psuhoffman

they will...but what many fans need to prepare for mentally is that it is VERY likely several teams will get screwed this season and that is just how its going to be and this will likely end up being an "asterisk" type NFL season. For example...some players WILL test positive and the whole league can't pause because a few players on one team are out 2 weeks (or longer). And there is no objective way to say if the player is a star player then the team gets to make up a game later...fact is there will likely be a policy that if a team gets crushed by positive tests maybe something is done...but absent that teams will just have to suck it up and play through. And fans of a team need to be prepared that yes their star QB could suddenly miss a month with Covid and it could destroy their season...but that is just how its going to be. That or no season at all.

What about updates on things like daily numbers and new studies...so long as there is no policy or opinions of said data/studies thrown in?

I know my politics are well known and I don't pretend to hide my bias...but here me out on this. I am not sure how that thread can function without any politics given the current situation. And this is not intended to blast one side or the other... but there are two vastly different narratives right now wrt Covid, and which narrative people accept or more accurately are getting...seems to totally depend on their political identification. People who are conservative are tending to get their information about covid from sources which are offering a narrative (its not as big a deal, the economy is more important) totally opposite of the narrative liberals are getting from their information sources. This post is not taking sides...just pointing out that if you do not even start from a common point of reference wrt the status quo, and the differences in the perceived realities are based on politics...keeping politics out of it becomes impossible. You can't even say "if we just stick to the facts" because a lot of the problem is we can't agree on what the facts even are. Studies are contradicting, people (ON BOTH SIDES) are cherry picking data to support one narrative or the other, and that bleeds into policy. How do you discuss something without it being political when there are two diametrically opposed opinions about what the reality of that issue is based on politics? Even if all you do is discuss the issue from the "liberal" or "conservative" perspective you are inherently being political just by accepting one narrative or the other. I suppose it is technically possible to try to word everything in a completely neutral way but that is likely asking too much of everyone. BTW, this is something that started happening about a decade ago in policy debate that has at times made me want to get out of it. It used to be the "inherency" or status quo of a policy topic was accepted and the debate revolved around claims made regarding the efficacy of a policy decision on that topic. But about 15 years ago or so it started to become en vogue to run "Framework Critiques" basically attacking the whole perception of reality around the topic to try to frame the whole debate in a way that advantages you. Instead of accepting the facts this strategy was the try to throw out any facts that impede your argument and create an alternate reality that skews the round to your advantage. And its damn effective because the other team cannot possibly prepare because there are infinite "realities" you could try to manipulate the status quo into. There is no way to predict what nonsense I might try to concoct and since in policy debate "silence is consent" if you don't have an adequate retort they can win even with utter ridiculous nonsense. Policy debate has become 80% that now, because its way easier to prep that and puts the other team at a disadvantage, than it is to actually research all the facts on BOTH sides and come prepared for switch side policy debate. And worse...since judges today are mostly debaters from 10 years ago...its become totally accepted with very few judges taking points off for crazy stupid arguments that lack logical consistency because they were running that crap 10 years ago themselves. And before anyone thinks I am saying it is "crazy" because its conservative...trust me 90% of these plans are extreme liberal manipulations of reality. Keep in mind these are usually social activist high school students...you don't tend to get a lot of extremely conservative policy debaters at that level. But I see the same disturbing trend I noted years ago in debate bleeding into society now. Don't argue against facts you dont like...just throw them out and create a different narrative. Destroy objective reality and then you don't have to bother arguing against anything that is inconvenient to your claims.

There have been other periods in our history like this. We just fooled ourselves into thinking we were past all that.

Maybe we should consider creating a position in our society where someone with authority could provide steady guidance and leadership. Any suggestions what we could call such a position? If you watched fox or read a right wing blog for 5 minutes you wouldn’t ask that question. Of course in fairness conservatives could say the same thing about cnn/msnbc/NYT. People are getting two vastly different narratives right now.

Amateurs.... Upstairs for convenience basement fridge basement bar top shelf rail And the answers include 107 teenagers, a 5 and 2 year old, Phin, Mersky, Vice intelligence hiatus, mdecoy, rva, and that kid in Delaware who should still do his Fing homework and no I don’t want to drive there and fight you!

Why do people buy margarita mix? It’s just tequila, Cointreau or triple sec, and lime juice.

There was a May snowstorm that affected the higher elevations in VA and NC when I was a kid. Would have been around then. But I remember some higher totals very high up, places above 4000 feet in SW VA and NC. I also thought it was later in May, almost Memorial Day but my memory might be off it was a loooong time ago and where I was in NJ it was just a miserable weekend with temps around 50 with rain.

It only occasionally makes sense, occasionally

If you look at the long term curve it’s easy to figure out where we really are ignoring the predictable weekly fluctuations due to reporting procedures.

Most of the planning I’m aware of is for summer school and fall. Annoyingly some of the suggestions aren’t realistic. Lots of details need to be worked out. Directives with no way to realistically implement them isn’t helpful. That’s like a high stakes game of “not my problem, I told them what to do and they didn’t do it”.

Yes and there are other studies that contradict. When we have contradictory evidence what that means is “we don’t know yet and we need to further examine it” not go with the study that fits what I want to be true.

@mappy Ugh sorry posted a reply before I read the rest of the thread. If you want to remove it I understand...but I do think maybe it’s worth leaving a factual retort to what was left implied by that post.

@wxtrix poverty and crime are correlated at a statistically significant level. However there are multiple other factors so it’s not 1:1. There can be some poor areas that do better and some wealthy that do worse. And predominantly white regions with high povert have the same correlation so bringing race into this was unwarranted.

There are lots of things you could advocate for to help small businesses other than simply open up. Again you paint everything into a binary choice. You even go out of your way to avoid middle ground measures. See above I could give you a suggestion where you should go! Why you getting all emotional???

I said about 50 pages ago that this whole argument is kinda moot and semantics because the “opening” wasn’t going to radically different from what we have now due to a combo of lax regulations, non compliance, and an opening that still is likely to include some social distancing measures. But you probably didn’t notice because you were busy typing your next post trying to get everyone else to live in constant fear of the government like you.

Oh the point your making hadn’t been lost on me. I’ve taken note of the people who were vehemently on the side of law enforcement and “respect authority” when there were altercations between police and POC but who are carrying on like a 4 year old throwing a tantrum now that authority is infringing on their liberty a little bit!

Are the professors all under 20? Will the students only come in contact with other young people? Or do you not understand how transmission of communicable disease works?

Another overtly political post with absolutely no substantive content. And I don’t expect much change in numbers. Right now, in many places, people aren’t really acting like it’s a lockdown already. I have my doubts that a critical mass of the population isn’t already behaving in a way that neutralizes or at least muted the effectiveness of the current policies. Imo we have already seen the impact of that with the flattening but very slow decline or in some places even a continued slow increase. If we went back to completely open with no altered behaviors at all we probably would see a sudden spike. But if the “opening” happening looks not that substantialy different from what was actually happening the last 1-2 weeks why would the numbers change? The virus doesn’t care what we call the policy. The ground truth isn’t actually changing much.

Did you consult the CFS on that?

There is a HUGE range between total eradication and treat it like the flu...which basically means virtually no mitigation measures. You continue to try to force a false binary choice of extreme policy positions. I reject that narrative. And with that I’m out for today. Maybe I’ll engage more tomorrow but your advocacy today was pretty lame and I’m bored with it. Maybe tomorrow you will bring your A game.

Where do you live again? If you know...

And there is the “this is just like the flu” argument again.