Submitting a portion of a quote or article can take it out of context. I find the following info about antibody levels interesting. Basically no matter what you do the virus controls it's own course (except vaccines). I think you have to click on it to show the thread.
"Just The Facts Ma'am, Just The Facts".
- Thread starter i'vegotwinners
- Start date
I didn't take anything out of context.
I was holding out hope for an intelligent discussion when you cited the Johns Hopkins website. Then you had to go and spoil it by citing that world-renowned infectious disease expert and public health official . . .
Yinon Weiss? Could this be the same Yinon Weiss who appears on LinkedIn as Founder and CEO of Stress-Free Auto Care? Or the guy who blogs about "leadership, business and human performance?" I respect his military background, but he has no medical or scientific research qualifications. And is he actually suggesting that mitigation efforts are worthless, or am I reading this wrong?
14% or 15% of the population with antibodies doesn't mean squat. In order to achieve herd immunity, approximately 70% of the population must have developed antibodies - - through infection, vaccine, or a combination of the two. Both Sweden and New York are a long way from herd immunity, and the virus is hardly done in either place. Weiss' comparison is irrelevant. Stick with the science, guy.
Of course you didn't take anything out of context. What was I thinking? And as I stated I found the concept interesting which of course doesn't invite any "intelligent discussion". I can see from your history of posting it typically ends with you getting emotional and the name calling begins. Waste of time.
worst analogy ever, (or is it simile), but great movie that should be mandatory viewing.
that said, denial is only denial, and reality is we do now live in 2 (arguably 3) different universes.
college age kids don't share the risk, know it, and are going to catch it anyway.
the statistical probability of a player catching it if we play, vs catching it anyway, on campus or socializing, is no doubt virtually barely measurable
reality is, we never had an ability to put a wrap on this any more than anywhere else.
only the ability to hide out from it, which other countries have excelled at, but the virus is still out there the instant one comes out of hiding.
absent an effective treatment coming out, herd immunity through either exposure or a "hoped for" vaccine is all we have, and if there is no herd immunity, or possibly more likely, the body becoming more able to fight it in subsequent infections, we're all screwed anyway.
as for minimizing deaths, that isn't done by locking down the young, but rather and only by keeping the at risk separated from the non at risk or don't care, who news flash, aren't going to lock down forever just to stay hiding out from it.
i see no benefit in ending games.. i do see a benefit in keeping in person fans away, or at least "at risk" fans.
older and at risk people need to get out of the way, and the gone fishing govt needs to logistically and financially enable them doing so.
only totally separating the "at risk and care" from the "non at risk and don't care" will save lives.
but not fair to ask the non at risk to put their entire lives on hold indefinitely, so the "at risk" will feel less "at risk" in their presence, which is a recipe for disaster anyway.
totally sucks for the "at risk", but ruing things indefinitely for the not at risk isn't the answer long term, and we've already gone through the short term.
as for the heart issue, if that's the real danger for youngers, then that, not covid, is what we need to be testing and monitoring them for.
if we're waiting for this to pass, anybody know how our recruiting class for 2028 is looking.
Last edited:
MONEY
just putting this out there as one possibility.
one might argue that there is no financial benefit to the schools in cancelling the season, other than possibly liability wise, as schools would lose all that tv money if they don't play, which more than covers the expenses of playing.
so from a money POV, seems there is no financial benefit from not playing at all, even if no live fans are allowed, since just tv money more than covers the expenses of playing, and losing the tv money would cost way more in lost revenue than not playing would save in expenses.
but what if the schools were going to get the tv money anyway, play or not, which i think is a real possibility.
at that point, there becomes a financial incentive to not play at all, totally irrespective of any "liability" thing, which i highly question is even really a thing.
not sayin, just sayin.
just putting this out there as one possibility.
one might argue that there is no financial benefit to the schools in cancelling the season, other than possibly liability wise, as schools would lose all that tv money if they don't play, which more than covers the expenses of playing.
so from a money POV, seems there is no financial benefit from not playing at all, even if no live fans are allowed, since just tv money more than covers the expenses of playing, and losing the tv money would cost way more in lost revenue than not playing would save in expenses.
but what if the schools were going to get the tv money anyway, play or not, which i think is a real possibility.
at that point, there becomes a financial incentive to not play at all, totally irrespective of any "liability" thing, which i highly question is even really a thing.
not sayin, just sayin.
For sure Italy has more deaths per population....NOW. That's why I suggested to look at the last couple of months. Rate-wise, we're not too far behind Italy (for example) and we're gaining quickly. I'll calendar this thread for a re-visit in 6 weeks to see where things look then and I'll eat some crow if I'm wrong.
I didn't make any form of political statement. Didn't blame the government, a political party, or any political actor of any sort. You made the claim that we've got the same handle on this thing as everywhere else. That's just not supported by the data of how countries around the world have responded and how their trend lines have changed since their peaks. The fact that you read that as making a political statement says more about you than anything.
You said to use your multiplication formula for Italy to compare to US so I gave you the current stats from Johns Hopkins for comparison which shows Italy is doing worse. That's all. Yes we could be doing worse than Italy in 6 weeks and then we could be doing better than Italy in 6 weeks after that. All I did was give you a comparison.
Over 40 countries cases are going up with people under 40 now getting it in all countries. Read the data out there. As for you making a political statement I reread your comment about the US and do agree that was not a political statement as written.
Last edited:
It's not just about how other countries are doing overall. The original premise of the discussion was how countries have adapted and gotten things under control as much as is possible. Over the last 2 months (adjusted for population), Italy is having like 100 deaths/day. Our BEST day over the last 2 months is like 500. That's all I was saying.
What does John Hopkins know? I used to smoke pot with Johnny Hopkins and Sloan Kettering. We were blazing that shit up daily.
seems to me there are a few basic questions that it would be nice to have answers to.
A), was the decision to not play this fall based in player health, or other reasons?
B), if other reasons, what are they?
C), if player health, what are the modeling projections of how many players will get infected if they play this fall, as opposed to how many of the same kids will get infected if they don't play, and what are those models based in?
that said, seems as though in controversial decisions with political or financial basis or ramifications, we rarely get hard direct answers, thus i won't expect them from the B10 schools or the league now.
if it is about player health, then it seems question C is the operative question with which the "play/not play" decision should be based, and anything/everything else is diversionary.
if i'm wrong on that assumption, please tell me how and why.
When they cancelled, I believe they threw out the line about potentially playing in the Spring just to mollify the critics.....that is, that they had no real intention of doing so.
One unintended consequence about the way the decision was made and all the push back is that the decision makers will face real pressure to play in the Spring if the other leagues somehow make it through their Fall season.
It's a real mystery why they didn't put off the decision, delay the season a couple of weeks, and try to build a consensus among all the leagues. I think hubris is the best explanation......
Well, I see you've now abandoned actual statistics in order to use the 'I have a friend who says......" argument.
Your friend is an idiot if he says it's not primarily deadly to 'old people. 75% of deaths in the US are attributed to those 70 and older.
Here is a good comparison of age groups, unless you don't believe the CDC anymore, either:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/201...s-discovery/hospitalization-death-by-age.html
That's not what I said and that's not what he said. Reading comprehension is clearly not your strong suit.
And, yes, I'm using the "I have a friend" argument because he's a board-certified anesthesiologist in a busy hospital, and he's been on the front lines of the Covid crisis, intubating patients and putting them on vents on a regular basis. Seriously, what is wrong with you?
"One of my best friends is an anesthesiologist in Pennsylvania. He says that people who equate Covid with "the flu," or think it's just an "old people's" disease, couldn't be more wrong."
That's exactly what you posted. So, either you are lying or your 'best friend' is an idiot. All you have to do it look at the link I provided and see the CDC stats on the comparable effects of the virus on different age groups. It clearly is an 'old people's disease' in its effects. Not only deaths but hospitalizations.
What's wrong with using your 'I have a friend" argument is you're drawing a universal conclusion from one example. It's pretty obvious to anyone who's objective.
When did you stop believing science and data? Or, I should ask, why haven't you ever started believe science and data?
seems to me there are a few basic questions that it would be nice to have answers to.
A), was the decision to not play this fall based in player health, or other reasons?
B), if other reasons, what are they?
C), if player health, what are the modeling projections of how many players will get infected if they play this fall, as opposed to how many of the same kids will get infected if they don't play, and what are those models based in?
that said, seems as though in controversial decisions with political or financial basis or ramifications, we rarely get hard direct answers, thus i won't expect them from the B10 schools or the league now.
if it is about player health, then it seems question C is the operative question with which the "play/not play" decision should be based, and anything/everything else is diversionary.
if i'm wrong on that assumption, please tell me how and why.
He had another chance to honestly explain the facts that led the BT to reach a different decision that the Big 12/SEC/ACC. He completely whiffed in the two page letter of explanation that came out over his signature. Complete bureaucratic BS. We went from an extremely competent ahole in JD to a Mr. Nice Guy incompetent in Warren.
i think Warren's hands are being tied by the schools.
as to the notion there was no vote, to me that says there was, but schools don't want to be on record as to how they voted.
saying all were in agreement also tells me schools don't want to go on record.
not giving full disclosure on day one as to why, tells me they wanted to carefully craft their message first, probably involve PR and political messaging consultants, rather than just tell the truth.
that's why the radio blackout for a week.
conventional thinking is that large universities are run by academics.
one day maybe, but not today.
today they are run by corporate types and politicians imo, as everything they do looks very corporate and political to me.
i have to wonder how much of a presence a Herman B Wells could have at IU or any big university today, or would he not be a "good fit".
Last edited:
Good post.
In their communications, they point to 'a number of factors', then basically go on to say 'it's all about the athlete's health'. Well, we know that as leaders of billion $ institutions, it's not ALL about the athlete's health, but they can't say that.
So....when somebody's NOT telling you the truth, it's logical to conclude it's because they know they CAN'T tell you the truth. And this, I think, gets to the liability issue. as well as the question as to whether the heat/potential heat is greater on them, as individuals, playing v. not playing.
They look like morons, but they're not. As you say, they're politicians, not leaders. They calculated that the way they handled the decision, with no accountability or explanation, was the path of least resistance. And they're sticking to their guns.
