Branno

What are the actual risks? Death is an actual risk to ~1% of those that catch the virus. Serious ongoing impaired health to some number of those infected is an actual risk. Literally the longer this goes on, and the more we learn about the health risks outside of death, the more we understand that this isn't just some bad case of the flu. One study shows 78% of recovered patients show ongoing heart issues. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2768916 So your argument is that because small portions of the US sometimes voluntarily choose to take medication that might have negative health impacts we should just stop caring about a virus that continues to spread in which those that are infected have no choice? This is absurd. If everyone listened to you we'd end up with 3.8 million people dead in the US alone with millions more suffering from ongoing heart/lung/psychiatric conditions. 1% doesn't sound like a lot until you do the math does it?

I chose many, because due to differences in how states collect data and the Executive Branch's decision to change how data is reported to make it not available to the public it's hard to be specific. Regardless, this is a football forum. How much specificity is needed? But seriously, man nothing about how you approached this would be considered fair: I don't understand the combativeness, the accusatory tone. What I said wasn't outrageous. If you want clarification, there are much better ways to ask.

I'm going to stick with Texas, since its where I live and I neither have enough time to nor care enough to research all 50 states (or even just those hit the hardest) and well... honestly... open ICU beds in Nebraska don't help someone sick in Texas. I can't give you an answer. Texas doesn't report individual hospital numbers like that. It's all regional and even these numbers aren't complete due to the recent reporting changes from Trump. What I can say is that statewide Texas is at currently at 73.6% capacity, with only 1267 ICU beds available. The "Capital Region" where I live has 23 open ICU beds for 2.3 million people, with overall capacity at 83%. There are at least 15 hospitals serving this region. North Central Texas Region (Dallas/Ft Worth) has 279 open ICU beds for 8 million people, with overall capacity at 89%. There are at least 24 hospitals serving this region. There are other regions that are just as bad, and some less populated areas that have higher capacity available. If you want more info this is a great resource (for Texas) https://apps.texastribune.org/features/2020/texas-coronavirus-cases-map/

While, yes, the amount of giving a s#!t that people have towards the dangers of COVID-19 is a spectrum it ultimately can be broken down into two camps. I think your choice or making those camps the extremes on either side is disingenuous as that isn't what I've been saying (nor have I seen others go to that extreme). The way I see it there are effectively two sides to this. Those that: Don't take the threat of COVID-19 seriously enough Those that do Those two sides, have a spectrum which we've seen play out here. But ultimately that distinction isn't all that important, at least to me. I don't care if you think it's safe enough to reopen schools or if you think covid is a hoax to make Trump lose the election. I see the actions this group suggests we take as dangerous, even those near the moderate end of the spectrum. I'll try to take you at your word here, but your refusal to even consider that hospitals are reaching/have reached capacity because one hospital hasn't been reopened (with no understanding of why that's the case) makes it hard.

The crazies are coming out tonight in force.

I'd have to assume faculty would be instructed to ask students to leave if they aren't wearing a mask. At that point, they're trespassing and if needed police can be called to physically remove them and charge them. Hopefully it wouldn't get to that point.

Jesus Christ man. I didn't assert that you claimed anything. What you are doing now is a straw man. If anything I incorrectly assume NCAA because we're talking about NCAA football. Instead of saying "Oh hey man, I meant coaches and teams not NCAA" you made a huge deal as if it invalidates everything else I wrote. That's the fallacy, not a throwaway word in a sentence. You obviously aren't willing to have a reasonable or even rational debate. Don't worry about responding to this, I'm done with you.

I have a lot of faults, but that is not one of them. How is quoting you verbatim a straw man? How does that misrepresent what you said? Just for future reference, your "When did I say NCAA" is a straw man argument.

This environment which is controlled much more than the average student couldn't prevent football players from sexually assaulting multiple female students. It's not going to prevent them from going to parties or bars. And in my opinion is certainly not going to magically prevent the spread of COVID-19. There is a reason professional sports are putting their teams in bubbles, it's the only real way to mitigate the risks to the point where it is safe to play. This is something that by definition is not possible with a student athlete.

Sigh... here we go again. You certainly didn't claim that in the post I quoted. Again not something you claimed in the post I quoted. So here's what you actually said: Is it a heavily controlled environment? Or is it controlled to a certain extent? Can't be both. Regardless, this distraction doesn't change the effectiveness of your argument. I still respectfully disagree with your conclusion that it's safer to play football than not play football.

The only acceptable answer is yes or no? As it stands now, I vote no. Infections and deaths are rising nationwide, but specifically in states that were thought to have the virus under control with no reasonable expectation that things will change before the season is scheduled to start. The increased risk of player health issues and death is a major liability issue for the university.

I know I fail at this sometimes and let myself get carried away, but I do try to avoid dealing in certainties. In this case, however, I'm going to take the CDC and NCAA high risk assessments for contact sports as pretty close to certain. What is the only known way this virus spreads? From inhaling droplets exhaled from an infected person. What is the only known way to combat the spread of the virus? Wearing a mask while keeping at least 6ft away from other people. This is something that is not possible in football, and thus there is an increased risk from playing football. You are conflating two things here: an increase in risk due to the nature of the sports possible reductions in risk due to mitigating measures It is entirely possible we find a way to mitigate the risk, but that doesn't mean the risk isn't there. So, until there is even a shred of evidence to suggest there is no increased risk from playing football we absolutely can say this is as close to certain as it gets. I'll agree with most of this except for your claim that the NCAA can control players lifestyles. That's a laughably false claim. I hate to repeat myself, but Option A doesn't preclude spending time at house parties or being at bars. I said this months ago, but I don't think campuses will be open in the fall (maybe Nebraska will be, but there are going to be some/many that won't be). It's going to be hard for a college kid to do normal college kid stuff in town with no college kids in it. Regardless, let's assume campuses are open and football is cancelled. If a player gets sick because they're out partying, there is no increased risk to their teammates, coaches, and opponents. It would just be normal community spread. For all the reasons I stated above, I respectfully disagree with your assessment.

Off campus is its own thing, which is why I believe it's safer (although much s#!ttier) to just go online only for the fall and re-evaluate for the spring semester. RE: smoking ban. For Nebraska (and my alma mater Missouri State) it's just a campus policy.

If they can ban smoking they can mandate masks. It's going to get interesting if they allow any exceptions (for medical reasons and what not) or if they require those that won't wear masks to go online only.

Tell me the actual name of the fallacy, something you haven't done. I'm serious. If I made an actual logical fallacy the only way I can improve and avoid it in the future is to know. My point is that there is increased risk from playing football and we most likely won't have a season because of it. Your point is that there is always risk. I'm trying to figure out what your point has to do with COVID-19 other than (and yes this is an assumption) to dismiss my concerns and those like them. I keep asking what I made up, which you haven't responded to. The only one that isn't participating in the discussion in my opinion is you. Maybe that's for the best.

It's hard to make something great if you can't discuss how it needs to improve. You realize you can both love something and be disappointed in its failings, right?

I'm starting to wonder if there is any correlation between those that downplay COVID-19 risks and extreme American Exceptionalism.

To be fair, the number of tests being used for sports pales in comparison to the number of tests we are performing and even more so than that to the number of tests we should be doing. Also, in my experience it wasn't that hard to get a test done. My son needed surgery and we were able to get a test scheduled same day.

Making an argument you disagree with isn't a logical fallacy. Regardless, I've backed up my statements with links to the CDC, I'd love to see any source you might have that there is no increased risk from contact sports. I think I kind of have to, since it's obvious you don't know what logical fallacies are. For reference: https://www.logicalfallacies.org Correctly pointing out a logical fallacy isn't an attack, which you seem to be suggesting here. It's something that happens in debates, which this is supposed to be. Let me quote you again: That is the definition of an ad hominem attack. Then what are you saying here: What are you saying here: You seem to be indicating that there is no increased risk in playing football. So you decide to make a condescending response that brings no value to the discussion at hand? What is your point in bringing up the inherent risks of football in the context of COVID-19. It's not relevant. I believe we all agree there are inherent risks in all sports, but especially so in a sport like football. It's a given. What does it bring to this thread? How does it change the increased risk from COVID-19? What value did your post have? What am I making up?

You do realize this was intentionally absurd in response to your unbelievable demand for sources over an obviously true statement. No intelligent person would make such a demand. It’s just plain stupid.

It's these types of posts that make me miss the eye roll reactions.

You're right about one thing, I can't argue against a logical fallacy. So I have to dismiss what is honestly not a good point or argument to make. But that I'm making stuff up? Please. Tell me how I made anything up when I correctly pointed out that the inherent risk in football isn't equivocal to the increased and preventable risk of COVID-19 exposure. Want to have a good faith argument, instead of attacking me? Yes there is risk inherent to the game of football, but we do what we can to mitigate that risk and accept it. It's why we wear pads, and penalize dangerous hits. The game today is completely different because of that risk. What is the only way we know to mitigate COVID-19 related risk? Wearing a mask while keeping a distance of 6ft from another person. You can't socially distance in football, and so in my opinion we can't effectively mitigate the risk. You might not care about having an actual conversation, but saying "lol there's already risk in football" brings no value to this discussion. For that matter, your reply here also brings no value. It's just an attack to belittle and demean what you seem to consider the other side. Are you honestly suggesting that there is no increased risk in contracting COVID-19 by playing a contact sport like football? That's a bad take man. The CDC lists contact sports as high risk, as does the NCAA. http://www.ncaa.org/sport-science-institute/resocialization-collegiate-sport-developing-standards-practice-and-competition https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/youth-sports.html If you want to make the argument that you are fine with the increased risk, that's one thing. But you're going about it the wrong way. I do want to note, it's hilarious to see you claim I'm "being dismissive and making stuff up" in a post in which you are dismissive and make stuff up.

That's a really good question, and you happened to ask an expert! I served as a 68D20 (Operating Room Sergeant) in the US Army for 12 years. A good portion of that was as part of a CSH (Combat Support Hospital) in the reserves, a unit that would be called upon to create a field hospital in the event of an emergency. It takes 3 days to build a CSH. The ER has 24 hours to open, the OR/ICU/LAB/PHARM need to be open within 48 with the rest of the hospital fully online within 72 hours. This includes stringing out the layout of the hospital, emptying containers, construction of the hospital using ISO containers and temper tents, setting up power and water, etc. This takes roughly 200-300 highly trained soldiers to accomplish, after months of training and preparation. These hospitals come full staffed, a staff that has years of experience working with each other. What does this have to do with staffing an existing hospital? Absolutely nothing. Right now, this closed hospital has no staff. No chief of medicine. No head nurses. No doctors. No IT staff. No janitors. Are we even sure that there are enough medical professionals to staff the hospital if it was opened?

Repeat after me: Covid 19 is not the flu and our response to it shouldn’t mirror our response to the seasonal flu.

You have no idea what you’re talking about. Opening a hospital isn’t something you can just do at the drop of a hat. There are news reports I’ve already linked to in this thread that patients are being sent out of the state due to occupancy issues.