Archy1221

35 minutes ago, Rochelobe said:

 

A driving reason for why the US response sucks is that there is no US response.  We tried to work it as 50 different countries, yet each of those "countries" did not have the resources (after the administration took a large amount of PPE originally destined for the states).  Had there been a comprehensive response from the federal government - which is basically what happened in virtually every other country that has started to resume some aspect of normalcy, the probable result is that the US would have lower death count and be more likely to be playing football this fall.

 

So, the arguments about how the US is "different" really gets old.  Yes there are some differences, but there is a mechanism in place within the constitution that says the feds can step in to certain types of emergencies.  That did not happen in the US. 

 

So if everything is different in terms of how the virus affects the US are you implying that the biology of the virus is unique and different in the US and that is ?  That proven scientifically based methods used in other countries will not work in the US?  What other things don't work the same in the US?  Chemistry? Engineering?  Or is it only the virus?  Please elucidate.

We don’t use the metric system so that’s different. 
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/positive-rate-daily-smoothed

and be careful saying every other country is doing great now.  Parts of Europe are spiking again. 
We can’t lock down forever, the virus has a 40% asymptomatic rate so it’s hard to stop solely based on testing, Sweden is now doing well with very limited lockdown measures, lots of research now looking at herd immunity being around 25-40% for Covid-19 and could Help explain some of the sudden drop off in hard hit areas (combined with broader use of masks, and population in those areas being more diligent).  
 

hope your more educated now.  Your welcome 

36 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

1940s Americans lived with rationing, gas punch cards, rubber shortages, copper drives, victory gardens, blackouts, loss of sports, and a dozen other privations.

 

2020 America is asked to wash their hands, stay at home and wear a mask when social distancing isn't feasible.

 

One of those generations took to those strictures with a will. The other is us.

 

We are not sacrificing. We are selfishly demanding our comforts and entertainment. 

Well, I have to ration my data plan 

30 minutes ago, Rochelobe said:

So, someone stated the whole reason the US curve was different was due to all the extra testing meaning we had swept up a lot more asymptomatic cases which was different than other countries.  I assembled this data since the response that the US had outlier asymptomatic detection required a comparison.

 

What is your data to refute that?

 

You keep saying everything is wrong and false after you see numbers?

 

Is the reason you disagree due to the fact you don't live in the US?  Do you live in alternate-US instead?  I heard they did a great job going from only 15 cases to 0.  In that case, yes, they did a great job flattening the curve.

31 minutes ago, Rochelobe said:

So, someone stated the whole reason the US curve was different was due to all the extra testing meaning we had swept up a lot more asymptomatic cases which was different than other countries.  I assembled this data since the response that the US had outlier asymptomatic detection required a comparison.

 

What is your data to refute that?

 

You keep saying everything is wrong and false after you see numbers?

 

Is the reason you disagree due to the fact you don't live in the US?  Do you live in alternate-US instead?  I heard they did a great job going from only 15 cases to 0.  In that case, yes, they did a great job flattening the curve.

My data is looking at, researching, and reading journals/case studies on Covid-19 reporting figures and how  a country classifies a Covid-19 death in the US vs how they classify one in Canada, or India, or Russia, or Bolivia, UK or any other country that reports Covid-19 deaths. If you thinks it’s all the same then your crazy.  
and BTw..I didn’t say anything at all about case numbers. So why bring it up to me?

I live in the US and disagree with you because your promoting a false narrative with comparing death numbers between countries without giving proper context into what constitutes a death to be considered a Covid-19 death.  

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

Hi. Funny story. Quoting you is not a "straw man." 

Hi, condescendingly asking if I think backed up dead bodies is normal without acknowledging that what I said was factually correct is trying to make my post be something it’s not.  
So since you didn’t like what I posted, yet couldn’t refute its facts, you decided to try strawman it into me saying it’s normal.  I don’t, it’s not, and it doesn’t mean healthcare systems are overrun. 
I work with many across the midwest, many physicians and surgeons with residency and fellowship colleagues across the south.  Systems were stressed, not overwhelmed. 
If you would like to learn more, let’s take it another thread. 

19 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Do... do you think this is normal?

Nice strawman. You sure have a nasty habit of acting like I say things I never said.  

36 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Ya good one.  Let’s make the most outlandish law breaking example and run with that one to say we’re not a feee society. 

35 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

AKA an "analogy"

 

Thanks for playing.

By the way I never said pure freedom and your analogy didn’t quite hit the mark you were hoping.  Glad I got to play 

46 minutes ago, Rochelobe said:

The theoretical scenario is discussing serious/fatal cases - those requiring hospitalization.  Yes, the overall numbers include asymptomatic cases.

 

Then, in the scenario you describe, if we have way more asymptomatic tests, then we should have a much lower death rate per case than similar countries.  In other words, if extra testing is simply doing a better job of revealing asymptomatic cases within the US vs other countries, we should have a much lower rate of death per million than those similar countries.

Here is the date for the top ten countries in terms of number of cases, comparing their death rates (per million), cases rate (per million), and the death rate per cases:

Country	Cases	Deaths/Million	Cases/Million	Deaths/Total     Cases
United States	5,251,000	502	15,855	0.0317
Brazil	3,057,000	479	14,373	0.0333
India	2,267,000	33	1,641	0.0201
Russia	892,000	103	6,117	0.0168
South Africa	563,000	179	9,490	0.0189
Mexico	486,000	411	3,764	0.1092
Peru	478,000	638	14,476	0.0441
Colombia	398,000	258	7,805	0.0331
Chile	375,000	530	19,601	0.0270
Spain	370,000	611	7,915	0.0772

 

So, if the reason the US has so many more cases is because we find more asymptomatic cases vs the rest of the world (due to all the extra testing we do), we would then expect the US to have a lower Deaths/Total Cases ratio, since we would have more "benign" cases of coronavirus.  Looking at the top 10 countries, and the US ranks 5th out of 10 countries.  To me, this indicates that the US rate of asymptomatic detection is not particularly higher or lower than the rest of the world.

 

I would expect the US to have better health care, on average, than Brazil, India, Peru, Colombia, and Chile.  Yet two of those countries have a lower rate of deaths per cases than the US, two have comparable levels to the US and one has a higher death rate. 

 

India and Russia are both lower than the US, but I wonder if this is due to how they diagnosis the cause of death - perhaps they just say pneumonia and leave it at that.  Before looking at this data I would have expected them to have higher death rates per cases than the US.  It looks like Mexico is still in the early stages of testing - they only seem to test those that are seriously ill, thus the death rate that is currently 3x higher than the US.  If Mexico starts to ramp up testing we will see if they start to fall more in line with the other countries.

 

The only "early outbreak" country on this list is Spain and their rate is also very high, although I would assume they are still doing a lot of testing.  Their high death rate per case may be due to the fact that not much was known about treatment when they suffered through their outbreak.  Something similar may have happened in NYC as well - we've seen much lower death rates per cases in the US since then, and I think, based on what we see above, it is not really due to some incredible increase in asymptomatic cases relative to serious/fatal cases.

 

My thought is the reality is diluted somewhat by the additional testing we do in the US - we are probably still missing some asymptomatic cases due to false negatives, which if they tested positive would lower the US rate some.  At this time I don't think the number is significant, but it may be bigger than we think.

And now look into how each country classifies a death as a Covid-19 death.  Your chart is basically comparing apples to oranges.  It’s kinda equatable to Comparing each countries life expectancy to ours.  We include every baby born, others include a baby that makes it at least 1 month, some 3 months etc...  And including India and Russia doesn’t make sense.  Might as well include China’s false numbers.  

3 hours ago, Rochelobe said:

Do you understand the definition of "flattening the curve"?

 

This is flattening the curve:

 

Meanwhile in the US, the  curve looks like this:

 

We plateaued and then started up again after Memorial Day and we continue to rise.  Note this graph is of Active Cases - meaning Positive Tests - Cases with Resolutions (recovery or death)

 

As far as no health care systems being overwhelmed, I'm not so sure in the case of New York (City).  Anytime you have so many bodies piling up so fast you have to use refrigerated trucks to store all the bodies you have a problem.  Unless, that is, one considers it a bonus to have enough people die that hospital beds keep opening up, for the next set of ready to die victims.

 

And looking at things from the point of each US state being a separate "country" is EXACTLY why we are in such bad shape as a nation - States do not have the right to just close off their borders to all other states (nor would they since they need truck traffic, etc.).  With policies that vary radically from state to state, we ended up with a hodge-podge that basically left certain areas doing ok, then getting a delayed explosion in cases.  Florida, for example.

 

This hodge-podge meant that things like sports, happening across all states (football teams are going to have to travel across 1 or more state boundaries for ~1/2 of their games) left the situation very tenuous. 

 

Do you understand what flattening the curve means?  It is designed to prevent “exponential growth” as to not overwhelm a hospital system. 
mom sure you will notice that even in a flattened curve, growth does go up in the beginning until a plateau occurs, then a downturn.  Does our chart of active cases look anything like the UM exponential growth curve??  I think not.  
As a country we have slowed the unchecked spread and every city that has been hit hard, has managed through any capacity challenges.  
Refrigerated trucks for dead bodies does not mean those propel died because of hospitals triaging who lives and who dies.  It means the processing of dead bodies is backed up, not the care for the people prior to dying.  Hope that helps you understand this a little more.  
And yes, each state should be deciding their own guidelines because it makes ZERO sense for SD, ND, NE, KS, MT, etc..to have total lockdowns of their economy with little to no community spread.  
If we really wanted to stop this at the beginning, then stopping interstate travel outside of shipping/transport would have been the way to go, yet legal challenges would have prevented this.  NY basically seeded a majority of other state infection areas in the beginning.  
 

and Florida is the another perfect reason that each state presents its own issues.  South Florida was by far and away the biggest problem area and they also had the longest lockdown in the beginning of the pandemic.  Most other parts of FL held up relatively well at the states absolute worst point. 

3 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

We do not enjoy pure Freedom. If you need a test for that, try walking into your local bank vault and helping yourself to whatever you see. Let us know in 10-20 years how that goes for you.

 

 

Ya good one.  Let’s make the most outlandish law breaking example and run with that one to say we’re not a feee society. 

1 hour ago, Rochelobe said:

Yes, flatten the curve, as was done in other countries was the goal.

 

We failed.

 

European countries did not just reach a plateau and call it good.  They made sure that the incremental increase in cases per day was very small - so on an overall plot of new cases per day, they actually curved down from where they were.  In many US states, things were reopened when the new cases per day had plateaued.  While that is an important step (you don't want a situation where the number of new cases each day is increasing over the previous day), simply holding steady only means you've started to cope with the problem.  If your plateau is at 3000 new cases per day in a state, that doesn't really help hospitals that much, since we know the treatment timelines for Covid, once hospitalized, can take weeks.  We need to flatten things by making the line that represents the total number of cases be as flat as possible - meaning very few cases are being added per day. 

 

Following this methodology, European soccer leagues were able to finish their seasons (and are now playing the completion of EUFA Champions League) without any major outbreaks in positive tests among players/support personnel.  I think there have been more positive tests among MLB players/personnel in the 2 weeks since restart than all of the major European soccer leagues combined.

 

US new cases per day rates were still high in many states when things started being reopened. 

 

Also, a really low number where states don't have to worry about other states (which we have not had in place) would have really helped with trying to play football.  How can we expect inter-state coordination on sporting teams when they struggle to coordinate on shutdowns?

 

In the end, a coordinated Federal plan (all states follow the same shutdown criteria, interstate travel is greatly limited - even intrastate travel is limited), coupled with better compliance by American citizens (wearing masks) applied for 6 weeks or so would likely have had us in a much better situation today.  It would have sucked worse than the ~4-6 weeks of inconsistent partial shutdowns we went through, but based upon what we see in other countries, we most likely wouldn't be having 50,000 new cases per day 5 months out.

 

In the end, this is was a big factor that made playing football less likely.

Your making the exact mistake everyone else does when taking about this pandemic for the US.  
Yes, as a country we HAVE flattened any curve their might have been.  INDIVIDUAL States have had spikes but the US as a whole has never been in danger of the health system being over run.  Even at its peak in individual states, they have all been stressed but fine.  
 

stop looking at this from a national scale and begin looking at this from an individual county in each state standpoint.  

2 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

No, we haven't. You've never been restricted from leaving your home. You've never been ordered to wear a mask. You've never been forced to socially distance. You've never been forced to wash your hands for x number of seconds.

 

All of these have been directives, not legally enforceable, and nobody is enforcing them.

 

We have done nothing required of us to slow this spread. Everything has been voluntary with zero leadership. We've been told all along that this thing would just "go away" while the guy in charge golfs. We have 160,000 people dead from this because we've taken no action.

We’re not told we have to do those things because we live in a free society for better or worse.  We will never be a society that says you can’t leave your house. 

5 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

It’s possible we could have done better, it’s also possible that in the long-run, the virus is going to make its way through most population centers no matter the mitigation.  Europe is increasing, parts of Asia increasing, parts of South America increasing.  
There are a few papers in medical journals that are starting to look at the herd immunity levels  for Covid-19 being 20-40% of the population.  Many of the highly hit population centers reached that point and then saw a drastic downturn in case numbers. 
It’s a VERY contagious virus and it’s possible that it’s going to run it’s natural course at some point no matter the mitigation.  
 

Remember this, regardless of sports being played or not, the whole point of mitigation back in March and April was to spread out the infection numbers across many months.  It was NOT to necessarily completely stop the virus.  

And one point for those saying wait till spring when we have a vaccine.  
 

if the Covid-19 vaccine is anything like the flu vaccine then we all need to remember that the flu vaccine doesn’t completely stop the flu.  It’s real point is to make flu related illness much less severe, decrease hospitalizations, and decrease spread. Millions still get the flu and tens of thousands still die each year.  

4 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

Good thing there are a bunch of other examples that prove without a doubt we have failed miserably. 

It’s possible we could have done better, it’s also possible that in the long-run, the virus is going to make its way through most population centers no matter the mitigation.  Europe is increasing, parts of Asia increasing, parts of South America increasing.  
There are a few papers in medical journals that are starting to look at the herd immunity levels  for Covid-19 being 20-40% of the population.  Many of the highly hit population centers reached that point and then saw a drastic downturn in case numbers. 
It’s a VERY contagious virus and it’s possible that it’s going to run it’s natural course at some point no matter the mitigation.  
 

Remember this, regardless of sports being played or not, the whole point of mitigation back in March and April was to spread out the infection numbers across many months.  It was NOT to necessarily completely stop the virus.  

35 minutes ago, Dogs In A Pile said:

 

Exactly.

 

The response in this country has been nothing but an absolute, complete failure from the top on down. 

 

To contrast, look at New Zealand which has now gone 100 days without a locally transmitted case as model of how to limit the spread of a contagion like COVID-19.

 

https://www.livescience.com/new-zealand-100-days-no-covid-19.html

 

Comparing a vast U.S. population and area that has many unique population centers to a small island with a total population half of NY is pretty dumb. 

4 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

Many hurdles on that path. The conferences had less hurdles and couldn't clear those. This idea is pie in the sky imo 

I understand logistics would be tough esp in a tight timeframe. 
 

I do wonder about and would love to see these conference presidents have a news conference and tell us why the risk of CTE, paralysis, is acceptable for these athletes, but possible exposure is Covid-19 is a bridge too far.  Which will cause more long-term harm to a greater population of their student-athlete population.

These Presidents are awfully ignorant if they think having kids on campus and in dorms and going to house parties and bars is gonna make for any different outcome in infections than kids playing football or soccer, or whatever fall sport there is.  
 

the only difference is that most of the general student population will probably never even know they are infected because of asymptomatic cases or very slight illness that doesn’t get tested. As opposed to athletes who will constantly be tested and those cases would be caught.   
 

This is just a legal CYA.  The bean counters are probably saying they could will lose more money by being sued if there is a bad outcome vs the revenue lost of canceling or moving to the spring.  

What would prevent the school that want to play, to find other likeminded schools and come up with a schedule and sell that to a network and split the revenue?  Something in the BIG bylaws preventing this type of scenario??

8 minutes ago, Branno said:

 

This is why it’s hard to take what you write seriously. You use a truth, that deaths declined (due to stay at home orders) and follow it up with a false statement. 
 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/10/coronavirus-live-updates-us/

 

Deaths starting rising a week ago. In some areas, like Texas where I live, we’re seeing new record infection rates and deaths daily. 

 

This isn’t an opinion, it’s fact. What is not a fact, unlike your claim, is that we’ll have football.
 

We might have high school football in some areas but I would be shocked if there is a CFB season. 

One problem we have when looking at COVID-19 is that too many people look at the national numbers.  How many total deaths, infections, hospitalizations, etc...those don’t mean much in places where things are relatively under control(flat, slightly rising, slightly falling). 
 

even looking at this from a state level is misleading because density matters And most states have unique areas.  Look at it from a county perspective.  You take Texas like you cited and most infections are coming from a handful of counties.  

35 minutes ago, Cdog923 said:

 

The point I'm trying to make (the same one that has flown over your head on a number of occasions) is that the reason that the Oregon QBs were more successful than the Nebraska/UCLA QBs is because the talent at Oregon was much, much, much, much better. So yes, going back to the point that you tried not to make in your last post, talent around the QB makes a difference. 

It seems your just not comprehending things.  Everything around a web makes a difference.  Talent around him, head coach (biggest difference of anything), training, none of that is in disputed by me.  

What your failing to understand, is that the special QB’s elevate the play around them, they don’t play down to lesser talent around them.  

AM’s not gonna make Kade Warner be CeeDee Lamb, but he sure as heck shoukd make him be a better Kade Warner than a replacement level JoeQB would.   Throw the ball on time, find the open tight end that was constantly running free.  He shouldn’t consistently throw too late and hang Jd out to dry.  

He should give our RB and or Reciever every chance to be successful on a screen pass by hitting him in stride and on time.  Turnovers should be limited to next to nothing on fourth quarter drives in one score games.  All those little things matter and help get every ounce of talent out of the teammates he has.  It’s the difference between a 2,200 yrd 12/10 season and a 3,000 yrd 20/5 season.  All by controlling things he can control. 

And Yes.  More talent makes things easier.  no one disputes that.

1 hour ago, Cdog923 said:

 

The strawman is thick with this one. 

 

Since your argument is predicated on "this type of offense", I've got an assignment for you: go look at what first year QBs do in the Chip Kelley/Scott Frost system. Look at guys like Jeremiah Masoli, Darron Thomas, Marcus Mariotta and Justin Herbert. Then, compare that with Adrian, Wilson Speight, Dorian Robinson-Thompson, and McKenzie Milton. Then, ask yourself what you think the main difference is between that first group, and the second group is. Think about it for a bit, then come on back and try again. 

Not sure what point your trying to make, but it’s whatever it is, it doesn’t seem to be working out. 

Masoli, not that great, Wilton a Michigan transfer not sure why he fits in, and Milton played exceptional without a ton of NFL talent returning from Frosh to sophomore year as has already been established.  Herbert a first round NFL draft pick most likely. 

Oregon was good, UCLA not so much and Mckenzie elevated those around him. Got  it.  Also, Transfer QB’s are hit or miss. Some are Masoli and some are a Wilson.  Shocker.  

51 minutes ago, Husker in WI said:

 

What, and they wouldn't be worried about McCaffrey or Smothers transferring in that scenario? Why wouldn't a kid transfer if they outplayed the other competitors and didn't get the job? The QBs would know it was close, and they use a lot of fairly objective grades. So I'm pretty sure they'd know if the "best man" didn't win, and any of the QBs could transfer if they felt that was the case.

 

I expect Martinez to win the job in a legitimate battle, and many fans to immediately question the validity of the competition just based on him winning.

Smothers could redshirt, sit one and still have three to play.  Luke could believe AM won’t last a season W/O injury and he will get his chance.  It was just thinking out loud with no prediction. 

I’m starting to wonder if AM will be named the starter as long as the competition is even somewhat close for 1 reason.  AM is still a 3 for 2 guy and the coaches could believe that AM would just enter the transfer portal if not the starter instead of being back up while trying to win the job back.  

I dont think AM has to be the best, just close enough to justify starting him at the beginning and letting his game play dictate the next course of action.  

Just a random thought.  

And I should probably clarify 2 things:

1) if AM is the starter, then I absolutely hope he plays fantastic, heisman level type season, and NEB wins 10 games.  I root for all the players to succeed on the field and in life.

2) AM’s freshmen season was a good season for a true freshman, but would not be good enough for a junior starter, or third year starter in this type of system.  It’s a QB driven system that gives the starter tons of opportunity to drive up a fantastic stat line.  

15 minutes ago, Hilltop said:

He was far from average his freshman year while healthy and got all the hype for plays like these that seemed to happen every game.  

So I just want to be clear, you will be very happy with AM this coming year if he throws for 2,750 yards, 17 TD’s with 8 INT’s and adds another 630 yards rushing, 8 TD’s and 6-8 fumbles lost to the mix? 

12 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

Yeah I mean it's not like another senior QB in '95 got hurt, fought through adversity, and then overcame to great results.

 

Getting injured = end of the world

 

Got it.

Way to project your irrational thoughts into a reply that said nothing of the sorts. 

Never once said getting injured= end of the world. 

Injuries are a fact of life for a QB in that type of offense, and actually for our current type of offense too.  It’s also a fact that AM hasn’t played a full year in any of the past three. 

So project your feelings all you want if it makes you feel better.  Hard to argue with facts though.