Will There Be a 2020 Football Season?

[funhusker]

32 minutes ago, hunter49 said:

the s#!t masks people are wearing now are worthless,  the original N95, fitted properly provides some protection.

The N95 protects the wearer from airborne viruses.  That isn't the point of mask mandates.  Medical pros want the amount of droplets reduced, that's it.  N95 > surgical mask > cloth mask  > old tshirt > nothing.   

 

Is this message really not getting through yet?

[Rochelobe]

53 minutes ago, hunter49 said:

the s#!t masks people are wearing now are worthless,  the original N95, fitted properly provides some protection.

So despite evidence that cloth masks offer reductions around 40 to 50% in transmission (vs N95s which are more like 90% reduction), you say they do nothing at all. Despite evidence, in the research paper I quoted that shows that they DO reduce the transmission.  40% reduction is worthless?

 

Well, in that case, why does any citizen ever need a weapon.  I can be fully armed walking down the street and someone can pop up from a rooftop with a rifle and shoot me without my ever seeing them.  Or a plane could drop a bomb on me.  Thus, my weapons are worthless right?  There is no point in a "worthless" self defense tool that doesn't stop all possible situations, right?

 

Again - masks were used in Europe to reduce the spread (even cloth masks) and they have managed to restart sports, and in the case of Australia, they have even started allowing attendance.  This does not define a path to success for you?  Do you only want normal situations with 90,000 fans crammed into Memorial Stadium?  After all, since N95 masks are not even 100%, they are useless as well since some people are going to catch the disease.

 

Very few preventative medical procedures promise 100% safety or perfection, so I guess they should all be ceased.  I can brush my teeth every day and still get cavities, so what's the point.  Clearly the toothbrush/tooth paste do no good at all.

 

All I want (in the context of this thread) is for people to wear masks to help reduce the spread, improve the ability to identify and isolate positive cases, and allow us to have some college football.

 

Why does the solution have to work 100% in order to be implemented?  Very few things work 100% of the time.

 

[Rochelobe]

24 minutes ago, kansas45 said:

 

My argument exactly. One cannot say "we played Notre Dame in 1918, heck, even went 2-3-1 in the MVIAA; surely we can play now." Imagine the lawyers on the side of the plaintiff in this case and the number of medical expert witnesses that they could have in saying "it was illogical to play given the information we had available." The Ivy League set precedence here. 

 

 

Agree - since the Ivy League is where we plant most of our "lawyer seed" in this country, they were really out in front on this.  I'm sure the lawyers played a big part in the Ivy League's quick cancellation of their basketball tourney which eventually led to the cancellation of the NCAA tournament.

[funhusker]

22 minutes ago, Rochelobe said:

So despite evidence that cloth masks offer reductions around 40 to 50% in transmission (vs N95s which are more like 90% reduction), you say they do nothing at all. Despite evidence, in the research paper I quoted that shows that they DO reduce the transmission.  40% reduction is worthless?

 

Well, in that case, why does any citizen ever need a weapon.  I can be fully armed walking down the street and someone can pop up from a rooftop with a rifle and shoot me without my ever seeing them.  Or a plane could drop a bomb on me.  Thus, my weapons are worthless right?  There is no point in a "worthless" self defense tool that doesn't stop all possible situations, right?

 

Again - masks were used in Europe to reduce the spread (even cloth masks) and they have managed to restart sports, and in the case of Australia, they have even started allowing attendance.  This does not define a path to success for you?  Do you only want normal situations with 90,000 fans crammed into Memorial Stadium?  After all, since N95 masks are not even 100%, they are useless as well since some people are going to catch the disease.

 

Very few preventative medical procedures promise 100% safety or perfection, so I guess they should all be ceased.  I can brush my teeth every day and still get cavities, so what's the point.  Clearly the toothbrush/tooth paste do no good at all.

 

All I want (in the context of this thread) is for people to wear masks to help reduce the spread, improve the ability to identify and isolate positive cases, and allow us to have some college football.

 

Why does the solution have to work 100% in order to be implemented?  Very few things work 100% of the time.

 

 

I'm not sure how long you've been on the board, but congrats!  You're my new favorite poster!

[funhusker]

45 minutes ago, kansas45 said:

 

My argument exactly. One cannot say "we played Notre Dame in 1918, heck, even went 2-3-1 in the MVIAA; surely we can play now." Imagine the lawyers on the side of the plaintiff in this case and the number of medical expert witnesses that they could have in saying "it was illogical to play given the information we had available." The Ivy League set precedence here. 

 

 

This is kind of like Papillion schools in the Omaha area.  The superintendent made a comment about a month ago that he understands the science behind the masks and also realizes the feelings of families. So in "spite of what the science says, we will not make masks mandatory."

 

The gaffe might have been on purpose to make school attorneys give him no choice.  But now, Papillion-La Vista was among the first districts in the Metro area to say masks will be required.

 

If masks remained optional, that soundbite could have cost a pretty penny!

[Notre Dame Joe]

3 hours ago, kansas45 said:

 

My argument exactly. One cannot say "we played Notre Dame in 1918, heck, even went 2-3-1 in the MVIAA; surely we can play now." Imagine the lawyers on the side of the plaintiff in this case and the number of medical expert witnesses that they could have in saying "it was illogical to play given the information we had available." The Ivy League set precedence here. 

 

 

 

Well you won't here me vouching for the lawyers.  But the health risk of playing normal virus-free football dwarfs that of the catching covid. By that logic the universities could be sued into oblivion merely for sponsoring football. 

[Huskers93-97]

Maybe someone will deem college football racist and the season will be cancelled forever and we won’t have to talk about masks for another 100 pages the next month 

[teachercd]

8 hours ago, funhusker said:

This is kind of like Papillion schools in the Omaha area.  The superintendent made a comment about a month ago that he understands the science behind the masks and also realizes the feelings of families. So in "spite of what the science says, we will not make masks mandatory."

 

The gaffe might have been on purpose to make school attorneys give him no choice.  But now, Papillion-La Vista was among the first districts in the Metro area to say masks will be required.

 

If masks remained optional, that soundbite could have cost a pretty penny!

Yeah, it is a smart move to mandate masks from all perspectives.  It will either help a or cases will go up, some kids will get it and it is back online but "you tried".

 

The issue is not so much the school day...it is when that final bell rings and those kids are all over each other and masks are off.  And the kids that have it and still come to school.

[Undone]

1 hour ago, teachercd said:

Yeah, it is a smart move to mandate masks from all perspectives.  It will either help a or cases will go up, some kids will get it and it is back online but "you tried".

 

The issue is not so much the school day...it is when that final bell rings and those kids are all over each other and masks are off.  And the kids that have it and still come to school.

 

In this sense, LPS' announcement that all students have to wear masks seems like all it will do is fall under the 'you tried' category, which I've been talking about for three weeks. It's about having the best possible defense when they're brought to court by the teachers' union.

 

I have elementary aged kids and so this topic is important for my family.

 

Teach, are you leaning towards pushing for just cancelling the whole year?

[Hilltop]

Kids need to go back to school.  I think more harm is being done by keeping them at home.  

 

On a football note- my son's youth coach just emailed saying they have approval for a season and will begin practice next week.  Right now it appears about 75% of parents are going to allow their kids to play.  

[Undone]

8 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

Well you won't here me vouching for the lawyers.  But the health risk of playing normal virus-free football dwarfs that of the catching covid. By that logic the universities could be sued into oblivion merely for sponsoring football. 

 

Agreed, Joe. Absolutely agree.

 

Enter stage right: The societal pressures of "Bob's" aunt's hairdresser's grandma who could die because she's high risk if a perceived threshold of public activity is broken. 

In this regard, this societal pressure is a surefire trump card to what you posted because other people are seen to be at risk if the season is held. That is obviously the issue.

[Rochelobe]

Assuming the college football season does proceed, with teams traveling to other sites to play.  In light of this: https://www.1011now.com/2020/07/22/nebraska-now-on-ny-ct-nj-quarantine-list-as-covid-spikes/  , does that mean Nebraska would have to forfeit, or travel two weeks early for the game @ Rutgers?

 

Quote

Residents from 31 states, including Nebraska, must now quarantine for 14 days when arriving in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, as dozens of states experience rising positive COVID-19 rates.

 

With a patchwork of 50 states doing 50 different things, this is probably another nail in the (already lowering into the ground) coffin for a season.

 

Granted things will probably change by the time of the currently scheduled game date (Oct 24), but this is an added hurdle to overcome.  If you have two road games one week apart to states that both require visitors from Nebraska to quarantine for 14 days, you probably have to forfeit one of the games.

 

How will New Jersey treat Rutgers' players that leave to play a road game in a state where NJ requires those coming from that state to quarantine?  Would all the players have to isolate without interacting with any people that stayed behind in NJ?

 

I could see other states implementing this type of scenario as the fall progresses as well.

[teachercd]

24 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

In this sense, LPS' announcement that all students have to wear masks seems like all it will do is fall under the 'you tried' category, which I've been talking about for three weeks. It's about having the best possible defense when they're brought to court by the teachers' union.

 

I have elementary aged kids and so this topic is important for my family.

 

Teach, are you leaning towards pushing for just cancelling the whole year?

I am okay with starting school with 100% capacity.  

 

The 3 options are

 

1.  Everyone back

2.  50% back one day 50% at home and flip it.

3.  Online

 

Well...1 is the same as 2.  15 kids in a classroom or 30 kids in the classroom is going to get the same result.  Social distancing from your best friends is not going to happen.  Since we know that, we might as well go with 100% and see how it goes.

 

If you start online, you are staying online all year.  So I would rather start 100% at school.

[knapplc]

5 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

Agreed, Joe. Absolutely agree.

 

Enter stage right: The societal pressures of "Bob's" aunt's hairdresser's grandma who could die because she's high risk if a perceived threshold of public activity is broken. 

In this regard, this societal pressure is a surefire trump card to what you posted because other people are seen to be at risk if the season is held. That is obviously the issue.

 

How could you possibly know the long-term health risks of a disease that's only been known about for a few months? 

[Cdog923]

14 hours ago, funhusker said:

The N95 protects the wearer from airborne viruses.  That isn't the point of mask mandates.  Medical pros want the amount of droplets reduced, that's it.  N95 > surgical mask > cloth mask  > old tshirt > nothing.   

 

Is this message really not getting through yet?

 

Apparently so, because we're on page 117 (check that, page 118) and people are still arguing the same inane talking points over and over again. Then again, I'm not certain they want the message to get through, particularly when one poster has left their bridge P&R to post in the football forum on this particular subject.