Temp Check: NEB football this fall?
- Thread starter blackshirts25
- Start date
- Status
I'm not sure I understand what your argument is. You're saying, if you spend money, you distort the value of your currency, which weakens it?
This argument fails to take into account a number of very important factors:
1.) All governments print and spend money. What that does to the value of the currency over time depends on myriad factors that you cannot isolate down to "social welfare spending is bad." It's not possible, it's just an ideological point without much basis in fact, if any at all.
2.) The dollar holds a primary place in the world economy, and that is not changing any time soon, probably not in our lifetimes or the lifetimes of our children. Nobody is dumping it, nobody is replacing it, so it's value is, admittedly, artificially stable because of its function as the primary currency in the world.
3.) Tying currency to our response to COVID-19 is moronic. Locking down to stop the spread, if done quickly, has numerous benefits, i.e., a shorter economic downturn and an acceleration of our ability to return to "normal." See: a bunch of countries who have handled the pandemic far better than we have. Thinking we can all just go to work or go along as if nothing was wrong is exactly why almost 25% (150000/663000 = 22.6%) of all COVID-19 deaths so far have happened in America alone, and this is only climbing.
if this doesn't accelerate the spread, stadiums should've been full yesterday.
your insistence on defending this topic is completely illogical. protests can both be for a good cause while also not being great for tamping down the spread of a super communicable disease.
they're obviously contributing to the spread. and a lot of people obviously support their message. both can be true.
Look, you can't keep showing pictures and saying "OBVIOUSLY IT IS SPREADING" when the evidence of outdoor spread is that it is hard to do. Then, you always tie it to stadiums. I don't really care about stadiums, but here we go AGAIN:
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/black-lives-matter-protests-didnt-contribute-to-covid19-surge
- There isn’t evidence that Black Lives Matter protests have led to a noticeable increase in COVID-19 cases, despite early concerns from health officials.
- The reasons for the lack of transmission likely have to do with the protesters being outside in the wind and sun and most of them wearing masks.
- People who attend other outdoor events, such as going to the beach or a ball game, tend to share indoor facilities like bathrooms, shops, and restaurants.
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-...idence-that-protests-spread-coronavirus-in-us
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nichol...ublicans-are-still-blaming-them/#110b0e806e13
^^
Researchers Say Protests Didn't Increase Covid-19 Spread—But Republicans Are Still Blaming Them
I'm not going to address this idiotic argument again. You are wrong and you should drop it.
so, the spread in locked down CA just so happened to occur at the exact same time you'd expect them to after hundreds of thousands took to the streets because too many people shared indoor facilities at the beach and/or went to the bar for the 10 minutes they were open?
yell and scream all you want, this doesn't make any sense. asymptomatic spread is the most dangerous thing about this, according to you. that would occur 4-6 weeks following exposure of those asymptomatic infections, which is exactly when the surges began.
the people who claim there's no correlation in every one of your links are not MDs, but economists and PhDs. when MDs talk, it sounds a lot like this:
Dr. Umair Shah, executive director of the county health department, believes it was likely some cases could be traced to the protests.
"We just don't know how much,” he said.
Another factor: Many people don't get tested unless they feel symptoms. Many protesters were young adults, who generally are less likely to get severe illness, and therefore may not have gotten tested, experts said.
And some who do get tested may still not answer all the questions they are asked by outbreak investigators.
“I know of three people who told us ‘Yes, I was at a protest.’ That doesn't mean there was not another 25 or more who did attend a protest and just did not share that with us," said Dr. Mysheika Roberts, the public health commissioner for the city of Columbus, Ohio.
those are direct quotes, from your articles (3 of the 4 you shared quote the exact same thing). you clearly just posted these due to their headlines without reading what the actual practitioners had to say.
your politics blind you to simple common sense. it's a shame, really.
Last edited:
The reason why that is all wrong, kind of a consistent thread with you, is that if they were getting the virus and transmitting it, you would see a spike in cases overall in every area with protests. Even if they were asymptomatic, they would presumably spread it to others around them. This is why experts, not you, are focused on spikes in cases in each area with major protests, the largest of which were TWO MONTHS AGO. THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED.
To draw from the US News article I posted:
If the protests had driven an explosion in cases, experts say, the jumps would have started to become apparent within two weeks — and perhaps as early as five days. But that didn’t happen in many cities with the largest protests, including New York, Chicago, Minneapolis, and Washington, D.C.
In what’s considered the first systematic look at the question, a team of economists determined that only one of 13 cities involved in the earliest wave of protests after Memorial Day had an increase that would fit the pattern.
It was Phoenix, where experts say cases and hospitalizations surged after a decision by Gov. Doug Ducey to end Arizona’s stay-at-home order on May 15 and eased restrictions on businesses. Arizona residents who were cooped up for six weeks flooded Phoenix-area bar districts, ignoring social distancing guidelines.
In many cities, the protests actually seemed to lead to a net increase in social distancing, as more people who did not protest decided to stay off the streets, said that study’s lead author, Dhaval Dave of Bentley University.
UHHHH STADIUMS! STADIUMS!!!! STAAAAADIIIIUUUUUUUMS!!!!
you're becoming unhinged. calm down.
here's LA's mayor and top health official, the same day that US News article was published:
At a news conference on July 1, Garcetti told reporters “we do believe there is a connection” between the protests and virus spread in Los Angeles, after initially saying there was no conclusive evidence linking the two.
Garcetti pointed to comments from Ferrer, who told reporters on June 22: “It’s highly likely given the increased numbers that we’re seeing that some of this is in fact people who may have been in a crowded situation at one of the protests where there was spread.”
you believe what you want, professor. it must be very dark and stinky where your head resides.
Ditto. I'm citing evidence and experts. You can "believe" that they are wrong or that the speculations of some politicians are accurate, but your belief is incorrect.
Not that any of this matters. What was your point, anyway? To pack stadiums? That the protests are bad?
apply the 'science' consistently, if it indeed is reliable.
if it's safe to be outdoors, shoulder to shoulder, yelling and screaming through a mask for hours on end, as you claim, then it shouldn't be an issue.
concerts, beaches, sporting events. focus on eliminating or distributing indoor interaction, as airports, supermarkets and shopping centers seem to have done, and move on.
that these don't go hand in hand with protesting is either extremely hypocritical of 'experts', or they're lying. all of the indoor, shared-facility factors you listed (restrooms, shops, restaurants) have been widely mitigated elsewhere.
I do not understand why the logic that protests didn't accelerate the spread wouldn't be applied universally, if indeed it's logic at all.
and, again, I've been consistent in saying the protests originally occurred for good reason and were warranted, lest you try to pin a political party on my thoughts.
Herman Cain is dead 5 weeks after contracting COVID-19 at Trump's Tulsa rally:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nichol...r-going-to-trump-rally-maskless/#6db33b437a88
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nichol...r-going-to-trump-rally-maskless/#6db33b437a88
you asked for my point, I gave it. should I take your sudden silence as sign of agreement? genuinely curious about your thoughts, @DudznSudz (not more regurgitated talking points).
if mass protests were safe and didn't promote increased transmission, that should be great news and exonerate more outdoor activities, assuming masks are required and appropriate indoor measures are taken.
The protests happened and then, incidentally, the infection rates did not spike. This has lead to a greater understanding of how the virus spreads (it's respiratory in nature). Outdoor activities are much safer, as the virus dilutes in the open air, making spread between people far less likely (though not impossible). Masks are crucial, as the virus spreads from our aerosol droplets.
Conclusions:
1.) Outdoor activities that do not involve anything indoor or crowded first (this rules out stadiums) are probably fairly safe. Sports involve locker rooms, physical contact, travel, and people going through crowded entrance areas into a larger stadium environment. These features make it very difficult to say they are anything approaching safe.
2.) Masks are crucial for stopping the spread of the virus indoors and around large groups of people.
Given the above, schools should stay closed, bars and restaurants without outdoor seating should stay closed, and only crucial businesses such as grocery stores should stay open following strict protocols until the spread of the virus is arrested. I've been consistently saying this shit for weeks, I have no idea why you are asking me what my conclusions are right now.
I think your own article stated that there is no way to know where he contracted the virus, and his aide also stated today "Calabrese pushed back on speculation at the time that Cain might have contracted the virus at Trump’s rally, noting he’d done plenty of traveling beforehand ― including to Arizona, where cases have soared."
He died of corona no matter the circumstance, but you just love you some politics.
your first paragraph and point #1 are in direct opposition to one another, as it pertains to fans. the actual contestants' activity are neither here nor there.
people momentarily going through crowded entrances (which could easily be manipulated to dilute traffic flow) is more dangerous than doing the exact same thing in the street?
I have no idea why you cannot see this plain-as-day hypocrisy. you are using something other than 1+1=2 logic to draw this conclusion.
He came down with it 5 days after attending the Tulsa rally. He also loudly communicated an anti-mask message. Could he have gotten it from somewhere else? Yes, it's possible. Is that as likely an explanation as attending the rally with no mask on where plenty of people were infected? No, probably not. Denying the problems with all of the above is worse politics than pointing it out.
Today, Trump tweeted that we may not have elections in November, not necessarily because of the virus, but because of mail-in voter fraud. That is:
1.) Not true.
2.) Not legal.
3.) He has no power to actually do that.
4.) Anti-democratic.
So, from time to time, my disgust and anger at this incompetence and malevolence seeps into my posts. Whoops.
Alright, jesus, just to get you to ****ing drop it, let's say for the sake of argument that you can get people into and out of outdoor stadiums only, safely, in numbers that are deemed to be safe using very specific procedures to keep people moving, masked, and into their seats effectively. Ok. You still have the players and coaches to worry about. You cannot include hockey or basketball, and you cannot play in any kind of indoor stadium.
Now what?
according to the conclusions drawn by 'experts' who deemed mass protests safe, this is no argument. it should be widely accepted practice backed by their 'scientific' findings.
again, this should be fantastic news leading to required masking and the allowance of any kind of large, outdoor gathering to take place without worry of subsequent breakouts.
it's curious these things are still vilified and outlawed, given we now have a body of evidence pointing to their inherent safety with even minimal regulation (masks) in place.
I'm just trying to be consistent, @DudznSudz. no reason to bunch your panties.
No, I don't think that is sound logic. Applying an outlier circumstance (mass protests that happened after a police killing that wound up not causing spikes in COVID-19 cases, which was not known at the time) to normal, recurring activities (in this case, I guess, sports?) that happen regularly, involve travel, and involve private, for-profit organizations that employ players does not seem smart, it seems like an unnecessary risk.
To give an illustration:
"The dam held after that record rainfall, which is fortunate, but that was not a given and we definitely need to be careful with its level of stress, due to its structural integrity, which is known to be a problem."
"The dam held? Ok, great, open all of the locks and flood that ****er weekly, every Saturday and Sunday, with as much water as possible."
almost every medical professional has stated briefly walking by someone is a very low possibility for transmission. if fans are wearing masks walking into the stadium or around the stadium if attendance is severely limited doesn't sound like a big promoter of transmission. they should allow fans at games. the question is the number and it probably should be pretty low. the players really need almost daily testing but the US apparently has been farting around and didn't make the #1 priority back in february. if we had that now instead of winter we could return to much more normal lives including fb players
Yup. I don't entirely agree with your conclusion about even allowing attendance at games (see above), but its a sound one to draw IF, as you say, it is done correctly with super low attendance and mandatory masks. And the way this country has treated the virus has been...I mean it would be funny if it weren't so tragic.
fair enough, except what I'm saying is more like:
"Okay, we know what the dam can withstand, and we know what makes that dangerous, so why do we need to drain the reservoir if the dam will hold against something less than maximum pressure?"
Yeah. The guy above said something similar. I don't think it's a great idea, but if you do it in a very controlled way, it "could" work.
I would feel a hell of a lot better about it if the virus were currently being contained and we all had access to adequate testing and there was good contact tracing, none of which is happening right now.
well, yea, no kidding.
I still don't even think a super low attendance requirement is necessary if we have reliable data that show it's not an issue elsewhere in similarly crowded, less regulated environments.
as you say, we learn from experience. seems we have a giant experience we've learned from. that the application of such knowledge is not occurring makes me think something other than science is afoot, or the data is BS.
Interesting to hear Fauci say the the riots and protests helped to spread the virus. It was hard for him to say, but he did. Of course you won’t see that on CNN or NBC.
don't tell @DudznSudz. his entire worldview will collapse under the weight of this news.
Last edited:
And I notice that you left out a lot of context and seem to be siding with Gym the Enabler.
Jordan pushed Fauci on whether protests increased the spread of the virus, to which Fauci said that he can "make a general statement" that "crowding together particularly when you're not wearing a mask contributed to the spread of the virus." He later said any crowd, including protest crowds, would constitute a "risk" -- and that indoor crowds are a bigger problem than outdoor ones.
But Jordan appeared to suggest Fauci was applying a double standard by holding back on stating that demonstrations should be curtailed for health reasons.
Jordan asked Fauci, "should we limit the protesting?" Fauci had Jordan clarify the question, to which Jordan responded "should government limit the protesting?"
Fauci said "I'm not in a position to determine what the government can do in a forceful way," before Jordan interrupted: "You make all kinds of recommendations, you make comments on dating, on baseball, on everything you can imagine. I'm just asking, you just said, protesting increases the spread. I'm just asking you should we try to limit the protest?"
"I think I would leave that to people who have more of a position to do that," Fauci responded. "I can tell you that..."
Jordan again interrupted Fauci: "Government's stopping people from going to church, Dr. Fauci. Last week... five liberals on the Supreme Court said it was OK for Nevada to limit church services... Is there a world where the Constitution says you can favor one First Amendment liberty, protesting, over another, practicing your faith?"
"I'm not favoring anybody over anybody," Fauci said. "I'm just making a statement that's a broad statement... avoid crowds of any type no matter where you are, because that leads to the acquisition and transmission. And I don't judge one crowd versus another crowd. When you're in a crowd, particularly if you're not wearing a mask, that induces the spread."
Jordan, still not satisfied, attempted to extract a yes or no answer from Fauci, saying that there's been "no violence" at churches.
"I don't know how many times I can answer that," Fauci said. "I am not going to opine on limiting anything. ... I'm telling you what there is, the danger. And you can make your own conclusion about that. You should stay away from crowds."
Jordan told Fauci about a case where two people running a gym against a coronavirus order in New Jersey got arrested before speculating that if the men were outside protesting along with their customers they would not have been.
"I'm not going to opine on who gets arrested and who does not," Fauci said. "I mean, you get where I'm going. I'm telling you as a public health official I say crowds..." Jordan jumped in again and asked Fauci whether he saw any inconsistency, likely referring to the treatment of churchgoers and business owners versus protesters.
"There's not inconsistency, congressman," a frustrated Fauci replied, likely talking about his own statements.
Jordan then said he hasn't seen cases of hairstylists attacking police officers, but added that many protesters have recently.
"And we know that protests actually increase the spread of the virus, you said that," Jordan said.
"I said crowds," Fauci shot back. "I didn't say specifically. I didn't say protests do anything."
"So the protests don't increase the spread of the virus?" Jordan asked.
"I didn't say that, you're putting words in my mouth," Fauci replied. "I can tell you that crowds are known, particularly when you don't have a mask," to add to the spread of the virus. (Minutes later, Fauci eventually specified that he considers protests to be crowds in this context.)
Jordan at one point challenged Fauci for advocating to shut down businesses but not commenting on protest restrictions: “You can’t go to work, you can’t go to school, you can’t go to church … but protesting is just fine.”
Jordan then said he hasn't seen cases of hairstylists attacking police officers, but added that many protesters have recently.
"And we know that protests actually increase the spread of the virus, you said that," Jordan said.
"I said crowds," Fauci shot back. "I didn't say specifically. I didn't say protests do anything."
"So the protests don't increase the spread of the virus?" Jordan asked.
"I didn't say that, you're putting words in my mouth," Fauci replied. "I can tell you that crowds are known, particularly when you don't have a mask," to add to the spread of the virus. (Minutes later, Fauci eventually specified that he considers protests to be crowds in this context.)
Jordan at one point challenged Fauci for advocating to shut down businesses but not commenting on protest restrictions: “You can’t go to work, you can’t go to school, you can’t go to church … but protesting is just fine.”
I always like it when perv enablers get on their high horse.
Last edited:
I just posted a large chunk of the exchange between Dr. Fauci and Gym the Perv Enabler (or Gym Shower Jordan, if you prefer)....from Fox News. Looks to me like Gym the Perv Enabler wanted Fauci to say that protests spread the virus but churches don't....or that the virus cares if it is a protester or hair stylist. I mean....why is Gym discussing attacks on cops with an infectious disease expert?
Fauci also said that indoor crowds are a bigger risk than being outdoors.
Last edited:
he said all crowds should be avoided and promote the spread.
something we've always known.
the virus, much like me, could care less about your politics or jim's.
And he said that indoor crowds are a bigger risk than outdoors....
That's good that you don't care about his politics. You SHOULD care that a guy like Gym Shower Jordan/the Perv Enabler was acting all high and mighty.
This sounds like we hope to start the season, but don’t count on finishing it. OSU vs Michigan being scheduled early in the season.
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/s...kely-played-early-football-season/5554650002/
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/s...kely-played-early-football-season/5554650002/
Because maybe a perv enabler has no business trying to poke at anyone else's credibility.....?
- Status
Similar threads
