Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Football Season Possibilities
Author Message
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,478
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 952
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #41
RE: Football Season Possibilities
(06-27-2020 07:57 AM)ken d Wrote:  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.

I largely agree about masking and social distancing, but not the massive close-downs of businesses and other social activities, thus wrecking the economy and social ties. And that is what actually happened in the USA - large swathes of the economy were and in fact still remain, closed.

Sadly, the lockdown-shutdown playbook still seems operative, as we are seeing that in states where cases are climbing, governors seem to be resorting to it yet again. IMO, that strategy was carpet-bombing that largely missed its targets but caused huge collateral damage. In New York City, business ground to a halt, but nursing homes were invaded by the virus anyway.

To me, a surgical approach, allowing low risk groups to go about their business, and the general business of the country, with extreme protection for high-risk groups, would produce a much better overall outcome.
06-27-2020 09:14 AM
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: #42
RE: Football Season Possibilities
(06-27-2020 09:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(06-27-2020 07:57 AM)ken d Wrote:  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.

I largely agree about masking and social distancing, but not the massive close-downs of businesses and other social activities, thus wrecking the economy and social ties. And that is what actually happened in the USA - large swathes of the economy were and in fact still remain, closed.

Sadly, the lockdown-shutdown playbook still seems operative, as we are seeing that in states where cases are climbing, governors seem to be resorting to it yet again. IMO, that strategy was carpet-bombing that largely missed its targets but caused huge collateral damage. In New York City, business ground to a halt, but nursing homes were invaded by the virus anyway.

To me, a surgical approach, allowing low risk groups to go about their business, and the general business of the country, with extreme protection for high-risk groups, would produce a much better overall outcome.

Exactly.

I think we did about as well as we could at the start with limited information and a free society. There were exceptions like New York, which is nearly double the death rate of Belgium, which is the worst country in the world (not counting micro-states). If we were willing to honestly check, I think we would find the current surge has a lot to do with the protests (and in part due to increased testing and Memorial Day weekend trips to beach/park/lake). When you look at Texas, results were pretty flat for nearly 6 weeks after reopening. And the extreme lockdown governors were the same ones encouraging massive protests.
(This post was last modified: 06-27-2020 02:00 PM by bullet.)
06-27-2020 09:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Cyniclone Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,921
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 436
I Root For: ODU and VCU
Location:
Post: #43
RE: Football Season Possibilities
(06-26-2020 11:01 AM)sctvman Wrote:  If the NCAA and NBA had not shut down when they did, we could have had 1-2 million deaths in this country right now. Few people took it seriously until sports stopped.

Until George Floyd and the police-brutality protests (and that we have six months left in this hell year), I would have made the case that Rudy Gorbert should be Time's Man of the Year because his contracting the coronavirus set the ball in motion. Within 24 hours we went from "OK, we'll make some adjustments to keep things going while mitigating risk" to "HOLY CHRIST WHY HAVEN'T YOU CANCELLED YET." Eventually there would have been a tipping point, but it was Gorbert and the NBA's immediate and shockwave-inducing reaction was the gamechanger and as you point out, who knows where we'd be if we kept on changing by degrees?
06-27-2020 10:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SMUstang Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,561
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation: 92
I Root For: SMU Mustangs
Location: Horseshoe Bay, Texas
Post: #44
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 decision is not up to the government. It is ultimately up to college presidents. If one death is directly traceable to having a football season, that is too many. Leave your politics at the door.
06-27-2020 10:18 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SMUstang Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,561
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation: 92
I Root For: SMU Mustangs
Location: Horseshoe Bay, Texas
Post: #45
RE: Football Season Possibilities
(06-26-2020 06:42 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(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.

"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."

One death, due to football, is too many.
06-27-2020 10:32 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,762
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 225
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #46
RE: Football Season Possibilities
(06-27-2020 09:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Sadly, the lockdown-shutdown playbook still seems operative, as we are seeing that in states where cases are climbing, governors seem to be resorting to it yet again. IMO, that strategy was carpet-bombing that largely missed its targets but caused huge collateral damage. In New York City, business ground to a halt, but nursing homes were invaded by the virus anyway.

But once ICU capacity is overwhelmed, the "low risk" group stops including people in their 30's and 40's and 50's, because their "low risk" status there is based on a substantially larger than 1% of the cohort at risk of dying who are surviving that risk due to intensive medical intervention.

It is straightforward ... if the lockdown gets the rate of infection down to a low enough level, then widespread wearing of masks and a system of tests and tracing can keep the rate of infections low through targetted interventions in areas where there are fresh outbreaks, provided that the lockdown is pursued seriously instead of in the half-assed way, and the serious work of making sure that surgical masks will be widely available and of setting up the testing and tracking system is done during the lockdown.

And then you get the daily new case charts for France, for the UK, for the Republic of Korea.

Or you do it haphazard and half-assed, states delaying the lockdown too long, like New York, states lifting the lockdown weeks prematurely like Texas ... and you get the daily new case chart for the US, like a 3rd world country new case chart, hitting ICU capacity in major cities like Houston, Dallas, and Phoenix ... and the cases that will push to surge capacity may well already be infected, while the cases that will start the process of triage of ICU capacities may well be becoming infected this coming week.
06-27-2020 10:45 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: #47
RE: Football Season Possibilities
(06-27-2020 10:45 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(06-27-2020 09:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Sadly, the lockdown-shutdown playbook still seems operative, as we are seeing that in states where cases are climbing, governors seem to be resorting to it yet again. IMO, that strategy was carpet-bombing that largely missed its targets but caused huge collateral damage. In New York City, business ground to a halt, but nursing homes were invaded by the virus anyway.

But once ICU capacity is overwhelmed, the "low risk" group stops including people in their 30's and 40's and 50's, because their "low risk" status there is based on a substantially larger than 1% of the cohort at risk of dying who are surviving that risk due to intensive medical intervention.

It is straightforward ... if the lockdown gets the rate of infection down to a low enough level, then widespread wearing of masks and a system of tests and tracing can keep the rate of infections low through targetted interventions in areas where there are fresh outbreaks, provided that the lockdown is pursued seriously instead of in the half-assed way, and the serious work of making sure that surgical masks will be widely available and of setting up the testing and tracking system is done during the lockdown.

Disagree. IMO we can skip the lockdown/shutdown phase, which we have found causes far too much economic and social collateral damage, and manage with stage two from the git. Japan and Sweden basically did that, but Sweden suffered because they didn't protect their nursing homes.

And in the USA, there is no way to do this other than state-by-state, because as was revealed when Trump tried to "order the country to re-open" and got enormous blowback, the Feds do not have that power. For better or worse, a pandemic is a governor's show in the USA, and different states face different situations.

What's the evidence that thousands of college students have survived CV only because of intense medicalization in hospitals?
06-27-2020 11:37 AM
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: #48
RE: Football Season Possibilities
(06-27-2020 09:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(06-27-2020 09:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(06-27-2020 07:57 AM)ken d Wrote:  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.

I largely agree about masking and social distancing, but not the massive close-downs of businesses and other social activities, thus wrecking the economy and social ties. And that is what actually happened in the USA - large swathes of the economy were and in fact still remain, closed.

Sadly, the lockdown-shutdown playbook still seems operative, as we are seeing that in states where cases are climbing, governors seem to be resorting to it yet again. IMO, that strategy was carpet-bombing that largely missed its targets but caused huge collateral damage. In New York City, business ground to a halt, but nursing homes were invaded by the virus anyway.

To me, a surgical approach, allowing low risk groups to go about their business, and the general business of the country, with extreme protection for high-risk groups, would produce a much better overall outcome.

Exactly.

I think we did about as well as we could at the start with limited information and a free society. There were exceptions like New York, which is nearly double the death rate of Belgium, which is the worst country in the world (not counting micro-states). If we were willing to honestly check, I think we would find the current surge has a lot to do with the protests (and in part due to increased testing and Memorial Day weekend trips to beach/park/lake). When you look at Texas, results were pretty flat for nearly weeks after reopening. And the extreme lockdown governors were the same ones encouraging massive protests.

No doubt we have learned a few things since this started that might have changed our initial response. But most of the key elements of a successful response were already known by the federal government at least six months ago, and we knew then that the virus was a serious threat to both public health and the national economy. Had we immediately implemented the plan already in place at that time, we might have been able to avoid much of the hardship that became necessary once we lost containment months later.
06-27-2020 12:23 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: #49
RE: Football Season Possibilities
(06-27-2020 12:23 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(06-27-2020 09:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(06-27-2020 09:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(06-27-2020 07:57 AM)ken d Wrote:  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.

I largely agree about masking and social distancing, but not the massive close-downs of businesses and other social activities, thus wrecking the economy and social ties. And that is what actually happened in the USA - large swathes of the economy were and in fact still remain, closed.

Sadly, the lockdown-shutdown playbook still seems operative, as we are seeing that in states where cases are climbing, governors seem to be resorting to it yet again. IMO, that strategy was carpet-bombing that largely missed its targets but caused huge collateral damage. In New York City, business ground to a halt, but nursing homes were invaded by the virus anyway.

To me, a surgical approach, allowing low risk groups to go about their business, and the general business of the country, with extreme protection for high-risk groups, would produce a much better overall outcome.

Exactly.

I think we did about as well as we could at the start with limited information and a free society. There were exceptions like New York, which is nearly double the death rate of Belgium, which is the worst country in the world (not counting micro-states). If we were willing to honestly check, I think we would find the current surge has a lot to do with the protests (and in part due to increased testing and Memorial Day weekend trips to beach/park/lake). When you look at Texas, results were pretty flat for nearly weeks after reopening. And the extreme lockdown governors were the same ones encouraging massive protests.

No doubt we have learned a few things since this started that might have changed our initial response. But most of the key elements of a successful response were already known by the federal government at least six months ago, and we knew then that the virus was a serious threat to both public health and the national economy. Had we immediately implemented the plan already in place at that time, we might have been able to avoid much of the hardship that became necessary once we lost containment months later.

First confirmed case was January 20. And Chinese were still saying person to person transmission didn't happen. It wasn't until well into February that we even began to understand the virus.
06-27-2020 02:05 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: #50
RE: Football Season Possibilities
(06-27-2020 02:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(06-27-2020 12:23 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(06-27-2020 09:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(06-27-2020 09:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(06-27-2020 07:57 AM)ken d Wrote:  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.

I largely agree about masking and social distancing, but not the massive close-downs of businesses and other social activities, thus wrecking the economy and social ties. And that is what actually happened in the USA - large swathes of the economy were and in fact still remain, closed.

Sadly, the lockdown-shutdown playbook still seems operative, as we are seeing that in states where cases are climbing, governors seem to be resorting to it yet again. IMO, that strategy was carpet-bombing that largely missed its targets but caused huge collateral damage. In New York City, business ground to a halt, but nursing homes were invaded by the virus anyway.

To me, a surgical approach, allowing low risk groups to go about their business, and the general business of the country, with extreme protection for high-risk groups, would produce a much better overall outcome.

Exactly.

I think we did about as well as we could at the start with limited information and a free society. There were exceptions like New York, which is nearly double the death rate of Belgium, which is the worst country in the world (not counting micro-states). If we were willing to honestly check, I think we would find the current surge has a lot to do with the protests (and in part due to increased testing and Memorial Day weekend trips to beach/park/lake). When you look at Texas, results were pretty flat for nearly weeks after reopening. And the extreme lockdown governors were the same ones encouraging massive protests.

No doubt we have learned a few things since this started that might have changed our initial response. But most of the key elements of a successful response were already known by the federal government at least six months ago, and we knew then that the virus was a serious threat to both public health and the national economy. Had we immediately implemented the plan already in place at that time, we might have been able to avoid much of the hardship that became necessary once we lost containment months later.

First confirmed case was January 20. And Chinese were still saying person to person transmission didn't happen. It wasn't until well into February that we even began to understand the virus.

And the president was being warned in strong language about the threat before that. Ultimately, though, the reason we are in the state we are in today has a lot to do with the reality that America is irretrievably broken and divided. Actions are taken, or not taken, based primarily on party politics. And unfortunately, there is no way we can fix that. We are doomed to continue to act like star-bellied sneetches who are determined not to be like "THEM". Take your pick which side is "THEM". The answer is both of them.
06-27-2020 02:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SMUstang Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,561
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation: 92
I Root For: SMU Mustangs
Location: Horseshoe Bay, Texas
Post: #51
RE: Football Season Possibilities
(06-27-2020 02:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(06-27-2020 02:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(06-27-2020 12:23 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(06-27-2020 09:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(06-27-2020 09:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I largely agree about masking and social distancing, but not the massive close-downs of businesses and other social activities, thus wrecking the economy and social ties. And that is what actually happened in the USA - large swathes of the economy were and in fact still remain, closed.

Sadly, the lockdown-shutdown playbook still seems operative, as we are seeing that in states where cases are climbing, governors seem to be resorting to it yet again. IMO, that strategy was carpet-bombing that largely missed its targets but caused huge collateral damage. In New York City, business ground to a halt, but nursing homes were invaded by the virus anyway.

To me, a surgical approach, allowing low risk groups to go about their business, and the general business of the country, with extreme protection for high-risk groups, would produce a much better overall outcome.

Exactly.

I think we did about as well as we could at the start with limited information and a free society. There were exceptions like New York, which is nearly double the death rate of Belgium, which is the worst country in the world (not counting micro-states). If we were willing to honestly check, I think we would find the current surge has a lot to do with the protests (and in part due to increased testing and Memorial Day weekend trips to beach/park/lake). When you look at Texas, results were pretty flat for nearly weeks after reopening. And the extreme lockdown governors were the same ones encouraging massive protests.

No doubt we have learned a few things since this started that might have changed our initial response. But most of the key elements of a successful response were already known by the federal government at least six months ago, and we knew then that the virus was a serious threat to both public health and the national economy. Had we immediately implemented the plan already in place at that time, we might have been able to avoid much of the hardship that became necessary once we lost containment months later.

First confirmed case was January 20. And Chinese were still saying person to person transmission didn't happen. It wasn't until well into February that we even began to understand the virus.

And the president was being warned in strong language about the threat before that. Ultimately, though, the reason we are in the state we are in today has a lot to do with the reality that America is irretrievably broken and divided. Actions are taken, or not taken, based primarily on party politics. And unfortunately, there is no way we can fix that. We are doomed to continue to act like star-bellied sneetches who are determined not to be like "THEM". Take your pick which side is "THEM". The answer is both of them.

True, but there has been times in the history of the United States that there has been more division than now, believe it or not. I remember after 9-11 and during WWII when everybody came together for a time. It's not hopeless.
06-27-2020 03:37 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoCalBobcat78 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,004
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 80
I Root For: TXST, UCLA, CBU
Location:
Post: #52
RE: Football Season Possibilities
(06-27-2020 02:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  First confirmed case was January 20. And Chinese were still saying person to person transmission didn't happen. It wasn't until well into February that we even began to understand the virus.

January 29th - In a memo, White House Economic Advisor Peter Navarro warned his White House colleagues the novel coronavirus could take more than half a million American lives and cost close to $6 trillion.

January 30th - The World Health Organization declared the outbreak of a novel coronavirus a global health emergency, an acknowledgement of the risk the virus poses to countries beyond its origin in China and of the need for a more coordinated international response to the outbreak.

January 31st - CDC confirmed first case of person-to-person spread in the United States.

January 31st - The Trump administration declared a public health emergency in the U.S. in response to the global coronavirus outbreak. The U.S. temporarily suspended entry of most travelers arriving from China, or who had recently been in China, if they are not U.S. citizens. U.S. citizens who had been in China's Hubei Province in the past 14 days were subject to 14 days of mandatory quarantine if they traveled back to the United States.

Hospitals started running into backorders on supplies (masks, swabs, gloves and gowns) back in early to mid-January. They knew what was coming in late January and they downplayed it. But for the sake of bringing football and other sports back, I don't see the point in looking backwards. We need to get out of the mess we are in right now and maybe sports can help lead us out of this.
06-27-2020 04:53 PM
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.