Does the NFL have a bubble plan? Covid rising

[NewEra]

19 minutes ago, dwight in philly said:

i think it should be up to me because the "science" about mask wearing is up for debate , to say the least..  lotsa looters "protesters"  were not  wearing masks are you concerned about what they may have transmitted to other looters .. protesters" 

Lol.  
 

yes, it is up to you.  If there’s a chance that it helps, why wouldn’t you wear it?  Even if the science is “up for debate at least”.....we know for sure that wearing a mask doesn’t aid in the spread of the disease.  Wearing one doesn’t make you MORE prone to the disease or MORE prone to spreading it.  We can agree on that I would assume.  So if the other side of the debate, which still a chance of being true, is “wearing one makes you LESS prone to the disease and spreading the disease“, why wouldn’t you wear one?  You’re given the choice;  A:   Wear a mask and possibly curb the transmission of the disease OR B:  don’t wear a mask and not possibly curb the tranmission of the disease.  You choose B?

 

this is why I didn’t want to go here. 

[dwight in philly]

Just now, NewEra said:

Lol.  
 

yes, it is up to you.  If there’s a chance that it helps, why wouldn’t you wear it?  Even if the science is “up for debate at least”.....we know for sure that wearing a mask doesn’t aid in the spread of the disease.  Wearing one doesn’t make you MORE prone to the disease or MORE prone to spreading it.  We can agree on that I would assume.  So if the other side of the debate, which still a chance of being true, is “wearing one makes you LESS prone to the disease and spreading the disease“, why wouldn’t you wear one?  You’re given the choice;  A:   Wear a mask and possibly curb the transmission of the disease OR B:  don’t wear a mask and not possibly curb the tranmission of the disease.  You choose B?

 

this is why I didn’t want to go here. 

OK  your opinion i have mine .. 

[frostbitmic]

How many player and coaching fatalities would be acceptable ?

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

7 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

The NBA roster size is small compared to an NFL training camp roster of some 90 players.  So any plan is more manageable.   The NFL plan should include developing a detailed understanding of current treatment and testing options and what treatment and testing options are expected to be available by September.   This and developing a customized and personal risk assessment for each player, coach, training staff, and other team personnel.  So they can understand each person's specific risks of getting infected and the potential for serious illness since not everyone is going to feel sick and very few will have a high chance of dying. 

The other big difference is the length of time involved.  The NBA is just trying to finish up the season, think I read after 7 weeks, there will just be 8 teams left. 7 weeks is about the same length as NFL training camp and 8 teams isn't much larger than one NFL roster.  During training camp 8 teams isn't even as big as one NFL roster.

 

Think the only way this is going to work is they are just going to say players are going to miss games, the best team in the league might be hit the hardest and barely finish at .500, but the league will make TV money so likely take that risk. Players too will take the risk as sitting out a year, two years worth of rookies means many of these marginal players may never play again, i.e.  Darrell Johnson, Duke Williams, etc.  They may stil lbe out of the league by next year, but at least playing means they get that last big pay check.

[Logic]

1 hour ago, wppete said:

 

 

 

I quoted an article from a national source that people have heard of, that includes results of studies that have been done on the subject.

You, thus far, have quoted two tweets from some random people on Twitter with less than 1,000 followers.

That's the problem our country currently faces in a nutshell: In many people's eyes, the opinion of some random lunatic on the internet counts for as much as scientific studies. "I've researched the subject" means "I read about it for 10 minutes on some guy's Twitter feed". People think their OPINIONS have as much weight as SCIENCE. That's the problem.

[wppete]

1 minute ago, Logic said:

I quoted an article from a national source that people have heard of, that includes results of studies that have been done on the subject.

You, thus far, have quoted two tweets from some random people on Twitter with less than 1,000 followers.

That's the problem our country currently faces in a nutshell: In many people's eyes, the opinion of some random lunatic on the internet counts for as much as scientific studies. "I've researched the subject" means "I read about it for 10 minutes on some guy's Twitter feed". People think their OPINIONS have as much weight as SCIENCE. That's the problem.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Fauci

[Logic]

Just now, dwight in philly said:

i will proudly admit i support President Trump . my point is that masks should be up to the individual because of the unproven :"science"  about masks .. and Covid in general.. and again its just my opinion .. no prob..you have yours .. and we both live for the Bills ! no harm.. we had a discussion.l. 

Even if, in your opinion, the science about masks is "unproven", that still means that you concede that there is a possibility that masks DO help.

Like I said: If there's even a 10% chance that masks will help slow the spread of this virus and thus, save lives, and you're STILL choosing not to wear one, it's selfishness, pure and simple. You can say "it's just my opinion". The problem is that your "opinion" in this instance is leading you to do something that can potentially put other people's LIVES in danger. 

 

Just now, wppete said:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Fauci

The FIRST LINE of the link you posted says that Fauci has been an immunologist for 34 years. 

But I suppose I'll believe you and the random Twitter friends you keep quoting instead of, ya know, experts in the fields of epidemiology and immunology.

Let me repeat: This is the problem. Too many people think that their OPINIONS -- based on having spent about 10 minutes reading pseudo-science and lies from random dingbats on Twitter and not vetting these opinions to confirm their veracity -- are worth as much as those of trained experts and scientific studies.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahhansen/2020/06/13/masks-help-stop-the-spread-of-coronavirus-studies-say-but-wearing-them-still-a-political-issue/#1b8b343c604e

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/06/10/2009637117#sec-5

"Our analysis reveals that the difference with and without mandated face covering represents the determinant in shaping the trends of the pandemic worldwide. We conclude that wearing of face masks in public corresponds to the most effective means to prevent interhuman transmission, and this inexpensive practice, in conjunction with extensive testing, quarantine, and contact tracking, poses the most probable fighting opportunity to stop the COVID-19 pandemic, prior to the development of a vaccine. It is also important to emphasize that sound science should be effectively communicated to policy makers and should constitute the prime foundation in decision-making amid this pandemic"

[dwight in philly]

5 minutes ago, Logic said:

Even if, in your opinion, the science about masks is "unproven", that still means that you concede that there is a possibility that masks DO help.

Like I said: If there's even a 10% chance that masks will help slow the spread of this virus and thus, save lives, and you're STILL choosing not to wear one, it's selfishness, pure and simple. You can say "it's just my opinion". The problem is that your "opinion" in this instance is leading you to do something that can potentially put other people's LIVES in danger. 

 

i choose the 90 per cent chance , based on your thinking.. "logic"

Edited June 23, 2020 by dwight in philly

[Logic]

3 minutes ago, dwight in philly said:

i choose the 90 per cent chance , based on your thinking.. "logic"

I stand by what I said. You're making a selfish choice. 

By the way, Below is a link to a recent study on the matter, which I just posted a link to above your post. 

And one more thing. Ya know all the other countries...ya know, the ones that have essentially beat COVID and are starting to return to normal life? Masks. They all wore masks. But sure, continue to ignore science and real world results and continue to pretend like there's actually a reasonable debate about effectiveness of masks in mitigating the spread of COVID. Knock yourself out. If everyone thinks like you do, maybe we'll get to have a football season sometime a couple years from now. God forbid you have to undergo a SLIGHT bit of discomfort by wearing a scrap of fabric over your face for a few months.

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/06/10/2009637117#sec-5

"Our analysis reveals that the difference with and without mandated face covering represents the determinant in shaping the trends of the pandemic worldwide. We conclude that wearing of face masks in public corresponds to the most effective means to prevent interhuman transmission, and this inexpensive practice, in conjunction with extensive testing, quarantine, and contact tracking, poses the most probable fighting opportunity to stop the COVID-19 pandemic, prior to the development of a vaccine. It is also important to emphasize that sound science should be effectively communicated to policy makers and should constitute the prime foundation in decision-making amid this pandemic"

[dwight in philly]

1 minute ago, Logic said:

I stand by what I said. You're making a selfish choice. 

By the way, Below is a link to a recent study on the matter, which I just posted a link to above your post. 

And one more thing. Ya know all the other countries...ya know, the ones that have essentially beat COVID and are starting to return to normal life? Masks. They all wore masks. But sure, continue to ignore science and real world results and continue to pretend like there's actually a reasonable debate about effectiveness of masks in mitigating the spread of COVID. Knock yourself out. If everyone thinks like you do, maybe we'll get to have a football season sometime a couple years from now. God forbid you have to undergo a SLIGHT bit of discomfort by wearing a scrap of fabric over your face for a few months.

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/06/10/2009637117#sec-5

"Our analysis reveals that the difference with and without mandated face covering represents the determinant in shaping the trends of the pandemic worldwide. We conclude that wearing of face masks in public corresponds to the most effective means to prevent interhuman transmission, and this inexpensive practice, in conjunction with extensive testing, quarantine, and contact tracking, poses the most probable fighting opportunity to stop the COVID-19 pandemic, prior to the development of a vaccine. It is also important to emphasize that sound science should be effectively communicated to policy makers and should constitute the prime foundation in decision-making amid this pandemic"

i respect your opinion .. and i have informed myself as i can.. just disagree .. no problem 

[HardyBoy]

6 minutes ago, dwight in philly said:

i respect your opinion .. and i have informed myself as i can.. just disagree .. no problem 

 

Right, so you have peer reviewed research showing a consensus of research showing face mask wearing is at best inconclusive? Can you share that with us please?

 

Cause if you're using the term science, you kinda gotta stick to the scientific method. Because science isn't like "your opinion man." It is applying a standardized method of gaining replicatable outcomes tested against a hypothesis to develop a larger understanding. So let's see your repeatable research

[Logic]

Just now, HardyBoy said:

 

Right, so you have peer reviewed research showing a consensus of research showing face mask wearing is at best inconclusive? Can you share that with us please?

 

Cause if you're using the term science, you kinda gotta stick to the scientific method. Because science isn't like "your opinion man." It is applying a standardized method of gaining replicatable outcomes tested against a hypothesis to develop a larger understanding. So let's see your repeatable research

Not only what HardyBoy said, but if you are admittedly "unsure" about masks being effective but are choosing not to wear them, can you please stay home and not go into any public spaces ever? Because choosing not to wear a mask in public spaces puts OTHER PEOPLE in danger. So when you say "I just disagree, no problem"...Well...it IS a problem, because you're endangering the lives of others. 

It would be like if I said "ya know what? I've educated myself as I can about using using the 'safety' switch on my gun, and I just don't agree with it. So when we hang out in common spaces, I'm gonna walk around with my gun and not have the safety on. No Problem". You see? It IS a problem. It's not just YOU that is affected by this choice!

[NewEra]

3 minutes ago, Logic said:

Not only what HardyBoy said, but if you are admittedly "unsure" about masks being effective but are choosing not to wear them, can you please stay home and not go into any public spaces ever? Because choosing not to wear a mask in public spaces puts OTHER PEOPLE in danger. So when you say "I just disagree, no problem"...Well...it IS a problem, because you're endangering the lives of others. 

It would be like if I said "ya know what? I've educated myself as I can about using using the 'safety' switch on my gun, and I just don't agree with it. So when we hang out in common spaces, I'm gonna walk around with my gun and not have the safety on. No Problem". You see? It IS a problem. It's not just YOU that is affected by this choice!

And he’s so clueless to it.  I’m sure he still has no idea how wrong he is.  
 

dwight, every time you make your american made choice to go into public without a mask, the probability that you are potentially endangering others is greater than if you were wearing a mask.  Choosing not to is selfish and is in no way helping the cause. It’s hurting the cause.  

[HappyDays]

26 minutes ago, dwight in philly said:

my point is that masks should be up to the individual because of the unproven :"science"  about masks

 

What sources do you have for the claim that this science is unproven? Here are a few sources I found that show the opposite:

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191274/

 

In the community, masks appeared to be effective with and without hand hygiene, and both together are more protective.

 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext

 

Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar

 

^Both of the above were meta analyses, meaning they reviewed a number of different studies and essentially combined the results into a single conclusion

 

https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818

 

This study provides evidence from a natural experiment on effects of state government mandates in the US for face mask use in public issued by 15 states plus DC between April 8 and May 15.

Mandating face mask use in public is associated with a decline in the daily COVID-19 growth rate by 0.9, 1.1, 1.4, 1.7, and 2.0 percentage-points in 1–5, 6–10, 11–15, 16–20, and 21+ days after signing, respectively. Estimates suggest as many as 230,000–450,000 COVID-19 cases possibly averted By May 22, 2020 by these mandates. The findings suggest that requiring face mask use in public might help in mitigating COVID-19 spread.

 

And if peer reviewed science isn't your thing, how do you explain this:

 

https://www.livescience.com/hair-stylists-infected-covid19-face-masks.html

 

Two hair stylists in Missouri interacted with a total of 140 clients and six coworkers before learning they both had COVID-19 — thankfully, the stylists didn't pass the virus on to any of these contacts, according to a statement from the local health department. 

Appointment times had been staggered to limit potential contamination between customers, and the salon chairs were placed farther apart than usual. Stylists also remained 6 feet (1.8 meters) away from clients when not cutting their hair, and the salon required that both stylists and customers wear masks during appointments

the health department concluded that no client or coworker contracted the virus from either infected stylist. 

"This is exciting news about the value of masking to prevent COVID-19," Clay Goddard, director of the health department, said in the statement.

 

So now the ball is in your court. If you want to engage in a real scientific discussion then read through these snippets and come back with some of your own. If you want to bury your head in the sand that is also your right. Just don't bring that mindset into a legitimate scientific discussion.

[HardyBoy]

2 hours ago, dwight in philly said:

i think it should be up to me because the "science" about mask wearing is up for debate , to say the least..  lotsa looters "protesters"  were not  wearing masks are you concerned about what they may have transmitted to other looters .. protesters" 

 

Wait, so you are drawing a moral equivalence between people rising up in peaceful protest (99% of the protests have been peaceful) to bring attention to systemic racial injustice and going to the local outdoor store to buy a cooler?

 

I'm not even gonna get into the entirely peaceful protesters protesting and press reporting on it in front of the white house, a symbol of American democracy more important as a representation of anyone can hold that office (I mean I guess that's more literal than I always envisioned it these days) than the flag, being pepper sprayed. Please, can you please please please show a picture of those protesters with their masks off (which they only took off because they got tear gassed), eyes red with tears and chemical agent, coughing all over each other because of the gas...so that in the foreground, with tear gas floating in the air and unmarked police marching in a line behind them in the middle ground, anf then the person most highly entrusted with ensuring the constitution is not stepped on in the background holding an upside down bible?

 

I will bend over backwards to try and find middle ground with just about anyone to a point, and I hate left vs right line in the sand crap, because it's just flat out insane that on a multitude of topics any one side of an argument can be fully the best path forward, but you are making it a bit challenging. I would encourage you to try and be a bit more open to listening, because I'm sure you have valuable points to add to the conversation when you get past the repeating of someone else's talking points put in your mouth for their own personal gain.

Edited June 24, 2020 by HardyBoy

[BuffaloBob]

7 hours ago, jethro_tull said:

One thing to understand is that most of the media are not doing a good job at reporting information that is qualified to be meaningful to us.  

For example it seems daunting when there is a rise in confirmed cases- but we need to understand is that more people are being tested than ever before and the new case numbers are not a good indicator on what actions are needed.  

 

The best indicator IMHO are the rate of new fatalities.  This number is fairly consistently tracked and would show a trend of the actual cases both confirmed and unconfirmed.  

 

For example, the US 14 day trend is + 32% new cases, but down 31% in new deaths.  That is a big deal and a very encouraging sign.  

Actually, the more relevant indicator is the rate of new hospitalizations and percentage of available ICU beds.  Those are on the rise big time as available capacity is shrinking in many states.  There is about a 3 week lag in increased or decreased cases and fatalities.  It will be at least another 10-14 days before you start to see whether fatalities are remaining flat or on the down-slope notwithstanding those increases in cases.

 

Cali is actually over 6000 new cases for today.  Texas exceeded 5000 for the first time yesterday and are close to that number again today.  I hope that the resulting fatalities do not increase with the same rate as the rate of increase in new cases.  But that may not matter if the new cases begin to explode exponentially.  Cali will likely take some extreme measures to rein things in soon if they go up much higher, but FLA, Texas, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, etc. will probably wait until the numbers are really out of hand.  And when beds fill up, that will increase the fatality rate because you won't have the ability to handle the influx of the really sick.

 

I was hoping the weather and long days were going to tamp the transmission rate down for a few months, but it does not appear to be enough right now.

[BuffaloBob]

4 hours ago, kdub said:

 

I agree that this both points will decrease the effective death rate, but to definitely say that the death rate will not increase with a drastic increase in cases is hopeful at best.

Exactly.  Certainly it doesn't mean that, even if the RATE goes down due to some improved treatment protocols, etc., that the absolute number of fatalities won't go up considerably with a enough of an increase in the sheer number of cases.  Put another way, if the number of daily new cases doubles from today's number of 35,000 plus. to say 70,000 per day, while the new fatalities may not also double, it doesn't mean that they won't be significantly higher than they are today, or even what they were during the peak back in April/May, when the number was like 13,000 per week, on half the number of cases.

 

Also, the gains made in better treatment protocols in fact, may be swamped by the problems that can be caused by shortages of ICU beds in states that don't have enough to handle the increased hospitalizations that will come with a doubling of cases. 

Edited June 24, 2020 by BuffaloBob

[HardyBoy]

I think the understanding on the situation has changed on here a lot today on (maybe over the last few days, I hadn't been on in half a week or so). There are stages for dealing with things like this, similar to the stages of grief, and it looks like a lot of people are starting to make their way through to the end of them. I'm pretty objective in my approach initially to things, so I think that allows me to zoom past some of stages a bit at first. That's good in some ways (I was stocked up on stuff by the end of Feb), but bad as well, because when I go back to the stages later and am ready to talk about it, everyone has moved on (my dad died from cancer when I was 21, and I faked my way through the next few years with saying I was over it, and then finally was ready to deal with it and everyone had moved on...sorry for the downer in what is otherwise a super uplifting conversation, lol...fathers day sort of sucks especially now 15 years later having two young kids and everyone posting pictures of their dads and kids playing together).

 

Anyway, point is, be kind to people that might not be ready to fully accept this situation, each one of us was doing the same thing at some point as we moved along the stages. Also, make sure you are asking people close to you how they're doing with situations as sad and stressful like this, especially your kids if they are old enough to talk about it, because even if they said good 100 times, they might just be uncomfortable talking about it. I would expect this to be a dam bursting situation with kids especially and just a ton of emotion pouring out when they are ready to talk about it fully. There is no need for them to carry that trapped deep down in them for 15 years.

[blacklabel]

I wanna see a full season just as much as the next fan, but the closer we get to September, the less faith I have that it's gonna happen. If the so called leadership in this country had taken this thing seriously from the start then we'd likely be much further along. Other countries that acted quickly in ordering quarantine and then requiring masks have got their cases under control. It's kind of a travesty that one of the world's leading countries is in a mess like this. Many deaths could've been prevented, and I was just dumbfounded how some healthcare workers had to use trash bags and whatnot because PPE wasn't being provided. Unacceptable. 

 

And now it seems like the country is in a rush to "get back to normal" with a multitude of people who don't wanna follow any preventative measures and so cases are spiking again and it just doesn't seem like they're close to getting a real handle on this stuff. I mean, they cancelled all concerts, festivals, shows, carnivals, fairs, in addition to almost every sport for the rest of the year yet they're saying, "It's cool to go back to work, don't worry about it. But only work and then straight home!" Aside from grocery shopping there isn't a whole lot to do so a nation full of people with very few outlets for after-work activities is gonna become even more disgruntled, or so it would seem. 

 

I don't know what's gonna happen but looking at it right now, it seems like it's gonna be really difficult to make a season happen. 

[JetsFan20]

I mean the fact that players are testing positive in CFB in other sports before the games are even played is alarming. We just don’t seem ready for this right now as a country.