stories of people having it more than once are emerging (shame on them for their inconsiderate behaviour Btw). Which could mean that it has mutated a bit, being more contageous, But less deadly. However, the tendency here is that Young adults now get the positive tests, in the spring it was mainly elderly

When do we have to match your 100 Euros on the TdF making it to Paris. Do we need to do it by noon PDT or do we have till 10 am tomorrow France time. If you give me till 10 am France time tomorrow, I'll put down 1000 Euros with my position! At noon PDT today, I am going with the same 100 Euros that the TdF makes it to Paris. By tomorrow morning I could put down 1000 for or against depending on results from today's testing LOL!!!!

I'm not willing to bet. I don't know.

My point is I believe your interpretations of stats and predictions to pump up your opinion are dodgy.

Though if it is stopped, it isn't number of deaths In France that's going to be the reason. It most likely to be about excess positive cases among the cyclists and team staff knocking out the teams. And the rapidly escalating numbers of positive cases in France reflects a spread of covid that makes that increasingly likely.

I think more pertinent hypothetical may be, "How many teams can be ruled out of the Tour before it is no longer a viable race?"

Here is an interesting "hypothetical" scenario. What if zero riders tested positive and all positive tests were with staff, with some teams in excess of 2 positives. Do we think the teams will get the boot or be asked to replace staff and isolate the infected (and how do you isolated anyone infected while that person is on business travel.....does that employee end up stuck in a hotel by themselves for 14 days solo)?

Ready to roll:

https://www.lequipe.fr/...-au-covid-19/1169383

no rider positive

I wonder how dangerous the virus would be to riders in the third week. I've read all kinds of crazy stories about what riding the tour does to your body, I can't imagine throwing a virus into the mix would be a good thing.

I've started thinking about that as well. Covid-19 to a day 1-3 TDF rider is probably no-factor. On day 20? Probably a different story. Definitely a real-life case study.

---

"The person on top of the mountain didn't fall there." - unkown

also rule 5

The irony is Christian Prudhomme tested positive and now has to sit on the sidelines. Hopefully he will be fine, but the irony is striking.

Ha - I was thinking the same thing.

---

clm
Nashville, TN
https://twitter.com/ironclm | http://ironclm.typepad.com

Why is he only isolating for 8 days?

The good news is no rider positives but the staff positives is troubling since its just a matter of time that it enters the riders themselves. Prudhomme getting it will not help the overall picture either though should enough riders get it.

.
Nothing to see here...Carry on.. :-)
.

I think this is what we all said early in the thread....riders will magically drop out and only staff will test positive....everyone will ride on.

If 1999 holds in 2020, the winner will get the Yellow in jersey with an asymptomatic scenario positive Corona test covered up.

So INEOS just needs one more positive test and they are out. And because they had one positive test already, it's been present in their bubble, which means a higher likelihood of somebody else also contracting it. If they're smart they would isolate/send away anybody who had contact with the person who tested positive.

Not saying it’s a cover up, But Pinots perfomance suddenly dropped for one stage and he had lower back pain. When I get the flu, I usually have lower back pain

And when I lift weight improperly, I get lower back pain. If it were a rider that was actually doing well, I might be concerned. But this is Pinot. Same shit, different year. Gets his ass dropped and leaves the race like half the years.

---

"The person on top of the mountain didn't fall there." - unkown

also rule 5

It presents an interesting scenario or at least it makes a huge difference that Bernal is in second and not in first. Understood what the stated rules are, but pulling the whole team (including Bernal) out of the race when the riders are not positive (but parts of their bubble are) would certainly be controversial. If he was in first the optics would be really difficult, if he remains in second it makes the optics of pulling him from the race a bit better (still difficult in second, put pulling out the race leader without them being positive would seem almost as bad as cancelling the whole race).

But to your point, internally they need to take very serious action because by the rules they are one strike away from being sent home.

Just pointing out that the false positive rate is very much non-zero. So high that for riders who test positive, there's a protocol for an "B sample" test so they're not immediately rejected. But I'm not sure what the protocol is for staff. I'd think they're all getting re-tested at maybe a slower pace than the riders are and can maybe be taken off the list if they definitively find one to be a false positive.