Jump to content
BIG ERN

Will There Be a 2020 Football Season?

Chances of a 2020 season?   

58 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Plus1 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Huskers93-97 said:

image.png

Yeah, I am not sure where idea came from (Maybe it was on the Dream Board).  Protesters are maskless all the time.  

  • Plus1 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
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).

Share this post


Link to post

so if there is a season, it may be that only those who have been infected can play. easier to field most teams.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Plus1 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Cdog923 said:

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.

  • Plus1 1
  • Thanks 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

 

  • Plus1 3

Share this post


Link to post

No one trusts the media anymore. You have to filter the reporting based on the reporters political affiliation. ;)

  • Plus1 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.










×
×
  • Create New...