Guy Chamberlin Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 2 hours ago, Huskers93-97 said: If journalism had the same standards as years ago people would trust what we read. If journalism had the same standards as years ago, you'd trust CBS, NBC, and ABC News, The Washington Post, The New York Times, Newsweek and Time. These days we have a lot more information that we mistake for knowledge. But if you want trusted news sources, they're still out there doing their thing, pursuing and weighing opposing viewpoints from relevant sources, vetting their information, making corrections as new evidence emerges. At the very least, they know a lot more than we do. What they can't do, apparently, is convince someone who read something somewhere on the internet that jibes with their gut feeling. 2 Quote Link to comment
Huskers93-97 Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 1 minute ago, Guy Chamberlin said: If journalism had the same standards as years ago, you'd trust CBS, NBC, and ABC News, The Washington Post, The New York Times, Newsweek and Time. These days we have a lot more information that we mistake for knowledge. But if you want trusted news sources, they're still out there doing their thing, pursuing and weighing opposing viewpoints from relevant sources, vetting their information, making corrections as new evidence emerges. At the very least, they know a lot more than we do. What they can't do, apparently, is convince someone who read something somewhere on the internet that jibes with their gut feeling. The problem with the media is there are too many personal opinions pieces. I cant believe some of these media outlets have gone that route- it puts someone's opinion and ties it next to their name. All it does is lose viewership from the other side. Wouldnt it make sense to have an unbiased network. Holy s#!t you would control all the united states viewership not just half of it. Quote Link to comment
RedDenver Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 16 minutes ago, Huskers93-97 said: That's half the information. The low risk- less dangerous coronaviruses have not had herd immunity. The more dangerous and virulent versions of coronavirus have had herd immunity. So if you remove selective history and look at all the facts it makes more sense Covid relates to the more dangerous and virulent versions. You literally just picked just one example - SARS, which is as selective as you can get. I pointed out that there's other examples that don't fit your conclusion. While one outcome might make more sense to you, that doesn't mean that's what will happen. We don't yet have enough evidence to know either way. I hope herd immunity happens and is strong for years, but I also don't want to pin all my hopes to a solution that's uncertain and has reason to be skeptical of. 1 Quote Link to comment
Huskers93-97 Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 32 minutes ago, Cdog923 said: People at protests were wearing masks. People at the beach were not. 3 2 2 Quote Link to comment
Huskers93-97 Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 9 minutes ago, RedDenver said: You literally just picked just one example - SARS, which is as selective as you can get. I pointed out that there's other examples that don't fit your conclusion. While one outcome might make more sense to you, that doesn't mean that's what will happen. We don't yet have enough evidence to know either way. I hope herd immunity happens and is strong for years, but I also don't want to pin all my hopes to a solution that's uncertain and has reason to be skeptical of. No actually I got that information from a post many pages ago by Knapp. It stated the same thing. The common cold coronaviruses had no herd immunity. But the more dangerous coronaviruses have. So I didnt just pick SARS. Plus even if it was just SARS- that would be the most relevant comparison so yeah it is the best comparison. 1 1 Quote Link to comment
teachercd Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 5 minutes ago, Huskers93-97 said: Yeah, I am not sure where idea came from (Maybe it was on the Dream Board). Protesters are maskless all the time. 4 1 Quote Link to comment
RedDenver Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 6 minutes ago, Huskers93-97 said: No actually I got that information from a post many pages ago by Knapp. It stated the same thing. The common cold coronaviruses had no herd immunity. But the more dangerous coronaviruses have. So I didnt just pick SARS. Plus even if it was just SARS- that would be the most relevant comparison so yeah it is the best comparison. You're claiming SARS is the best comparison. Why? SARS had a fatality rate of about 15% with a fatality rate of 55% for those aged 65+ (link). Covid-19 isn't anywhere close to that (thank goodness). Quote Link to comment
hunter49 Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 so if there is a season, it may be that only those who have been infected can play. easier to field most teams. Quote Link to comment
Huskers93-97 Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 8 minutes ago, RedDenver said: You're claiming SARS is the best comparison. Why? SARS had a fatality rate of about 15% with a fatality rate of 55% for those aged 65+ (link). Covid-19 isn't anywhere close to that (thank goodness). So are you saying Covid is more closely related to the common cold? If so someone let the medical experts know we dont have to cancel football for the common cold. 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment
Cdog923 Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 17 minutes ago, Huskers93-97 said: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/07/01/research-determines-protests-did-not-cause-spike-in-coronavirus-cases/#205f52387dac https://time.com/5861633/protests-coronavirus/ https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/06/24/883017035/what-contact-tracing-may-tell-about-cluster-spread-of-the-coronavirus (This one is titled "Parties - Not Protests, Are Causing Spikes in Coronavirus) https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/protests-probably-didnt-lead-to-coronavirus-spikes-but-its-hard-to-know-for-sure/2020/06/30/d8179678-baf5-11ea-8cf5-9c1b8d7f84c6_story.html https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/black-lives-matter-protests-haven-t-led-covid-19-spikes-n1232045 https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/black-lives-matter-protests-coronavirus-no-surges https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/ct-cb-protest-effects-coronavirus-20200622-em4wx6mwmraipjqqmg77yywfha-story.html https://www.newsweek.com/protests-black-lives-matter-covid19-coronavirus-1512501 https://www.inquirer.com/health/coronavirus/coronavirus-no-spike-cities-despite-protests-big-surge-in-states-that-reopened-20200627.html https://nypost.com/2020/06/24/blm-protests-have-not-led-to-a-spike-in-coronavirus-cases-study/ https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/06/protests-covid-outdoor-masks.html Would you like me to keep going? 3 Quote Link to comment
RedDenver Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 Just now, Huskers93-97 said: So are you saying Covid is more closely related to the common cold? If so someone let the medical experts know we dont have to cancel football for the common cold. I'm saying we don't know whether covid-19 will confer herd immunity. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/herd-immunity-and-coronavirus/art-20486808 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2766097 Quote Link to comment
Huskers93-97 Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 1 minute ago, Cdog923 said: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/07/01/research-determines-protests-did-not-cause-spike-in-coronavirus-cases/#205f52387dac https://time.com/5861633/protests-coronavirus/ https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/06/24/883017035/what-contact-tracing-may-tell-about-cluster-spread-of-the-coronavirus (This one is titled "Parties - Not Protests, Are Causing Spikes in Coronavirus) https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/protests-probably-didnt-lead-to-coronavirus-spikes-but-its-hard-to-know-for-sure/2020/06/30/d8179678-baf5-11ea-8cf5-9c1b8d7f84c6_story.html https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/black-lives-matter-protests-haven-t-led-covid-19-spikes-n1232045 https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/black-lives-matter-protests-coronavirus-no-surges https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/ct-cb-protest-effects-coronavirus-20200622-em4wx6mwmraipjqqmg77yywfha-story.html https://www.newsweek.com/protests-black-lives-matter-covid19-coronavirus-1512501 https://www.inquirer.com/health/coronavirus/coronavirus-no-spike-cities-despite-protests-big-surge-in-states-that-reopened-20200627.html https://nypost.com/2020/06/24/blm-protests-have-not-led-to-a-spike-in-coronavirus-cases-study/ https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/06/protests-covid-outdoor-masks.html Not going to read them all. But this is great evidence to support we will have a football season. Lets hold a protest at memorial stadium every saturday. 1 3 1 Quote Link to comment
FrantzHardySwag Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 32 minutes ago, Huskers93-97 said: What kind? The kind that still has Nebraska. I mean is that a season? No title would be credible. But I agree we could have a series of scrimmages with say Iowa, ISU, Kansas, K-State, Missouri. But if portions of the ACC, SEC, Big 12, and Pac 12 are unable to play - the season would have no value. Quote Link to comment
Guy Chamberlin Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 32 minutes ago, Huskers93-97 said: Here is my question. Can anyone answer this. What is the actual goal at this point with the virus? First it was keep hospitals from getting overloaded, we dont have enough ventilators- do your part. Then somehow it turned into stop the spread completely. If hospitals are not overloaded, death rates are going down compared to infection numbers. So if masses of people are getting infected but hospitals are not overloaded and deaths are occuring at a low rate. What is the goal? Do we want to go back to shutting down the economy, have more people lose jobs to protect a small percentage of the population of the elderly and immune compromised from serious complications or death? Or is the smart path to protect the small percentage and find a way to resume life for the other 95% of the population? I dont have the answers- I dont claim to be all knowing. I am asking common sense questions. Fear in the masses can cause hysteria and people to act irrationally. The original goal was to keep hospitals from getting overloaded. The current goal is to keep hospitals from getting overloaded. There's a point where dead people, hospitalized people, and sick-at-home people will also devastate the economy. No one said the choices were easy, but a long history of global pandemics suggests extreme caution. The people who recommended this approach never said we could stop the spread completely, just limit its damage. That hasn't changed. We reopened the economy and relaxed restrictions. The virus surged back, notably in states that escaped the first wave and/or mocked its seriousness. Hospitals are now getting overloaded. Rinse and repeat. I see people working really hard to get as much as possible back to normal, including sports. They are listening to the science, stats, and other countries. And believe it or not, the vast majority of politicians need it to work, too. There is no political upside to shutting down beaches for the Fourth of July. 3 Quote Link to comment
nic Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 No one trusts the media anymore. You have to filter the reporting based on the reporters political affiliation. 1 1 1 2 Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.