Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Has the cure become worse than the disease? (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter TripItUp
- Start date
Drunken Cowboy
Footballguy
The real number of deaths in NYC is likely 5k higher. Meaning everyone would have had it.Let's do the math on that
With 1.7m confirmed cases that means at least 2.6m Americans have been infected (possibly more or less depending on the triage for getting tested). That is less than 1% of the population
NYC has 8.4m inhabitants. it has 197k confirmed cases and 16,410 deaths per google
16410/0.003=5,470,000 - so if these numbers are correct, two thirds of NYC has had the virus.
Testing has only found less than 200k cases in 1.7m tests.
So we are short of 5.27m positive cases in New York
The CDC number of asymptomatic cases would only indicate approx 100k positive cases short.
It seems to me these numbers don't add up
Here's one in Miami that furloughed or laid off almost 1,000 employees, about 20% of it's workforce, including physician practices: https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/florida-s-mount-sinai-medical-center-cuts-nearly-1-000.html
Mass General Brigham is not doing too well either: https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/mass-general-brigham-posts-1-6b-loss-in-q2.html
Some of the reductions in hospital procedures could be long-term. I'm thinking office visits, imaging and ortho.
Last edited by a moderator:
NYC is an outlier right now. Their dense population, public transportation and propensity for international travelers likely put COVID in high concentration weeks before other areas. By the time everyone shut down, NYC was already screwed.
The fatality rate there is likely closer to the ‘do nothing’ model where the rest of the country is much lower. That’s the good news. The bad news is that we might soon find out what would have happened if we didn’t shut down as broadly.
The fatality rate there is likely closer to the ‘do nothing’ model where the rest of the country is much lower. That’s the good news. The bad news is that we might soon find out what would have happened if we didn’t shut down as broadly.
timschochet
Footballguy
I heard a doctor on the news claim that even though the fatality rate is low for most people, if you get this virus you have around a 20% chance of having permanent kidney damage. Anybody know how accurate this is?
KiddLattimer
Footballguy
Yea it's true, here's a page from Johns Hopkins about it.
I don't think they know why exactly but kidneys are extremely sensitive to changes in blood pressure so maybe that's the mechanism?
timschochet
Footballguy
If that’s true then all this talk about opening up without caution, without proper testing, as President Trump and many of his supporters are pushing for, seems like insanity.
KiddLattimer
Footballguy
Agreed, our healthcare is expensive enough, we don't need to add 60 million people to dialysis 3-4x a week
Politician Spock
Footballguy
It's insanity even if that's not true.
We need caution. We need testing. We need contact tracing. We need masks to be worn. With them we can open up pretty much everything. Without them we can open up very little.
timschochet
Footballguy
Trump just mocked Biden for wearing a mask. And some people seem to approve of this.
Politician Spock
Footballguy
I read so often on social media the mantra "it's my right to not wear a mask".
Ironically, in the past I've read from the same people posting the above "It's un-American to not stand for the National Anthem".
Choosing the not exercise your rights out of respect to others is about being humane, not American.
timschochet
Footballguy
While I agree with your last sentence, it should be mandatory to wear masks. What is the purpose of government and laws if not to enforce public safety? Is it your right to carry weapons to an airport? Is it your right to jaywalk on a busy street?
KiddLattimer
Footballguy
I just don't get why these people refuse to wear the mask. Do they think the government gets something out of it?
If it meant this crap would go away sooner I'll do whatever they ask me to do
Max Power
Footballguy
Reason linked the CDC study. Those were CDC's numbers. I understand some are skeptical, but I don't understand dismissing this positive news because "I donno"
I think this is a good Op-Ed for everyone to read:
Why failing to reopen Purdue University this fall would be an unacceptable breach of duty
It is written by the current president of Purdue, a former Republican governor of Indiana. A few people here think we need to stay locked down until the virus is under control. A few people here think we need to remove all restrictions and go back to life as it existed in 2019. I think the article strikes a good balance in weighing those risks and rewards.
Its a WaPo op-ed - so if you have a subscription, give them the click, if you do not:
Mitch Daniels, a Post contributing columnist, is president of Purdue University and a former governor of Indiana.
On Feb. 1, watching the outbreak of a new virus in China, our university suspended travel to that country. On Feb. 26, we extended that ban to visiting other countries reporting the infection. On March 10, we decided to close the Purdue University campus for the spring semester and move to remote instruction. On March 17, we canceled our traditional commencement.
At the point when the campus was shut down, if we had needed to decide on our plans for the fall, we would have felt compelled to resume with remote instruction and keep the campus closed. For all we knew, covid-19 posed a danger across all lines of age and health status, and a place as densely populated as our campus would be defenseless against it — operations couldn’t be responsibly restarted.
We have all learned a lot since then. What would have been a reckless and scientifically unjustified decision in late March is now plainly the best option from both a scientific and a stewardship standpoint, at least for our particular institution. (We’re not alone: Two-thirds of the more than 700 colleges surveyed by the Chronicle of Higher Education have now come to the same conclusion and will reopen with in-person instruction in the fall.)
The most salient discovery the world has made during these terrible two months is that covid-19 is a very dangerous disease, specifically for the elderly and the infirm, particularly those with diabetes, hypertension, other cardiovascular illnesses or the obesity that so frequently leads to these disorders.
The companion discovery is that this bug, so risky in one segment of the population, poses a near-zero risk to young people. Among covid-19 deaths, 99.9 percent have occurred outside the 15-to-24 age group; the survival rate in the 20-to-29 age bracket is 99.99 percent. Even assuming the United States eventually reaches 150,000 total fatalities, covid-19 as a risk to the young will rank way below accidents, cancer, heart disease and suicide. In fact, it won’t even make the top 10.
This is fundamental information for institutions with radically skewed demographic compositions. If you’re running a nursing home, it means one thing. New York unintentionally ended hundreds of lives prematurely by ordering covid-19 patients into such homes, the worst possible places for them.
But if you’re running a university, the science is telling you something diametrically different. Our campus, including its surrounding community, has a median age of 20.5. More than 80 percent of the total campus population is 35 and under. We may have the population density of New York City, but we have the age distribution of Uganda. The challenge for Purdue is to devise maximum protection for the unusually small minority who could be at genuinely serious risk in order to serve the young people who are our reason for existing at all.
Here’s something else we’ve learned. Our students (and, one suspects, their trapped-at-home parents) overwhelmingly are eager to continue their educations, in person and on campus. We know it is not the case everywhere, but at Purdue, tuition deposits by incoming freshmen have shattered last year’s record, and re-enrollments of upper-class students are at normal levels.
Forty-five thousand young people — the biggest student population we’ve ever had — are telling us they want to be here this fall. To tell them, “Sorry, we are too incompetent or too fearful to figure out how to protect your elders, so you have to disrupt your education,” would be a gross disservice to them and a default of our responsibility.
Instead, we have spent every waking minute of the past eight weeks planning changes to almost everything we do — how we house and feed students and preserve the value of the tutelage and mentoring by faculty and advisers, while maintaining a safe physical distance between the two groups. A panel of scientists and clinicians is guiding our choices.
We will make our campus less dense in multiple ways. At least one-third of our staff will be required to work remotely. Our technologists have applied what they’ve learned about social distancing to redesign 700 classrooms and labs, and 9,500 dormitory rooms, all of which will be reconfigured with lower occupancy limits. All large-enrollment courses will be offered online as well as in person, to accommodate those who cannot or choose not to come to campus, and to further reduce in-class numbers.
We will test systematically and trace contacts of anyone testing positive for the coronavirus. We will forgo the concerts, convocations and social occasions that ordinarily enliven campus life. It will be a quieter fall without fraternity parties, but first things first.
Perhaps most important will be the cultural change on which we have to insist because, in another lesson of the coronavirus spring, nothing makes a more positive difference than personal behavior and responsibility. Wearing masks indoors and in any close-quarters space reduces viral transmission dramatically all by itself. Combined with rigorous hygiene and prudent social distancing, facial protection can probably provide more protection than all the extra disinfecting, plexiglass-barrier installation, HVAC improvements and other measures we take.
On arrival in August, each Boilermaker will receive a kit including face masks and a thermometer for daily temperature-taking as well as the Protect Purdue Pledge asking for a commitment to at least a semester of inconvenience, not primarily for the student’s own protection but for the safety of those who teach and otherwise serve them. I will urge students to demonstrate their altruism by complying, but also challenge them to refute the cynics who say that today’s young people are too selfish or self-indulgent to help us make this work.
A final thought: We recognize that not every school can or should view the decision to reopen as we do. Unlike Purdue, many colleges were already struggling with low enrollment and precarious finances when the pandemic hit. But given what we have learned, with 45,000 students waiting and the financial wherewithal to do what’s necessary, failure to take on the job of reopening would be not only anti-scientific but also an unacceptable breach of duty.
Why failing to reopen Purdue University this fall would be an unacceptable breach of duty
It is written by the current president of Purdue, a former Republican governor of Indiana. A few people here think we need to stay locked down until the virus is under control. A few people here think we need to remove all restrictions and go back to life as it existed in 2019. I think the article strikes a good balance in weighing those risks and rewards.
Its a WaPo op-ed - so if you have a subscription, give them the click, if you do not:
Mitch Daniels, a Post contributing columnist, is president of Purdue University and a former governor of Indiana.
On Feb. 1, watching the outbreak of a new virus in China, our university suspended travel to that country. On Feb. 26, we extended that ban to visiting other countries reporting the infection. On March 10, we decided to close the Purdue University campus for the spring semester and move to remote instruction. On March 17, we canceled our traditional commencement.
At the point when the campus was shut down, if we had needed to decide on our plans for the fall, we would have felt compelled to resume with remote instruction and keep the campus closed. For all we knew, covid-19 posed a danger across all lines of age and health status, and a place as densely populated as our campus would be defenseless against it — operations couldn’t be responsibly restarted.
We have all learned a lot since then. What would have been a reckless and scientifically unjustified decision in late March is now plainly the best option from both a scientific and a stewardship standpoint, at least for our particular institution. (We’re not alone: Two-thirds of the more than 700 colleges surveyed by the Chronicle of Higher Education have now come to the same conclusion and will reopen with in-person instruction in the fall.)
The most salient discovery the world has made during these terrible two months is that covid-19 is a very dangerous disease, specifically for the elderly and the infirm, particularly those with diabetes, hypertension, other cardiovascular illnesses or the obesity that so frequently leads to these disorders.
The companion discovery is that this bug, so risky in one segment of the population, poses a near-zero risk to young people. Among covid-19 deaths, 99.9 percent have occurred outside the 15-to-24 age group; the survival rate in the 20-to-29 age bracket is 99.99 percent. Even assuming the United States eventually reaches 150,000 total fatalities, covid-19 as a risk to the young will rank way below accidents, cancer, heart disease and suicide. In fact, it won’t even make the top 10.
This is fundamental information for institutions with radically skewed demographic compositions. If you’re running a nursing home, it means one thing. New York unintentionally ended hundreds of lives prematurely by ordering covid-19 patients into such homes, the worst possible places for them.
But if you’re running a university, the science is telling you something diametrically different. Our campus, including its surrounding community, has a median age of 20.5. More than 80 percent of the total campus population is 35 and under. We may have the population density of New York City, but we have the age distribution of Uganda. The challenge for Purdue is to devise maximum protection for the unusually small minority who could be at genuinely serious risk in order to serve the young people who are our reason for existing at all.
Here’s something else we’ve learned. Our students (and, one suspects, their trapped-at-home parents) overwhelmingly are eager to continue their educations, in person and on campus. We know it is not the case everywhere, but at Purdue, tuition deposits by incoming freshmen have shattered last year’s record, and re-enrollments of upper-class students are at normal levels.
Forty-five thousand young people — the biggest student population we’ve ever had — are telling us they want to be here this fall. To tell them, “Sorry, we are too incompetent or too fearful to figure out how to protect your elders, so you have to disrupt your education,” would be a gross disservice to them and a default of our responsibility.
Instead, we have spent every waking minute of the past eight weeks planning changes to almost everything we do — how we house and feed students and preserve the value of the tutelage and mentoring by faculty and advisers, while maintaining a safe physical distance between the two groups. A panel of scientists and clinicians is guiding our choices.
We will make our campus less dense in multiple ways. At least one-third of our staff will be required to work remotely. Our technologists have applied what they’ve learned about social distancing to redesign 700 classrooms and labs, and 9,500 dormitory rooms, all of which will be reconfigured with lower occupancy limits. All large-enrollment courses will be offered online as well as in person, to accommodate those who cannot or choose not to come to campus, and to further reduce in-class numbers.
We will test systematically and trace contacts of anyone testing positive for the coronavirus. We will forgo the concerts, convocations and social occasions that ordinarily enliven campus life. It will be a quieter fall without fraternity parties, but first things first.
Perhaps most important will be the cultural change on which we have to insist because, in another lesson of the coronavirus spring, nothing makes a more positive difference than personal behavior and responsibility. Wearing masks indoors and in any close-quarters space reduces viral transmission dramatically all by itself. Combined with rigorous hygiene and prudent social distancing, facial protection can probably provide more protection than all the extra disinfecting, plexiglass-barrier installation, HVAC improvements and other measures we take.
On arrival in August, each Boilermaker will receive a kit including face masks and a thermometer for daily temperature-taking as well as the Protect Purdue Pledge asking for a commitment to at least a semester of inconvenience, not primarily for the student’s own protection but for the safety of those who teach and otherwise serve them. I will urge students to demonstrate their altruism by complying, but also challenge them to refute the cynics who say that today’s young people are too selfish or self-indulgent to help us make this work.
A final thought: We recognize that not every school can or should view the decision to reopen as we do. Unlike Purdue, many colleges were already struggling with low enrollment and precarious finances when the pandemic hit. But given what we have learned, with 45,000 students waiting and the financial wherewithal to do what’s necessary, failure to take on the job of reopening would be not only anti-scientific but also an unacceptable breach of duty.
Last edited by a moderator:
While the headline suggests a rush forward to re-open, the details show a much more pragmatic approach:
We will test systematically and trace contacts of anyone testing positive for the coronavirus. We will forgo the concerts, convocations and social occasions that ordinarily enliven campus life. It will be a quieter fall without fraternity parties, but first things first.
Perhaps most important will be the cultural change on which we have to insist because, in another lesson of the coronavirus spring, nothing makes a more positive difference than personal behavior and responsibility. Wearing masks indoors and in any close-quarters space reduces viral transmission dramatically all by itself. Combined with rigorous hygiene and prudent social distancing, facial protection can probably provide more protection than all the extra disinfecting, plexiglass-barrier installation, HVAC improvements and other measures we take.
On arrival in August, each Boilermaker will receive a kit including face masks and a thermometer for daily temperature-taking as well as the Protect Purdue Pledge asking for a commitment to at least a semester of inconvenience, not primarily for the student’s own protection but for the safety of those who teach and otherwise serve them. I will urge students to demonstrate their altruism by complying, but also challenge them to refute the cynics who say that today’s young people are too selfish or self-indulgent to help us make this work.
We will test systematically and trace contacts of anyone testing positive for the coronavirus. We will forgo the concerts, convocations and social occasions that ordinarily enliven campus life. It will be a quieter fall without fraternity parties, but first things first.
Perhaps most important will be the cultural change on which we have to insist because, in another lesson of the coronavirus spring, nothing makes a more positive difference than personal behavior and responsibility. Wearing masks indoors and in any close-quarters space reduces viral transmission dramatically all by itself. Combined with rigorous hygiene and prudent social distancing, facial protection can probably provide more protection than all the extra disinfecting, plexiglass-barrier installation, HVAC improvements and other measures we take.
On arrival in August, each Boilermaker will receive a kit including face masks and a thermometer for daily temperature-taking as well as the Protect Purdue Pledge asking for a commitment to at least a semester of inconvenience, not primarily for the student’s own protection but for the safety of those who teach and otherwise serve them. I will urge students to demonstrate their altruism by complying, but also challenge them to refute the cynics who say that today’s young people are too selfish or self-indulgent to help us make this work.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I support the CDC & NIH, that’s easy for me. I was just asking if you had read the underlying article (which doesn’t contain any ‘I dunno’ take). I’ll also point out the Reproduction No. and the lack of testing means relying on asymptomatic numbers causes an expanded crisis in itself, though obviously that’s not the conclusion this will be used for.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mitch Daniels always has interesting ideas. The "Protect Purdue Pledge" reminds me of how the UK leaders are always talking about "Protect the NHS". Signals matter and it is important that leaders practice the behavior we would need to reopen. This is why it is so abhorrent that Trump refuses to wear masks/mocks those that do.
Funny. Most businesses never shut down and our mask mandate only started a week ago.
I dont mock him. He is old as dirt, and it's the first time hes come within 6 feet of his wife in very a long time.
Similar piece from the President of Notre Dame.
For those who don't know, Notre Dame is taking a slightly different approach to Purdue - they are bringing students back to campus in the fall, but they are bringing them back two weeks early. ND will then forego a fall break, and will finish the semester before Thanksgiving. The idea is to get kids off campus before the flu (and potential Covid19) season really kicks in.
As soon as students arrive in August, we will conduct orientations to welcome them back in the Covid-19 era. We will also institute extensive protocols for testing; contact tracing and quarantining; and preventive measures, such as hand-washing, physical distancing and, in certain settings, the wearing of masks. This is how we can restore in-person classes safely.
Athletic competition presents another set of challenges. We believe we can, with aggressive testing, hygiene and careful monitoring, keep student-athletes safe. Indeed, keeping healthy relatively small cadres of student-athletes, coaches and support staff members is a less daunting challenge than keeping safe the several thousand other people in the campus community.
Fans in the stadium, however, are a different matter. Fighting Irish fans regularly fill Notre Dame Stadium’s 80,000 seats. I see no way currently to allow spectators unless we restrict admissions so that physical distancing is possible.
***
Our decision to return to on-campus classes for the fall semester was guided by three principles that arise from our core university goals. First, we strive to protect the health of our students, faculty, staff and their loved ones. Second, we endeavor to offer an education of the whole person — body, mind and spirit — and we believe that residential life and personal interactions with faculty members and among students are critical to such an education. Finally, we seek to advance human understanding through research, scholarship and creative expression.
If we gave the first principle absolute priority, our decision about reopening would be easy. We would keep everyone away until an effective vaccine was universally available.
However, were we to take that course, we would risk failing to provide the next generation of leaders the education they need and to do the research and scholarship so valuable to our society. How ought these competing risks be weighed? No science, simply as science, can answer that question. It is a moral question in which principles to which we are committed are in tension.
***
In our classical, humanistic educations, both Dr. Fauci and I came across the texts of Aristotle, who defined courage not as simple fearlessness, but as the mean between a rashness that is heedless of danger and a timidity that is paralyzed by it. To possess the virtue of courage is to be able to choose the proper mean between these extremes — to know what risks are worth taking, and why.
Perhaps what we most need now, alongside science, is that kind of courage and the practical wisdom it requires. Notre Dame’s recent announcement about reopening is the attempt to find the courageous mean as we face the threat of the virus and seek to continue our mission of education and inquiry.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/26/opinion/notre-dame-university-coronavirus.html
For those who don't know, Notre Dame is taking a slightly different approach to Purdue - they are bringing students back to campus in the fall, but they are bringing them back two weeks early. ND will then forego a fall break, and will finish the semester before Thanksgiving. The idea is to get kids off campus before the flu (and potential Covid19) season really kicks in.
As soon as students arrive in August, we will conduct orientations to welcome them back in the Covid-19 era. We will also institute extensive protocols for testing; contact tracing and quarantining; and preventive measures, such as hand-washing, physical distancing and, in certain settings, the wearing of masks. This is how we can restore in-person classes safely.
Athletic competition presents another set of challenges. We believe we can, with aggressive testing, hygiene and careful monitoring, keep student-athletes safe. Indeed, keeping healthy relatively small cadres of student-athletes, coaches and support staff members is a less daunting challenge than keeping safe the several thousand other people in the campus community.
Fans in the stadium, however, are a different matter. Fighting Irish fans regularly fill Notre Dame Stadium’s 80,000 seats. I see no way currently to allow spectators unless we restrict admissions so that physical distancing is possible.
***
Our decision to return to on-campus classes for the fall semester was guided by three principles that arise from our core university goals. First, we strive to protect the health of our students, faculty, staff and their loved ones. Second, we endeavor to offer an education of the whole person — body, mind and spirit — and we believe that residential life and personal interactions with faculty members and among students are critical to such an education. Finally, we seek to advance human understanding through research, scholarship and creative expression.
If we gave the first principle absolute priority, our decision about reopening would be easy. We would keep everyone away until an effective vaccine was universally available.
However, were we to take that course, we would risk failing to provide the next generation of leaders the education they need and to do the research and scholarship so valuable to our society. How ought these competing risks be weighed? No science, simply as science, can answer that question. It is a moral question in which principles to which we are committed are in tension.
***
In our classical, humanistic educations, both Dr. Fauci and I came across the texts of Aristotle, who defined courage not as simple fearlessness, but as the mean between a rashness that is heedless of danger and a timidity that is paralyzed by it. To possess the virtue of courage is to be able to choose the proper mean between these extremes — to know what risks are worth taking, and why.
Perhaps what we most need now, alongside science, is that kind of courage and the practical wisdom it requires. Notre Dame’s recent announcement about reopening is the attempt to find the courageous mean as we face the threat of the virus and seek to continue our mission of education and inquiry.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/26/opinion/notre-dame-university-coronavirus.html
Last edited by a moderator:
Sammy3469
Footballguy
I'll be happy if I'm proven wrong, but that entire op-ed screams that he hasn't hung out in a college dorm for 40-50 years. It's one thing to set up proper protocols for 7am to 10pm, it's a whole other to do it 24 hours a day.
msommer
Footballguy
If that were a jab to me, my scepticism is about the numbers not adding up. When asked to speculate at the cdc's motives for publishing I said I don't know why.
Their numbers still don't add up
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Aside from not being consistent with a lot of other data, the CDC is the only one promoting an IFR that low.
the moops
Footballguy
msommer
Footballguy
The only reason I can think of to make sense of their numbers not fitting the largest outbreak would be if the hospitals were overwhelmed, but AFAIK all are in agreement that this did not happen in NYC
timschochet
Footballguy
Biggest issues for colleges trying to reopen, IMO:
1. Dorms
2. Cafeteria
3. Large classes
Both my daughters attend Chapman University (my younger daughter will be a freshman this fall) and these are the concerns I have. Hopefully they’ve got some ideas in place.
1. Dorms
2. Cafeteria
3. Large classes
Both my daughters attend Chapman University (my younger daughter will be a freshman this fall) and these are the concerns I have. Hopefully they’ve got some ideas in place.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
Maybe college life has changed since "my day", but I would feel like you missed a major one: Parties.
For cold-weather locations, there's also an awful lot of other shared spaces, like the gyms, libraries, and other gathering areas, etc. that are going to need significant protocol changes. I assume we're not really expecting students to stay locked in their dorm rooms.
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff
Footballguy
Biggest issues for K-8
1. Bus riding...this is the one that will be super hard to get around.
2. Class size...this one is hard because so many schools are already overcrowded.
3. Cafeteria (can be mitigated with "box lunches" and staggering lunch times more.
Colleges...large classes are usually lectures...those should easily be able to be offered as online classes.
supermike80
Footballguy
Wrong...again. the article states 30% of people who are HOSPITALIZED are showing damage and the article only says "some" of the patients had severe damage. (So whatever that means)
Considering the hospitalization rate seems to be dropping weekly, this doesn't change the debate between open or not open up the economy in my opinion.
timschochet
Footballguy
Well, the schools don’t regulate parties so at some point we have to trust these kids to be responsible...
My concern with the dorms is they’re small. Too many people in too small a space.
timschochet
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Don’t know about dropping but it’s 4.6% overall and 13% for those over 65. Which is still too high.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
Another reference to "my day", but I remember the schools trusting us not to drink while underage. I'm not sure I can think of a single instance in the recorded history of humankind where trust was as badly misplaced.
Re: dorms, this is one where I have heard that it's changed significantly at many schools since my day, although you obviously have more recent first-hand experience, given your college-age children. Interestingly, the biggest issue for dorms at my university, even at the time, would be the shared bathroom space. The actual dorm rooms would likely have worked OK.
supermike80
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff
Footballguy
Drunken Cowboy
Footballguy
Rich Conway
Footballguy
Nonsense and lies, one after the other.
"There has been a failure to remind everyone that the stated goal of the policy — total lockdown and whole-population isolation — has been accomplished in most of the United States, including the epicenter of New York. Specifically, two curves, hospitalizations per day and deaths per day, have flattened. The goal was to prevent hospital overcrowding" - Nowhere in the US has experienced "total lockdown". Literally not one place. Further, as stated repeatedly in this forums, the goal was not simply to prevent overcrowding. The goal was always to buy time to implement sufficient testing and contact tracing. That has still not been achieved. Dr. Fauci, to whom this article refers as the expert, has directly stated this multiple times.
"the overall fatality rate is not only far lower than previously thought but is extremely low in almost everyone other than the elderly" - The article doesn't note an overall fatality rate, either total or "excluding the elderly", but just claims it's "extremely low". Here in CT, as of yesterday morning, the mortality rate for age group 40-49 was ~1.4%. That's 14 times higher for a fairly youngish age band than the flu mortality rate for all age bands (including the elderly). Calling it "extremely low" is just false.
The article also repeatedly compares annual totals for other ailments/diseases/causes to current totals for COVID-19, despite those totals A) being far less than annual, and B) having mostly occurred during a time of "lockdown" and social distancing.
Finally, it's wildly irresponsible to call for relaxing of social distancing restrictions without even mentioning mitigation best practices such as masks.
The Commish
Footballguy
It continues to amaze me at how little people pay attention to things going on elsewhere to then take those actions and compare them to what they are experiencing. One thing I've learned about us as a country is just how lacking in self awareness we are as a country. I've joked about it before in anecdotal conversations here when it's clearly the case, but I am somewhat taken back by how true it is across this nation.
The Commish
Footballguy
Doug B
Footballguy
Why does anyone think the so-called "lockdown" was so harsh? I never saw MPs in the street. No National Guardsman road-blocked my car to check if I had gotten groceries in the last 7 days. No cops were checking IDs at drugstores. What are people talking about when they say "total lockdown"?sho nuff said:
I mean, "total", to me, would mean complete lack of freedom of movement. No leaving the house. No open spaces. Nothing.
The Commish
Footballguy
One of two reasons. #1. it impacted them directly or #2. they lack the awareness of what other places have gone through to see how bad it can really get.
Politician Spock
Footballguy
It's your right to not wear a mask. It's also your right to not stand for the National Anthem. Choosing to NOT exercise those rights is about showing respect to your fellow Americans. Stand for the National Anthem and wear a mask around others. It's the right thing to do, even though it's your right not to.
Challenge Everything
Footballguy
Radical Right Wing talk this afternoon was berating the closing of churches and places of worship. The argument tried to stem around how the government shouldn't be allowed to do that. How can they do that? That is against the Constitution, and blah, blah, blah. Of course the first amendment was quoted as, "freedom of religion."
The Radical Right Wing media uses the first amendment, not to mention all parts of the Constitution, incorrectly for any kind of justification. I would ask them if their reading comprehension is as poor as it seems but I don't think they'd understand my question.
The Radical Right Wing media uses the first amendment, not to mention all parts of the Constitution, incorrectly for any kind of justification. I would ask them if their reading comprehension is as poor as it seems but I don't think they'd understand my question.
Terminalxylem
Footballguy
Terminalxylem
Footballguy
I'd love to see a link to the physicians who created and signed that letter, too.
![[icon]](/data/avatars/s/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}