Limited tailgating vote tonight

[NoSaint]

18 minutes ago, LB3 said:

I count 14-15 in masks. Some aren't clear on my phone.

2 have masks on but their noses out.

9 without masks on.

 

I wouldn't count that as "most" wear masks. I also don't see social distancing.

define “most” for us here 

[DrDawkinstein]

4 minutes ago, Gordio said:

 

 

Hmm, okay then why can't fans be allowed in an outdoor stadium?

 

An idea I'm not completely against. Especially if we're talking outdoor stadium in a state that seems to have the virus under control, and a mask mandate (subject to fines) is in place.

 

Then it just comes down to whether the Bills, the NFL, and the State of New York want to open themselves up to litigation for when someone DOES spread the virus at one of these events.

 

That all said, I think it is silly that us adults are spending this much time and energy trying to get FOOTBALL back, of all things. How about we focus on what it will take to get offices back open, and schools safely opened?

 

I'm as much a football addict as anywhere here, but it is low on my list of priorities right now. And I happily value the health and well being of strangers over my ability to go to a game. Forcing my way back to a game or even a tailgate isnt the hill I choose to die on.

31 minutes ago, LB3 said:

Don't believe your eyes.

 

20 minutes ago, LB3 said:

I count 14-15 in masks. Some aren't clear on my phone.

2 have masks on but their noses out.

9 without masks on.

 

I wouldn't count that as "most" wear masks. I also don't see social distancing.

 

My man... between the doctored photo and this assessment of basic numbers, I think it might be a good time for you to take a break from this topic.

[NoSaint]

7 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

An idea I'm not completely against. Especially if we're talking outdoor stadium in a state that seems to have the virus under control, and a mask mandate (subject to fines) is in place.

 

Then it just comes down to whether the Bills, the NFL, and the State of New York want to open themselves up to litigation for when someone DOES spread the virus at one of these events.

 

That all said, I think it is silly that us adults are spending this much time and energy trying to get FOOTBALL back, of all things. How about we focus on what it will take to get offices back open, and schools safely opened?

 

I'm as much a football addict as anywhere here, but it is low on my list of priorities right now. And I happily value the health and well being of strangers over my ability to go to a game. Forcing my way back to a game or even a tailgate isnt the hill I choose to die on.

and I think you nailed it with prioritization of entertainment over so many other things. 
 

I’ll again stress I’m no doctor or qualified to make the decision. My commentary is simply watching the issue play out over and over and needing to either learn a lesson in how we move forward, or how we react after we move forward. 
 

A couple weeks of tailgating followed by immediate shut downs seems like both the most likely, and worst course of action, right? 
 

until we can figure out good measures and good responses- I agree I’m not sure this is the time to die on the hill of drinking beer and bbq’ing in a parking lot even if it’s fun.

Edited August 19, 2020 by NoSaint

[LB3]

3 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

An idea I'm not completely against. Especially if we're talking outdoor stadium in a state that seems to have the virus under control, and a mask mandate (subject to fines) is in place.

 

Then it just comes down to whether the Bills, the NFL, and the State of New York want to open themselves up to litigation for when someone DOES spread the virus at one of these events.

 

That all said, I think it is silly that us adults are spending this much time and energy trying to get FOOTBALL back, of all things. How about we focus on what it will take to get offices back open, and schools safely opened?

 

I'm as much a football addict as anywhere here, but it is low on my list of priorities right now. And I happily value the health and well being of strangers over my ability to go to a game. Forcing my way back to a game or even a tailgate isnt the hill I choose to die on.

 

 

My man... between the doctored photo and this assessment of basic numbers, I think it might be a good time for you to take a break from this topic.

What's doctored about it? I took the first photo I saw on Google. Jauronimo provided a full photo. Unless it was even more photoshopped.

 

Yes. 60-65% is most, but is ridiculous when used to back up the silly belief that protests and riots weren't super spreaders. Believing that requires the suspension of all logic. 

 

[Jauronimo]

13 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

I never said all. It didnt even occur to me that anyone would challenge that so many protestors were not wearing masks, so I didnt think precise language was needed. Frankly, the claim buggers belief. 
 

Was it tens of thousands? Obviously. Was it “most” or “half?” Well, now that we are splitting hairs over inconsequential details, I have to acknowledge I have no way of knowing the percentage. Thus, I backed away from those claims. Again, the exact percentage is inconsequential when its so obvious that a substantial number of people werent wearing masks.

The details are not inconsequential when your entire point was "thinking that a majority of protesters wearing masks flies in the face of reality" which was only a few minutes ago.  Its not splitting hairs when the benchmark of majority is the crux of your point. 

 

Now you have a new point that the numbers were "substantial" but the exact percentages do not matter and we are all supposed to take your word for it because once again, its an obvious truth.  Do you see the issue?

[DrDawkinstein]

Just now, LB3 said:

What's doctored about it? I took the first photo I saw on Google. Jauronimo provided a full photo. Unless it was even more photoshopped.

 

Yes. 60-65% is most, but is ridiculous when used to back up the silly belief that protests and riots weren't super spreaders. Believing that requires the suspension of all logic. 

 

 

Take that up with the National Bureau of Economic Research, and all the County Boards of Health listed in those articles I posted, which have done the research and have found no conclusive evidence that the protests caused any spikes, let alone were "super spreaders".

 

That photo (or any single photo either way) does not accurately represent the totality of the protests. It wasnt me that tried using it to prove a point. And it didnt prove your point either.

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

4 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

The details are not inconsequential when your entire point was "thinking that a majority of protesters wearing masks flies in the face of reality" which was only a few minutes ago.  Its not splitting hairs when the benchmark of majority is the crux of your point. 

 

Now you have a new point that the numbers were "substantial" but the exact percentages do not matter and we are all supposed to take your word for it because once again, its an obvious truth.  Do you see the issue?

You cant possibly think the difference between a few percentage points regarding the number of people at the protests honestly makes a difference. My “point” was never that the majority qualified as a tipping point. My point was that so many people didn’t wear masks you cannot credibly claim that masks were the sole reason that virus did not spread due to the protests.

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

8 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Take that up with the National Bureau of Economic Research, and all the County Boards of Health listed in those articles I posted, which have done the research and have found no conclusive evidence that the protests caused any spikes, let alone were "super spreaders".

 

That photo (or any single photo either way) does not accurately represent the totality of the protests. It wasnt me that tried using it to prove a point. And it didnt prove your point either.

But why call it a “doctored photo?”

[WEATHER DOT COM]

Of course some people at the protests got Covid 19 but there is not any data that shows areas where protests occurred had consistent spikes in Covid 19 cases.

 

Back to tailgating!

 

This dude looks ready for action

 

[DrDawkinstein]

Just now, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

But why call it a “doctored photo?”

 

Cropping a photo to focus only on a couple people who prove your point is doctoring it.

 

Not saying LB3 doctored it, but I'd be interested in the exact wording of the google search that turned it up (if we were going to continue this discussion, which we arent, or at least I'm not, considering LB3 has had a rough go of it, and youre doing your usual constant-reframing-the-argument thing).

 

To go back to your original reply to @Richard Noggin, you shouldve just said "so many people didn’t wear masks you cannot credibly claim that masks were the sole reason that virus did not spread due to the protests. " To which any of us couldve said, "of course not. masks, outdoors, and distancing are the 3 big components". As I had mentioned 2 posts above the one you decided to quote. And saved us 2 pages of watching you dance around points.

[Jauronimo]

3 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

You cant possibly think the difference between a few percentage points regarding the number of people at the protests honestly makes a difference. My “point” was never that the majority qualified as a tipping point. My point was that so many people didn’t wear masks you cannot credibly claim that masks were the sole reason that virus did not spread due to the protests.

A few percentage points?  How few are we talking now?  Whats the spread +/-  over your initial benchmark of 50% which you admit was pulled from your ass? 

 

To clarify, your new point is that because protests were not linked to mass spreading (which has been commonly attributed to high rates of mask wearing oddly enough), and so many people (% now inconsequential) were NOT wearing masks (oops), that masks clearly were not the sole reason COVID didn't spread (did anyone argue masks were the sole reason COVID didn't spread)?

 

 

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

2 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Cropping a photo to focus only on a couple people who prove your point is doctoring it.

 

Not saying LB3 doctored it, but I'd be interested in the exact wording of the google search that turned it up (if we were going to continue this discussion, which we arent, or at least I'm not, considering LB3 has had a rough go of it, and youre doing your usual constant-reframing-the-argument thing).

 

To go back to your original reply to @Richard Noggin, you shouldve just said "so many people didn’t wear masks you cannot credibly claim that masks were the sole reason that virus did not spread due to the protests. " To which any of us couldve said, "of course not. masks, outdoors, and distancing are the 3 big components". As I had mentioned 2 posts above the one you decided to quote. And saved us 2 pages of watching you dance around points.

On a forum for dumb arguments, this is the dumbest argument Ive ever had. What a sily topic to split hairs about.

[Richard Noggin]

1 hour ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

Got a credible citation that its not true?

That's not how thinking works.

[DrDawkinstein]

Just now, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

On a forum for dumb arguments, this is the dumbest argument Ive ever had. What a sily topic to split hairs about.

 

The irony coming from you after the last few pages.

[WEATHER DOT COM]

Might let the grass grow for another 3 weeks and try to carve out a standing Bison with the weed whacker. 

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

7 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

The irony coming from you after the last few pages.

I LOVE that you just used the word “irony” to try to insult me, but then proceeded to misuse the term. LOVE it. So appropriate to conclude this argument that way.

Edited August 19, 2020 by JoshAllenHasBigHands

[SectionC3]

1 hour ago, LB3 said:

Don't believe your eyes.

What does this have to do with the issue whether tailgating should be permitted in 2020 in my community?

[Just Jack]

2 hours ago, wAcKy ZeBrA said:

Of course some people at the protests got Covid 19 but there is not any data that shows areas where protests occurred had consistent spikes in Covid 19 cases.

 

What I have heard (do not have personal knowledge of) is that when doing contact tracing, they were not allowed to ask if people had attended a protest recently. 

[formerlyofCtown]

5 hours ago, wAcKy ZeBrA said:

Of course some people at the protests got Covid 19 but there is not any data that shows areas where protests occurred had consistent spikes in Covid 19 cases.

 

Back to tailgating!

 

This dude looks ready for action

 

Another doctored photo.  That man originally had a petrified look as he knows he is going to be forced to attend games and tailgate against his will.

[NoSaint]

2 hours ago, Just Jack said:

 

What I have heard (do not have personal knowledge of) is that when doing contact tracing, they were not allowed to ask if people had attended a protest recently. 

Important distinction from his post being that he was talking about spikes in locations tying to dates/locations of protests. Anecdotally it makes sense you would see the data bear that out pretty clearly if these were super spreader events.