Starting to think there is no way they play football in 2020

[Capco]

36 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

You realize, of course, that WAS the chinese model that Rober was advocating for. The ChiCom military was literally dragging people from their homes.

 

I thought they wanted people to stay in their homes.  Wouldn't they be dragging them to their homes?  

[SectionC3]

37 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

This won't accomplish anything. 

 

You can't force such a large portion of the population to exit the economy and pretend that everything will be fine. 

 

People are not going to go on with their lives as they did a month ago.

No one is booking a family trip. No one is buying a new car. No one is going out to restaurants as regularly as they did. 

 

The die is cast. 

 

With real leadership.

 

This is a crisis. The country is essentially at war.

 

Someone needs to step up and make the tough decisions that won't be popular. 

 

A voice of reason.  Completely agree.  We need to act like Italy so that we don’t become Italy.  The economy can handle a 30- or 60-day hard shutdown.  Ask Bill Ackerman.  It’s what the market wants.  But a certain someone in DC flipped his lid yesterday when the S&P dropped below its January 2017 level.  The point re: the S&P is that Americans now have had basically dead money (dividends notwithstanding) for the Trump presidency.  And since Trump measures his presidency by the S&P index . . . An overreaction today was to be expected.  

 

It’s pretty sad that the test of my grandparents generation was getting on a boat and risking limb and life to defend our society.  My generation is asked only to ration food for a little while, binge Netflix, and find a way to make unemployment, savings, and credit cards cover a couple of months of expenses.  And we are failing.  

[PetermansRedemption]

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

 

A voice of reason.  Completely agree.  We need to act like Italy so that we don’t become Italy.  The economy can handle a 30- or 60-day hard shutdown.  Ask Bill Ackerman.  It’s what the market wants.  But a certain someone in DC flipped his lid yesterday when the S&P dropped below its January 2017 level.  The point re: the S&P is that Americans now have had basically dead money (dividends notwithstanding) for the Trump presidency.  And since Trump measures his presidency by the S&P index . . . An overreaction today was to be expected.  

 

It’s pretty sad that the test of my grandparents generation was getting on a boat and risking limb and life to defend our society.  My generation is asked only to ration food for a little while, binge Netflix, and find a way to make unemployment, savings, and credit cards cover a couple of months of expenses.  And we are failing.  

You do realize that what you are proposing requires the power of the purse, which is controlled by Congress? 

[RyanC883]

2 minutes ago, PetermansRedemption said:

You do realize that what you are proposing requires the power of the purse, which is controlled by Congress? 

 

stimulus package should happen today.  

[PetermansRedemption]

Just now, RyanC883 said:

 

stimulus package should happen today.  

Which I fear won’t be anything near what would be needed for a complete, extended shutdown. We should find out sometime today. 

[SectionC3]

8 minutes ago, PetermansRedemption said:

You do realize that what you are proposing requires the power of the purse, which is controlled by Congress? 

 

With respect, it doesn’t.  Under these circumstances Trump (or any president) could issue an executive order declaring a shutdown.  Given the deference this country typically has shown executives in times of national crisis, and given the deference the current version of the Supreme Court has shown the executive branch, there’s little practical impediment to what I have suggested.  Enforcing the order is a bit of a different kettle of fish, but there is precedent for the National Guard to assist in that respect.  By the time a challenge to the order would wind its way through the courts, the crisis almost certainly would have either passed or become so severe that nobody in their right mind would question the executive action. 

[Coach Tuesday]

13 minutes ago, RyanC883 said:

Further, infectious disease experts do NOT AGREE with a total lockdown.  

 

see:  https://triblive.com/local/pittsburgh-allegheny/pittsburgh-infectious-disease-expert-discusses-business-shutdown-order-effect-on-society/

 

 

Here is what the ONE GUY in Pittsburgh actually said in the article you linked:

 

This is a very hard decision to make. As the economic shutdown becomes broader, there is a real risk of doing more damage by threatening peoples’ livelihoods as well as their well-being than the virus will do. There is a point where more harm can be done than good. Voluntary social distancing is one thing and advisable, but government force is quite another.

[SectionC3]

15 minutes ago, RyanC883 said:

 

this post is a Nancy Pelosi sounding nonsensical rant. (those who disagree with me don’t believe in science). 

 

First, China and the WHO for months said there was no person to person contact, despite the contrary evidence in China.  If you think China is telling the truth now you are nuts.  China exported this all over the world.  

 

Further, infectious disease experts do NOT AGREE with a total lockdown.  

 

see:  https://triblive.com/local/pittsburgh-allegheny/pittsburgh-infectious-disease-expert-discusses-business-shutdown-order-effect-on-society/

 

 

Did you read the article?  The expert quoted therein acknowledged that the medical benefits of a shutdown must be weight against the costs of a stoppage of economic activity.  I’m glad that the infectious disease expert has dusted off his or her apparent background in economics to share with us.  That sarcasm aside, there is a point to be made that a cost/benefit analysis is required with respect to a shutdown.  But it’s not fair to say that experts do NOT AGREE with a total lockdown based on that article. 

[PetermansRedemption]

4 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

With respect, it doesn’t.  Under these circumstances Trump (or any president) could issue an executive order declaring a shutdown.  Given the deference this country typically has shown executives in times of national crisis, and given the deference the current version of the Supreme Court has shown the executive branch, there’s little practical impediment to what I have suggested.  Enforcing the order is a bit of a different kettle of fish, but there is precedent for the National Guard to assist in that respect.  By the time a challenge to the order would wind its way through the courts, the crisis almost certainly would have either passed or become so severe that nobody in their right mind would question the executive action. 

It does if you want any money tied to it. Sure Trump could order any industry shuttered. But he would be doing it without any economical strings. I suppose congress could address that shortly thereafter. But I don’t have much faith in them. 

[SectionC3]

Just now, PetermansRedemption said:

It does if you want any money tied to it. Sure Trump could order any industry shuttered. But he would be doing it without any economical strings. I suppose congress could address that shortly thereafter. But I don’t have much faith in them. 

“Shutdown” and “bailout” are two different things.  You’re talking about a bailout, and that does require Congressional approval.  The problem we’re running into right now is the philosophical discord over “bottom up” funding (Democrats) or “top down” help (Republicans).  We’re also hitting the point that Democrats don’t want Trump to have unfettered discretion over hundreds of billions of dollars in aid.  A compromise on the first point probably is in order, but with the way this administration has hurt labor (read the Janus decision of the Supreme Court to see how unions have been gutted recently) I have a hard time believing that anyone who reads this message board and who pays some attention to national politics shouldn’t lean more toward the Democratic position on that issue.  With respect to the question of discretion . . . I have my views on the matter, as I’m sure everyone here does.  Those points probably are best left for a different forum.  

[Success]

It's being discussed, but the crux of the issue is balancing the positives and negatives to achieve the best outcome for everyone.

 

If only health experts and those in the medical profession were making the decision, we'd probably be on lockdown for a year at minimum.  But their only priority would be containing the spread and eventually eliminating the threat.  

 

Politicians and the business community have to weigh that against the adverse effects of the shutdown on people's lives & livelihoods. At a certain point, more suffering is likely caused by too much economic hardship.

 

I'm just glad there are smarter people than me working on this one.  Getting back to work is going to be a tough decision to make - but at a certain point, it will have to happen.

 

[DrDawkinstein]

6 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

“Shutdown” and “bailout” are two different things.  You’re talking about a bailout, and that does require Congressional approval.  The problem we’re running into right now is the philosophical discord over “bottom up” funding (Democrats) or “top down” help (Republicans).  We’re also hitting the point that Democrats don’t want Trump to have unfettered discretion over hundreds of billions of dollars in aid.  A compromise on the first point probably is in order, but with the way this administration has hurt labor (read the Janus decision of the Supreme Court to see how unions have been gutted recently) I have a hard time believing that anyone who reads this message board and who pays some attention to national politics shouldn’t lean more toward the Democratic position on that issue.  With respect to the question of discretion . . . I have my views on the matter, as I’m sure everyone here does.  Those points probably are best left for a different forum.  

 

Oh, is this message board going to surprise you.

[billsfan89]

I think at worst they delay the start of the season until October and push camp deep into August and pre-season in September. But who knows just how far reaching this crisis could be. The NFL still has months before they have to make these decisions. This could be winding down in May or getting worse. Who knows. 

[RyanC883]

20 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

Here is what the ONE GUY in Pittsburgh actually said in the article you linked:

 

This is a very hard decision to make. As the economic shutdown becomes broader, there is a real risk of doing more damage by threatening peoples’ livelihoods as well as their well-being than the virus will do. There is a point where more harm can be done than good. Voluntary social distancing is one thing and advisable, but government force is quite another.

 

that ONE GUY is an infectious disease expert at John Hopkins.  He's not just some random guy.  He also talks about the harm from cancelling voluntary surgery procedures unless absolutely necessary.  

19 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Did you read the article?  The expert quoted therein acknowledged that the medical benefits of a shutdown must be weight against the costs of a stoppage of economic activity.  I’m glad that the infectious disease expert has dusted off his or her apparent background in economics to share with us.  That sarcasm aside, there is a point to be made that a cost/benefit analysis is required with respect to a shutdown.  But it’s not fair to say that experts do NOT AGREE with a total lockdown based on that article. 

 

really, it is totally fair to say that all experts do not agree with a total lock-down.  There is an expert, saying that a total lock-down is likely to cause more harm than good.  And what is a "total lock-down" anyway.  

[Best Player Available]

Fine print in new CBA states. Any cancelation of 2020 NFL season. Shall result in Patriots receiving an extra 2 first round picks in 2021

draft. Sad.....

[ColoradoBills]

We will all have to wait week by week to see how this progresses.

No one KNOWS for sure.

 

Patience is needed.

[DrDawkinstein]

2 minutes ago, RyanC883 said:

 

that ONE GUY is an infectious disease expert at John Hopkins.  He's not just some random guy.  He also talks about the harm from cancelling voluntary surgery procedures unless absolutely necessary.  

 

really, it is totally fair to say that all experts do not agree with a total lock-down.  There is an expert, saying that a total lock-down is likely to cause more harm than good.  And what is a "total lock-down" anyway.  

 

There is always "one guy" who can be bought to say what someone wants to hear. That isnt enough to build a real argument. One, or even a few, economic experts disagreeing with every Healthcare and Disease official around the world shouldnt be enough to sway anyone with half a brain.

[jrober38]

2 minutes ago, RyanC883 said:

 

that ONE GUY is an infectious disease expert at John Hopkins.  He's not just some random guy.  He also talks about the harm from cancelling voluntary surgery procedures unless absolutely necessary.  

 

really, it is totally fair to say that all experts do not agree with a total lock-down.  There is an expert, saying that a total lock-down is likely to cause more harm than good.  And what is a "total lock-down" anyway.  

 

Clearly really smart people must be developing models on this at MIT, Carnegie Mellon, etc, right?

 

Right?

 

Like in a week or so the smartest mathematicians in the world will have models in place to project the outcomes for each scenario, lock down vs do nothing. 

 

Someone has thought of that right?

[DrDawkinstein]

Just now, ColoradoBills said:

We will all have to wait week by week to see how this progresses.

No one KNOWS for sure.

 

Patience is needed.

 

Patience and strict compliance with the social distancing mandate.

[RyanC883]

2 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

There is always "one guy" who can be bought to say what someone wants to hear. That isnt enough to build a real argument. One, or even a few, economic experts disagreeing with every Healthcare and Disease official around the world shouldnt be enough to sway anyone with half a brain.

 

this isn't "one guy."  This is a noted infectious disease expert at Hopkins.  Besides, where are the people who are arguing for a Wuhan-type response of total lockdown?  The goal is to avoid that by what most people are doing now, avoid nonessential socializing, etc.  

3 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

Clearly really smart people must be developing models on this at MIT, Carnegie Mellon, etc, right?

 

Right?

 

Like in a week or so the smartest mathematicians in the world will have models in place to project the outcomes for each scenario, lock down vs do nothing. 

 

Someone has thought of that right?

 

the idea of a Wuhan lock-down v. do-nothing is a false dichotomy.  The middle ground, which is what most states do with their "shelter in place", etc. orders is done to prevent a lock-down, while keeping small businesses running to the extent practicable (take out, delivery, etc.).