Chicken Boo Posted July 30, 2020 Posted July 30, 2020 2 hours ago, mannc said: Sorry, anecdotal evidence like this proves nothing. In the entire state of California, not one person under 18-years old has died of CV19. That a sample size of 9 million kids. You can confirm this by going to the state’s Coronavirus dashboard. The demographics of this disease have been wildly misrepresented in the media. It poses very little risk to healthy people under 60 years old, and even less than that to NFL football players in their 20s. Players who are opting out are either seriously misinformed, are making a business decision, or have some significant pre-existing medical condition that makes them more vulnerable. The uncertainty is enough for me. No one knows how it will effect them or their family members. That should be enough of a scare for most. How much is your life or the life of a loved one worth? Not to mention the stories of asymptomatic athletes that haven't fully regained their ability. Covid and its effects are real. I can't fault anyone for taking their and their loved ones health seriously. 2
co_springs_billsfan Posted July 30, 2020 Posted July 30, 2020 Anyone know when the last "opt out" date is? I thought I read that the period was supposed to last a week but it seems we've been going longer than that at this point.
DCbillsfan Posted July 30, 2020 Posted July 30, 2020 1 hour ago, SCBills said: A doctor from Johns Hopkins recently stated that a widespread vaccine likely will be ready for distribution towards the end of 2021. What do you prescribe we do? Close down most everything for almost 2 years, while living in fear of anecdotal evidence and what "might" happen to you? What we do know is the current death rate is very low, and the American death rate would be much lower if not for the NY elder-care fiasco. I honestly don't understand those who hold these views. I fully endorse adjusting to this via distancing and masks, but at some point, with a virus that has an incredibly low death rate, we can't keep being afraid of our own shadows due to anecdotal evidence and potential long term effects (all viruses have potential long term effects on certain people). NFL players have every right to op-out, but i'm not sure what you want, bigger picture speaking, when people with your line of thinking keep harping on what-ifs and examples that fit your fear-centric view of this. I don't mean that as condescending, as a healthy dose of fear is a good thing, but you'd think we were fighting mass scale ebola by the way some people are acting. I don't have the link to the article, but read it about one month ago. It went beyond the death rate of the virus and it went into detail about permanent damage to various organs and blood clots, etc. It essentially stated: of 100 people who test positive for Covid, roughly 20 end up in the hospital, 10 of the 20 hospitalized survive with no apparent lingering issues, the other 10 - 1 to 2 of them die and 8 to 9 have suffered permanent damage to their body. Basically, 10% of people who test positive for Covid are some sort of casualty, either death or permanent damage. BTW, I agree with you about trying to keep businesses open. Just do it in a safe, reasonable manner. I got nothing on the schools. That's a tough nut to crack.
Saxum Posted July 30, 2020 Posted July 30, 2020 9 minutes ago, DCbillsfan said: BTW, I agree with you about trying to keep businesses open. Just do it in a safe, reasonable manner. I got nothing on the schools. That's a tough nut to crack. Issue with schools are teachers, who are politically powerful and frankly despite what they say they look out for their interests first, and parents with children in school many of which have no alternates if they are going to work. Teaching remotely does not work for many families who do not have resources, have multiple kids, have kids who look at this as vacation, etc. Most kids will not follow directions just like those who told they have to wear masks and do protests.
nucci Posted July 30, 2020 Posted July 30, 2020 29 minutes ago, co_springs_billsfan said: Anyone know when the last "opt out" date is? I thought I read that the period was supposed to last a week but it seems we've been going longer than that at this point. I read 7 days after the agreement is signed and I don't think it's signed yet
co_springs_billsfan Posted July 30, 2020 Posted July 30, 2020 3 minutes ago, nucci said: I read 7 days after the agreement is signed and I don't think it's signed yet Thanks!
Saxum Posted July 30, 2020 Posted July 30, 2020 4 minutes ago, nucci said: I read 7 days after the agreement is signed and I don't think it's signed yet I am sure NFLPA will delay as much as they can.
mannc Posted July 30, 2020 Posted July 30, 2020 1 hour ago, Chicken Boo said: The uncertainty is enough for me. No one knows how it will effect them or their family members. That should be enough of a scare for most. How much is your life or the life of a loved one worth? Not to mention the stories of asymptomatic athletes that haven't fully regained their ability. Covid and its effects are real. I can't fault anyone for taking their and their loved ones health seriously. Life is uncertain; we voluntarily encounter all sorts of risks every day. With regard to COVID 19, our society's ability to rationally assess and respond to risk has gone right out the window, largely because of dishonest and incompetent media coverage of the virus. And BTW, i've never heard of these "asymptomatic athletes that haven't fully regained their ability." Who are you talking about? 1
Warcodered Posted July 30, 2020 Posted July 30, 2020 2 minutes ago, mannc said: Life is uncertain; we voluntarily encounter all sorts of risks every day. With regard to COVID 19, our society's ability to rationally assess and respond to risk has gone right out the window, largely because of dishonest and incompetent media coverage of the virus. And BTW, i've never heard of these "asymptomatic athletes that haven't fully regained their ability." Who are you talking about? yep everything is completely normal. nothing to see here move along. 2 1 1
mannc Posted July 30, 2020 Posted July 30, 2020 1 minute ago, Warcodered said: yep everything is completely normal. nothing to see here move along. LOL. What on earth do you think that proves?
Chandler#81 Posted July 30, 2020 Posted July 30, 2020 1 hour ago, mannc said: LOL. What on earth do you think that proves? That you’re completely clueless. I’m convinced, anyway. 3
Jdragon2 Posted July 30, 2020 Posted July 30, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, mannc said: LOL. What on earth do you think that proves? That your me-first worldview on this disease is misguided? Everything you've said statistically is wrong: 1 in 5 people require hospitalization. Older and preexisting are included. This does not impact the data as healthy, asymptomatic carriers have a greater chance to spread. Focusing on only the younger people, (18 and under, or athletes included) is an extremely short and near-sighted view and basically says that those outside this metric can just eff off and deal with it.... Focusing on a small % of deaths out of the total is extremely narrowminded, as pointed out above the percentage of people who are *permanently* damaged physically from this disease is way too high to be ignored. I've seen far too many people who are anti-maskers, anti-vaxxers, people having CoVid parties; who then go on to infect their immediate family/friends and the result is in more then a few cases serious injuries or death. People think about themselves far too much. It's not just you in this situation.....it's everyone. That's why this country as a whole is doing so much worse then basically the rest of the planet. Edit: Oh and one more thing you sure as heck would sing a completely different tone if you were impacted by it. It's easy to be "that guy" who wants to put on rainbow sunglasses and ignore everything about the reality of this disease..... but I assure you, you'd think much differently if it hit your family or friends. Oh and before you say, "well it hasn't hit us at all...." it's people with that mindset that cause everyone to suffer when they all of a sudden find themselves in a situation they scoffed at. Edited July 30, 2020 by Jdragon2 1 1
mannc Posted July 30, 2020 Posted July 30, 2020 26 minutes ago, Jdragon2 said: That your me-first worldview on this disease is misguided? Everything you've said statistically is wrong: 1 in 5 people require hospitalization. Older and preexisting are included. This does not impact the data as healthy, asymptomatic carriers have a greater chance to spread. Focusing on only the younger people, (18 and under, or athletes included) is an extremely short and near-sighted view and basically says that those outside this metric can just eff off and deal with it.... Focusing on a small % of deaths out of the total is extremely narrowminded, as pointed out above the percentage of people who are *permanently* damaged physically from this disease is way too high to be ignored. I've seen far too many people who are anti-maskers, anti-vaxxers, people having CoVid parties; who then go on to infect their immediate family/friends and the result is in more then a few cases serious injuries or death. People think about themselves far too much. It's not just you in this situation.....it's everyone. That's why this country as a whole is doing so much worse then basically the rest of the planet. Edit: Oh and one more thing you sure as heck would sing a completely different tone if you were impacted by it. It's easy to be "that guy" who wants to put on rainbow sunglasses and ignore everything about the reality of this disease..... but I assure you, you'd think much differently if it hit your family or friends. Oh and before you say, "well it hasn't hit us at all...." it's people with that mindset that cause everyone to suffer when they all of a sudden find themselves in a situation they scoffed at. Nothing I said is statistically wrong, and you certainly don't point to anything I said that might be. The nonsense you posted, on the other hand... 1 in 5 "people" require hospitalization? What utter nonsense. In my state, with 4.2 million people, a grand total of 1500 people have been hospitalized since the beginning of the "pandemic". That works out to .035 percent of the population, or about one in every 3000 people. If you were only talking about the percentage of people who tested positive, which of course is only a small percentage of people who have actually contracted the virus, then it's 1500 out of 18,000, which works out to just over 8 percent, not 20 percent. And of course, there is zero evidence at this point of long-term effects from the virus, much less people being "permanently damaged." Any such talk is nothing more than panic-mongering speculation. Lastly, you have no idea whether I or anyone else in my family has been "impacted by it." In fact, I have two members of my immediate family who have been severely impacted by the insane and scientifically unsupported forced school closures, business closures and travel restrictions. Do they count too? Are we even going to consider them? I'm guessing there are many more people like me than there are people who have close friends or family members who have died from CV19. 1
HappyDays Posted July 30, 2020 Posted July 30, 2020 9 minutes ago, mannc said: In fact, I have two members of my immediate family who have been severely impacted by the insane and scientifically unsupported forced school closures, business closures and travel restrictions. Do they count too? Are we even going to consider them? I'm guessing there are many more people like me than there are people who have close friends or family members who have died from CV19. Regarding the bolded - the reason for that is that the travel restrictions and closures have limited the virus's spread. The alternate choice was leave everything open as normal and allow hundreds of thousands of people to die while overwhelming the healthcare system. It's unfortunate people are being affected, but I guarantee the resulting economic collapse of an uninhibited pandemic would have been many many times worse. 3
Chicken Boo Posted July 30, 2020 Posted July 30, 2020 2 hours ago, mannc said: "asymptomatic athletes that haven't fully regained their ability." Who are you talking about? Maybe "regain their peak physical conditioning" is a better way to word it. And yes you have, unless you've completely ignored posts in this very thread.
mannc Posted July 30, 2020 Posted July 30, 2020 13 minutes ago, HappyDays said: Regarding the bolded - the reason for that is that the travel restrictions and closures have limited the virus's spread. The alternate choice was leave everything open as normal and allow hundreds of thousands of people to die while overwhelming the healthcare system. It's unfortunate people are being affected, but I guarantee the resulting economic collapse of an uninhibited pandemic would have been many many times worse. That’s highly debatable and not scientifically proven. Many states and countries that imposed fewer restrictions have “performed” as well or better than counties or states that locked down harder. And at any rate, it’s not an argument between zero restrictions and full lockdown. Certain restrictions made sense for some period of time, and few if any countries imposed none. 4 minutes ago, Chicken Boo said: Maybe "regain their peak physical conditioning" is a better way to word it. And yes you have, unless you've completely ignored posts in this very thread. I haven’t read every post in this thread and I don’t intend to, so enlighten me, if you will...
HappyDays Posted July 30, 2020 Posted July 30, 2020 2 minutes ago, mannc said: That’s highly debatable and not scientifically proven. No, it is not. Many things are debatable. I like debating whether Josh Allen will be good or if the Bills will win the Super Bowl. Those are fun harmless debates. Epidemiology is not debatable. The effects of an uninhibited pandemic are proven science. No one can predict the exact numbers, but we know for a fact that it would be catastrophic. 5 minutes ago, mannc said: Many states and countries that imposed fewer restrictions have “performed” as well or better than counties or states that locked down harder. I would like to see your source for this claim. 8 minutes ago, mannc said: And at any rate, it’s not an argument between zero restrictions and full lockdown. I wish this were so. The easiest restriction, a national mask mandate, would likely be enough to re-open most of the country. Unfortunately a good portion of the country thinks that even that is too much of an infringement on their freedoms. I don't believe a full lockdown is necessary, but in the early stages when we were still learning about the virus it was an important step. To illustrate some of this, here is a Twitter thread from the Governor of Mississippi a couple weeks ago. Make sure to read the whole thing: His discussion of herd immunity is only somewhat related to what you're saying, but the deeper point of this thread is that if the virus spread uninhibited it would be a disaster for our healthcare system. He points out that even at the current levels, Mississippi's hospital system has been overwhelmed. That's with just 1.2% of their state population testing positive. Imagine if there were no restrictions at all. The case load would rise exponentially. In a matter of days or weeks the hospitals would be full. Extrapolate this to the rest of the country and you're looking at a national catastrophe.
whatdrought Posted July 30, 2020 Posted July 30, 2020 10 minutes ago, HappyDays said: No, it is not. Many things are debatable. I like debating whether Josh Allen will be good or if the Bills will win the Super Bowl. Those are fun harmless debates. Epidemiology is not debatable. The effects of an uninhibited pandemic are proven science. No one can predict the exact numbers, but we know for a fact that it would be catastrophic. Let's make sure we're on the same page here... Are you saying that the science on the novel coronavirus is proven? Furthermore, are you saying "catastrophic" deaths? Or "catastrophic" cases without the shutdown? Two different things and the distinction is important here as you can't say the science is proven on deaths when we still don't have a realistic picture of the death rate of this thing. If it had gone unchecked in society we would have seen it spread, obviously, but we don't know what the death picture would look like because even now we're seeing studies that show the death rate is substantially lower than what is being reported due to unreported cases. 2
mannc Posted July 30, 2020 Posted July 30, 2020 14 minutes ago, HappyDays said: No, it is not. Many things are debatable. I like debating whether Josh Allen will be good or if the Bills will win the Super Bowl. Those are fun harmless debates. Epidemiology is not debatable. The effects of an uninhibited pandemic are proven science. No one can predict the exact numbers, but we know for a fact that it would be catastrophic. I would like to see your source for this claim. I wish this were so. The easiest restriction, a national mask mandate, would likely be enough to re-open most of the country. Unfortunately a good portion of the country thinks that even that is too much of an infringement on their freedoms. I don't believe a full lockdown is necessary, but in the early stages when we were still learning about the virus it was an important step. To illustrate some of this, here is a Twitter thread from the Governor of Mississippi a couple weeks ago. Make sure to read the whole thing: His discussion of herd immunity is only somewhat related to what you're saying, but the deeper point of this thread is that if the virus spread uninhibited it would be a disaster for our healthcare system. He points out that even at the current levels, Mississippi's hospital system has been overwhelmed. That's with just 1.2% of their state population testing positive. Imagine if there were no restrictions at all. The case load would rise exponentially. In a matter of days or weeks the hospitals would be full. Extrapolate this to the rest of the country and you're looking at a national catastrophe. The governor’s discussion of herd immunity is way off. Many experts believe effective herd immunity with this virus is 20% or below, not 40 or 80%. And you are vastly overstating the extent to which lockdowns are a proven scientific technique for controlling viruses. They had never been done before on anything close to this scale, and for good reason. Prior to CV 19, the CDC had recommended against such measures as a method of combatting viruses like this one.
Chicken Boo Posted July 30, 2020 Posted July 30, 2020 32 minutes ago, mannc said: I haven’t read every post in this thread and I don’t intend to, so enlighten me, if you will... https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/covid-long-term-effects-sports-athletes-nba-bubble-11593161922 Here's a good read from the WSJ.
Recommended Posts