|
Post by Bevo on Aug 13, 2020 21:19:44 GMT
Just silly. Young people are at more risk from the flu than Covid.
This is mass insanity
|
|
|
Post by Aufan on Aug 14, 2020 19:47:49 GMT
It’s about money, but they canceled a huge revenue stream. Seems contradictory.
Canceling college football is a political statement to highlight Trump mishandling the virus? The target audience for that has the belief that Trump is the most honest president ever. Those people are so buried in the sand and would never blame cancellation of college football on anyone but the liberals.
I could see it as being internally political. There are plenty of people who believe football is completely peripheral to the goal of institutions of higher learning, including those who influenced this decision. They wouldn’t be completely wrong. I’m sure some of those people would want to cancel college football all together regardless if the virus, so there is no doubt how they feel now.
Could you play football but not other college sports? It may seem feasible to play college football in a bubble of sorts, but could you do that for volleyball players? If football wasn’t canceled but female volley ball and soccer were, could there be title 9 compliance issues?
To me it seems bigger than just college football, but not so big that it is designed to make Trump look bad. Those working at a university are smart enough to leave that to the expert, Trump himself.
|
|
|
Post by doc on Aug 14, 2020 20:08:57 GMT
I don't think it's political - it's all about liability. Additionally there are many schools focused more on survival than they are athletics, as they should be. Not to keep bringing it up but I work at a university. We've been working 5 months to put together a plan to have students on campus for the fall semester. Classes begin on Monday and the first 2-3 weeks are crucial. The plans are in place and it's up to the students to live up to the plans. Here's a message our campus community received yesterday from our president. We don't have football, basketball is our big sport. There are discussions going on trying to figure out how we can have a basketball season, who knows what the end result will be. But I think you can tell by the tone of this message that this is a very critical time for many universities and they're more worried about keeping kids on campus than the sports schedule. It all boils down to 18-22 year old kids who think they're invincible following the set guidelines and being mature enough to avoid situations that could lead to a COVID outbreak, never mind that the chances are low that their situation could develop into something serious - the perception would be there. www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZlG6oiW3ys&utm_source=Today+at+Xavier+Subscribers&utm_campaign=980071cec6-Today_at_Xavier_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_2094fa7cc9-980071cec6-69516693
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Aug 14, 2020 23:42:51 GMT
It’s about money, but they canceled a huge revenue stream. Seems contradictory. Democrats would gladly wreck the economy, and give up unlimited streams of money to get rid of ANY Republican President... Trump, especially. But, I agree... the decision by the B1G and P12 is more likely based on a dislike for the dominance of sports, in general, than it is Trump hatred. These are all "Hen-types" The target audience for that has the belief that Trump is the most honest president ever. Hard to make a case that he's NOT the most honest President ever. Who has been more investigated than Trump? Who has been hated more? And yet, they've found NOTHING. I could see it as being internally political. I agree... this is more likely. Could you play football but not other college sports? NO. Lawsuits, based on Title IX would come rolling in.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Aug 14, 2020 23:45:25 GMT
It all boils down to 18-22 year old kids who think they're invincible Your University is in big trouble. 18-22 kids ARE invincible when it comes to this disease. They will NOT take it seriously, because... well... they're kids, and they're mostly not idiots.
|
|
|
Post by doc on Aug 15, 2020 19:08:56 GMT
It all boils down to 18-22 year old kids who think they're invincible Your University is in big trouble. 18-22 kids ARE invincible when it comes to this disease. They will NOT take it seriously, because... well... they're kids, and they're mostly not idiots. I think if any kids can make it work, it's our kids. I've been there 21 years and I'd say almost all of them are committed to the Jesuit mission of being 'Men and women for others'. This will be a huge test for all of them. I do agree, they're not idiots but most of them want to save the world. Hopefully they decided to save the university first.
|
|
|
Post by Aufan on Aug 15, 2020 19:40:24 GMT
Just silly. Young people are at more risk from the flu than Covid. This is mass insanity Is this actually true? Or is this another example of you suggesting double blind studies of masks had been performed? Or that covid-19 doesn’t spread through respiratory droplets? Or that masks do more harm than good? Not trying to highlight your past misstatements that you back tracked on, just trying to gauge whether flu being more threatening to young people was actually true, instead of another misstatement you’ll retract once questioned.
|
|
|
Post by jameshowell on Aug 15, 2020 20:05:54 GMT
COVID-19 is more virulent than the flu. It is more deadly than some strains and less than others; about the same on average.
In some ways the virus is becoming harder to analyze and in some ways easier.
We can't tell if the number of cases are over counted or under counted. Some states are not including antibody tests in the total number of cases (under counting) and many states are counting all positive tests even if the patient has had a previous positive test (over counting). And, of course the numbers don't include folks who have had the virus but not been tested (under counting). One can assume that the number of cases is probably under counted.
Deaths are clearly over counted as they include people that died from the virus, people that died of something else, but that the virus hastened the death, people that died of something else, had the virus, but the virus did not cause or hasten the death, and people that died of something else, were not tested, but were presumed to have the virus. In a fair analysis, out of the four groups you would include the first category, and possibly some portion of the second.
It is becoming easier to analyze, however, as the sample size grows and the aberrations are thereby diminished.
All of that said the numbers are pretty good. If you use the reported numbers and take deaths as a percentage of confirmed cases, Texas and Florida have recovery rates of 98.1% and 98.4% respectively. The overall US recovery rate is 96.8%, but jumps to 97.5% if you exclude NY, NJ, and MI (states where the governors totally screwed it up) which have recovery rates of 92.5%, 91.6%, and 93.5%. The worldwide recovery rate (with some countries having very suspect numbers) is 96.4%
It is clear that the states that are reopening the quickest are performing better than the national average and better than the states that remain locked down. The biggest factor for the poor performance of NY, NJ, and MI seems to be the early decisions to stick virus positive people in nursing homes among the most vulnerable.
Hospitals (with the possible exception of a very small number of hot spots) are in no danger of being overwhelmed. Since flattening the curve (masks, lock downs, social distancing) does not prevent cases or deaths, merely delays them, there is no reason to continue these measures unless you are trying to destroy the US economy (hello socialists and anarchists) or doing so for political reasons (hello democrats, never Trumpers, and those that want to keep senile Joe in hiding.
|
|
|
Post by jameshowell on Aug 15, 2020 20:07:15 GMT
Furthermore, over 98% of the deaths were those that were over the age of 80 or had an underlying medical condition (respiratory conditions being the most common).
|
|
|
Post by jameshowell on Aug 15, 2020 20:22:38 GMT
Businesses and doctors are concerned about liability, hospitals are concerned about money (they get paid extra based on hospital beds used and death counted as COVID-related), and politicians are concerned about November (both sides). None of them are concerned about health or looking at the statistics.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Aug 16, 2020 2:31:06 GMT
Pediatric deaths from Covid this year have been substantially lower than similar deaths from the flu. For this year, through Aug 1, it's 187 to 45. Last week, in one of Trump's prepared statements, he said flu deaths for younger people have been higher in each of the past 5 years. The data I can find is listed in varying age ranges that make it difficult to tell about 17-21 year olds. I assume Trump's speechwriters have access to better data. Or is this another example of you suggesting double blind studies of masks had been performed? I talked about RCT's 4 times in our previous thread. I mistakenly added the qualifier "blind" once, retracted the mistake, which was rather obvious, as you correctly pointed out. Yet, that's still all you want to talk about? And, you're NOT trying to highlight miss-statements? Lol.. yea, right. Or that covid-19 doesn’t spread through respiratory droplets? I never said Covid-19 doesn't spread through respiratory droplets. I said you can't stop the spread of such respiratory viruses by ONLY stopping transmission of droplets. Aerosols matter too. And, masks are ineffective against these. Or that masks do more harm than good? abc7chicago.com/covid-duke-university-face-masks-mask-study/6364791/Turns out, some masks really may do more harm than good. I was ahead of my time. You remain unserious. Imagine my surprise.
|
|
|
Post by Aufan on Aug 16, 2020 15:11:26 GMT
So you don’t have data, it’s a Bevo fact that just sounded good.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Aug 17, 2020 2:11:50 GMT
So you don’t have data, it’s a Bevo fact that just sounded good. 187 to 45 is too much data for you to comprehend ? What a punk
|
|
|
Post by Aufan on Aug 17, 2020 9:51:42 GMT
You said you couldn’t find data for 17-21 year olds, was just going by what you said.
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Aug 17, 2020 14:25:37 GMT
Businesses and doctors are concerned about liability, hospitals are concerned about money (they get paid extra based on hospital beds used and death counted as COVID-related), and politicians are concerned about November (both sides). None of them are concerned about health or looking at the statistics.As are many people. So many people I see on social media are pro-mask, pro-lockdown and anti-school. Which is weird, because science does not support any of these positions. Like the expert panel at Oxford stated, there is a big difference between the opaque phrase "being on the side of science" and actual scientific evidence.
|
|