Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

99 Excellent

About Battersbox

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

3,270 profile views
  1. Dude, I didn't say they weren't justified, be cool. But anytime there is a radical move by government, you need to include some salesmanship. I mean, you have a significant portion of the population that was always against any type of shutdown. If you were a policymaker, why wouldn't you try to include some salesmanship to convince your constituents that the moves are necessary? And the discussion was about whether or not people knew the ability to contact trace was a prerequisite for easing shutdowns, so in this context we were discussing what people thought then. Of course we change as the data changes.
  2. I agree, it would have been great had it been done early. But these blurbs were out prior to when the shutdowns were announced in mid-March, when we really still had little idea as to the extent of infections. Didn't we still mistakenly think we had only dozens of infections by early March? Even in the CNN link here, Fauci is quoted saying: On Sunday, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the top infectious disease expert at the National Institutes of Health, mentioned that there could be limits to contact tracing now that there's been an increase in community spread, which is when people are becoming infected for unknown reasons, since they don't have any connection to overseas travel. "We're seeing community spread, and whenever you see community spread, you can do contact tracing, but [with] more community spread it becomes logistically more difficult," he said Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press. The original point was that shutdowns (which came after these examples) were sold to the American people as a way to flatten the curve. Once the widespread reach of Covid was starting to be realized, it seemed to me that 'flatten the curve' was by far the primary mantra and contact tracing had taken a back seat by that time. I was paying attention, and that was definitely my impression. I could have missed the messaging around that, but my memory around announcements during the initial stages of shut downs didn't involve contact tracing as a prerequisite to ending shutdowns.
  3. Not my argument but my take was that JPLVR was talking about the wider media, not specific posters in here.
  4. Thread from Carl Quinanilla (CNBC) parsing JP Morgan's paper. I don't see a link to the paper itself, so if anyone has that and would share that would be great. Among his takeaways: More JPM: “In the absence of conclusive data, these lockdowns were justified initially.” But “millions of lives were being destroyed .. with little consideration that [lockdowns] might not only cause economic devastation but potentially more deaths than COVID-19 itself.”
  5. Isn't the average incubation period now believed to be 5 days? Isn't that pretty the same as most respiratory viruses?
  6. In the broader conversation about Covid and our reaction to it, I think the argument that ailments from Cancer will be more profound is because of lack of diagnoses, rather than lack of continuing treatment. There will definitely be greater deaths in the medium to longer term from people not seeing doctors due to Covid fears.
  7. Ok, I read it. Those stats refer to March slowdowns, and most of that mid March. Which is exactly what I was saying--the stock market tanked before consumer slowdowns were happening. You said 'the economy was feeling a great decline from people staying home on their own. It tanked well before the shut down' I'm saying the market tanked before the shut downs, but the economy did not. Of course, the stock market is supposed to be a leading indicator, I get that. But I feel it's an important distinction because declining economic data and corporate earnings were definitely NOT present prior to the stock market crash.
  8. You are correct the broader market fell quite a bit before the shutdown really started around March 13. But, it also started well before any data suggests the wider U.S. public was staying home out of fear. Heck, the top of the market was Feb 19th, and the move south from there was faaaast. By March 6, the S&P 500 was already down 14.5%. One week later, the low on Friday March 13th was 27% lower than the Feb. 19th top. So, I think it was more market prognosticators selling what was an overbought market at that point anyway and trying to get ahead of the news. Fear of getting caught holding the bag after a decade long rally built upon itself as well. It definitely wasn't about any real slowing in consumer spending or anything as granular as that, not that early. Certainly not before March 6th, and probably not much before March 13th either. The market's fall was about fear and the unknown. If you've seen data suggesting Americans were moving around significantly less prior to that, I'd welcome it. I haven't seen any myself.
  9. Fair enough GB...I didn't mean to come over the top. I know you were just making a point, and if you can't do that on an anonymous msg board, where can you do it? I actually think your original post prompts an interesting question which is hard to answer. How far can one go questioning the prevailing narrative before one becomes irresponsible? I don't mean you, I mean this guy the article is about. It's entirely possible he was spewing dangerous rhetoric, we'll never know (and it doesn't matter). There's no right answer, and I'm sure I've crossed the line a time or two.
  10. Maybe I read the article too quickly, but didn't it state that he was following guidelines all along despite having doubts? I didn't see anything about him spreading disnfo on Facebook or anything akin to that (if it was implied, I certainly didn't infer it). I also didn't see anything stating he'd put anyone else in danger. I guess I can re-read it, but I didn't get that. It surprises me you were able to infer so much about this guy from what was written. And poor judgement? Maybe. But to me what he did was the opposite of narcissism, since he doubted the situation but followed the rules anyway. He literally made his own beliefs secondary to those of others (if he really did follow guidelines). Many of us have doubted certain aspects of this situation. Sometimes we're vindicated, sometimes we're wrong. I don't know if its fair to say 'this guy didn't take this as seriously as I think he should have, therefore he put lives in danger through his words'. I feel like that's jumping to a big conclusion. My last sentence was poorly written, apologies for that. What I meant was: It seems arbitrary to pick out one single person (who wasn't sufficiently afraid of the virus) who tested positive and subsequently got sick and to write a story about him. It would be just as arbitrary and imo foolish to find the most paranoid person possible who has taken every precaution and then write a story about how he didn't get sick. It's meaningless Monday morning quarterbacking. All of us have varying degrees of fear about both ourselves and others. That doesn't make it more or less justified for any one of us to get sick.
  11. True, unions will have a lot of say in this. Governors have the bully pulpit however, and if they keep casting doubt on the safety of children, it's more likely the unions and their ranks will go along. But as far as danger to children, the data says it is minimal. It of course will never be zero, but if we are truly 'following the science', then leaders (governors) should be pointing this out.
  12. Good post. It's shame the 'open things up' and 'stay shut down' arguments tend to swing so binary. It of course should be nuanced. I think much of the blame for this falls on governments themselves. In March, sure, it made sense to err on the side of caution. But as the weeks and months go by it becomes hard to swallow what is being fed to the masses, especially when leaders say they are simply following the science when sometimes they are doing no such thing. My best example would be schools: the overwhelming evidence from around the world is that kids don't suffer from Covid19 in a measurable way and in fact suffer more from the ancillary effects of NOT going to school. Yet we get governors casting doubt about kids returning to school in the fall. If a governor is simply 'following the science' he should be saying the opposite.
  13. I don't think you should be conflicted at all. I mean, what is this guy guilty of? Faith in God? Wow, what a terrible guy. I mean, the story states that even though he was a doubter, he was abiding by the rules. So, wtf? Conversely, should we feel compelled to dunk on everyone who was erring on the side of caution who doesn't catch this virus or really get sick in any way?
  14. I could be wrong because this thread is soooo long, but I do remember one or maybe a few posters getting after Mr. A for arguing about how early the virus was in the U.S. In fact, I believe at one point people were citing someone's work (can't remember who, but it was a prominent virologist) who had published some gene sequencing which 'proved' beyond a doubt the virus wasn't here before the patient zero guy from Washington state. Mr. A was then told 'you are wrong, it's science'. And then he was right, at least in absolute terms. You are correct that there is still a matter of degree, but I think it's worth remembering that sometimes people are too quick to say 'see, it's science' as if questioning things deemed by them as settled is wrong.