(06-24-2020 04:13 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 08:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 05:36 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 04:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 02:02 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Did all the people who died from this categorize as “vulnerable?” Did they know they really were after all?

I don’t know whatever happened to the concept of the greater good.

But that begs the issue of what the "greater good" is. It can't be "minimize deaths at any other kind of cost", because otherwise we would ban automobiles, which kill about 35,000 people a year. But, even though nobody likes to say it in so many words, as a society we think those deaths are "worth it" to get the benefits cars provide. Truth is, societies trade-off lives for other things all the time.

As for "vulnerable", we have had a very good idea of who is vulnerable all along - the very elderly and people with a few underlying conditions, like heart disease, diabetes, and asthma. And no, not every single person who has died fits those categories, but the numbers are staggering. IIRC, of the first 25,000 people who died of CV in the USA, all of 24 weren't elderly or had a serious underlying health condition.

So protect the vulnerable, but don't wreck society and the economy with mass lockdowns and shutdowns of public life in the process, as we did and are still doing.

We take steps to minimize auto deaths. Seatbelts, speed limits, air bags etc. It's a form of transportation not a commutable disease. Thats not even comparing apples to oranges thats comparing apples to hammers.

We do take steps to reduce auto deaths - but not minimize at any cost, as that can only be done by eliminating autos. We tolerate 35,000 dead a year to gain the economic and social benefits of autos.

Lockdowns are looking more and more like a massive mistake. They are like using a hammer when a laser beam is more appropriate, because CV is not a "zombie apocalypse" disease that targets everyone in the same way. Some identifiable groups are FAR more likely to have very serious health outcomes than others. So target the vulnerable for extreme protection, but shutting down society caused enormous collateral damage.

Thats just flat out wrong and ignorant. Lockdowns helped the northeast and thats why our numbers are going down while everywhere else they are going up. Yes, places like florida didn't take it seriously thats why their numbers are going up.

One interesting theory is that cases are going up where it is warm because folks are being forced to spend more time indoors in re-circulated air instead of out in fresh air.

(06-25-2020 06:59 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 06:54 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  Really love New Yorkers telling others how to do something they completely screwed up.

We didn't screw it up, we were just the first tp deal with it. If you're too dumb to not learn from what we did both RIGHT and wrong then enjoy all those covid deaths coming your way. We're out of the woods you guys aren't. Have fun with that.

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard...7b48e9ecf6

You can't be that stupid to believe that. NY City has 10% of the total US cases, and over 15% of the total deaths. One of the worst results in the world.

You didn't deal with it first, China, then SE Asia, then Europe, then the US (starting in Washington state). 50% of Washington's death the first month occurred in nursing homes. Then your leadership sent the infected back into places with a concentration of the most vulnerable.

Don't preach to the rest of the US about learning from how you handled it.

You also can't be dumb enough to believe NY is "out of the woods". The virus is here, everyone needs to take precautions with cleanliness, masks, and social distancing.

"Have fun with that" - icing on the cake of stupid comments.

(06-25-2020 06:58 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 06:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 04:13 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 08:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 05:36 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  We take steps to minimize auto deaths. Seatbelts, speed limits, air bags etc. It's a form of transportation not a commutable disease. Thats not even comparing apples to oranges thats comparing apples to hammers.

We do take steps to reduce auto deaths - but not minimize at any cost, as that can only be done by eliminating autos. We tolerate 35,000 dead a year to gain the economic and social benefits of autos.

Lockdowns are looking more and more like a massive mistake. They are like using a hammer when a laser beam is more appropriate, because CV is not a "zombie apocalypse" disease that targets everyone in the same way. Some identifiable groups are FAR more likely to have very serious health outcomes than others. So target the vulnerable for extreme protection, but shutting down society caused enormous collateral damage.

Thats just flat out wrong and ignorant. Lockdowns helped the northeast and thats why our numbers are going down while everywhere else they are going up. Yes, places like florida didn't take it seriously thats why their numbers are going up.

Talk about ignorant - the northeast has some of the worst numbers in the country. New York - under Cuomo and de Blasio - has 30,000 covid deaths. Florida has a little more than 3,000.

Will lockdowns eventually slow the virus, like they did in NY? Of course. But then again, if everyone in NYC had committed suicide in March, that would have slowed it too.

Point is - we can hold down deaths by lockdowns, but at a price of massive collateral damage to society and the economy, or we can also hold down deaths by letting most people and businesses roam free, but provide targeted protection to those who are at-risk for serious CV outcomes.

E.g., in New York, they shut down thousands and thousands of businesses, which was useless, but they allowed vectors of CV in to nursing homes, which was catastrophic. Would have been better off letting businesses remain open and people roam freely, but with extreme hazmat-type lockdowns for nursing homes and assisted care facilities, where large concentrations of at-risk people were located.

Again, this isn't a zombie apocalypse disease. It's deadly to a small proportion of the population, not everyone. So build a fortress around those vulnerable people, but don't lock down everyone.

The tri state area is the most densely populated area! Of course it hit harder here! You morons thinking keeping businesses open would have somehow slowed the virus down? Thats just pure ignorance. Our #'s have lowered dramatically while Floridas are going up. The idea that you only protect the elderly when 40% of americans are obese and 46% have heart disease which are preexisting conditions that can lead to death with this virus isn't going to help anything.

That is ridonculous. First, the issue isn't "slowing the virus down" in the sense of keeping people from just getting it. Doesn't matter if someone gets the virus and they end up with a scratchy cough for a couple of days. The issue is people on ventilators and dying. Second, there have been *many* highly populated areas that have not gotten wacked nearly as bad as those democrat-run places up in New York and Jersey. You blue clowns made a mess of it.

Third, of COURSE we can protect the vulnerable, who don't number anything like 40% of the population, otherwise the virus would be killing 40% of the people who get it - or do you think only the non-vulnerable have been getting it? Good Lord.

The nonsense one has to read around here.

(06-25-2020 07:10 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 04:13 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 08:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 05:36 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 04:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  But that begs the issue of what the "greater good" is. It can't be "minimize deaths at any other kind of cost", because otherwise we would ban automobiles, which kill about 35,000 people a year. But, even though nobody likes to say it in so many words, as a society we think those deaths are "worth it" to get the benefits cars provide. Truth is, societies trade-off lives for other things all the time.

As for "vulnerable", we have had a very good idea of who is vulnerable all along - the very elderly and people with a few underlying conditions, like heart disease, diabetes, and asthma. And no, not every single person who has died fits those categories, but the numbers are staggering. IIRC, of the first 25,000 people who died of CV in the USA, all of 24 weren't elderly or had a serious underlying health condition.

So protect the vulnerable, but don't wreck society and the economy with mass lockdowns and shutdowns of public life in the process, as we did and are still doing.

We take steps to minimize auto deaths. Seatbelts, speed limits, air bags etc. It's a form of transportation not a commutable disease. Thats not even comparing apples to oranges thats comparing apples to hammers.

We do take steps to reduce auto deaths - but not minimize at any cost, as that can only be done by eliminating autos. We tolerate 35,000 dead a year to gain the economic and social benefits of autos.

Lockdowns are looking more and more like a massive mistake. They are like using a hammer when a laser beam is more appropriate, because CV is not a "zombie apocalypse" disease that targets everyone in the same way. Some identifiable groups are FAR more likely to have very serious health outcomes than others. So target the vulnerable for extreme protection, but shutting down society caused enormous collateral damage.

Thats just flat out wrong and ignorant. Lockdowns helped the northeast and thats why our numbers are going down while everywhere else they are going up. Yes, places like florida didn't take it seriously thats why their numbers are going up.

One interesting theory is that cases are going up where it is warm because folks are being forced to spend more time indoors in re-circulated air instead of out in fresh air.

Well it's warm in lots of places these days. it's summer. And weren't we just told that summer heat kills off the virus? Hard to keep up these days.

Dayton at SE Missouri State's Football game cancelled

This game will not happen.

quo’s trip to Austin canceled

South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster will cancel college football in his state if COVID-19 keeps rising

As COVID-19 continues to spike in the South, so does the peril to college football.

South Carolina governor Henry McMaster illustrated the coronavirus’ threat to the game in a Thursday news conference while addressing college and high school football in his state.

“If these numbers continue to rise and the danger persists, I can't do it,” McMaster said. “I won't do it.”

“Do it” in the instance means allow the game to be played.
Spike in South Carolina and beyond

South Carolina state epidemiologist Dr. Linda Bell confirmed 24 new deaths on Wednesday attributed to COVID-19, the highest daily death total of the pandemic, according to the Greenville News. The state’s Department of Health and Environmental Control confirmed 1,629 new cases and 19 new deaths on Thursday.

Meanwhile, on a national level, the pandemic saw its biggest spike yet on Wednesday with nearly 50,000 confirmed new cases on Wednesday.

No high school or college football in South Carolina, of course, means no Gamecocks football and no Clemson football. That would leave a massive gap in the SEC and ACC, eliminate a Clemson program that won two of the last four college football national championships and would enter the season among the favorites to claim a national title.

Clemson hit hard by COVID-19

Clemson football has already been hit particularly hard by COIVID-19. On June 19th, Clemson announced that 28 people in the program had contracted COVID-19. Of that group, 23 were players. A week later, the school announced 19 new positive cases in the program, with 14 of them among players. That adds up to 37 Clemson football players having contracted COVID-19.

Players who have tested positive have not self-identified. The outbreak amounts to the largest known in college football.
Peril in Pac-12

The pandemic is also wreaking havoc in Western states, most notably Arizona and California, which lay claim to six teams in the Pac-12. The outbreak has forced the Pac-12 to consider its options for the fall season. Commissioner Larry Scott addressed the threat on Thursday.

“I was cautiously optimistic … but the last couple weeks have changed everyone’s outlook because of the extent to which restarting the economy and loosening restrictions has led to significant outbreaks,” Scott told the San Jose Mercury News.

“I still want to be cautiously optimistic, but if there’s no change in society’s response and behavior, which results in a quick flattening of the curve and a decrease in the spread of the virus, that would lead to a much more pessimistic view about our campuses being able to open and our ability to play college sports.”

Scott told the Mercury-News that alternate plans could look like a delayed start or even postponing the football season entirely to the spring.