The unofficial online home for fans of the Old Dominion University Monarchs. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(04-27-2020 02:05 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 01:23 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 01:11 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 01:07 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 01:01 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  I mean, no one really believed this was going to be a 2 week thing, right?

We have certainly flattened the curve. However, I still think we are in the high danger zone in terms of what would happen if restrictions were lifted. Do I think we could soon see some slow easing back in? Absolutely.

I view it differently than you. I look at see the all the measures we have taken and still have 55,000 deaths. Projected to be about 70,000 by August 1st. We cant stay closed forever, but I would rather err on the side of caution or the last 6 weeks will have been a complete waste. What happens if we open too soon and see a huge spike in cases (likely)? We start the clock over again or figure out if we have the capacity to deal with the cases?

This is why we base openings on localities, and close back down based on localities. The fact that this thing is being managed on such a broad scale has absolutely not good reason. We have been at this for 6 weeks or so and VB has seen fewer than 400 cases and 10 deaths. Seems your concerns are a bit outsized for VB?

Again, it's like talking to a wall. There is a reason there are few cases.

Can you show proof of that since you are so sure absolutely positive? What about the states that never locked down? There frankly is more data on my side of this argument. Your side has assumptions, models, opinions, and conjecture, but not one piece of evidence.

You can take a look at the Scandinavian countries and their approaches. Clearly social distancing will have an effect on the spread of a virus. I don't see how that's debatable.

Is it clear? Yes, if you compare Sweden to other Scandinavian countries there is a disparity, but if you widen the net and compare Sweden to the rest of Europe, the disparity disappears. Further, Sweden is positioning themselves to avoid a second wave, so it is likely that any increased cases and deaths right now, will be offset by lower numbers in the 2nd wave.

Also, if you are looking for comparisons, why not look a little closer to home? We have 8 states that have not mandated social distancing. None of them are producing data that indicates they have been negatively effected by their decision.

(04-27-2020 02:14 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 02:05 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 01:23 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 01:11 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 01:07 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  This is why we base openings on localities, and close back down based on localities. The fact that this thing is being managed on such a broad scale has absolutely not good reason. We have been at this for 6 weeks or so and VB has seen fewer than 400 cases and 10 deaths. Seems your concerns are a bit outsized for VB?

Again, it's like talking to a wall. There is a reason there are few cases.

Can you show proof of that since you are so sure absolutely positive? What about the states that never locked down? There frankly is more data on my side of this argument. Your side has assumptions, models, opinions, and conjecture, but not one piece of evidence.

You can take a look at the Scandinavian countries and their approaches. Clearly social distancing will have an effect on the spread of a virus. I don't see how that's debatable.

Is it clear? Yes, if you compare Sweden to other Scandinavian countries there is a disparity, but if you widen the net and compare Sweden to the rest of Europe, the disparity disappears. Further, Sweden is positioning themselves to avoid a second wave, so it is likely that any increased cases and deaths right now, will be offset by lower numbers in the 2nd wave.

Well the Baltic Sea does separate them from mainland Europe so a comparison of the two countries they are sandwiched between seems more appropriate. It's pure speculation that they will be spared in a second wave. There's no proof of immunity of those already infected. We hope but don't know. Hell it's not clear that Sweden has even peaked this round of infections they had the most daily cases reported yet two days ago. I'm curious what data do you think disproves the effectiveness of social distancing? I'm not asking whether you think we should have taken these measures or whether some other policy would be better. I'm wondering how you can say that there would not be more cases without the actions taken? It's common sense.

(04-27-2020 02:14 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 02:05 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 01:23 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 01:11 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 01:07 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  This is why we base openings on localities, and close back down based on localities. The fact that this thing is being managed on such a broad scale has absolutely not good reason. We have been at this for 6 weeks or so and VB has seen fewer than 400 cases and 10 deaths. Seems your concerns are a bit outsized for VB?

Again, it's like talking to a wall. There is a reason there are few cases.

Can you show proof of that since you are so sure absolutely positive? What about the states that never locked down? There frankly is more data on my side of this argument. Your side has assumptions, models, opinions, and conjecture, but not one piece of evidence.

You can take a look at the Scandinavian countries and their approaches. Clearly social distancing will have an effect on the spread of a virus. I don't see how that's debatable.

Also, if you are looking for comparisons, why not look a little closer to home? We have 8 states that have not mandated social distancing. None of them are producing data that indicates they have been negatively effected by their decision.

Which States? Places nobody visits?

(04-27-2020 01:24 PM)ODUCoach Wrote:  If we stay locked down forever, there will always be just a few cases. That makes sense. Are we seriously supposed to live in this current environment until we can guarantee we won't have any more than "just a few" cases?

Approximately, 50k deaths, more than a quarter of which are in one state. A significantly high percentage of deaths nationwide are in LTC facilities. No one here is suggesting we start letting people parade into the nursing homes.

I understand your point of view, I do. But, you are looking at this from a perspective of a one size, fits all approach. No one is arguing that it should be a free-for-all. But, for most of us, even if we get COVID, we'll be fine. What's wrong with an approach based on micro factors (location, health status, etc.)?

I have to admit, Giles, I think in this discussion, your point of view surprises me the most. For someone who is so driven to analyze basketball players by advanced statistics, it seems that your approach to this virus is emotional. I mean, i understand it, it just surprises me a bit.

My view point is not emotionally driven at all, it is statistics driven. The evidence is overwhelming that social distancing is working and that if things were opened up freely, we would have hundred of thousands of deaths on our hands. Thats not something I'm willing to tolerate. I don't see how any could debate that. This virus is lethal in ways this country has never seen before. Its not surprising to me in the least that NY would have the most deaths, it's going to hit that area first and the hardest due to population density. But, without social distancing measures, it would have (and still could) spread to other areas of the country. To use what our current mortality rate, we are at 0.563 mortality rate. To get to 100,000 deaths, all you need is 1,776,199 cases (we are at over a million right now).

Now, others have a higher tolerance for the amount of deaths that are acceptable to you. You might believe that less severe social distancing measures should be taken place. That is your prerogative. While the odds of surviving are fairly high, this virus does not have any rhyme or reason. It's killed young people with no pre-existing conditions (granted, not many). I think people that haven't had loved ones affected by it probably don't take it serious enough. There are people that think "Oh, Im young and don't have a pre-existing condition, I'll be fine. The pre-existing condition thing is kind of silly. Its been a way to minimize the virus. How many of us over 30 have high blood pressure? How many have asthma (though, that may be sparred). How many have pre-diabetes or full diabetes? HIV, Auto-immune disease, etc?

Im not going to say some are don't care about people dying, but I don't understand the thought process of people that pawn off our deaths as "acceptable" because they had some type of condition or they were over the age of 55.

The economy will rebound, people over the course of a million years have recovered from poor economic conditions. You cant rebound from death.

(04-27-2020 02:23 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 02:14 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 02:05 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 01:23 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 01:11 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  Again, it's like talking to a wall. There is a reason there are few cases.

Can you show proof of that since you are so sure absolutely positive? What about the states that never locked down? There frankly is more data on my side of this argument. Your side has assumptions, models, opinions, and conjecture, but not one piece of evidence.

You can take a look at the Scandinavian countries and their approaches. Clearly social distancing will have an effect on the spread of a virus. I don't see how that's debatable.

Is it clear? Yes, if you compare Sweden to other Scandinavian countries there is a disparity, but if you widen the net and compare Sweden to the rest of Europe, the disparity disappears. Further, Sweden is positioning themselves to avoid a second wave, so it is likely that any increased cases and deaths right now, will be offset by lower numbers in the 2nd wave.

Well the Baltic Sea does separate them from mainland Europe so a comparison of the two countries they are sandwiched between seems more appropriate. It's pure speculation that they will be spared in a second wave. There's no proof of immunity of those already infected. We hope but don't know. Hell it's not clear that Sweden has even peaked this round of infections they had the most daily cases reported yet two days ago. I'm curious what data do you think disproves the effectiveness of social distancing? I'm not asking whether you think we should have taken these measures or whether some other policy would be better. I'm wondering how you can say that there would not be more cases without the actions taken? It's common sense.

What about the states in the US that didn't lock down?

I wouldn't argue that social distancing has NO impact. I think in certain areas it may have significant impact, and in other areas its impact is negligible.

The entire point is that there is absolutely data about how places that do not lock down fair, and there is definitely no conclusive evidence that they fair worse in all cases.

Then there is disparity between places that have locked down that may indicate that lock downs are not the determinant factor in success or lack thereof, see NY vs CA.

The fact of the matter is that the idea that locking down makes a major difference in 100% of settings is built completely on conjecture, assumptions, and "common sense", as you called it.

(04-27-2020 02:28 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 02:14 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 02:05 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 01:23 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 01:11 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  Again, it's like talking to a wall. There is a reason there are few cases.

Can you show proof of that since you are so sure absolutely positive? What about the states that never locked down? There frankly is more data on my side of this argument. Your side has assumptions, models, opinions, and conjecture, but not one piece of evidence.

You can take a look at the Scandinavian countries and their approaches. Clearly social distancing will have an effect on the spread of a virus. I don't see how that's debatable.

Also, if you are looking for comparisons, why not look a little closer to home? We have 8 states that have not mandated social distancing. None of them are producing data that indicates they have been negatively effected by their decision.

Which States? Places nobody visits?

Guess they don't matter then...

(04-27-2020 02:31 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 01:24 PM)ODUCoach Wrote:  If we stay locked down forever, there will always be just a few cases. That makes sense. Are we seriously supposed to live in this current environment until we can guarantee we won't have any more than "just a few" cases?

Approximately, 50k deaths, more than a quarter of which are in one state. A significantly high percentage of deaths nationwide are in LTC facilities. No one here is suggesting we start letting people parade into the nursing homes.

I understand your point of view, I do. But, you are looking at this from a perspective of a one size, fits all approach. No one is arguing that it should be a free-for-all. But, for most of us, even if we get COVID, we'll be fine. What's wrong with an approach based on micro factors (location, health status, etc.)?

I have to admit, Giles, I think in this discussion, your point of view surprises me the most. For someone who is so driven to analyze basketball players by advanced statistics, it seems that your approach to this virus is emotional. I mean, i understand it, it just surprises me a bit.

My view point is not emotionally driven at all, it is statistics driven. The evidence is overwhelming that social distancing is working and that if things were opened up freely, we would have hundred of thousands of deaths on our hands. Thats not something I'm willing to tolerate. I don't see how any could debate that. This virus is lethal in ways this country has never seen before. Its not surprising to me in the least that NY would have the most deaths, it's going to hit that area first and the hardest due to population density. But, without social distancing measures, it would have (and still could) spread to other areas of the country. To use what our current mortality rate, we are at 0.563 mortality rate. To get to 100,000 deaths, all you need is 1,776,199 cases (we are at over a million right now).

Now, others have a higher tolerance for the amount of deaths that are acceptable to you. You might believe that less severe social distancing measures should be taken place. That is your prerogative. While the odds of surviving are fairly high, this virus does not have any rhyme or reason. It's killed young people with no pre-existing conditions (granted, not many). I think people that haven't had loved ones affected by it probably don't take it serious enough. There are people that think "Oh, Im young and don't have a pre-existing condition, I'll be fine. The pre-existing condition thing is kind of silly. Its been a way to minimize the virus. How many of us over 30 have high blood pressure? How many have asthma (though, that may be sparred). How many have pre-diabetes or full diabetes? HIV, Auto-immune disease, etc?

Im not going to say some are don't care about people dying, but I don't understand the thought process of people that pawn off our deaths as "acceptable" because they had some type of condition or they were over the age of 55.

The economy will rebound, people over the course of a million years have recovered from poor economic conditions. You cant rebound from death.

Quote:The evidence is overwhelming that social distancing is working and that if things were opened up freely, we would have hundred of thousands of deaths on our hands.

You say this a lot, but you never site that overwhelming evidence.

(04-27-2020 02:28 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  Which States? Places nobody visits?

Hey, easy now. The Iowa Butter festival is not to be missed.

(04-27-2020 02:37 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 02:31 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 01:24 PM)ODUCoach Wrote:  If we stay locked down forever, there will always be just a few cases. That makes sense. Are we seriously supposed to live in this current environment until we can guarantee we won't have any more than "just a few" cases?

Approximately, 50k deaths, more than a quarter of which are in one state. A significantly high percentage of deaths nationwide are in LTC facilities. No one here is suggesting we start letting people parade into the nursing homes.

I understand your point of view, I do. But, you are looking at this from a perspective of a one size, fits all approach. No one is arguing that it should be a free-for-all. But, for most of us, even if we get COVID, we'll be fine. What's wrong with an approach based on micro factors (location, health status, etc.)?

I have to admit, Giles, I think in this discussion, your point of view surprises me the most. For someone who is so driven to analyze basketball players by advanced statistics, it seems that your approach to this virus is emotional. I mean, i understand it, it just surprises me a bit.

My view point is not emotionally driven at all, it is statistics driven. The evidence is overwhelming that social distancing is working and that if things were opened up freely, we would have hundred of thousands of deaths on our hands. Thats not something I'm willing to tolerate. I don't see how any could debate that. This virus is lethal in ways this country has never seen before. Its not surprising to me in the least that NY would have the most deaths, it's going to hit that area first and the hardest due to population density. But, without social distancing measures, it would have (and still could) spread to other areas of the country. To use what our current mortality rate, we are at 0.563 mortality rate. To get to 100,000 deaths, all you need is 1,776,199 cases (we are at over a million right now).

Now, others have a higher tolerance for the amount of deaths that are acceptable to you. You might believe that less severe social distancing measures should be taken place. That is your prerogative. While the odds of surviving are fairly high, this virus does not have any rhyme or reason. It's killed young people with no pre-existing conditions (granted, not many). I think people that haven't had loved ones affected by it probably don't take it serious enough. There are people that think "Oh, Im young and don't have a pre-existing condition, I'll be fine. The pre-existing condition thing is kind of silly. Its been a way to minimize the virus. How many of us over 30 have high blood pressure? How many have asthma (though, that may be sparred). How many have pre-diabetes or full diabetes? HIV, Auto-immune disease, etc?

Im not going to say some are don't care about people dying, but I don't understand the thought process of people that pawn off our deaths as "acceptable" because they had some type of condition or they were over the age of 55.

The economy will rebound, people over the course of a million years have recovered from poor economic conditions. You cant rebound from death.

Quote:The evidence is overwhelming that social distancing is working and that if things were opened up freely, we would have hundred of thousands of deaths on our hands.

You say this a lot, but you never site that overwhelming evidence.

I posted a link that showed how Sweden did compared to countries that border it and are similar in physical features. Countries implemented social distancing for a reason because the evidence shows how contagious it is. Its seems like common sense to me based on the evidence provided. I've never read someone say that social distancing has no impact on the spread of the virus.

(04-27-2020 02:42 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 02:37 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 02:31 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 01:24 PM)ODUCoach Wrote:  If we stay locked down forever, there will always be just a few cases. That makes sense. Are we seriously supposed to live in this current environment until we can guarantee we won't have any more than "just a few" cases?

Approximately, 50k deaths, more than a quarter of which are in one state. A significantly high percentage of deaths nationwide are in LTC facilities. No one here is suggesting we start letting people parade into the nursing homes.

I understand your point of view, I do. But, you are looking at this from a perspective of a one size, fits all approach. No one is arguing that it should be a free-for-all. But, for most of us, even if we get COVID, we'll be fine. What's wrong with an approach based on micro factors (location, health status, etc.)?

I have to admit, Giles, I think in this discussion, your point of view surprises me the most. For someone who is so driven to analyze basketball players by advanced statistics, it seems that your approach to this virus is emotional. I mean, i understand it, it just surprises me a bit.

My view point is not emotionally driven at all, it is statistics driven. The evidence is overwhelming that social distancing is working and that if things were opened up freely, we would have hundred of thousands of deaths on our hands. Thats not something I'm willing to tolerate. I don't see how any could debate that. This virus is lethal in ways this country has never seen before. Its not surprising to me in the least that NY would have the most deaths, it's going to hit that area first and the hardest due to population density. But, without social distancing measures, it would have (and still could) spread to other areas of the country. To use what our current mortality rate, we are at 0.563 mortality rate. To get to 100,000 deaths, all you need is 1,776,199 cases (we are at over a million right now).

Now, others have a higher tolerance for the amount of deaths that are acceptable to you. You might believe that less severe social distancing measures should be taken place. That is your prerogative. While the odds of surviving are fairly high, this virus does not have any rhyme or reason. It's killed young people with no pre-existing conditions (granted, not many). I think people that haven't had loved ones affected by it probably don't take it serious enough. There are people that think "Oh, Im young and don't have a pre-existing condition, I'll be fine. The pre-existing condition thing is kind of silly. Its been a way to minimize the virus. How many of us over 30 have high blood pressure? How many have asthma (though, that may be sparred). How many have pre-diabetes or full diabetes? HIV, Auto-immune disease, etc?

Im not going to say some are don't care about people dying, but I don't understand the thought process of people that pawn off our deaths as "acceptable" because they had some type of condition or they were over the age of 55.

The economy will rebound, people over the course of a million years have recovered from poor economic conditions. You cant rebound from death.

Quote:The evidence is overwhelming that social distancing is working and that if things were opened up freely, we would have hundred of thousands of deaths on our hands.

You say this a lot, but you never site that overwhelming evidence.

I posted a link that showed how Sweden did compared to countries that border it and are similar in physical features. Countries implemented social distancing for a reason because the evidence shows how contagious it is. Its seems like common sense to me based on the evidence provided. I've never read someone say that social distancing has no impact on the spread of the virus.

Again, no reference to the states in our country that are not locked down, and Swedish scientists, and many others, believe that while their numbers may be a bit elevated right now, they will be in much better shape down the road since the extreme social distancing measures all but guarantee a significant second wave. Do you have evidence that this position is wrong, or do you just prefer not to accept it?

(04-27-2020 02:52 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 02:42 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 02:37 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 02:31 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 01:24 PM)ODUCoach Wrote:  If we stay locked down forever, there will always be just a few cases. That makes sense. Are we seriously supposed to live in this current environment until we can guarantee we won't have any more than "just a few" cases?

Approximately, 50k deaths, more than a quarter of which are in one state. A significantly high percentage of deaths nationwide are in LTC facilities. No one here is suggesting we start letting people parade into the nursing homes.

I understand your point of view, I do. But, you are looking at this from a perspective of a one size, fits all approach. No one is arguing that it should be a free-for-all. But, for most of us, even if we get COVID, we'll be fine. What's wrong with an approach based on micro factors (location, health status, etc.)?

I have to admit, Giles, I think in this discussion, your point of view surprises me the most. For someone who is so driven to analyze basketball players by advanced statistics, it seems that your approach to this virus is emotional. I mean, i understand it, it just surprises me a bit.

My view point is not emotionally driven at all, it is statistics driven. The evidence is overwhelming that social distancing is working and that if things were opened up freely, we would have hundred of thousands of deaths on our hands. Thats not something I'm willing to tolerate. I don't see how any could debate that. This virus is lethal in ways this country has never seen before. Its not surprising to me in the least that NY would have the most deaths, it's going to hit that area first and the hardest due to population density. But, without social distancing measures, it would have (and still could) spread to other areas of the country. To use what our current mortality rate, we are at 0.563 mortality rate. To get to 100,000 deaths, all you need is 1,776,199 cases (we are at over a million right now).

Now, others have a higher tolerance for the amount of deaths that are acceptable to you. You might believe that less severe social distancing measures should be taken place. That is your prerogative. While the odds of surviving are fairly high, this virus does not have any rhyme or reason. It's killed young people with no pre-existing conditions (granted, not many). I think people that haven't had loved ones affected by it probably don't take it serious enough. There are people that think "Oh, Im young and don't have a pre-existing condition, I'll be fine. The pre-existing condition thing is kind of silly. Its been a way to minimize the virus. How many of us over 30 have high blood pressure? How many have asthma (though, that may be sparred). How many have pre-diabetes or full diabetes? HIV, Auto-immune disease, etc?

Im not going to say some are don't care about people dying, but I don't understand the thought process of people that pawn off our deaths as "acceptable" because they had some type of condition or they were over the age of 55.

The economy will rebound, people over the course of a million years have recovered from poor economic conditions. You cant rebound from death.

Quote:The evidence is overwhelming that social distancing is working and that if things were opened up freely, we would have hundred of thousands of deaths on our hands.

You say this a lot, but you never site that overwhelming evidence.

I posted a link that showed how Sweden did compared to countries that border it and are similar in physical features. Countries implemented social distancing for a reason because the evidence shows how contagious it is. Its seems like common sense to me based on the evidence provided. I've never read someone say that social distancing has no impact on the spread of the virus.

Again, no reference to the states in our country that are not locked down, and Swedish scientists, and many others, believe that while their numbers may be a bit elevated right now, they will be in much better shape down the road since the extreme social distancing measures all but guarantee a significant second wave. Do you have evidence that this position is wrong, or do you just prefer not to accept it?

I say we conduct a test. To those who do not believe social distancing has no impact on the spread of the virus, have those fill the Ted for two hours. We then test them a few days later to see if they contracted the virus. I'd be curious to know how many of the "social distancing does not work crowd" would be willing to take their chances at participating.

(04-27-2020 03:17 PM)PhillyFlorz Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 02:52 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 02:42 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 02:37 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 02:31 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  My view point is not emotionally driven at all, it is statistics driven. The evidence is overwhelming that social distancing is working and that if things were opened up freely, we would have hundred of thousands of deaths on our hands. Thats not something I'm willing to tolerate. I don't see how any could debate that. This virus is lethal in ways this country has never seen before. Its not surprising to me in the least that NY would have the most deaths, it's going to hit that area first and the hardest due to population density. But, without social distancing measures, it would have (and still could) spread to other areas of the country. To use what our current mortality rate, we are at 0.563 mortality rate. To get to 100,000 deaths, all you need is 1,776,199 cases (we are at over a million right now).

Now, others have a higher tolerance for the amount of deaths that are acceptable to you. You might believe that less severe social distancing measures should be taken place. That is your prerogative. While the odds of surviving are fairly high, this virus does not have any rhyme or reason. It's killed young people with no pre-existing conditions (granted, not many). I think people that haven't had loved ones affected by it probably don't take it serious enough. There are people that think "Oh, Im young and don't have a pre-existing condition, I'll be fine. The pre-existing condition thing is kind of silly. Its been a way to minimize the virus. How many of us over 30 have high blood pressure? How many have asthma (though, that may be sparred). How many have pre-diabetes or full diabetes? HIV, Auto-immune disease, etc?

Im not going to say some are don't care about people dying, but I don't understand the thought process of people that pawn off our deaths as "acceptable" because they had some type of condition or they were over the age of 55.

The economy will rebound, people over the course of a million years have recovered from poor economic conditions. You cant rebound from death.

Quote:The evidence is overwhelming that social distancing is working and that if things were opened up freely, we would have hundred of thousands of deaths on our hands.

You say this a lot, but you never site that overwhelming evidence.

I posted a link that showed how Sweden did compared to countries that border it and are similar in physical features. Countries implemented social distancing for a reason because the evidence shows how contagious it is. Its seems like common sense to me based on the evidence provided. I've never read someone say that social distancing has no impact on the spread of the virus.

Again, no reference to the states in our country that are not locked down, and Swedish scientists, and many others, believe that while their numbers may be a bit elevated right now, they will be in much better shape down the road since the extreme social distancing measures all but guarantee a significant second wave. Do you have evidence that this position is wrong, or do you just prefer not to accept it?

I say we conduct a test. To those who do not believe social distancing has no impact on the spread of the virus, have those fill the Ted for two hours. We then test them a few days later to see if they contracted the virus. I'd be curious to know how many of the "social distancing does not work crowd" would be willing to take their chances at participating.

I don't think anyone has said we should fill The Ted. We are talking about opening business while keeping social distancing and masks/sanitizer going, opening parks and beaches. I would not advocate for resuming events that require large crowds in small spaces, although I am interested in the studies on how this thing transmits outdoors, and whether that may allow outdoor events to take place with some measures to make sure people are not right on top of each other.

If you want to do an experiment where all of us who believe that going to whichever store we please and to be able to go to the beach and the park have to go about our business freely, I would sign up... hell that is exactly what I have been asking for.

(04-27-2020 03:17 PM)PhillyFlorz Wrote:  I say we conduct a test. To those who do not believe social distancing has no impact on the spread of the virus, have those fill the Ted for two hours. We then test them a few days later to see if they contracted the virus. I'd be curious to know how many of the "social distancing does not work crowd" would be willing to take their chances at participating.

Ya know, two can play this game. How 'bout I send you an invoice for my company's payroll for the duration of the lockdown period. You can pay it and then pass the hat amongst the more-caring-than-I set to see who else is willing to voluntarily contribute.

(04-27-2020 03:30 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 03:17 PM)PhillyFlorz Wrote:  I say we conduct a test. To those who do not believe social distancing has no impact on the spread of the virus, have those fill the Ted for two hours. We then test them a few days later to see if they contracted the virus. I'd be curious to know how many of the "social distancing does not work crowd" would be willing to take their chances at participating.

Ya know, two can play this game. How 'bout I send you an invoice for my company's payroll for the duration of the lockdown period. You can pay it and then pass the hat amongst the more-caring-than-I set to see who else is willing to voluntarily contribute.

I would take you up on it, but I fear that someone (who is carrying the virus and doesn't believe in social distancing is effective), sneezes on me first, thereby causing my untimely demise and, in the process, unable to see your invoices.

(04-27-2020 03:45 PM)PhillyFlorz Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 03:30 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 03:17 PM)PhillyFlorz Wrote:  I say we conduct a test. To those who do not believe social distancing has no impact on the spread of the virus, have those fill the Ted for two hours. We then test them a few days later to see if they contracted the virus. I'd be curious to know how many of the "social distancing does not work crowd" would be willing to take their chances at participating.

Ya know, two can play this game. How 'bout I send you an invoice for my company's payroll for the duration of the lockdown period. You can pay it and then pass the hat amongst the more-caring-than-I set to see who else is willing to voluntarily contribute.

I would take you up on it, but I fear that someone (who is carrying the virus and doesn't believe in social distancing is effective), sneezes on me first, thereby causing my untimely demise and, in the process, unable to see your invoices.

(04-27-2020 03:45 PM)PhillyFlorz Wrote:  I would take you up on it, but I fear that someone (who is carrying the virus and doesn't believe in social distancing is effective), sneezes on me first, thereby causing my untimely demise and, in the process, unable to see your invoices.

Stay home. He can email you the invoices. If you are worried about being exposed, lock yourself in. No judgement coming from here.

(04-27-2020 02:52 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 02:42 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 02:37 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 02:31 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 01:24 PM)ODUCoach Wrote:  If we stay locked down forever, there will always be just a few cases. That makes sense. Are we seriously supposed to live in this current environment until we can guarantee we won't have any more than "just a few" cases?

Approximately, 50k deaths, more than a quarter of which are in one state. A significantly high percentage of deaths nationwide are in LTC facilities. No one here is suggesting we start letting people parade into the nursing homes.

I understand your point of view, I do. But, you are looking at this from a perspective of a one size, fits all approach. No one is arguing that it should be a free-for-all. But, for most of us, even if we get COVID, we'll be fine. What's wrong with an approach based on micro factors (location, health status, etc.)?

I have to admit, Giles, I think in this discussion, your point of view surprises me the most. For someone who is so driven to analyze basketball players by advanced statistics, it seems that your approach to this virus is emotional. I mean, i understand it, it just surprises me a bit.

My view point is not emotionally driven at all, it is statistics driven. The evidence is overwhelming that social distancing is working and that if things were opened up freely, we would have hundred of thousands of deaths on our hands. Thats not something I'm willing to tolerate. I don't see how any could debate that. This virus is lethal in ways this country has never seen before. Its not surprising to me in the least that NY would have the most deaths, it's going to hit that area first and the hardest due to population density. But, without social distancing measures, it would have (and still could) spread to other areas of the country. To use what our current mortality rate, we are at 0.563 mortality rate. To get to 100,000 deaths, all you need is 1,776,199 cases (we are at over a million right now).

Now, others have a higher tolerance for the amount of deaths that are acceptable to you. You might believe that less severe social distancing measures should be taken place. That is your prerogative. While the odds of surviving are fairly high, this virus does not have any rhyme or reason. It's killed young people with no pre-existing conditions (granted, not many). I think people that haven't had loved ones affected by it probably don't take it serious enough. There are people that think "Oh, Im young and don't have a pre-existing condition, I'll be fine. The pre-existing condition thing is kind of silly. Its been a way to minimize the virus. How many of us over 30 have high blood pressure? How many have asthma (though, that may be sparred). How many have pre-diabetes or full diabetes? HIV, Auto-immune disease, etc?

Im not going to say some are don't care about people dying, but I don't understand the thought process of people that pawn off our deaths as "acceptable" because they had some type of condition or they were over the age of 55.

The economy will rebound, people over the course of a million years have recovered from poor economic conditions. You cant rebound from death.

Quote:The evidence is overwhelming that social distancing is working and that if things were opened up freely, we would have hundred of thousands of deaths on our hands.

You say this a lot, but you never site that overwhelming evidence.

I posted a link that showed how Sweden did compared to countries that border it and are similar in physical features. Countries implemented social distancing for a reason because the evidence shows how contagious it is. Its seems like common sense to me based on the evidence provided. I've never read someone say that social distancing has no impact on the spread of the virus.

Again, no reference to the states in our country that are not locked down, and Swedish scientists, and many others, believe that while their numbers may be a bit elevated right now, they will be in much better shape down the road since the extreme social distancing measures all but guarantee a significant second wave. Do you have evidence that this position is wrong, or do you just prefer not to accept it?

Which States did no social distancing measures and what are there numbers?

My hope is a vaccine or better treatment is introduced before a "second wave" comes.

(04-27-2020 02:35 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 02:28 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 02:14 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 02:05 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 01:23 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  Can you show proof of that since you are so sure absolutely positive? What about the states that never locked down? There frankly is more data on my side of this argument. Your side has assumptions, models, opinions, and conjecture, but not one piece of evidence.

You can take a look at the Scandinavian countries and their approaches. Clearly social distancing will have an effect on the spread of a virus. I don't see how that's debatable.

Also, if you are looking for comparisons, why not look a little closer to home? We have 8 states that have not mandated social distancing. None of them are producing data that indicates they have been negatively effected by their decision.

Which States? Places nobody visits?

Guess they don't matter then...

Didn't say they didn't matter. I'm saying there are a myriad of reasons why comparing North Dakota to New York will not be a fair comparison and travel is one of them. There are also a lot of reasons why you can't compare NY and CA even though they both locked down. You can point to North Dakota and say they made a good decision based on the low risk there was there and you can point to NY and say they should have started much sooner. Those are policy opinions and I'm not against either. I can see the argument for not a one size fits all solution. Hell, I live in SWVA which has even less cases than HR. But if we opened up now, either SWVA or HR, without a plan in place to monitor, test and trace all potential cases then the numbers would start to increase and within a few weeks it would be spreading very quickly. There's a difference between the wisdom of the policy and the effectiveness of the policy. ND may not need to implement strict shutdowns, IDK. But if they a couple of Yankees that happen to be asymptomatic super spreaders go to Bismark and eat in their cafes and drink in their bars then they'll have a problem. And shutting everything down and social distancing would be the best way to slow the spread. It's clearly effective. The problem is without a lot of testing and monitoring by the time you know you have a problem, it's too late.

(04-27-2020 03:17 PM)PhillyFlorz Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 02:52 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 02:42 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 02:37 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 02:31 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  My view point is not emotionally driven at all, it is statistics driven. The evidence is overwhelming that social distancing is working and that if things were opened up freely, we would have hundred of thousands of deaths on our hands. Thats not something I'm willing to tolerate. I don't see how any could debate that. This virus is lethal in ways this country has never seen before. Its not surprising to me in the least that NY would have the most deaths, it's going to hit that area first and the hardest due to population density. But, without social distancing measures, it would have (and still could) spread to other areas of the country. To use what our current mortality rate, we are at 0.563 mortality rate. To get to 100,000 deaths, all you need is 1,776,199 cases (we are at over a million right now).

Now, others have a higher tolerance for the amount of deaths that are acceptable to you. You might believe that less severe social distancing measures should be taken place. That is your prerogative. While the odds of surviving are fairly high, this virus does not have any rhyme or reason. It's killed young people with no pre-existing conditions (granted, not many). I think people that haven't had loved ones affected by it probably don't take it serious enough. There are people that think "Oh, Im young and don't have a pre-existing condition, I'll be fine. The pre-existing condition thing is kind of silly. Its been a way to minimize the virus. How many of us over 30 have high blood pressure? How many have asthma (though, that may be sparred). How many have pre-diabetes or full diabetes? HIV, Auto-immune disease, etc?

Im not going to say some are don't care about people dying, but I don't understand the thought process of people that pawn off our deaths as "acceptable" because they had some type of condition or they were over the age of 55.

The economy will rebound, people over the course of a million years have recovered from poor economic conditions. You cant rebound from death.

Quote:The evidence is overwhelming that social distancing is working and that if things were opened up freely, we would have hundred of thousands of deaths on our hands.

You say this a lot, but you never site that overwhelming evidence.

I posted a link that showed how Sweden did compared to countries that border it and are similar in physical features. Countries implemented social distancing for a reason because the evidence shows how contagious it is. Its seems like common sense to me based on the evidence provided. I've never read someone say that social distancing has no impact on the spread of the virus.

Again, no reference to the states in our country that are not locked down, and Swedish scientists, and many others, believe that while their numbers may be a bit elevated right now, they will be in much better shape down the road since the extreme social distancing measures all but guarantee a significant second wave. Do you have evidence that this position is wrong, or do you just prefer not to accept it?

I say we conduct a test. To those who do not believe social distancing has no impact on the spread of the virus, have those fill the Ted for two hours. We then test them a few days later to see if they contracted the virus. I'd be curious to know how many of the "social distancing does not work crowd" would be willing to take their chances at participating.

Have a good basketball game or conference and most people would be there.