Will There Be a 2020 Football Season?

[Branno]

I apparently somehow messed up my original response, sorry for any confusion.

 

17 minutes ago, teachercd said:

So would you also take the number of current Covid deaths and X10 too?  

 

No, that would be ridiculous. Just look at the number of excess deaths and use that number. We can't simply just count deaths directly related to COVID-19 as not all deaths are in a hospital from a person that tested positive. Any death at home from a person that did not get a test wouldn't count towards the total.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/21/world/coronavirus-missing-deaths.html

[Branno]

Just now, Undone said:

 

The onus is on you to prove what you say it accurate, sir. Not on me.

 

So you can make all the claims you want (for example your claim that hospitals are not overwhelmed) and provide no sources, but when anyone contradicts your unsourced opinion they have to provide sources. 

 

Cool.

[WyoHusker56]

11 minutes ago, Undone said:

Link? Seriously - provide me some evidence to show this is actually a true statement.

 

Here's a fun link: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/17/texas-officials-order-extra-body-bags-mortuary-trucks-as-state-braces-for-rising-coronavirus-deaths.html

[Undone]

6 minutes ago, Branno said:

So you can make all the claims you want (for example your claim that hospitals are not overwhelmed)

 

Point to a post where I said verbatim that hospitals are not overwhelmed.

[Undone]

3 minutes ago, WyoHusker56 said:

 

Here's a fun link: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/17/texas-officials-order-extra-body-bags-mortuary-trucks-as-state-braces-for-rising-coronavirus-deaths.html

 

There's no doubt been a second spike, my friend. Using pretty basic common sense and anecdotal evidence, it seems it's probably due to mass reopening without everybody wearing masks.

 

I highly doubt you'll disagree with that assertion...right?

 

 

[Nebfanatic]

11 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

No; assuming that coroners are properly accounting for deaths actually caused by C19, we already know how many people died from it.

 

It's the denominator in the equation that gets bigger if known cases goes up, thus making the ratio of C19 deaths go down.

considering not everyone gets tested, that's a pretty big assumption there boss

[teachercd]

10 minutes ago, Branno said:

I apparently somehow messed up my original response, sorry for any confusion.

 

 

No, that would be ridiculous. Just look at the number of excess deaths and use that number. We can't simply just count deaths directly related to COVID-19 as not all deaths are in a hospital from a person that tested positive. Any death at home from a person that did not get a test wouldn't count towards the total.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/21/world/coronavirus-missing-deaths.html

Got it, that makes sense.  So, probably way more infected, probably more deaths and for sure a lower mortality rate.

[Branno]

2 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Got it, that makes sense.  So, probably way more infected, probably more deaths and for sure a lower mortality rate.

 

More infected? Yes

More deaths? Yes

Lower mortality rate? Not necessarily

 

The only way we can know for sure is to greatly increase the amount of testing done, something the Senate and our current President want to avoid. I personally think the 10x number is WAY off, but I'm willing to admit I'm not an expert and could be wrong.

[Branno]

7 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

Point to a post where I said verbatim that hospitals are not overwhelmed.

 

I'm not sure if this is joke or not. I mean....

 

54 minutes ago, Undone said:

They seem to be the same group of people in the "tHe hOSpiTalS aRe ovERWhelM3d!!!1" crowd.

 

In before the pedantic "BUT I DIDN'T SAY IT VERBATIM"

[Undone]

8 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

considering not everyone gets tested, that's a pretty big assumption there boss

 

I couldn't agree more. I was explaining the high-level concepts to teach. That's why I phrased my statement with the word "assuming."

[Undone]

3 minutes ago, Branno said:

 

In before the pedantic "BUT I DIDN'T SAY IT VERBATIM"

 

I've been told by multiple posters on this forum (in the P&R thread) in no uncertain terms that "the death rate doesn't matter at all; the only thing that matters is flattening the curve and the burden on the hospital system."

This is why I originally made the statement. 

To the links you did provide (and thanks for doing that), combined with other anecdotal evidence/news segments, it seems people in the south are even more resistant to wearing masks. Again, I assume this is a big part of the reason for the spikes there.

[Nebfanatic]

2 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

I couldn't agree more. I was explaining the high-level concepts to teach. That's why I phrased my statement with the word "assuming."

That is really not how your post read *at all* but I'll take your word for it 

[Rochelobe]

This might offer some insight into how crowds would be impacted in stadiums (not on player-player type interactions) to help decide how reasonable it is to have fans in the stands.

 

https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/indy-500-reduce-capacity-25-percent-lift-blackout-71919976?cid=clicksource_4380645_7_heads_posts_headlines_hed

 

Quote

Capacity will be limited to 25% — about 87,500 fans — at the massive speedway, and tickets will be distributed to allow proper social distancing among groups.

 

Most concessions will consist of prepacked food. Fans will have their temperature checked upon entry and receive hand sanitizer and a mask, which they will be required to wear when they are not eating or drinking.

 

[Branno]

3 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

I've been told by multiple posters on this forum (in the P&R thread) in no uncertain terms that "the death rate doesn't matter at all; the only thing that matters is flattening the curve and the burden on the hospital system."

This is why I originally made the statement. 

To the links you did provide (and thanks for doing that), combined with other anecdotal evidence/news segments, it seems people in the south are even more resistant to wearing masks. Again, I assume this is a big part of the reason for the spikes there.

 

I think the biggest problem here is that you're focused on a trailing metric and using it to argue against leading metrics.

 

To decrease deaths, we need to decrease infections and reduce the strain on our health care system. Remember, there has been a significant increase in excess deaths that haven't been directly attributed to COVID-19. One reason (among many I assume) is that hospitals are overwhelmed and people cannot receive the treatments they need.

 

Infection rate and hospital utilization are leading metrics. We know that when they decrease, deaths decrease. But it takes several weeks for the death rate metrics to change. 

 

So, please tell me what it matters whether we're focusing on infections rates, death rates, or hospital capacity if all 3 correlate? Does it make sense to talk about 3 week old death rate data or up to the minute infection and hospital capacity data?

[knapplc]

12 minutes ago, Undone said:

I've been told by multiple posters on this forum (in the P&R thread) in no uncertain terms that "the death rate doesn't matter at all; the only thing that matters is flattening the curve and the burden on the hospital system."

 

Link?