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

16 hours ago, WyoHusker56 said:

 

Well this isn't encouraging. 

Why not have the 37 that tested positive practice together for two weeks?;)

Of course the assumption here is that they don’t feel like crap. I sort of think the kids wouldn’t have shown up if they felt sick, but maybe I am giving 20 year olds that think they are invincible too much credit.

Link to comment


1 hour ago, hunter49 said:

 

Dr. Fucci has been lying has a$$ off from the get go. if you are still covid free, keep doing as you are and ignore this quack.

What are you even talking about? Neither "Fucci" nor "Fauci" appears in the article. This is a study from two universities in Britain. From that article:

Quote

The research, led by scientists at the Britain’s Cambridge and Greenwich Universities, suggests lockdowns alone will not stop the resurgence of the new SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, but that even homemade masks can dramatically reduce transmission rates if enough people wear them in public.

 

Also, a shout out to the posters that +1 hunter49's post. Try reading the linked article next time.

  • Plus1 1
  • Haha 1
  • Fire 1
Link to comment
7 hours ago, Rochelobe said:

Honest questions:

1.  Do you think if masks had been used in the United States starting in late February we would be in a better place now?

2. Do you think if Fauci had come out in late February and said "please use masks" it would have mattered (by "use" I mean recommend, not require - I think a requirement would have been nearly impossible to implement in the US, particularly in late Feb/early Mar)?

 

My opinion below:

For question 1, I'd answer yes, and for question 2, I'd answer a little.  There would have been some people that heeded the recommendation (maybe 20-30% of Americans) and it would have slowed things a little, but not as effectively as we've seen in other countries because of American ideals of freedom to do whatever they want, without regard to its impact on their fellow citizens.

 

History and context matter.  In early March, when things first started surging in the U.S., there was not yet much evidence that cloth masks, would have an impact whatsoever on the virus.  At that time, when we looked at most other countries and saw people out everyday wearing masks (e.g., Japan), it seems they were generally wearing medical grade  masks (N95 or other styles close to that level of protection). That seems to be a tradition in countries that were more effective at going to a full mask environment - I remember seeing people with those masks on several times in the past through previous flu, etc., epidemics.

 

I think Fauci and others did not want to see a large run on medical masks, not because they wouldn't help, but to keep supplies available for those that would definitely be facing COVID on the front lines - medical personnel.

 

As evidence came in that cloth masks had a measurable mitigating impact, you started to see recommendations.  Had Trump merely said that when he was instead rambling on about hydroxychloroquine and ingesting lysol, it would probably have had a positive impact. 

 

(My guess) I think Fauci was hesitant to recommend cloth masks early on before evidence was in of their usefulness since he may have thought "Americans will put on masks and just abandon all social distancing."  Had this happened and there was no impact on masks reducing the transmission rate, we would probably be worse off than we are now.  I think he did a risk mitigation analysis and went with the best possibilities based upon the scientific evidence at the time.  As additional data has come in, he's modified his statements.

 

Most high ranking doctors are generally risk adverse - sort of a like a societal implementation of "First do no harm".  Does that mean that some methods that would help get started later?  Yes. But beyond having people with ability to see the future, what do you recommend?

 

 

Re:   Q # 1 & 2.     My answer:

It depends on what being better off today means.  If your goal is fewer deaths and fewer cases as of today, then YES.   If Fauci would have plainly said “Basic masks made at home will reduce virus emissions/ingestion rate by 25% and slow the spread, most people would have gladly taken that with todays social distancing stuff vs shutting downs millions of people’s lives.  

 

If your goal is to get the nation thru the epidemic quickly and reduce the collateral damage, then my answer is NO.  

I think total lives lost would be about the same.  But we would be nearing herd immunity by Sept 1.  2020, not 2022.   

Final outcomes:   Case #s the same.  Econ damage less than 1/4th of present approach.   

 

I say this because (a) I don’t see a vaccine any time in next 8 mos.  

and (b) masks and social distancing slow spread but dont stop it and eventually 90% of the population will get it and 0.3 % will die, either way.  

 

80% of masks are homemade.  No mask shortage would have followed.  No matter when he advised it. Early distancing measures, better than later. 

 

As for public/mass compliance, it would have been much higher (masks etc) if they had not shut everything down.  That created mass fear of financial death for 80 million and angered the fraction who suffered will the rest lived without much sacrifice. 

 

In the end, the numbers are the same (300 million cases & 900,000 deaths.    A big number of deaths - very sad - but ultimately very likely - especially as Fauci has all but denied most trial uses of existing meds without offering any better alternatives.  

 

History of vaccines for viruses within 5 years is almost NONE.  

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

What are you even talking about? Neither "Fucci" nor "Fauci" appears in the article. This is a study from two universities in Britain. From that article:

 

Also, a shout out to the posters that +1 hunter49's post. Try reading the linked article next time.

Fauci is researching in the UK when he's not installing filtration systems in Florida, discussing microchipping with Bill Gates, teaching potions class at Hogwarts, or participating in his favorite past time - drowning puppies. 

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

If Fauci would have plainly said “Basic masks made at home will reduce virus emissions/ingestion rate by 25% and slow the spread, most people would have gladly taken that with todays social distancing stuff vs shutting downs millions of people’s lives.

 

He didn't give a specific percentage because there was not research verifying that yet, but he did recommend masks as early as April 3rd.

 

Quote

White House coronavirus Task Force member Dr. Anthony Fauci said Friday that the general public should be wearing cloth masks if they cannot keep a safe distance from others.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/anthony-fauci-hydroxychloroquine-use-coronavirus

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/what-dr-fauci-wants-you-to-know-about-face-masks-and-staying-home-as-virus-spreads

 

13 minutes ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

If your goal is to get the nation thru the epidemic quickly and reduce the collateral damage, then my answer is NO.  

I think total lives lost would be about the same.  But we would be nearing herd immunity by Sept 1.  2020, not 2022.   

Final outcomes:   Case #s the same.  Econ damage less than 1/4th of present approach.  

 

Also, we would not be anywhere near herd immunity. The hardest hit areas have estimates of 5-15% of the population having the virus and their hospitals were overwhelmed. If we had just let this run wild it would have taken years to get herd immunity (look at the Spanish flu it took 3 years) and the deaths would not be the same. At the peak in NY and Italy the death rate was significantly higher than it is now because hospitals couldn't effectively treat people and more died. This would only accelerate with no attempt to slow it down. Sweden took the herd immunity route and they had deaths at rates three times higher per capita than their neighbors in a very rural country. And guess what? They are headed for their worst recession since WWII because people stayed home anyways and their economy is contracting 7% this year. And the final nail in the coffin for your herd immunity argument is that estimates show Sweden as a nation is at 6-14% immunity right now indicating they have a LONG way to go before they are anywhere near herd immunity. In the scientific community Sweden's approach is looked at as a certified failure.

 

Stop using your herd immunity argument it's wrong and there are absolutely no facts to back it up.

 

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
51 minutes ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

Re:   Q # 1 & 2.     My answer:

It depends on what being better off today means.  If your goal is fewer deaths and fewer cases as of today, then YES.   If Fauci would have plainly said “Basic masks made at home will reduce virus emissions/ingestion rate by 25% and slow the spread, most people would have gladly taken that with todays social distancing stuff vs shutting downs millions of people’s lives.  

 

If your goal is to get the nation thru the epidemic quickly and reduce the collateral damage, then my answer is NO.  

I think total lives lost would be about the same.  But we would be nearing herd immunity by Sept 1.  2020, not 2022.   

Final outcomes:   Case #s the same.  Econ damage less than 1/4th of present approach.   

 

I say this because (a) I don’t see a vaccine any time in next 8 mos.  

and (b) masks and social distancing slow spread but dont stop it and eventually 90% of the population will get it and 0.3 % will die, either way.  

 

80% of masks are homemade.  No mask shortage would have followed.  No matter when he advised it. Early distancing measures, better than later. 

 

As for public/mass compliance, it would have been much higher (masks etc) if they had not shut everything down.  That created mass fear of financial death for 80 million and angered the fraction who suffered will the rest lived without much sacrifice. 

 

In the end, the numbers are the same (300 million cases & 900,000 deaths.    A big number of deaths - very sad - but ultimately very likely - especially as Fauci has all but denied most trial uses of existing meds without offering any better alternatives.  

 

History of vaccines for viruses within 5 years is almost NONE.  

Aside from vaccines another important medical area that doesn't get discussed as much - treatment of those with the virus.  It seems progress is being made on better treatment which may be a reason for the decline in deaths despite the increase in positive cases.  Granted other factors (younger people being more of the positives, lag between developing the disease and getting hospitalized/dying), but it seems that they are learning a few things about how to treat it, which means that while we wait for a vaccine they may be able to lower the death rate.  I'd argue that would likely result in a lower death total until a vaccine rather than just doing, well nothing.

 

But of course, we could just do what you want.  Lets just cram everyone in giant football stadiums until they catch the disease.  "Kill em all and let God sort em out"  Otherwise known as "The Trump Solution".  Sounds like a plan.  For those that are pro-death panels, I guess it is the logical approach.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

I'm sorry some of these posts are kind of getting off topic.  To push it back toward football, I think had we followed masking, had we kept up with social distancing, even while doing some reopening to help the economy, I think the % chance of football would have been pretty good - maybe above 70% (for at least a Oct start, shortened season). 

 

But with the way things are, I think the % chance has dropped, possibly down to 15 to 20% or so.  The move by the Big Ten to do conference only for all fall sports probably helps - since it most likely indicates some kind of agreement about testing protocols of players/staff, that may not be enough with the increases we are seeing in positive cases.  So far at least, Big Ten states haven't seen as sharp an increase in June/July as the South/Southwest part of the country, so by Oct we may have rolled over to a low enough rate to be possible.  However, without masking I think the Midwest/Great Plains will likely see another spike, probably starting in Aug/Sep, which would basically mean full  cancellation.

Link to comment

Here's a troubling trend and it's football adjacent: fraternity house parties at UC Berkeley recently resulted in 47 attendees testing positive. Today Oregon announced that Eugene-area House parties resulted in 53 new cases.

 

And there were those 15 women who had a reunion when their favorite bar re-opened, and all 15 tested positive. 

 

This is happening all over the country, and why the average age of positive cases has dropped so sharply. Can't stop the party. 

 

Ran into a notorious a$$h@!e dad at the dog park and he bragged about hosting 75 kids "jammed face to face" for his son's high school graduation party, including several members of next year's football team. 

 

I want a cold beer and live music so bad I can taste it, but I think that just got kicked further down the calendar. 

 

 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
33 minutes ago, Rochelobe said:

Aside from vaccines another important medical area that doesn't get discussed as much - treatment of those with the virus.  It seems progress is being made on better treatment which may be a reason for the decline in deaths despite the increase in positive cases.  Granted other factors (younger people being more of the positives, lag between developing the disease and getting hospitalized/dying), but it seems that they are learning a few things about how to treat it, which means that while we wait for a vaccine they may be able to lower the death rate.  I'd argue that would likely result in a lower death total until a vaccine rather than just doing, well nothing.

 

But of course, we could just do what you want.  Lets just cram everyone in giant football stadiums until they catch the disease.  "Kill em all and let God sort em out"  Otherwise known as "The Trump Solution".  Sounds like a plan.  For those that are pro-death panels, I guess it is the logical approach.

You still miss the point.  We are NOT saving any lives, net, by delaying the spread.  Absent a cure / vaccine, the death toll will be about the same.  There is risk that more deaths result if we drag out the spread across the population too slowly.  Immunity from exposure/recovery lasts only so long (months - a year maybe).

To starve out the virus (herd immunity) you have to get enough people sick in a short time span.  This is my understanding of herd immunity.  Maybe its not the best and we do not know for sure it even applies but other nations seem to have developed some of it as large segments of the populations have not had reported infections. No way the virus is gone without vaccine or herd immunity effects.  

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
35 minutes ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

You still miss the point.  We are NOT saving any lives, net, by delaying the spread.  Absent a cure / vaccine, the death toll will be about the same.  There is risk that more deaths result if we drag out the spread across the population too slowly.  Immunity from exposure/recovery lasts only so long (months - a year maybe).

To starve out the virus (herd immunity) you have to get enough people sick in a short time span.  This is my understanding of herd immunity.  Maybe its not the best and we do not know for sure it even applies but other nations seem to have developed some of it as large segments of the populations have not had reported infections. No way the virus is gone without vaccine or herd immunity effects.  

Seriously!?!?!!?

 

Improving treatments which improve survival means no additional lives saved?

So no medicine anywhere that ever saves anyone from dying is actually worth it, since the patient will eventually die anyway (from old age if nothing else)

 

So, I have a situation where I know 10000 people will get the virus. 

 

Scenario 1: I do nothing to stop the spread and all 10000 get it in the first month, with a death rate of 5%, meaning 500 people die.  Of course your fanciful herd immunity thing is in effect. 

 

Scenario 2: I enforce wearing masks, doing social distancing, etc and instead of all 10000 getting it the first month, we spread it out over 10 months, with 1000 per month getting it.  During that time, doctors learn about various techniques/medicines that are able to mitigate many of the bad effects of the virus.  So as each month goes by, there is a slight decrease in the death rate, say from 5% the first month down to 1% by the 10th month.  So lets assume the average is 3% over the 10 months.  In that situation only 300 people die.

 

There is evidence that doctors are learning about treatments that can lower the death rate.  While not proven yet, it could really help with lowering the overall number of deaths, at the cost of making the period of masking/social distancing go on for longer.

 

 

I guess the people that are saved in scenario 2 are not important to you. 

 

When the hospitals overflow in scenario 1, who gets to decided who lives and who dies (who gets treatment and who doesn't)? 

 

 

 

 

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...