not really. It was on the west coast much earlier than it was out here. That’s why San Fran would have been bad.
Fauci and the near future of sporting contests
- Thread starter MuskieCy
- Start date
not really. It was on the west coast much earlier than it was out here. That’s why San Fran would have been bad.
I think the theory there is that the virus was already circulating in SF in mid February, but it wasn't in KC yet. At least not at the same level.
Golf won't be the same without some jackwad in the gallery hollaring "Get in the hole".
Just dub it in like a laugh track on bad comedies. "In da hole!"
That's what I was getting at with my other post on baseball.
These guys are going to play a game and essentially spend the rest of their time quarantined in a hotel.
I'd give quality of play about a week before it goes totally south.
That was my first thought, but there are a bunch more Chinese that move through the greater SF area. Then the timing of the Chinese New Year followed by the SB Parade a week later sounds like potential for the average carrier to infect many more than whatever they think the R0 is now.
Yep, the major sports team sports aren’t coming back until we have a vaccine. There’s just no way around it. I’m hoping NFL 2021 is the first league back at this point.
Well, we are not exactly being given freedom to decide how we live right now.
But we should be.
A response that makes sense would include strong recommendations that people with risk factors should be isolating themselves, and the rest of the people should be allowed to make their own choices (with strong recommendations on how to protect themselves and others while doing so).
Not right now, at least in some areas. Hospital infrastructure being overwhelmed with COVID19 patients is bad news for anyone that needs medical care for other reasons. It’s not as simple as the risk you’re putting yourself at.
Isn't that what is being worked towards?
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/14/politics/california-economy-coronavirus-newsom/index.html
Do you think the current restrictions that were put in place were not required?
Last edited:
I think some states have gone way overboard (some have not). I guess it depends on how quickly they lift a lot of the restrictions. I'm also curious how Sweden ends up, as they've left almost everything to voluntary cooperation, and their stats are very similar to the experience of everyone else.
If we aren't using this time to ramp up capability in that regard, we've wasted it. The idea was the flatten the curve, and then normalize. If we do so, then fine. If we continue locking people down past that point, there's going to be problems (economically, and then with civil unrest).
How dystopian of you. You are the antagonist in the tragedy of the commons.
Yes, if we needlessly lock people down, it’ll be bad. We haven’t, and there are no signs we will. The social distancing has been largely effective in slowing community spread. It’ll need to continue in some capacity.
The virus more than the government is locking people down, and we won’t begin the economic recovery in earnest until otherwise. Herd immunity is needed, although reports from South Korea of reoccurrence? Hmm
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/apr/15/sweden-coronavirus-rates-easing-despite-loose-rule/
"As government leaders in the UK and the United States are grappling with how to revive dormant economies, Dr. Tegnell said the Swedish approach will allow the country to maintain social distancing measures in the long term without putting the economic system at risk. Dr. Tegnell said he believes certain regions in Sweden are already very close to achieving “herd immunity” — a state where so many in the population have built up resistance to the virus that it is no longer a pandemic threat."
Meanwhile, we're killing our small businesses (and economy in general), and as a bonus, we'll still have to deal with the virus long after they're done with it.
Sweden has one of the highest death rates in the world when normalized to population.
If you compare cases/deaths, I assume? Under more relaxed controls, the spread should be faster, so more cases/population than other places (presumably). When it all shakes out, it should be the same as all other places (unless their hospitals are overwhelmed (they aren't thus far) or there's something genetic going on).
People are dying at a higher rate in Sweden than in most places of the world and you see this as a good thing? Not only are people dying but their economy is taking a big hit just like everyone else. Their GDP is expected to shrink by 10% and their unemployment rate is expected to increase to 14%.
Again, the higher rate assumes that the cases that are known are all the cases that there are. Once this is done, they shouldn't have as much to worry about going forward (in other words, they're taking the full hit now, while we're taking a similar economic hit now, and saving more pandemic fun for later).
No. The high rate is not an assumption. It is a fact. Deaths from coronavirus in Sweden are happening at a higher rate per capita than in most of the rest of the world.
You're assuming nothing changes in the next few months that could lower the death rate. If a treatment is developed that lowers the death rate, then people are dying now that wouldn't have died if more restrictions had been put in place sooner.
Also, the social unrest is beginning to build in Sweden. Schools might still be open but a lot of parents aren't sending their children to school. Since that is against the law, social services are now being overrun with calls about parents not sending their children to school. This is just one example but it isn't all sunshine and rainbows in Sweden right now. A large segment of the populace is not happy with this approach.
The country that's currently at a 10% death rate for confirmed cases?
We don't know if states have gone overboard....also how do you have some states able to do something like college athletics if others can't? Too bad, so sad?
