Will the Coming Season be Different Because of COVID-19?

[Mojouw]

I think you have nailed it with that part, whether intentionally or not. There is no one-size-fits-all answer, but having reasonable choices are key. People shouldn't be penalized for being personally cautious about it, or on the other hand for being personally brave about it. If we were really "all in this together," everyone from the governor on down to the janitor would be talking things over with the people around them and coming up with rational ways to accommodate each other. And for the most part figuring out how to let the people who don't want the risk to have most of what they want, and the people afraid of losing their livelihoods have most of what they want.

But we are not in this together. Instead, it was an immediate rush to extremes, people yelling over each other about what everyone else "should" do, all heavily laced with invective and pronouncements of moral judgment. So we end up with a one-size-fits all decision rammed down our throats, which actually doesn't fit "all," but works for no one at all. It is the worst possible case of top-down decisionmaking running roughshod over common sense, individual liberty, and the subjectivity of individual situations. There is no context, no acknowledgement of different circumstances, different needs, different risks - just everybody fall in line and listen to the blanket pronouncements of our medical overlords. Went completely to the extreme where only a vanishingly small minority got what they wanted/needed, and the rest can all go pound sand. This was about the worst and most poorly thought-out possible outcome.

So the kind of outcome you have when you elect crappy unqualified leaders and put them in charge of derelict underfunded systems? Because in other places where there was competent, proactive leadership with access to the necessary medical and scientific resources - -guess what? None of this happened. Logical and phased measured were put in place and clearly explained. Then the virus abated and life slowly ramped up to "normal".

I still insist that the basic gameplan was sound. It was just that there was no consistency in its execution and the position coaches did a terrible job explaining it to their players and the head coach decided to wander off and put the quality control video assistant from Indiana in charge.

But that is a whole other can of worms that I realize I will get no traction on.

Finally, there is not a good way to reconcile "not get virus screwed" and "not get economically screwed" you can not do both. You have to basically pick one. Give any politico that choice and they are going to pick the one where less people die.

[steelreserve]

So the kind of outcome you have when you elect crappy unqualified leaders and put them in charge of derelict underfunded systems? Because in other places where there was competent, proactive leadership with access to the necessary medical and scientific resources - -guess what? None of this happened. Logical and phased measured were put in place and clearly explained. Then the virus abated and life slowly ramped up to "normal".

I still insist that the basic gameplan was sound. It was just that there was no consistency in its execution and the position coaches did a terrible job explaining it to their players and the head coach decided to wander off and put the quality control video assistant from Indiana in charge.

But that is a whole other can of worms that I realize I will get no traction on.

Finally, there is not a good way to reconcile "not get virus screwed" and "not get economically screwed" you can not do both. You have to basically pick one. Give any politico that choice and they are going to pick the one where less people die.

Honestly, I think the issue had some to do with leadership and a lot to do with the incredibly, just flat-out poisonous environment for public discourse that has developed. We shouted ourselves into a corner. This same toxicity that you see on social media has seeped into the way things are actually run, and is something that leaders of both companies and governments have to account for because they have to defend their own jobs from it too.

So it ends up with just screaming and doubling down and shaming, and the non-internet equivalents of that, and everything is pushed toward the extreme and the stupid. It has been shaping up for well over a decade, and this is the crappy climax. The payoff of the world actually being run as if by the internet.

So yeah, I guess that does come back to crappy leadership, but with this great and exciting twist about how it was brought on, and how it continues to be crapified while in motion by that same influence, as was never possible before. Just like that Time magazine cover one year. "Person of the Year: YOU" with a picture of a computer hooked up to the internet. Well congratulations, we did it. Yay.

As far as the last point, there is a lot of truth to that, but it is not an either/or, but more like one of those charts with intersecting sloping lines of economic versus medical destruction ... of course political leaders will trend toward less people dying, but will eventually settle on a point where as few as possible will die, but write off the last marginal sliver where the slope of the economic cost shoots up near vertical. This time they were pressured into going all the way up the hockey stick, and it's plain to see that the result was fuckin' stupid.

[steelreserve]

Here's another good one ... UN warns of a humanitarian crisis as it estimates an additional 130 million people pushed to the brink of starvation thanks to coronavirus panic:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...111_story.html


So if, say, 1 or 2 out of every 1,000 of those people actually do starve, does that mean the "cure is worse than the disease" people win by default, even pretending that nobody else lost their job or a penny of their savings? Like, can that just be settled right then and there?

How did that go ... cost ... benefit ... something about an analysis ... ah shit it's gone, never mind.

[steelreserve]

Different day, same story ... New York random testing results come in ... far more people infected than previously thought ... death rate dozens of times lower ... Well below 1%, probably somewhere between California's 0.1% to Germany's 0.3% estimates after accounting for reporting methods ...

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/n...rk-update.html

Whoopsie.

[TD's & Beer]

I'm not sure there will BE a season.

First NFL player that gets infected and the Players Association will be calling for it to be cancelled

yep, you know it

[pczach]

I'm not sure there will BE a season.

First NFL player that gets infected and the Players Association will be calling for it to be cancelled

yep, you know it

Not if the players aren't going to get paid.

Is it known if players' salaries are guaranteed? I'm not sure they are. I'm hearing no.

https://sportsnaut.com/2020/04/repor...e-to-covid-19/

The players may not be too excited to give up millions of dollars in salary that they will never get back.

[steelreserve]

Not if the players aren't going to get paid.

Is it known if players' salaries are guaranteed? I'm not sure they are. I'm hearing no.

https://sportsnaut.com/2020/04/repor...e-to-covid-19/

The players may not be too excited to give up millions of dollars in salary that they will never get back.

If there is anything we have learned from the past 2 months, it is that fear of public shaming is now sufficient to dictate the course of action for any large organization, public or private, even if that course of action is disastrous.

In about September, they will begin ramping up the gloom and doom again. If the NFL doesn't take some drastic action on its own, the mayors and governors where at least a third of teams play are going to be chomping at the bit to re-impose a lockdown. That will last until approximately November 4, but it will be enough to fuck up the season for sure.

Note to self: Try to figure out how to get away from this dumpster fire before fall.

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

I'm not sure there will BE a season.

First NFL player that gets infected and the Players Association will be calling for it to be cancelled

yep, you know it

They could play without fans in stands and test each player before and after games. All that being said, there are some conditions that could add risk of potential serious reactions to the virus and while no NFL players have COPD or serious heart conditions...somebody like Henry Mondeaux has Diabetes and people with Diabetes that become infected with Covid19 have been shown to get sicker and have a higher mortality rate.

So, the first NFL player with Diabetes to get COVID19 and end up in ICU will for sure shut things down. If not earlier.

[Craic]

Honestly, I think the issue had some to do with leadership and a lot to do with the incredibly, just flat-out poisonous environment for public discourse that has developed. We shouted ourselves into a corner. This same toxicity that you see on social media has seeped into the way things are actually run, and is something that leaders of both companies and governments have to account for because they have to defend their own jobs from it too.

So it ends up with just screaming and doubling down and shaming, and the non-internet equivalents of that, and everything is pushed toward the extreme and the stupid. It has been shaping up for well over a decade, and this is the crappy climax. The payoff of the world actually being run as if by the internet.

So yeah, I guess that does come back to crappy leadership, but with this great and exciting twist about how it was brought on, and how it continues to be crapified while in motion by that same influence, as was never possible before. Just like that Time magazine cover one year. "Person of the Year: YOU" with a picture of a computer hooked up to the internet. Well congratulations, we did it. Yay.

As far as the last point, there is a lot of truth to that, but it is not an either/or, but more like one of those charts with intersecting sloping lines of economic versus medical destruction ... of course political leaders will trend toward less people dying, but will eventually settle on a point where as few as possible will die, but write off the last marginal sliver where the slope of the economic cost shoots up near vertical. This time they were pressured into going all the way up the hockey stick, and it's plain to see that the result was fuckin' stupid.

I think this is the first post of yours in this thread that I am in about 98 percent agreement with. I tend to value human life a bit more so yes, I'll take human life over economic cost. For me the settling point is when more human life will be lost due to economic collapse than the virus.

[DesertSteel]

Living has to begin again at some point. That point cannot be when there is no chance of getting COVID-19. Have you ever considered if they made the interstate 35MPH that less people would die? At that speed, hardly anyone would die from a wreck. Why do they set the limit at 75MPH knowing that so many more people will die? The answer to that question will help you answer the question on when people should go back to living their lives.

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

Living has to begin again at some point. That point cannot be when there is no chance of getting COVID-19. Have you ever considered if they made the interstate 35MPH that less people would die? At that speed, hardly anyone would die from a wreck. Why do they set the limit at 75MPH knowing that so many more people will die? The answer to that question will help you answer the question on when people should go back to living their lives.

Living must have begun since you are typing this. To quote Eastwood...."Dyin' aint much of a livin." Regular life wont happen until there is a vaccine, immunity or significantly better treatments, which could take 6 months or longer.

I've driven 75MPH, I've seen many people drive 75MPH or faster....but I've never seen, heard or read in the New England Journal of Medicine, anybody contracting "Lead-Foot" from somebody driving 75MPH or faster.

[Mojouw]

This won't go over well, but it is something I have been thinking about for several weeks now.

For the medical side of things, everyone making an argument, regardless of position, has been attempting to use charts, graphs, statistics, etc. to support their viewpoint. In contrast, the economic side of things has just been a lot of discussion and opinion with only unemployment numbers and the Federal bailout packages $$$ amounts typically used to "quantify" economic impact. I find that really odd.

My guess, and this is a random one, is that literally no one has any idea of what the economic impact of this is. Like zero. Further, no one knows how to restart an economy when many are terrified to go to work or engage in consumption activities that require contact or groups. Plus, and this is TOTALLY anecdotal, it appears in my social network consumer confidence is at an all time low. Everyone assumes the economy will crater even worse than the previous decade and they will not be drawing a paycheck at some point in this calendar year. As a result, everyone I know is on the "don't spend money; just stick it all under the mattress" plan.

That is a pretty toxic stew regardless of when you lift stay at home orders. No one wants to spend any money on big ticket items, no one has much confidence in going to retail stores, bars, restaurants, theaters, etc., and the last time something like this happened was, frankly, never. None of that even begins to factor in global demand (or lack thereof) and the fact that if oil prices don't rise - that isn't so hot either.

Honestly, I think shelter in place directives are the least of our worries. Because in most places only the service industry was directly barred from working. The rest of the unemployment (again this is just in my local area so not certain of the extrapolation nationally) was resulting from the cratering of consumer demand. I don't see consumer demand coming back anytime soon. So, if we are counting on line cooks, bartenders, and waitstaff to be the engines that drive an economic recovery - we are more than just a bit delusional.

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

This won't go over well, but it is something I have been thinking about for several weeks now.

For the medical side of things, everyone making an argument, regardless of position, has been attempting to use charts, graphs, statistics, etc. to support their viewpoint. In contrast, the economic side of things has just been a lot of discussion and opinion with only unemployment numbers and the Federal bailout packages $$$ amounts typically used to "quantify" economic impact. I find that really odd.

My guess, and this is a random one, is that literally no one has any idea of what the economic impact of this is. Like zero. Further, no one knows how to restart an economy when many are terrified to go to work or engage in consumption activities that require contact or groups. Plus, and this is TOTALLY anecdotal, it appears in my social network consumer confidence is at an all time low. Everyone assumes the economy will crater even worse than the previous decade and they will not be drawing a paycheck at some point in this calendar year. As a result, everyone I know is on the "don't spend money; just stick it all under the mattress" plan.

That is a pretty toxic stew regardless of when you lift stay at home orders. No one wants to spend any money on big ticket items, no one has much confidence in going to retail stores, bars, restaurants, theaters, etc., and the last time something like this happened was, frankly, never. None of that even begins to factor in global demand (or lack thereof) and the fact that if oil prices don't rise - that isn't so hot either.

Honestly, I think shelter in place directives are the least of our worries. Because in most places only the service industry was directly barred from working. The rest of the unemployment (again this is just in my local area so not certain of the extrapolation nationally) was resulting from the cratering of consumer demand. I don't see consumer demand coming back anytime soon. So, if we are counting on line cooks, bartenders, and waitstaff to be the engines that drive an economic recovery - we are more than just a bit delusional.

I don't think its that important to try and quantify the economic impact and predict anything at this moment. Its like battle and you have to take things for what they are and determine your best strategy to survive and move forward.

IMO, it starts with the education that this virus is spread by droplets and there is no magic force field of virus that surrounds people in a 6 ft radius. No more hand shaking. No Coach Cowher spitting while talking. No touching of doorknobs and then touching your face, eyes, nose, etc. Shop in grocery stores and retail stores with distance and consider not talking towards people, etc with actions that will cause aerosol droplets. There are so many dumb people walking around putting masks on and then cutting holes on them to breathe better or touching the facemask by the mask where moisture will accumulate.

Then as the virus is no longer accumulating in masses, retail stores, restaurants, etc will be opened with distancing and hygiene protection measures in place. Durable goods such as Cars, TV, Home appliances, etc will be later when as you say people have consumer confidence and you can facilitate shopping for those items with the salespeople. Its got to be gradually opened and started up so there is not a massive rebound of cases contracted and spread, then further pushing back to shelter in place orders. Unfortunately the economy cant go from 20-100 IMO, it has to go from 20-40-50-60-70.

The Line cooks, bartenders and waitstaff need to create demand for beef, fries, beer, etc. Need to pay rent so landlords can replace appliances, pay plumbers and electricians to do work and those trades can buy new tools and trucks for their job and the dealerships can employ mechanics and accountants to manage finances.

Its like any great catastrophe, San Francisco Earthquakes, Hurricanes, Fires, Tsunami's , etc. No use calculating the economic impact of the damage, just pick up a shovel, bucket, make a meal for somebody and help picking up the pieces.

It can all be done without having to go back to exactly how it was. IMO, ignoring the best practices and protocols is a slap in the face of healthcare workers that are exposing themselves daily to exposure and some witnessing death on a daily/hourly basis. Grocery Store workers putting their health at risk, so people can get food, etc.

I sure hope there is football at some point. It would be a nice point in the direction of some degree of normalcy, but I don't mind if there cant be for a season until things get sorted out. My grandfather died in WWII, so we never got to meet each other and I would hate to deprive some other future kid of never meeting his pops that died at 48 because he got COVID and had high Blood Pressure or Diabetes...just because somebody needed to get a hot dog at a football game.

[86WARD]

They could play without fans in stands and test each player before and after games. All that being said, there are some conditions that could add risk of potential serious reactions to the virus and while no NFL players have COPD or serious heart conditions...somebody like Henry Mondeaux has Diabetes and people with Diabetes that become infected with Covid19 have been shown to get sicker and have a higher mortality rate.

So, the first NFL player with Diabetes to get COVID19 and end up in ICU will for sure shut things down. If not earlier.

You would have to test the players at every practice. You couldn’t just do it on game days.

[steelreserve]

Living must have begun since you are typing this. To quote Eastwood...."Dyin' aint much of a livin." Regular life wont happen until there is a vaccine, immunity or significantly better treatments, which could take 6 months or longer.

I've driven 75MPH, I've seen many people drive 75MPH or faster....but I've never seen, heard or read in the New England Journal of Medicine, anybody contracting "Lead-Foot" from somebody driving 75MPH or faster.

I don't think that is a very well-suited analogy. Someone who is driving 75 mph is definitely capable of running you over or crashing into you, and thereby infringing on your "right" to safety. That is a risk you take every time you go out your door - you could be doing nothing wrong at all, but this is the time some drunken idiot gets behind the wheel and wipes out you and your family.

On the other hand, if you are afraid for your safety - nobody is forcing you to go out on the road. You are free to choose when and where you do it; what is an acceptable risk in your mind; and for that matter, you can choose to stay home entirely if you think it is too dangerous. But you can't make it so that everyone else is prohibited from driving entirely until it can be guaranteed that there are zero accidents. That would be unreasonable, so you can either participate and assume some level of risk, or sit it out.

Actually, that was the perfect analogy, you just got it backwards. Anyone who wants to can continue to hashtag stay the fuck home, whether things are open or not. But I think we are seeing people reach the point where they have had enough, and saying "If you are telling me this is what life is going to be like from now on, fuck that, I will take my chances."

And all of the above is ignoring the fact that the original point of the lockdown has been completely lost in the hysteria. "Two weeks to slow the spread." It was never that you don't go back to normal until the risk from the virus is zero. Or even that that strategy would lower the overall number of infections or deaths, or prevent a "second peak." It was simply to spread the same total number of infections out over a longer period of time. That is 100% over with. Done-ski, bro. It makes no difference whether we start going back to normal tomorrow or 6 months from now. But the frame of reference keeps being shifted as if we were some high school student trying to get into the rear passenger door of his friend's car, and every time he starts to get in, the jerk driver moves the car forward another 5 feet.

This won't go over well, but it is something I have been thinking about for several weeks now.

For the medical side of things, everyone making an argument, regardless of position, has been attempting to use charts, graphs, statistics, etc. to support their viewpoint. In contrast, the economic side of things has just been a lot of discussion and opinion with only unemployment numbers and the Federal bailout packages $$$ amounts typically used to "quantify" economic impact. I find that really odd.

My guess, and this is a random one, is that literally no one has any idea of what the economic impact of this is. Like zero. Further, no one knows how to restart an economy when many are terrified to go to work or engage in consumption activities that require contact or groups. Plus, and this is TOTALLY anecdotal, it appears in my social network consumer confidence is at an all time low. Everyone assumes the economy will crater even worse than the previous decade and they will not be drawing a paycheck at some point in this calendar year. As a result, everyone I know is on the "don't spend money; just stick it all under the mattress" plan.

That is a pretty toxic stew regardless of when you lift stay at home orders. No one wants to spend any money on big ticket items, no one has much confidence in going to retail stores, bars, restaurants, theaters, etc., and the last time something like this happened was, frankly, never. None of that even begins to factor in global demand (or lack thereof) and the fact that if oil prices don't rise - that isn't so hot either.

Honestly, I think shelter in place directives are the least of our worries. Because in most places only the service industry was directly barred from working. The rest of the unemployment (again this is just in my local area so not certain of the extrapolation nationally) was resulting from the cratering of consumer demand. I don't see consumer demand coming back anytime soon. So, if we are counting on line cooks, bartenders, and waitstaff to be the engines that drive an economic recovery - we are more than just a bit delusional.

This keeps being brought up. That the economy is still fucked even after going back "normal." That even if things hadn't been closed down forcibly, there would still have been an economic collapse because of the fear.

And that is likely true, but just reinforces the idea that it was handled completely wrong from the outset. By which I don't mean we bungled the preparedness, had failures of leadership, or any of that. I mean the irresponsible fearmongering and deliberately stoking the situation into a full-blown panic. I mean the fear of public shaming allowing a mob mentality to kick in, snowballing the public fear and leading to a cascading string of poor decisions.

There have been widespread disease outbreaks before, many of them far worse than this one, and the economy has barely even blinked, much less taken a full nosedive. In the overall scheme of things, the death toll from this disease still remains statistically insignificant - a small fraction of one percent; a rounding error.

The only difference between those diseases and this one is that the public was bombarded with a steady barrage of BULLSHIT from day one, almost all of which turned out to be laughably inaccurate. And now, even when virtually all of the scientific evidence gathered in the meantime points to the fact that this is not really much worse than many other run-of-the-mill diseases, being locked in under house arrest for two months has inspired people to be in awe of it like it's the Black Death, even though it just isn't and it's never going to be. Yet STILL, there exists a sizeable percentage of people who would like everyone to remain afraid - for many reasons ranging from self-interest to pure self-absorption - and more of the same continues to be pumped out.

It was not that an economic collapse was inevitable from the disease - it was that an economic collapse was inevitable from the reaction to it, which was largely manufactured. I said from very early on that the response was completely inappropriate under any circumstances, and that has since proven itself out to disastrous effect.

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

You would have to test the players at every practice. You couldn’t just do it on game days.

True. But maybe the NFL could invest in some point of care tests if reliable and available. Scanwell in California and Abbott supposedly have technology available, but not sure how reliable yet.

Maybe teams have 1 or 2 contact practices a week, with precautions in place and the rest are on equipment early in the season, but by the time season rolls around its mostly walk thru and practice in helmet, shoulder pads and shorts during the week.

NHL is considering feasibility of playing in 4 arenas, not each teams home stadiums, with teams staying in dedicated cities to minimize travel and risk of infection. NFL could potentially do similar playing games on Sunday, Monday, Thursday but more on Mondays and Thursdays in specific areas. Not sure, but there can be creative ways to still delivering a football season and getting some TV broadcast of it.

Bars at 50% or normal capacity might be OK in some cities by then. Most of the infected people that were spitting on each other at the state capital's should be recovered by that time.

[Mojouw]

I don't think that is a very well-suited analogy. Someone who is driving 75 mph is definitely capable of running you over or crashing into you, and thereby infringing on your "right" to safety. That is a risk you take every time you go out your door - you could be doing nothing wrong at all, but this is the time some drunken idiot gets behind the wheel and wipes out you and your family.

On the other hand, if you are afraid for your safety - nobody is forcing you to go out on the road. You are free to choose when and where you do it; what is an acceptable risk in your mind; and for that matter, you can choose to stay home entirely if you think it is too dangerous. But you can't make it so that everyone else is prohibited from driving entirely until it can be guaranteed that there are zero accidents. That would be unreasonable, so you can either participate and assume some level of risk, or sit it out.

Actually, that was the perfect analogy, you just got it backwards. Anyone who wants to can continue to hashtag stay the fuck home, whether things are open or not. But I think we are seeing people reach the point where they have had enough, and saying "If you are telling me this is what life is going to be like from now on, fuck that, I will take my chances."

And all of the above is ignoring the fact that the original point of the lockdown has been completely lost in the hysteria. "Two weeks to slow the spread." It was never that you don't go back to normal until the risk from the virus is zero. Or even that that strategy would lower the overall number of infections or deaths, or prevent a "second peak." It was simply to spread the same total number of infections out over a longer period of time. That is 100% over with. Done-ski, bro. It makes no difference whether we start going back to normal tomorrow or 6 months from now. But the frame of reference keeps being shifted as if we were some high school student trying to get into the rear passenger door of his friend's car, and every time he starts to get in, the jerk driver moves the car forward another 5 feet.




This keeps being brought up. That the economy is still fucked even after going back "normal." That even if things hadn't been closed down forcibly, there would still have been an economic collapse because of the fear.

And that is likely true, but just reinforces the idea that it was handled completely wrong from the outset. By which I don't mean we bungled the preparedness, had failures of leadership, or any of that. I mean the irresponsible fearmongering and deliberately stoking the situation into a full-blown panic. I mean the fear of public shaming allowing a mob mentality to kick in, snowballing the public fear and leading to a cascading string of poor decisions.

There have been widespread disease outbreaks before, many of them far worse than this one, and the economy has barely even blinked, much less taken a full nosedive. In the overall scheme of things, the death toll from this disease still remains statistically insignificant - a small fraction of one percent; a rounding error.

The only difference between those diseases and this one is that the public was bombarded with a steady barrage of BULLSHIT from day one, almost all of which turned out to be laughably inaccurate. And now, even when virtually all of the scientific evidence gathered in the meantime points to the fact that this is not really much worse than many other run-of-the-mill diseases, being locked in under house arrest for two months has inspired people to be in awe of it like it's the Black Death, even though it just isn't and it's never going to be. Yet STILL, there exists a sizeable percentage of people who would like everyone to remain afraid - for many reasons ranging from self-interest to pure self-absorption - and more of the same continues to be pumped out.

It was not that an economic collapse was inevitable from the disease - it was that an economic collapse was inevitable from the reaction to it, which was largely manufactured. I said from very early on that the response was completely inappropriate under any circumstances, and that has since proven itself out to disastrous effect.

More likely that the economy is currently built on EVERYONE consuming non necessary items/services beyond their means.

Shockingly, you crater artificial demand (well it was on sale, so I just had to buy it! The kitchen was 6 years old, we simply had to redo it!) And an economy based on nothing but fluff starts breaking down. When the largest employers in many towns are retail and hospitality...that's not a durable system.

Also, I think that it's interesting that everyone wants numb3rs for one thing before they'll accept it but doesn't need them for another thing because it makes sense to them.

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

I don't think that is a very well-suited analogy. Someone who is driving 75 mph is definitely capable of running you over or crashing into you, and thereby infringing on your "right" to safety. That is a risk you take every time you go out your door - you could be doing nothing wrong at all, but this is the time some drunken idiot gets behind the wheel and wipes out you and your family.

On the other hand, if you are afraid for your safety - nobody is forcing you to go out on the road. You are free to choose when and where you do it; what is an acceptable risk in your mind; and for that matter, you can choose to stay home entirely if you think it is too dangerous. But you can't make it so that everyone else is prohibited from driving entirely until it can be guaranteed that there are zero accidents. That would be unreasonable, so you can either participate and assume some level of risk, or sit it out.

Actually, that was the perfect analogy, you just got it backwards. Anyone who wants to can continue to hashtag stay the fuck home, whether things are open or not. But I think we are seeing people reach the point where they have had enough, and saying "If you are telling me this is what life is going to be like from now on, fuck that, I will take my chances."

.

Traffic accidents aren't contagious, viruses are. Not a good analogy at all.

I'm not afraid of getting COVID19. I know how its transmitted and know the precautions to take in order to minimize my risk. I can function in a "new normal" and live life rather well and therefore will not likely spread it if I never get it.

The idiots that think they should just go back to riding the bus, the subway, airplanes, drinking in bars, restaurants, going to the gym, watching a ball game, a movie, etc... shoulder to shoulder with other people and picking their nose, licking their fingers after some chicken wings and touching everything in site are who will contract it, spread it and clog up the hospitals, ICU beds with both idiots and innocent people.

If you just leave it up to herd immunity, some models are around 250,000 people in the USA will die before there is some form of immunity to it naturally.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think that is a very well-suited analogy. Someone who is driving 75 mph is definitely capable of running you over or crashing into you, and thereby infringing on your "right" to safety. That is a risk you take every time you go out your door - you could be doing nothing wrong at all, but this is the time some drunken idiot gets behind the wheel and wipes out you and your family.

On the other hand, if you are afraid for your safety - nobody is forcing you to go out on the road. You are free to choose when and where you do it; what is an acceptable risk in your mind; and for that matter, you can choose to stay home entirely if you think it is too dangerous. But you can't make it so that everyone else is prohibited from driving entirely until it can be guaranteed that there are zero accidents. That would be unreasonable, so you can either participate and assume some level of risk, or sit it out.

Actually, that was the perfect analogy, you just got it backwards. Anyone who wants to can continue to hashtag stay the fuck home, whether things are open or not. But I think we are seeing people reach the point where they have had enough, and saying "If you are telling me this is what life is going to be like from now on, fuck that, I will take my chances."

.

Traffic accidents aren't contagious, viruses are. Not a good analogy at all.

I'm not afraid of getting COVID19. I know how its transmitted and know the precautions to take in order to minimize my risk. I can function in a "new normal" and live life rather well and therefore will not likely spread it if I never get it.

The idiots that think they should just go back to riding the bus, the subway, airplanes, drinking in bars, restaurants, going to the gym, watching a ball game, a movie, etc... shoulder to shoulder with other people and picking their nose, licking their fingers after some chicken wings and touching everything in site are who will contract it, spread it and clog up the hospitals, ICU beds with both idiots and innocent people.

If you just leave it up to herd immunity, some models are around 250,000 people in the USA will die before there is some form of immunity to it naturally.

[Mojouw]

Traffic accidents aren't contagious, viruses are. Not a good analogy at all.

I'm not afraid of getting COVID19. I know how its transmitted and know the precautions to take in order to minimize my risk. I can function in a "new normal" and live life rather well and therefore will not likely spread it if I never get it.

The idiots that think they should just go back to riding the bus, the subway, airplanes, drinking in bars, restaurants, going to the gym, watching a ball game, a movie, etc... shoulder to shoulder with other people and picking their nose, licking their fingers after some chicken wings and touching everything in site are who will contract it, spread it and clog up the hospitals, ICU beds with both idiots and innocent people.

If you just leave it up to herd immunity, some models are around 250,000 people in the USA will die before there is some form of immunity to it naturally.

- - - Updated - - -



Traffic accidents aren't contagious, viruses are. Not a good analogy at all.

I'm not afraid of getting COVID19. I know how its transmitted and know the precautions to take in order to minimize my risk. I can function in a "new normal" and live life rather well and therefore will not likely spread it if I never get it.

The idiots that think they should just go back to riding the bus, the subway, airplanes, drinking in bars, restaurants, going to the gym, watching a ball game, a movie, etc... shoulder to shoulder with other people and picking their nose, licking their fingers after some chicken wings and touching everything in site are who will contract it, spread it and clog up the hospitals, ICU beds with both idiots and innocent people.

If you just leave it up to herd immunity, some models are around 250,000 people in the USA will die before there is some form of immunity to it naturally.

It's a bigger version of the studies that show mint dishes and bowls of bar snacks are just basically urine and poo. If people don't do that well, why would the expectation be different now?

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

Also, I think that it's interesting that everyone wants numb3rs for one thing before they'll accept it but doesn't need them for another thing because it makes sense to them.

I think that people don't really understand a lot of the medical side of it and it helps to have numbers, graphs and charts for them to rationalize it and feel that they understand it better.

On the economic side of it, they understand a drastic fall in their stock portfolio, loss of wages, inability to buy food, pay for rent, take that vacation or buy that new car, depending on what they personal situation is. They get the qualitative of what this all means to them.

They don't get the qualitative feelings of fluid buildup in the lungs, kidney failure, heart infections, intubation, etc. Because they may not have experienced that ever and don't understand what a number on the McGill Pain Scale actually means in order to subjectively quantify it using that questionnaire.

[Mojouw]

I think that people don't really understand a lot of the medical side of it and it helps to have numbers, graphs and charts for them to rationalize it and feel that they understand it better.

On the economic side of it, they understand a drastic fall in their stock portfolio, loss of wages, inability to buy food, pay for rent, take that vacation or buy that new car, depending on what they personal situation is. They get the qualitative of what this all means to them.

They don't get the qualitative feelings of fluid buildup in the lungs, kidney failure, heart infections, intubation, etc. Because they may not have experienced that ever and don't understand what a number on the McGill Pain Scale actually means in order to subjectively quantify it using that questionnaire.

Strongly agree on all that. It's an intriguing window into how we all attempt to reason.

[steelreserve]

More likely that the economy is currently built on EVERYONE consuming non necessary items/services beyond their means.

Shockingly, you crater artificial demand (well it was on sale, so I just had to buy it! The kitchen was 6 years old, we simply had to redo it!) And an economy based on nothing but fluff starts breaking down. When the largest employers in many towns are retail and hospitality...that's not a durable system.

Also, I think that it's interesting that everyone wants numb3rs for one thing before they'll accept it but doesn't need them for another thing because it makes sense to them.

... sees alarming apocalyptic prediction ...

"Hmm, that number doesn't seem very likely. There are like 19 worst-case assumptions that would all have to break in the same direction in order for that to happen, and little evidence about why any of them would tend to do that moreso than usual."

JUST LISTEN TO THE NUMBERS RIGHT NOW, SCIENCE DENIER! SHUT UP AND LISTEN TO DR. FAUCI! YOU JUST WANT PEOPLE TO DIE!!!


... real numbers start arriving and are not apocalyptic ...

"Well, that's about as expected. I told you those initial numbers seemed pretty unlikely."

SHUT UP, IT'S TOO EARLY TO TRUST ANY NUMBERS!


Put another way - it's that way because if you want to advance a hypothesis that is a vast departure from the usual state of things, and your suggested course of action would have devastating effects and throw the entire world into chaos ... then the burden of proof is on YOU, and for good reason. It is appalling that something like this would even be entertained, much less actually attempted, based on what was essentially no more than scientific hipshooting.

Traffic accidents aren't contagious, viruses are. Not a good analogy at all.

I'm not afraid of getting COVID19. I know how its transmitted and know the precautions to take in order to minimize my risk. I can function in a "new normal" and live life rather well and therefore will not likely spread it if I never get it.

The idiots that think they should just go back to riding the bus, the subway, airplanes, drinking in bars, restaurants, going to the gym, watching a ball game, a movie, etc... shoulder to shoulder with other people and picking their nose, licking their fingers after some chicken wings and touching everything in site are who will contract it, spread it and clog up the hospitals, ICU beds with both idiots and innocent people.

If you just leave it up to herd immunity, some models are around 250,000 people in the USA will die before there is some form of immunity to it naturally.

That may be true for all we know. But, the point of the restrictions was never to change that number. Just spread the same number out over a longer time. You cannot wait it out - never could, and still can't now.

Unfortunately, many people have mistaken these drastic measures, intended solely for the immediate short term, as the "new normal" long-term approach, and they could not be more wrong. Many of them have also become confused as to the goal: Instead of "Keep it to the natural death level and don't make it worse," it is "Shelter in place until the virus disappears entirely and the risk is zero; that way we can reduce it below the natural death level." That is not the goal and it never was the goal - it is impossible. You cannot "dodge" the general spread of the virus in the long term; except for a handful of isolated special situations, everyone will either get it or they won't, and that's all there is to it.

Given the benefit of hindsight, it seems extremely unlikely that you could create an apocalyptic, system-breaking "second wave" in this country, even if you were to open Disneyland tomorrow and kick off baseball season along with a full summer concert lineup. Evidence is that 20 percent of New York City had it all at once, and the health care system wasn't overwhelmed. And that was with the convergence of as many worst cases as it is possible to have in this country - you can't get any more conducive to the spread of a disease than NYC was, that's the limit. A free sucker punch for the virus, and the result was an 0.1% death rate and the hospitals were not overwhelmed.

Well, as they say, "If you can make it there, you'll make it anywhere." It would be very hard to duplicate such a situation anywhere else; the hospitals are not going to be overwhelmed and the curve has been flattened. The death rate is most likely going to be its natural death rate multiplied by however many people actually contract the illness.

What would that 250,000 number represent out of 330 million? A little less than 0.1%. That could be plausible, given that 0.1% is about where the death rate is trending given the new evidence coming in about infection rates. But that's also assuming every single person in the country gets the infection, which is not how it works (another example of worst-case thinking). Something more like 25-30% of the population is where most of the highly contagious epidemics fall. That would give you something more like 100,000, which could be realistic, depending on which numbers you trust - even the CDC currently has two sets of numbers, 37,000 or 67,000, for the current death toll, depending on counting methods.

Is that "a lot" of people? Certainly. Is it a large piece of the whole? No, it is an incredibly small piece, the equivalent of 10 or 20 people dying in a mid-sized city, most of them elderly. Chances are, you wouldn't even be aware of it if it was happening around you. The only reason the death totals are "large" numbers is because the overall population is so unimaginably huge that any percentage of it at all, even a tiny one, is large by absolute standards. Consider that several million people per year die in this country naturally, and that many of these would be the same ones dying from the virus, and it is not very scary. Look at the CDC's overall daily death rate charts during the virus outbreak; there are only a handful of days where it is discernibly higher than the normal background death rate, and even on the very worst days at the height of the epidemic, it was only elevated about 20% above normal.

[Mojouw]

If X + Y = 7 under Parameter A you can't assume the same holds under Parameter B. Basic math proves that when you change one dependent variable ALL the others change.

So if X +4=7 then X is 3. But if you change it to X + 5 = 7 you can't argue that X is still 3.

[Mojouw]

https://covidactnow.org/

Here is the data as succinctly as I've found it.

[Mojouw]

So sticking to football; this piece is the first that I have read that lays out some actual NFL related options and scenarios:https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...?cid=rotoworld

"And teams will have to be willing, in the case of a positive test, to commit to placing that person in quarantine for two weeks. So the Kansas City Chiefs had better be comfortable with Chad Henne playing for two weeks or more if Patrick Mahomes tests positive. The Patriots had better be comfortable with Josh McDaniels coaching the team for two weeks if Bill Belichick tests positive."

“At some point,” one top club executive said, “we’re going to have start accepting inequalities. What happens when teams in four states are told, ‘You can’t have training camp?’ Do those teams not have camp? Do they travel to a state that allows a gathering of 100 or so people to work? Time will tell, but the way it looks now, there’s no way all states are going to be under equal rules by the summer.”

Peter KIng can be a blowhard, but he usually gets some pretty close to reality information since he is so networked into the NFL. I can only imagine the hue and cry if some team gets a full camp and another team doesn't.

[steelreserve]

If X + Y = 7 under Parameter A you can't assume the same holds under Parameter B. Basic math proves that when you change one dependent variable ALL the others change.

So if X +4=7 then X is 3. But if you change it to X + 5 = 7 you can't argue that X is still 3.

You keep saying this. Basically different riffs on "It's more complicated than you can understand" (and also "it's also more complicated than I can understand, but believe my version anyway.")

Well, guess what, the results are in. The best case, the worst case, and the in-between. Turns out the worst case - a more or less uncontrolled outbreak in a major city - was orders of magnitude less horrible than the best case that was being shoved down our throats. There's no more runway for it to even come close; you will run out of uninfected people first. Can't hide behind multivariate math anymore - The Model lost, and it's only going to lose harder from here on out. The only thing that is of interest anymore is how hard they will keep pushing the fear, and whose heads will roll for making such a colossal mistake.

[Mojouw]

You keep saying this. Basically different riffs on "It's more complicated than you can understand" (and also "it's also more complicated than I can understand, but believe my version anyway.")

Well, guess what, the results are in. The best case, the worst case, and the in-between. Turns out the worst case - a more or less uncontrolled outbreak in a major city - was orders of magnitude less horrible than the best case that was being shoved down our throats. There's no more runway for it to even come close; you will run out of uninfected people first. Can't hide behind multivariate math anymore - The Model lost, and it's only going to lose harder from here on out. The only thing that is of interest anymore is how hard they will keep pushing the fear, and whose heads will roll for making such a colossal mistake.

I keep saying it because it is true. Like an indisputable truth of how the world around us works. Almost all of the catastrophic models that you have pushed back hard against since the beginning were based on the scenario that there was NO social distance. We then social distanced...that totally changes the variables and therefore the model. Which is basically exactly what was said by most reasonable people. You are staking an odd position that you did some back of the envelope math that said if we did nothing the outbreak would be this and that. We then did something totally different than what you said and the outbreak somewhat met your guesstimate math. This is then used to support an hypothesis that doing nothing would have had the same result. If you can not see how that is flawed reasoning and connecting things that don't connect; there is not much else to say.

My counter to your repetitive gross misuse of math and statistics is not necessarily that you are wrong, but that if you have, in fact, stumbled into the right answer -- it is so far divorced from being due to the reasons that you think that it isn't even in the same neighborhood.

I've never contended that you, I, or anyone else can't understand this. The information is largely out there. The science is complex but not mystery of the universe stuff. The statistics are not intuitive but, again - not incalculable mysteries of the universe stuff. But I have continually attempted to reason and discuss that if you change one variable there is a cascading/ripple effect on every other variable and therefore each predicted/modeled outcome. This is basic experimental design/mathematical modeling stuff.

No matter how much you or I want it to be true; you can not say that the current infection rate, death rate, times the average person wanks it, or whatever that is being tracked with high social distancing would be the EXACT same with no distancing.

I can only believe that you refuse to acknowledge how math stuff works is that is allows you to gloat about how you were some visionary prophet that saw all this coming and us mere sheeple were unable to perceive the pearls of wisdom you laid before us.

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

…


That may be true for all we know. But, the point of the restrictions was never to change that number. Just spread the same number out over a longer time. You cannot wait it out - never could, and still can't now.

Unfortunately, many people have mistaken these drastic measures, intended solely for the immediate short term, as the "new normal" long-term approach, and they could not be more wrong. Many of them have also become confused as to the goal: Instead of "Keep it to the natural death level and don't make it worse," it is "Shelter in place until the virus disappears entirely and the risk is zero; that way we can reduce it below the natural death level." That is not the goal and it never was the goal - it is impossible. You cannot "dodge" the general spread of the virus in the long term; except for a handful of isolated special situations, everyone will either get it or they won't, and that's all there is to it.

Given the benefit of hindsight, it seems extremely unlikely that you could create an apocalyptic, system-breaking "second wave" in this country, even if you were to open Disneyland tomorrow and kick off baseball season along with a full summer concert lineup. Evidence is that 20 percent of New York City had it all at once, and the health care system wasn't overwhelmed. And that was with the convergence of as many worst cases as it is possible to have in this country - you can't get any more conducive to the spread of a disease than NYC was, that's the limit. A free sucker punch for the virus, and the result was an 0.1% death rate and the hospitals were not overwhelmed.

.

The point actually is to change the number, not just spread it out over time. If everybody had COVID-19 parties like chickenpox parties in the 70's, then the death toll would be maximized. By putting measures in place to reduce the spread, it will allow time for treatment or a vaccine to vastly reduce the number of deaths as opposed to an outright strategy of herd immunity.

To date there is no vaccine for HIV virus, but there are treatments that allow people with that virus to live almost normal lives. The strategy at the outset of HIV and AIDS wasn't to tell everybody to go about reusing their IV needles, share them with other users and continue to have unprotected sex, especially if you are in a risk group.

What evidence is there that 20% of NYC had the Coronavirus as you mention? That would mean 1.6million people would be positive. According to Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center, the US has a total of 1.2 million cases to date. That is actual evidence here. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/us-map

- - - Updated - - -

So sticking to football; this piece is the first that I have read that lays out some actual NFL related options and scenarios:https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...?cid=rotoworld

"And teams will have to be willing, in the case of a positive test, to commit to placing that person in quarantine for two weeks. So the Kansas City Chiefs had better be comfortable with Chad Henne playing for two weeks or more if Patrick Mahomes tests positive. The Patriots had better be comfortable with Josh McDaniels coaching the team for two weeks if Bill Belichick tests positive."

“At some point,” one top club executive said, “we’re going to have start accepting inequalities. What happens when teams in four states are told, ‘You can’t have training camp?’ Do those teams not have camp? Do they travel to a state that allows a gathering of 100 or so people to work? Time will tell, but the way it looks now, there’s no way all states are going to be under equal rules by the summer.”

Peter KIng can be a blowhard, but he usually gets some pretty close to reality information since he is so networked into the NFL. I can only imagine the hue and cry if some team gets a full camp and another team doesn't.

Interesting potential scenarios. I said before that there are some creative ways of looking how sports can resume operations, but its not going to be necessarily equal as this points out. Teams may have to decide if they want to not have a season or possibly work thru some adversity (maybe more adversity than others, or less) in order to have a season.

[tom444]

You keep saying this. Basically different riffs on "It's more complicated than you can understand" (and also "it's also more complicated than I can understand, but believe my version anyway.")

Well, guess what, the results are in. The best case, the worst case, and the in-between. Turns out the worst case - a more or less uncontrolled outbreak in a major city - was orders of magnitude less horrible than the best case that was being shoved down our throats. There's no more runway for it to even come close; you will run out of uninfected people first. Can't hide behind multivariate math anymore - The Model lost, and it's only going to lose harder from here on out. The only thing that is of interest anymore is how hard they will keep pushing the fear, and whose heads will roll for making such a colossal mistake.

[Mojouw]

Interesting potential scenarios. I said before that there are some creative ways of looking how sports can resume operations, but its not going to be necessarily equal as this points out. Teams may have to decide if they want to not have a season or possibly work thru some adversity (maybe more adversity than others, or less) in order to have a season.

I wonder if the league needs to start considering drawing up its own SOPs for teams. Attempt to even out the variance across geographic locales. Similar to how even if your franchise is located in a state where weed is legal, you still have to abide by the overall league policy.

I think the biggest challenge would be testing to prevent spread and then determining what the policy is if a guy is positive. What about asymptomatic, etc.

My guess is the NFL just blunders into all this and hopes for the best and then has to respond on the fly when unlikely but predictable scenarios emerge.