Jump to content


Will There Be a 2020 Football Season?


Chances of a 2020 season?   

58 members have voted

  1. 1. Chances of a 2020 season?

    • Full 12 Game Schedule
      20
    • Shortened Season
      13
    • No Games Played
      22

This poll is closed to new votes

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 04/12/2020 at 06:09 PM

Recommended Posts


2 minutes ago, irafreak said:

or you could thank him for leading the herd immunity charge to protect the immunocompromised. Seriously people...we never shut the county down to eradicate the disease. It was to flatten the curve to keep hospitals from being overwhelmed because that was the worst case scenario. Now we see the complications and death toll extremely low. Back to normal life. Or we can ruin our financial futures and not build up our natural immunity and keep chasing an evolving virus with a vaccine...but ho ahead. Wear your masks that have holes too big to stop this tiny virus.

evidence aplenty that masks reduce spread but keep denying that science!

  • Plus1 3
  • Haha 1
  • Fire 1
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, irafreak said:

or you could thank him for leading the herd immunity charge to protect the immunocompromised. Seriously people...we never shut the county down to eradicate the disease. It was to flatten the curve to keep hospitals from being overwhelmed because that was the worst case scenario. Now we see the complications and death toll extremely low. Back to normal life. Or we can ruin our financial futures and not build up our natural immunity and keep chasing an evolving virus with a vaccine...but ho ahead. Wear your masks that have holes too big to stop this tiny virus.

 

Depends on what your definition of "extremely low" is.

 

The U.S. has now lost more people to Covid-19 than all our wars besides WW1, WW2 or the Civil War COMBINED. Or we've lost more than WW1 on its own. It's equal to roughly 55 9/11's at this point.

 

Achieving herd immunity would require infection and death numbers to skyrocket.


Everyone has a different idea of what acceptable levels of collateral damage are, I suppose.

  • Plus1 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Fire 1
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

evidence aplenty that masks reduce spread but keep denying that science!

I'm not arguing the spread...I'm arguing this silly notion that we can make it disappear by wearing masks long enough to develop a vaccine...we have a built in cure. And studies have demonstrated time after time that the natural exposure to illness creates a stronger and longer lasting defense against a disease than an artificially created response (hence the need for booster shots). So I would say that is the science we should be focused on. 

  • Plus1 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Fire 2
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

Depends on what your definition of "extremely low" is.

 

The U.S. has now lost more people to Covid-19 than all our wars besides WW1, WW2 or the Civil War COMBINED. Or we've lost more than WW1 on its own. It's equal to roughly 55 9/11's at this point.

 

Achieving herd immunity would require infection and death numbers to skyrocket.


Everyone has a different idea of what acceptable levels of collateral damage are, I suppose.

We've lost more to this than to lung cancer last year which is the deadliest cancer in the US. In no way is the death toll extremely low.

  • Plus1 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment

2 minutes ago, irafreak said:

I'm not arguing the spread...I'm arguing this silly notion that we can make it disappear by wearing masks long enough to develop a vaccine...we have a built in cure. And studies have demonstrated time after time that the natural exposure to illness creates a stronger and longer lasting defense against a disease than an artificially created response (hence the need for booster shots). So I would say that is the science we should be focused on. 

Never said we could make it disappear.  I have a science undergrad degree.  but it is absolutely undeniable that if we all did our part we could SLOW the spread of this thing that keeps ruining everything nice.  I was making a joke.  But whatever.

 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
1 minute ago, irafreak said:

I'm not arguing the spread...I'm arguing this silly notion that we can make it disappear by wearing masks long enough to develop a vaccine...we have a built in cure. And studies have demonstrated time after time that the natural exposure to illness creates a stronger and longer lasting defense against a disease than an artificially created response (hence the need for booster shots). So I would say that is the science we should be focused on. 

no one is arguing that masks will make it disappear. If someone has said that feel free to quote that post. Reducing the spread would mean considerably less cases and deaths though, which would mean we could probably play football. Scientists have looked at herd immunity. Most have determined going for that as fast as possible without a vaccine is a deadly option. Instead, slowing the spread and giving time to create better therapies and ultimately a vaccine seems to be the safer option. Time will tell, but it appears a consistent approach tends to work better than patchwork advisories. 

  • Plus1 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment

2 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

Depends on what your definition of "extremely low" is.

 

The U.S. has now lost more people to Covid-19 than all our wars besides WW1, WW2 or the Civil War COMBINED. Or we've lost more than WW1 on its own. It's equal to roughly 55 9/11's at this point.

 

Achieving herd immunity would require infection and death numbers to skyrocket.


Everyone has a different idea of what acceptable levels of collateral damage are, I suppose.

Apples to oranges. The population in ww2 for example, was much lower than what it is now. More people, more deaths. So 131 million and 100k deaths is 7.5%. But we have to consider the fact that only 12 million were actually in the military fighting is now 0.8%...so less than a percent.   

 

Now covid. Us population 328 million. 165k deaths. 0.05%....not even a 10th of a percent. So when we get to 2.6 million deaths...then we're at 0.8% equivalent to ww2. 

 

Again...this is not going to magically disappear. I'm simply making the argument that the responsible thing to do for the elderly and immumocompromised could be to use our immune system to build that immunity.  We won't know until we have more data, but I'm making my choice based on my research and education.  You have no right to tell me what I should be doing and I'm not going to tell you what to do either.  It just mystifies me how people aren't open to debate on issues anymore. (Not directing that last sentence towards anyone in particular)

  • Plus1 2
  • Thanks 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

no one is arguing that masks will make it disappear. If someone has said that feel free to quote that post. Reducing the spread would mean considerably less cases and deaths though, which would mean we could probably play football. Scientists have looked at herd immunity. Most have determined going for that as fast as possible without a vaccine is a deadly option. Instead, slowing the spread and giving time to create better therapies and ultimately a vaccine seems to be the safer option. Time will tell, but it appears a consistent approach tends to work better than patchwork advisories. 

This, I agree with. I'm fine with slowing to build therapies for those that do have complications. I just think the mask creates problems too...like breathing in bacterial growth because people don't wash them or use disposables. 

 

We also don't have unlimited time to stay shut down. We have to live life and keep our country afloat. 

 

As far as the heard immunity, I think the time is now. We have enough therapies is we could keep big pharma away from hydroxychloriquine...

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
25 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

We've lost more to this than to lung cancer last year which is the deadliest cancer in the US. In no way is the death toll extremely low.

 

oh i didn't know that someone with lung cancer could unknowingly give the lung cancer to other people by just breathing around them. damn. the more you know

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
1 minute ago, internetman said:

 

oh i didn't know that someone with lung cancer could unknowingly give the lung cancer to other people by just breathing around them. damn. the more you know

They can't and I'm not saying they can. Simply stating this is quickly becoming one of the deadliest diseases in the United States. The death toll is not low. 

  • Haha 1
  • Fire 1
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Visit the Sports Illustrated Husker site



×
×
  • Create New...