The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(05-28-2020 05:46 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 01:45 PM)brovol Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 12:20 PM)CorkNCleaverAlum Wrote:  Don't you all think that the mitigation efforts had something to do with the lower case and fatality numbers?

Even though they're over 50K and 5K deaths, which is much higher than flu number for a year.

I do believe that mitigation was the primary goal of the lock-downs. "flatten the curve". But the curve was flattened in virtually every state quite a while ago, but the lock-downs continued. At the same time, we have learned that covid-19 is far less of a threat than what was initially thought.

With respect to the numbers you cite, I don't quibble with the figures as reported. But, like with most statistics, you need to understand what they are, and what they are not. The total cases reflect only individuals who actually were tested, and were positive. They dont include the majority of the people who have or have previously contracted the virus, but who never got tested. A very large percentage (anywhere between 33-60% as far as I have read) are completely non-symptomatic, and others have symptoms so mild that they dont recognize it as a serious illness, and therefore dont get tested. Others might get sick enough that they should be tested, but dont go to the hospital, and just grind it out till they recover. Point being, the "total cases" number should be increased by a factor of (who really knows, but a lot).

As for the death number, that number is even less reliable, primarily because it reflects not just people who died "because of covid-19", but also "people who died while they were either positive for covid-19, or suspected to be positive", but who had an underlying health issue which was likely the "primary" cause of death. Look at the statistics of the covid-deaths of people who were in nursing homes. They are a huge percentage of the total deaths. Somewhere between 45-60% of the deaths. These are people who had extremely low life expectancies before they entered into a nursing home, much less before they contracted covid-19. Did covid-19 lessen their lives? I am sure it did, but it is hard to utilize that number as a foundation to determine the danger or risk for the other 99+% of Americans. And that is not even considering the fact that there are other secondary motives (like financial gain) that hospitals have with respect to these reported numbers. Not that I am skeptical, but.....

The CDC numbers are now suggesting that the probability of dying from covid-19 is about .28%. The probability from seasonal flu is about .13%; thus, about half. But with seasonal flu we don't even discuss doing anything different. People die from hundreds of different things, and we accept that as part of the life cycle and move on with our daily routines. But, based on unjustified panic, which I personally think was at least partially motivated by politics and other agendas, a huge portion of our economy was shut down, our market tanked, our lives were changed in a very negative way, and indeed our health has been compromised (and I'm not referring to covid-19 here). Crazy!

yep

I just read that months long thread about the novel pandemic, and respectfully, you guys have missed the mark so often and so badly with your assumptions that you should be embarrassed.

(05-28-2020 02:08 PM)CorkNCleaverAlum Wrote:  Sure, but to cite the numbers to back up your theory then discount numbers that don’t support really isn’t fair.

The mitigation worked. That influenced the numbers you cite, no?

If you noticed, I don't cite specific numbers to support anything, but rather general ranges, because the numbers seem to be all over the place, and have been from the beginning. This is part of my point. It is difficult to trust numbers lately, because they are, for lack of a better term, rigged. I tried to make my points, assuming the worst case scenario from the perspective of my argument. In that regard, yes, I believe it is fair.

Do I think mitigation worked? Yes, I suspect less people get covid-19 if they are locked away in their house, and have little contact with the public. I also believe they are less likely to get any other bug or flu, and as a result the immune system will not provide as strong a shield as it should be. But I think that problem is far less consequential then the residual damage to individuals and society, secondary to economic collapse. This was not only foreseeable, but it was the calculated result of lockdowns of this nature. The lockdowns came from governors from both political parties, but by far the Democratic governors add more severe and lengthy lockdowns. I do tend to think the Democrats tend to the extremely reactionary with their decision making, so I don't blame it all on the secondary agenda of creating poor economic numbers leading up to a presidential election in November, but for anyone to believe that has not been on the mind of the party would be naive. And if any of that is true at all, it shouldn't be the Democrats who point fingers, and call folks "selfish", because that agenda is the definition of immoral selfishness.

(05-28-2020 06:09 PM)brovol Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 02:08 PM)CorkNCleaverAlum Wrote:  Sure, but to cite the numbers to back up your theory then discount numbers that don’t support really isn’t fair.

The mitigation worked. That influenced the numbers you cite, no?

If you noticed, I don't cite specific numbers to support anything, but rather general ranges, because the numbers seem to be all over the place, and have been from the beginning. This is part of my point. It is difficult to trust numbers lately, because they are, for lack of a better term, rigged. I tried to make my points, assuming the worst case scenario from the perspective of my argument. In that regard, yes, I believe it is fair.

Do I think mitigation worked? Yes, I suspect less people get covid-19 if they are locked away in their house, and have little contact with the public. I also believe they are less likely to get any other bug or flu, and as a result the immune system will not provide as strong a shield as it should be. But I think that problem is far less consequential then the residual damage to individuals and society, secondary to economic collapse. This was not only foreseeable, but it was the calculated result of lockdowns of this nature. The lockdowns came from governors from both political parties, but by far the Democratic governors add more severe and lengthy lockdowns. I do tend to think the Democrats tend to the extremely reactionary with their decision making, so I don't blame it all on the secondary agenda of creating poor economic numbers leading up to a presidential election in November, but for anyone to believe that has not been on the mind of the party would be naive. And if any of that is true at all, it shouldn't be the Democrats who point fingers, and call folks "selfish", because that agenda is the definition of immoral selfishness.

I absolutely saw that you didn't cite any specific numbers.

I'm also seeing states, Florida, Georgia and Tennessee not releasing or directly misstating the chronology of their data. I suppose that comes out in the wash as well.

My neighbor, a man in his 40's, became ill and passed away in two days from a COVID-19 infection.

It's unfortunate that a false choice of "risk catching it" or "be locked down and ruin the economy" is being presented the way that it has been lately. That's not the case. I see states quite successfully executing testing, tracing and mitigation of hot spots now that they have the supplies.

I feel like once that happens, confidence will return and you'll see more of a normal. It's not perfection, but at least we won't be guessing and going off of heresy evidence like most are doing today.

Ultimately, we'll be more scientific.

Another article about the Syracuse/WMU game

https://insidetheloudhouse.com/2020/06/1...-michigan/

Hopefully we get a season. Unlikely.

I think it'd be lower scoring, like 42-21 Syracuse.

If highly limited capacity, really need to see if we can move the Syracuse game to their place IMO.

Without 30K at Waldo, w/ either 1K there or 2K at Syracuse, doesn't seem like it'd be worth it to pay them to play here. When you play a P5 team at your place, your hoping you can get a full stadium that'd swing the outcome of the game so you can get the upset. Maybe for player morale they wouldn't change it, but financially it'd be the better move for this time.

(07-01-2020 10:12 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  If highly limited capacity, really need to see if we can move the Syracuse game to their place IMO.

Without 30K at Waldo, w/ either 1K there or 2K at Syracuse, doesn't seem like it'd be worth it to pay them to play here. When you play a P5 team at your place, your hoping you can get a full stadium that'd swing the outcome of the game so you can get the upset. Maybe for player morale they wouldn't change it, but financially it'd be the better move for this time.

I posted on another thread, but Syracuse NY has put a moratorium on approving "large group permits" for groups of larger than 50. Don't know what impact that might have on games/events in that area this fall.

Fully get the financial implication.