Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Football Season Possibilities
Author Message
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,230
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 254
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #21
RE: Football Season Possibilities
58,818 confirmed cases in North Carolina.
1,303 deaths
836,725 tests completed
36,921 recovered .......no mention of those in-between
population of NC is 10,500,000
06-26-2020 02:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,263
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 35
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #22
RE: Football Season Possibilities
(06-26-2020 10:02 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(06-25-2020 11:00 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(06-25-2020 08:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I'm tired of general lockdowns and attempts to keep *everyone* from getting the virus when only a *tiny* percentage of those who get it have bad health outcomes.

Let's have regular football in front of big crowds of fans, and protect those who are most vulnerable to bad health outcomes from it. And yes, I know there is zero chance of happening, as the "lockdown" approach is still the accepted approach of the decision-making class, but that's just my view.

9.71 million confirmed cases and 497,797 deaths.

That is a mortality rate of 5.13%. If the whole world got it then 400 million dead.

That's pretty deadly.

Last numbers I have seen estimate 0.24% mortality rate (about double the flue). Confirmed cases to deaths overstates the rate because of unconfirmed positives.

In the United States these are the numbers:

Number of Tests: 31,121,538 (9.4% population tested)
Total (Active+Recovered) Cases: 2,405,206 (7.7% COVID positive)
Total Deaths: 127,144 (5.29% COVID positive have died)

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries

Even if you were to assume that 7.7% of the total population has COVID then the death rate is still 0.529%. 99% of the people who were tested were those showing symptoms. I seriously doubt there is more than 25-30% unreported that have it and have not had a test at this point.

NBAs testing of players came back 16 of 302 positive (5.3%).

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2897...of-restart

Brazil's ratio of deaths to cases is 4.4%. Mexico is 12.3% but they only have 528k tests. Canada is 8.2%. India is 3.1%

Mortality rate may not be above 5% but the idea that its less than a quarter of a point is totally unrealistic.
06-26-2020 02:55 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,263
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 35
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #23
RE: Football Season Possibilities
(06-26-2020 02:36 PM)XLance Wrote:  58,818 confirmed cases in North Carolina.
1,303 deaths
836,725 tests completed
36,921 recovered .......no mention of those in-between
population of NC is 10,500,000

The testing rate in NC is about 8.0% Positive rate is 7.0% very close to the national average.

The deaths to confirmed cases are only 2.2% but if you compare deaths to recoveries that number is 3.5%. Its not only how many have COVID but unconfirmed but also how many are ultimately going to die of it.

Not seeing a way to get down to a quarter of a point mortality rate as suggested.
06-26-2020 03:04 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 41,823
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1470
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #24
RE: Football Season Possibilities
(06-26-2020 02:55 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(06-26-2020 10:02 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(06-25-2020 11:00 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(06-25-2020 08:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I'm tired of general lockdowns and attempts to keep *everyone* from getting the virus when only a *tiny* percentage of those who get it have bad health outcomes.

Let's have regular football in front of big crowds of fans, and protect those who are most vulnerable to bad health outcomes from it. And yes, I know there is zero chance of happening, as the "lockdown" approach is still the accepted approach of the decision-making class, but that's just my view.

9.71 million confirmed cases and 497,797 deaths.

That is a mortality rate of 5.13%. If the whole world got it then 400 million dead.

That's pretty deadly.

Last numbers I have seen estimate 0.24% mortality rate (about double the flue). Confirmed cases to deaths overstates the rate because of unconfirmed positives.

In the United States these are the numbers:

Number of Tests: 31,121,538 (9.4% population tested)
Total (Active+Recovered) Cases: 2,405,206 (7.7% COVID positive)
Total Deaths: 127,144 (5.29% COVID positive have died)

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries

Even if you were to assume that 7.7% of the total population has COVID then the death rate is still 0.529%. 99% of the people who were tested were those showing symptoms. I seriously doubt there is more than 25-30% unreported that have it and have not had a test at this point.

NBAs testing of players came back 16 of 302 positive (5.3%).

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2897...of-restart

Brazil's ratio of deaths to cases is 4.4%. Mexico is 12.3% but they only have 528k tests. Canada is 8.2%. India is 3.1%

Mortality rate may not be above 5% but the idea that its less than a quarter of a point is totally unrealistic.

Except that it is based on 2 or 3 studies that have actually been done. They tested everyone in an area and came up with those rates. Think one was in MA and one in CA. Naturally the mainstream media that is trying to scare everyone doesn't report on these studies. I don't remember the exact range, but I think the estimate of death rate was roughly from .1% to 1%. So, yes, .24% is definitely within the reasonable range. If you think its 5%, you are the one who is totally unrealistic.
06-26-2020 03:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 41,823
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1470
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #25
RE: Football Season Possibilities
(06-26-2020 03:04 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(06-26-2020 02:36 PM)XLance Wrote:  58,818 confirmed cases in North Carolina.
1,303 deaths
836,725 tests completed
36,921 recovered .......no mention of those in-between
population of NC is 10,500,000

The testing rate in NC is about 8.0% Positive rate is 7.0% very close to the national average.

The deaths to confirmed cases are only 2.2% but if you compare deaths to recoveries that number is 3.5%. Its not only how many have COVID but unconfirmed but also how many are ultimately going to die of it.

Not seeing a way to get down to a quarter of a point mortality rate as suggested.

https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2020...oronavirus
This is the California study.

"...Given the study's estimate of 48,000 to 81,000 infections in early April – and a three-week lag from infection to death – the 100 deaths suggest that the infection fatality rate is between 0.12% and 0.2%.

That's a far contrast from the county's mortality rate based on official cases and deaths as of April 17 -- 3.9%...."

Also the RCP report shows 10 year average flue deaths. In half the states, Corona has killed less.
(This post was last modified: 06-26-2020 03:19 PM by bullet.)
06-26-2020 03:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Captain Bearcat Offline
All-American in Everything
*

Posts: 6,383
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 417
I Root For: UC
Location: IL & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #26
RE: Football Season Possibilities
Oh dear Lord.

My brother is an immunology professor and a freedom loving, gun-toting American. He thinks we should be 100% open for business and that any idiot who wants to take a risk should be allowed to do so.

Americans respond best when the only oversight is the personal responsibility that is God-granted to each citizen. When the government tries to take that responsibility upon themselves, half the country feels like telling the government to go shove it where the sun don't shine. And because there's 100 times more gun owners than law enforcement officers, those pissed off people will always be too numerous to stop.
(This post was last modified: 06-26-2020 04:05 PM by Captain Bearcat.)
06-26-2020 04:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,478
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 952
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #27
RE: Football Season Possibilities
(06-25-2020 11:00 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(06-25-2020 08:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I'm tired of general lockdowns and attempts to keep *everyone* from getting the virus when only a *tiny* percentage of those who get it have bad health outcomes.

Let's have regular football in front of big crowds of fans, and protect those who are most vulnerable to bad health outcomes from it. And yes, I know there is zero chance of happening, as the "lockdown" approach is still the accepted approach of the decision-making class, but that's just my view.

9.71 million confirmed cases and 497,797 deaths.

That is a mortality rate of 5.13%. If the whole world got it then 400 million dead.

That's pretty deadly.

Thing is, though, the deaths are not randomly distributed. CV19 isn't like, say, getting bit by a black mamba, where basically you die no matter who you are. Nor is it like another disease that kills 5% of everyone who gets it, across all categories of people. To the contrary, certain groups of people - the extremely elderly and others with conditions like severe heart disease, diabetes, and severe asthma are very vulnerable to having bad health outcomes. Their mortality risk is a lot more than 5%. But for large numbers of other people, their mortality risk is far less than 5%, low enough to basically not be worth worrying about.

So that suggests providing extreme protection to those in the vulnerable categories, but allowing those who aren't vulnerable to keep social and economic life going, as opposed to the blanket lockdowns and shutdowns that are extremely socially and economically costly.
(This post was last modified: 06-26-2020 04:10 PM by quo vadis.)
06-26-2020 04:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Captain Bearcat Offline
All-American in Everything
*

Posts: 6,383
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 417
I Root For: UC
Location: IL & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #28
RE: Football Season Possibilities
It is a myth that we will ever be able to stop this virus. It spreads too easily.

It is wishful thinking that we will be able to cure this virus. Hopefully we will, but a wish is not a plan.

So we're left with the inevitable conclusion that we might have this virus with us for a very, very long time.

I refuse to live the next ten years in fear of something that even armchair Chicken Littles say has less than 5% chance of killing me.
06-26-2020 04:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,013
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 532
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #29
RE: Football Season Possibilities
(06-26-2020 04:03 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Oh dear Lord.

My brother is an immunology professor and a freedom loving, gun-toting American. He thinks we should be 100% open for business and that any idiot who wants to take a risk should be allowed to do so.

Americans respond best when the only oversight is the personal responsibility that is God-granted to each citizen. When the government tries to take that responsibility upon themselves, half the country feels like telling the government to go shove it where the sun don't shine. And because there's 100 times more gun owners than law enforcement officers, those pissed off people will always be too numerous to stop.

We don't say that any idiot who wants to take the risk of driving drunk, or even just recklessly, should be allowed to do so. Not because he might kill himself, but because he might kill someone else.

I wouldn't feel sorry for someone who died because he played Russian Roulette and shot himself. Stupid is stupid. But I do have a problem with those who insist that they have a right to play Russian Roulette with a slight change in the rules. They don't have the right to point that gun at somebody else's head. Selfish is selfish.
06-26-2020 04:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,263
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 35
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #30
RE: Football Season Possibilities
(06-26-2020 04:07 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(06-25-2020 11:00 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(06-25-2020 08:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I'm tired of general lockdowns and attempts to keep *everyone* from getting the virus when only a *tiny* percentage of those who get it have bad health outcomes.

Let's have regular football in front of big crowds of fans, and protect those who are most vulnerable to bad health outcomes from it. And yes, I know there is zero chance of happening, as the "lockdown" approach is still the accepted approach of the decision-making class, but that's just my view.

9.71 million confirmed cases and 497,797 deaths.

That is a mortality rate of 5.13%. If the whole world got it then 400 million dead.

That's pretty deadly.

Thing is, though, the deaths are not randomly distributed. CV19 isn't like, say, getting bit by a black mamba, where basically you die no matter who you are. Nor is it like another disease that kills 5% of everyone who gets it, across all categories of people. To the contrary, certain groups of people - the extremely elderly and others with conditions like severe heart disease, diabetes, and severe asthma are very vulnerable to having bad health outcomes. Their mortality risk is a lot more than 5%. But for large numbers of other people, their mortality risk is far less than 5%, low enough to basically not be worth worrying about.

So that suggests providing extreme protection to those in the vulnerable categories, but allowing those who aren't vulnerable to keep social and economic life going, as opposed to the blanket lockdowns and shutdowns that are extremely socially and economically costly.

There are the so called "vunerable" categories but this is not something you want to try to game thinking you can beat the odds.

Because even you do get it and manage to stay out of the hospital it can do damage. The best way to avoid damage is to not get it at all.
06-26-2020 04:29 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,263
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 35
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #31
RE: Football Season Possibilities
(06-26-2020 04:09 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  It is a myth that we will ever be able to stop this virus. It spreads too easily.

It is wishful thinking that we will be able to cure this virus. Hopefully we will, but a wish is not a plan.

So we're left with the inevitable conclusion that we might have this virus with us for a very, very long time.

I refuse to live the next ten years in fear of something that even armchair Chicken Littles say has less than 5% chance of killing me.

That is one thing I do agree....a ready cure is a myth.

Its also the kind of thing that can grind you down over multiple years of getting infected. So maybe I'm still alive today but within 3 years I'm dead.

Thus anything I can do to reduce my risk increases my odds of prolonging my lifespan. By surviving longer I have chances of better treatments in place when I do go to the hospital.
06-26-2020 04:39 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
whittx Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 681
Joined: Apr 2016
Reputation: 25
I Root For: FSU, Bport,Corn
Location:
Post: #32
RE: Football Season Possibilities
(06-26-2020 04:39 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(06-26-2020 04:09 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  It is a myth that we will ever be able to stop this virus. It spreads too easily.

It is wishful thinking that we will be able to cure this virus. Hopefully we will, but a wish is not a plan.

So we're left with the inevitable conclusion that we might have this virus with us for a very, very long time.

I refuse to live the next ten years in fear of something that even armchair Chicken Littles say has less than 5% chance of killing me.

That is one thing I do agree....a ready cure is a myth.

Its also the kind of thing that can grind you down over multiple years of getting infected. So maybe I'm still alive today but within 3 years I'm dead.

Thus anything I can do to reduce my risk increases my odds of prolonging my lifespan. By surviving longer I have chances of better treatments in place when I do go to the hospital.

Not to mention your future children since one of the vulnerable populations are pregnant women (30% hospitalization rate).
06-26-2020 05:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 41,823
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1470
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #33
RE: Football Season Possibilities
(06-26-2020 04:18 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(06-26-2020 04:03 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Oh dear Lord.

My brother is an immunology professor and a freedom loving, gun-toting American. He thinks we should be 100% open for business and that any idiot who wants to take a risk should be allowed to do so.

Americans respond best when the only oversight is the personal responsibility that is God-granted to each citizen. When the government tries to take that responsibility upon themselves, half the country feels like telling the government to go shove it where the sun don't shine. And because there's 100 times more gun owners than law enforcement officers, those pissed off people will always be too numerous to stop.

We don't say that any idiot who wants to take the risk of driving drunk, or even just recklessly, should be allowed to do so. Not because he might kill himself, but because he might kill someone else.

I wouldn't feel sorry for someone who died because he played Russian Roulette and shot himself. Stupid is stupid. But I do have a problem with those who insist that they have a right to play Russian Roulette with a slight change in the rules. They don't have the right to point that gun at somebody else's head. Selfish is selfish.

If you are under 50 and not an at risk person, there is a lower chance of death than with the flue. That's what the studies say when you look beyond MSM.

Its really nasty if you are over 80 and in poor health.
06-26-2020 06:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 41,823
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1470
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #34
RE: Football Season Possibilities
https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/getting-re...eath-rate/

"...In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ­esti­mated in May that the coronavirus kills about 0.26 percent of the people it infects, about 1 in 400 people. New estimates from Sweden suggest that only 1 in 10,000 people under 50 will die from the virus, compared to 1 in 14 of people over 80 and 1 in 6 of those over 90...."

"...Thus, the death rate, which would be 5.2 percent based on that 2.34 million figure, is actually more like one-20th as high — or 0.26 percent.

To be sure, these estimates still have some uncertainty. The ­actual figure could be as low as 0.1 percent or as high as 0.4 to 0.5 percent, though treatment advances should mean it will trend lower over time. Even at 0.26 percent, the rate is still significantly higher than influenza most years, more comparable to a bad flu strain like the 1968 Hong Kong flu...."
06-26-2020 06:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,764
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 225
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #35
RE: Football Season Possibilities
(06-26-2020 10:56 AM)ken d Wrote:  To whatever extent that might be true, it is a number that can not be known, or even estimated. That 100K number was simply pulled out of someone's rear end. But even if it were true, if the number of deaths from the virus without any steps to prevent its spread were 300K, is the difference of 200K an acceptable outcome to justify playing football? ...

One point is that a lot of other countries have the case rate (per million people) down to a small fraction of the US new case rate per million people. The choice between 100,000 dead and 300,000 dead is also taking for granted a relatively incompetent response to the epidemic.

Another point is that while there ARE antibody studies that estimate uncounted light/asymptomatic cases at multiples of counted cases, there are also antibody studies that estimate uncounted light/asymptomatic cases at a similar percentage to serious/critically ill cases ... antibody testing is notoriously prone to false positives, both due to overlaps between an immune system response to different infections and due to overlaps between different immune system responses detected by the same testing agent.

So one has to be cautious about accepting the result of any given forensic antibody study just because it gives the answer one would like to hear. If the current best estimate of epidemiologists is an IFR of 0.5% to 1%, that's five to ten times deadlier than the flu with an IFR in the 0.1% range. We still would have hundreds of thousands of unnecessary fatalities and millions of unnecessary infections if we continue to choose to not get it under control as opposed to choosing to get it under to control.

And a third point regards the infections that do not result in immediate fatalities. We don't know what the long term effects will prove to be until the long term has had a chance to happen so we can observe the effects. An infection that can affect the lung, heart, brain, pancreas, and immune system clotting response, among others, is certainly a candidate for serious long term effects among those with initially mild cases.

And of course, young people have the longest time to live with long term chronic consequences. If I had it in the February time frame, and there's serious problems with the heart or onset of diabetes that crop up with high frequency ten years later, I'll likely have keeled over of a heart attack before the decade is out anyway, so that would be no real impact to me, while if my oldest grandson was in the same boat, he'd be living with it from his thirties onward.
(This post was last modified: 06-26-2020 06:49 PM by BruceMcF.)
06-26-2020 06:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,013
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 532
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #36
RE: Football Season Possibilities
(06-26-2020 06:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(06-26-2020 04:18 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(06-26-2020 04:03 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Oh dear Lord.

My brother is an immunology professor and a freedom loving, gun-toting American. He thinks we should be 100% open for business and that any idiot who wants to take a risk should be allowed to do so.

Americans respond best when the only oversight is the personal responsibility that is God-granted to each citizen. When the government tries to take that responsibility upon themselves, half the country feels like telling the government to go shove it where the sun don't shine. And because there's 100 times more gun owners than law enforcement officers, those pissed off people will always be too numerous to stop.

We don't say that any idiot who wants to take the risk of driving drunk, or even just recklessly, should be allowed to do so. Not because he might kill himself, but because he might kill someone else.

I wouldn't feel sorry for someone who died because he played Russian Roulette and shot himself. Stupid is stupid. But I do have a problem with those who insist that they have a right to play Russian Roulette with a slight change in the rules. They don't have the right to point that gun at somebody else's head. Selfish is selfish.

If you are under 50 and not an at risk person, there is a lower chance of death than with the flue. That's what the studies say when you look beyond MSM.

Its really nasty if you are over 80 and in poor health.

You keep missing the point. This is not about the risk to the person who acts irresponsibly, no matter what risk category he may be in. It's about the risk he poses to others to whom he might spread the virus. Are you suggesting it's no big deal if the person whose death he might cause is old or in another high risk category?

I know what studies say. The MSM among other institutions reports fairly about them repeatedly. I also know that they aren't relevant to a personal belief that not wearing a mask or maintaining social distance is an immoral and unconscionable act. It would make me one of those Americans who refuse to accept personal responsibility for their actions in the name of "freedom".
06-26-2020 06:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 41,823
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1470
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #37
RE: Football Season Possibilities
(06-26-2020 06:53 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(06-26-2020 06:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(06-26-2020 04:18 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(06-26-2020 04:03 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Oh dear Lord.

My brother is an immunology professor and a freedom loving, gun-toting American. He thinks we should be 100% open for business and that any idiot who wants to take a risk should be allowed to do so.

Americans respond best when the only oversight is the personal responsibility that is God-granted to each citizen. When the government tries to take that responsibility upon themselves, half the country feels like telling the government to go shove it where the sun don't shine. And because there's 100 times more gun owners than law enforcement officers, those pissed off people will always be too numerous to stop.

We don't say that any idiot who wants to take the risk of driving drunk, or even just recklessly, should be allowed to do so. Not because he might kill himself, but because he might kill someone else.

I wouldn't feel sorry for someone who died because he played Russian Roulette and shot himself. Stupid is stupid. But I do have a problem with those who insist that they have a right to play Russian Roulette with a slight change in the rules. They don't have the right to point that gun at somebody else's head. Selfish is selfish.

If you are under 50 and not an at risk person, there is a lower chance of death than with the flue. That's what the studies say when you look beyond MSM.

Its really nasty if you are over 80 and in poor health.

You keep missing the point. This is not about the risk to the person who acts irresponsibly, no matter what risk category he may be in. It's about the risk he poses to others to whom he might spread the virus. Are you suggesting it's no big deal if the person whose death he might cause is old or in another high risk category?

I know what studies say. The MSM among other institutions reports fairly about them repeatedly. I also know that they aren't relevant to a personal belief that not wearing a mask or maintaining social distance is an immoral and unconscionable act. It would make me one of those Americans who refuse to accept personal responsibility for their actions in the name of "freedom".

If you would pay attention, you would see that those at risk need to minimize contact and those at low risk shouldn't be locked up.

Now I think there is little but entertainment value to football and its an unnecessary risk to play it this fall. It will increase the spread with little offsetting value. But there are a lot of things that have value other than entertainment that need to go on because the risk is minimal. The regular flue is also pretty deadly to those over 80 and in ill health. If you are sick, you don't go visit your relatives in the nursing home. That doesn't mean you shut down your business because there are at risk people in a nursing home.
06-26-2020 09:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,013
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 532
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #38
RE: Football Season Possibilities
(06-26-2020 09:47 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(06-26-2020 06:53 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(06-26-2020 06:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(06-26-2020 04:18 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(06-26-2020 04:03 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Oh dear Lord.

My brother is an immunology professor and a freedom loving, gun-toting American. He thinks we should be 100% open for business and that any idiot who wants to take a risk should be allowed to do so.

Americans respond best when the only oversight is the personal responsibility that is God-granted to each citizen. When the government tries to take that responsibility upon themselves, half the country feels like telling the government to go shove it where the sun don't shine. And because there's 100 times more gun owners than law enforcement officers, those pissed off people will always be too numerous to stop.

We don't say that any idiot who wants to take the risk of driving drunk, or even just recklessly, should be allowed to do so. Not because he might kill himself, but because he might kill someone else.

I wouldn't feel sorry for someone who died because he played Russian Roulette and shot himself. Stupid is stupid. But I do have a problem with those who insist that they have a right to play Russian Roulette with a slight change in the rules. They don't have the right to point that gun at somebody else's head. Selfish is selfish.

If you are under 50 and not an at risk person, there is a lower chance of death than with the flue. That's what the studies say when you look beyond MSM.

Its really nasty if you are over 80 and in poor health.

You keep missing the point. This is not about the risk to the person who acts irresponsibly, no matter what risk category he may be in. It's about the risk he poses to others to whom he might spread the virus. Are you suggesting it's no big deal if the person whose death he might cause is old or in another high risk category?

I know what studies say. The MSM among other institutions reports fairly about them repeatedly. I also know that they aren't relevant to a personal belief that not wearing a mask or maintaining social distance is an immoral and unconscionable act. It would make me one of those Americans who refuse to accept personal responsibility for their actions in the name of "freedom".

If you would pay attention, you would see that those at risk need to minimize contact and those at low risk shouldn't be locked up.

Now I think there is little but entertainment value to football and its an unnecessary risk to play it this fall. It will increase the spread with little offsetting value. But there are a lot of things that have value other than entertainment that need to go on because the risk is minimal. The regular flue is also pretty deadly to those over 80 and in ill health. If you are sick, you don't go visit your relatives in the nursing home. That doesn't mean you shut down your business because there are at risk people in a nursing home.

I must be paying attention, because I do see that. What's more, I agree with it. But I don't see those things as absolutes. There is a lot of room to the right of saying that those with low risk "should be locked up" to protect those with high risk. It shouldn't be too much to ask - even insist - that the low risk group wear masks and maintain an appropriate social distance during a pandemic.

Had we done that uniformly across the country, and taken steps to limit entry to the country by people who were exposed to the virus in other countries, we would not have gotten ourselves into this mess. But having missed that opportunity to limit the spread within the US to a manageable level, we have allowed it to get to a point where the steps needed to contain it are much more draconian, and vastly more costly.
06-27-2020 07:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,478
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 952
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #39
RE: Football Season Possibilities
(06-26-2020 04:29 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(06-26-2020 04:07 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(06-25-2020 11:00 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(06-25-2020 08:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I'm tired of general lockdowns and attempts to keep *everyone* from getting the virus when only a *tiny* percentage of those who get it have bad health outcomes.

Let's have regular football in front of big crowds of fans, and protect those who are most vulnerable to bad health outcomes from it. And yes, I know there is zero chance of happening, as the "lockdown" approach is still the accepted approach of the decision-making class, but that's just my view.

9.71 million confirmed cases and 497,797 deaths.

That is a mortality rate of 5.13%. If the whole world got it then 400 million dead.

That's pretty deadly.

Thing is, though, the deaths are not randomly distributed. CV19 isn't like, say, getting bit by a black mamba, where basically you die no matter who you are. Nor is it like another disease that kills 5% of everyone who gets it, across all categories of people. To the contrary, certain groups of people - the extremely elderly and others with conditions like severe heart disease, diabetes, and severe asthma are very vulnerable to having bad health outcomes. Their mortality risk is a lot more than 5%. But for large numbers of other people, their mortality risk is far less than 5%, low enough to basically not be worth worrying about.

So that suggests providing extreme protection to those in the vulnerable categories, but allowing those who aren't vulnerable to keep social and economic life going, as opposed to the blanket lockdowns and shutdowns that are extremely socially and economically costly.

There are the so called "vunerable" categories but this is not something you want to try to game thinking you can beat the odds.

Because even you do get it and manage to stay out of the hospital it can do damage. The best way to avoid damage is to not get it at all.

Again, what do we mean by "avoid damage"? If catching CV means spending a week on a ventilator and having a 50% chance of dying anyway, that's one thing. A scratchy sore throat for three days is another.

Covid is *stark* when it comes to "vulnerable to bad health outcomes". Some people, the ones I mentioned previously, are very prone and thus you don't want to take the risk of catching it. But many others are not, their risk of a bad outcome is in the hundreds-to-one category if they catch it. I don't think we need to wreck the economy and social life to protect them, they can take the risk of they want or not. The ones with high risk, build a wall around.

I thought we as a country had learned that lesson, but sadly, as cases rise in the south and west, it looks like governors there are still stuck in the "lockdown-shutdown" way of thinking, and we're going to see more economic and social wreckage.
(This post was last modified: 06-27-2020 08:14 AM by quo vadis.)
06-27-2020 08:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
colohank Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,247
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation: 120
I Root For: Cincy
Location: Colorado
Post: #40
RE: Football Season Possibilities
(06-26-2020 04:03 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Oh dear Lord.

My brother is an immunology professor and a freedom loving, gun-toting American. He thinks we should be 100% open for business and that any idiot who wants to take a risk should be allowed to do so.

Americans respond best when the only oversight is the personal responsibility that is God-granted to each citizen. When the government tries to take that responsibility upon themselves, half the country feels like telling the government to go shove it where the sun don't shine. And because there's 100 times more gun owners than law enforcement officers, those pissed off people will always be too numerous to stop.

The trouble with personal responsibility, God-given or not, is that not everyone is a responsible human being. And since we're social animals, we actually do better when work together as members of a community to achieve common goals. Every man for himself is anarchy.

I'm not sure what guns and immunology and God have in common, but I guess there's a reason your gun-toting, God-fearing, immunologist brother isn't standing in Dr. Fauci's shoes right now.

For the record, I'm a Marine veteran, I was a commissioned federal law enforcement officer for 27 years, and I've been a gun owner for more than sixty years. Intimating that pissed-off gun-owners might decide or should to take the law into their own hands is childish and thoroughly irresponsible. When a wacko needs to relieve anxiety, it would be better if he just retired to the privacy of his own home, stamped his feet, and held his breath until he turned blue (or even longer). Shove that where the Sun don't shine.
06-27-2020 08:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.