A reporters guide to covering COVID-19.
A general note: These answers were last updated in late February 2021. Knowledge about the disease COVID-19 and the virus that causes it, SARS-CoV-2, is still evolving, so some answers to these questions may not be based on the most up to date science. We have attempted to note where this is likely to be the case; please use those answers with extra caution.
This piece is intended as a writer’s guide to understanding COVID-19 and not meant to be copied verbatim into an article. If you plan to quote anything in here, it is REQUIRED that you consult with Zachary and confirm with experts that the information in here still applies.
Questions by Mark Simon, BBWAA – Answers prepared by: Zachary Binney, PhD; Epidemiologist and Assistant Professor of Quantitative Theory and Methods, Oxford College of Emory University; Oxford, GA. He may be reached at zbinney@emory.edu or on Twitter @binney_z.
Question: Looking ahead to upcoming season, what are the 3 most important things that reporters need to know about MLB’s plan for playing in 2021 from a health & safety perspective?
- Fans. While we spend a lot of time thinking about players and less about staff, the most important thing is the effect MLB playing will have on COVID-19 in the broader community. What will MLB do with fans? I don’t like how it’s happened (holding events first and only checking later whether they led to spread), but we’ve now held many outdoor sporting events with 10-25% capacity and decent-to-good mask usage, and I’m not aware of substantial spread from those.
We know the virus is much harder to transmit outdoors. I’m comfortable at this point with those sorts of gatherings continuing to happen (stadiums 10-25% capacity, outside, mask usage). Even a bit higher capacity (30, 40, even 50%) may also be fine. Those numbers can likely be raised as the vaccine is more widespread, too. It’s not unreasonable to think some stadiums could be back near capacity by the pennant race if all goes well with vaccine distribution and new variants don’t bypass them.
I am much more skeptical of the safety of indoor stadiums (e.g. Rays, Rangers if roof closed) and would urge MLB to be more cautious there. Those should be kept at lower capacity than fully-outdoor stadiums; those teams should work and support local public health departments to actively track people who attended games early in the season to surveille for any potential outbreaks; and have a very strict focus on mask usage and spacing on concourses, restrooms, and so forth.
If we don’t see outbreaks in these stadiums after a few weeks under these circumstances, then we could be more confident about treating them more akin to fully-outdoor stadiums. - What will testing look like? Testing frequently is the best way to identify isolated cases early and prevent outbreaks. MLB’s testing cadence at the end of last season seemed to work out well. They should continue that this year – at least until vaccines are widespread throughout MLB.
- How will MLB be reducing the amount of time teams spend indoors around each other, both at home and on the road? This is where most transmission occurs rather than on the field or even in the dugout. Strict masking in those indoor environments, particularly using N95s or double-masking, is also really important.
The other thing to know is what’s not so important. MLB and other sports and non-sports organizations love to make a big deal about their sanitation practices, “deep cleaning” locations and surfaces, and so forth. What we know is the vast majority of transmission seems to come from swapping air with other people. So the focus should be on avoiding as much indoor activity as possible, ventilation when that’s impossible, and wearing masks. Much of the rest can help some – we should all wash our hands more for reasons completely separate from COVID! – but a lot of the higher-tech stuff teams love to talk about is “hygiene theater.”
Question: What should reporters know regarding the timeline for players getting vaccinated?
Answer: Most players (except those with certain high-risk conditions like diabetes) will probably be getting vaccinated alongside the general population. When that happens will likely vary state to state.
The statements from the government are also quite variable around this, with estimates ranging from March to May or June (NOTE: as of February 2021). Generally speaking, I would guess it will happen some time in the first half of the 2021 season.
Might MLB players “jump the line?” In the sense that they’ll become eligible for vaccination at the same time as everyone else, no. But I would guess MLB or teams will leverage their vast financial resources to secure vaccine doses early on in that eligibility group. I don’t think players will be waiting in the same lines as everyone else. But that remains to be seen.
MLB may say it’s getting its players vaccinated early to encourage vaccine uptake – thus painting themselves as heroes for getting the vaccine quickly. I would resist the urge to print those stories.
Uptake is not the problem for at least the next several months (NOTE: as of February 2021), and the data on sports figures having good public health effects is equivocal at best. It would probably be far better for a local pastor to get publicly vaccinated than a ballplayer – with the possible exception of someone like Aubrey Huff, who could speak as a trusted voice to a group very hesitant about vaccines.
Question: How should reporters approach stories about players who publicly state that they won’t be vaccinated?
Answer: There’s a fine line to walk here. There is absolutely zero evidence of substantial danger from any COVID-19 vaccine that has been cleared by the FDA so far. None. Thus I would encourage you not to take a “both sides” approach to fearmongering around this. This is not the time or topic for a “some are saying” or “just asking questions” approach. Don’t print lies unchallenged just because a player said them. But…
That said, don’t completely dismiss people’s concerns. And do not, under any circumstances, mock them. That’s not helpful. Try to understand where they’re coming from. What is driving that hesitancy, if they’re willing to speak about it? Most people aren’t just trying to be jerks. There is some fear or anxiety, founded or not, underlying that.
Writing about that in a sensitive manner, without printing any lies or incorrect information, can help people feel heard and encourage uptake without spreading misinformation. Printing conversations between hesitant players and sensitive medical professionals who address their concerns might also be helpful.
I would also say consider where the player is coming from and their background. People of color in particular, regrettably but rightly, have higher levels of mistrust in the medical system.
The medical profession has earned this over decades of mistreatment, undertreatment, and ethical catastrophes such as the Tuskegee syphilis studies. So they may be hesitant about a new vaccine for completely different reasons than white players or staff.
That said it’s also worth noting that, without getting into politics, the strongest and stickiest resistance to COVID-19 vaccines is among white conservatives (NOTE: as of February 2021). This is a generalization, but if you look at polls among people of color vaccine hesitancy appears to be just that – hesitancy; resistance has dropped substantially among people of color since the start of vaccinations now that we’re seeing more and more evidence of their safety. Often people of color aren’t being vaccinated because the vaccines are not being brought to them and their communities rather than out of remaining hesitancy.
Question: What should reporters pay most attention to regarding COVID statistics and the decline in cases?
Answer: We’ve seen regionalized waves before, so my first piece of advice is don’t focus on the national numbers as much as what’s happening in a given market. Are hospitals full or overwhelmed? Are there long lines for testing or delays in results? Are identified cases falling, rising, or steady? All of these are necessary to form a complete picture of the state of COVID in a given area.
Right now (NOTE: as of February 2021) the number of cases has dropped precipitously over the last few weeks, though it may be beginning to stabilize at a “new normal.” Hopefully it will continue to drop as vaccinations spread, but we will have to see.
One thing to remember is that on the way “up” or “down” when cases are increasing or decreasing, first we’ll see cases rise, then a couple weeks later hospitalizations, then a couple weeks later deaths. These happen in delayed waves since the disease takes some time to hospitalize and kill.
Furthermore, what we’re seeing today even in case numbers likely reflects transmission that was happening 1-3 weeks ago, since it takes time for the virus to show up on reported tests. We don’t really have real-time surveillance on what is happening with transmission in the community.
Lastly, we should be aware that a decline right now is no guarantee of the same in the future if we take our foot off the gas of preventing transmission by doing things like reopening indoor dining. Nothing is preordained. It all depends on our actions. We’ve seen this happen several times already with the surges and declines in spring and summer 2020, which were each followed by another surge.
Question: “How should reporters properly report COVID-19 testing results from MLB?”
Answer: Simply reporting “there were 7 positive tests this week” doesn’t tell the full story. Just like saying “Player A got on base 20 times last month.” Well, out of how many? Did he have 30 PAs or 80 PAs? That context – the denominator – is critical to tell the correct story.
With COVID-19 tests there are, broadly speaking, two possible denominators: 1) the number of people tested and 2) the number of tests done. The former – number of people tested – is almost always the better denominator for your purposes. This tells you the percentage of a team or MLB that was infected during some time period, which is the question you’re most often going to be interested in answering. The issue with using tests done as the denominator is doing so muddles the number of people getting infected with test frequency.
If MLB is doing frequent testing, the percentage of tests that are positive may be pretty low even if quite a few people are actually getting infected. Consider a hypothetical case where a team has 10 positives in a week: that might be presented out of 100 people (10%), or 700 tests (1.4%).
If MLB were, instead, only testing twice per week, using tests as the denominator you would get 10/200 or 5.0%. Thus for the exact same situation you might end up reporting 1.4% or 5.0% purely based on MLB’s decision about how often to test. That doesn’t seem fair. Using people tested as the denominator tells a clearer and more consistent story – it will be 10% regardless of testing frequency.
Question: What should reporters be aware of regarding Coronavirus variants?
Answer:Every time the virus replicates within someone’s body is a chance for it to mutate. Some of these mutations will alter how the virus acts (e.g. lethality, transmissibility, and so forth). Some of these changes are beneficial for the virus, such as those that make it easier to be transmitted or evade some form of immunity. These beneficial changes tend to become more and more common, eventually becoming a detectable “variant.”
These variants will emerge faster the more cases they are, because there are more chances for a beneficial mutation to occur and then for it to spread to others and further multiply. So the best way to prevent variants from emerging is to keep cases low so the virus doesn’t have a lot of chances. Not that I’m advocating for this, but the most effective way not to get tagged by Mike Trout is bean him to take him out of the game. (Please don’t tell Mike I wrote that.)
So far some variants have proven to spread more easily than others, which makes all the measures MLB is taking to prevent spread (such as avoiding group time together indoors) all the more important. It’s possible the exact same protocols we used in the past may not hold up as well against variants that spread more easily. Baseball just needs to be aware that modified stricter protocols – or at least very solid adherence to current protocols – might be required to deal with these variants, and they should be prepared to be flexible on that.
The good news is so far the vaccines and natural immunity seem to be largely effective against all known variants (NOTE: as of February 2021). Some vaccines appear to be slightly less effective against the South African variant, but they still work quite well.
Question: What should reporters know about the potential long-term health effects for people who tested positive for Covid-19?
Answer: The first thing you should know is that this virus has been around in humans for about 14 months. So if you want to know what happens 18 months or 5 years or 20 years after you’re infected, you are out of luck due to the nature of linear time. I literally can’t tell you. No one can. We simply don’t know yet!
What we do know is there is some evidence the virus can cause long-term issues, ranging from those that mostly impact your quality of life (such as months-long altered taste and smell) to more severe issues such as long-term reductions in breathing capacity and severe fatigue.
Some of these side effects can occur even in “mild” cases of COVID-19 that don’t require hospitalization. Even modest decreases in lung or cardiovascular capacity that wouldn’t even be noticed by you or me could be career-altering for athletes operating at peak physical condition.
We’ve also seen cases where this virus can have severe effects on elite athletes – Von Miller, Ryquell Armstead, Rudy Gobert, and others come to mind, who said it took them months to get back to feeling like normal if they ever did. If they get infected there is no guarantee they’ll simply bounce back.
There is also some evidence regarding cardiomyopathy (heart muscle issues) after infection, but whether this will have any long-term effects and how much more common it is in COVID-19 than other viruses like the flu is unclear. It often resolves on its own in a few weeks or months. That said, making sure athletes with damaged hearts don’t put themselves in danger with physical exertion is important; cardiac screening to identify such cases is key here.
Question: Are there any health and safety issues related to infectious disease that could be relevant to the upcoming Collective Bargaining Agreement negotiations?
Answer: I am not a lawyer or CBA expert, so I am not sure what would be most relevant to these negotiations.
I will say MLB and the MLBPA should recognize the need for flexibility with regards to infectious diseases and a possible future pandemic. There is no guarantee the next pandemic will look like COVID-19. It could be deadlier, or spread in a different manner, or affect different kinds of people in different ways. These may raise different concerns and necessitate very different sorts of responses from MLB and the players. I am not sure how much future planning you could do around this, so flexibility is the watchword.
Adapting what worked about COVID-19 negotiations into a general framework for how to structure discussions around future infectious disease issues could be wise, though, to help mitigate the bumps we saw in spring and summer 2020.
MLB and the MLBPA also may want to discuss making certain health and safety regulations permanent, such as minimum square footage and ventilation standards for locker rooms, which could help slow the spread of many “typical” infections that can spread through people in close proximities, such common colds or other respiratory viruses.
Question: Is there a pandemic-related term that you feel is misunderstood for which you would like to clarify the definition?
Answer: The most misunderstood concept is the idea of the 6’/15-minute rule for transmitting the virus. This is intended to be a threshold used for contact tracers, who must make a Yes/No decision about whether someone is worth following up with and warning that they may potentially be infected.
It is not a guarantee that you will or will not be infected on one side of this threshold or the other. You aren’t safe if you’re 6’1” away indoors for several hours or 5’ away from someone but only for 10 minutes.
In reality, risk lies on a continuum: how close you are to someone (6 inches is worse than 6 feet), the length of time you’re close to them (5 minutes is worse than 1, 30 minutes is worse than 5, etc.), whether one or both parties is wearing masks, whether you’re inside or outside (outside is better), the volume and ventilation of an indoor space (larger with better air exchange is better), and how hard you’re both breathing (exercising, singing, or yelling are worse than talking normally, which is worse than silence) all contribute to the actual risk.
So resist the temptation to declare categorically if someone was or was not at risk. MLB may do this because at some point they have to make a decision on whether to, for example, quarantine someone who may have been “exposed” or not. But you should understand, at least for your personal lives and hopefully for your stories, that any one person’s particular risk is much more nuanced than Yes/No were you within 6’ for 15 minutes or not.
The NFL adapted their protocols to reflect this mid-season and appear to have been more or less successful at containing the virus by making more nuanced decisions that included the location where people were spending time and whether they were wearing masks.
Question: What would you recommend that reporters do differently in covering future potential pandemics or health-and-safety related issues?
Answer: It’s not easy for sports writers to suddenly become science reporters, though many did an admirable job this year. My best advice is make friends with a handful of experts you can trust on various health and safety issues from infectious diseases and pandemics to injuries.
My email is above and I’m always happy to hear from anyone, but I’m sure I can’t service the whole industry! I would recommend looking up and becoming friendly with experts at your local universities, medical schools, and public health schools; or looking for experts quoted by your colleagues in their stories. I would especially encourage you to look for experts who are women and People of Color and who bring diverse perspectives on these issues. Here are a few to start with who also love sports:
Dr. Neel Gandhi (Infectious Disease MD), Emory
Dr. Gretchen Snoeyenbos Newman (Infectious Disease MD), Wayne State
Dr. Kacey Ernst (Infectious Disease epidemiologist), Arizona
Dr. Jill Weatherhead (Infectious Disease MD), Baylor
Question: Are there any resources you’d recommend reporters keep handy?
Answer: The resources you want will probably vary a lot from story to story. Generally, I would always recommend looking to CDC and/or WHO guidance around infectious diseases. Consulting experts as mentioned above, is always a good idea. We can provide the latest knowledge at any given time and link you to appropriate resources for any given issue.