fantasy impact of coronavirus

[abloom]

Maybe you meant to then clarify the "I disagree" statement you made. But I was talking about wearing masks and social distancing to reduce spread. Now if you don't disagree with that then thats fine. If you do, see previous statement.

Okay, now we’re talking past each other. Allow me to cut to the quick if I may.

Do you believe that the student-athletes are safer not participating in their falls sports seasons than they would be if they were competing? Because that’s the rationale being put forth for cancelling.

(1) Yes
(2) that is not the totality of the rationale, see my quote from warren
(3) I was simply saying that I stated my facts/opinion statement in response to you saying "I disagree...." to my post where the last comment (that you quoted) included me stating about wearing masks & social distancing.

[Bronco Billy]

Maybe you meant to then clarify the "I disagree" statement you made. But I was talking about wearing masks and social distancing to reduce spread. Now if you don't disagree with that then thats fine. If you do, see previous statement.

Okay, now we’re talking past each other. Allow me to cut to the quick if I may.

Do you believe that the student-athletes are safer not participating in their falls sports seasons than they would be if they were competing? Because that’s the rationale being put forth for cancelling.

(1) Yes
(2) that is not the totality of the rationale, see my quote from warren
(3) I was simply saying that I stated my facts/opinion statement in response to you saying "I disagree...." to my post where the last comment (that you quoted) included me stating about wearing masks & social distancing.

Thanks. I disagree. I believe they are safer in the controlled environments of practices, meetings, and games than if left to their own devices.

[Patsfan86]

The game of football is a killer in and of itself. Its barbaric. CTE for these players is far more of a threat than covid will ever be. There are two sides to this whole equation and im sick of it just going back to "Well people die from Covid, no one dies from Covid lockdowns or cancellations". Guess what? They have and they will. 5-10 years from now many of these football players who missed their shot in the pros because they couldnt play this season are going to die for reasons such as substance abuse, suicide, poverty, etc. Perhaps if they had this opportunity they would have had a different life and would have survived. This goes for the general public as well, all these businesses going under and jobs lost are going to kill people, the repercussions of this will kill CHILDREN also which no one mentions. More children will die and suffer from Covid lockdowns and regulations than will from the disease. Why? Because their parents cant feed them, or because they have been forced to stay with abusive parents instead of going to school, or because their parents picked up a drug habit due to depression of not having a job, leaving them to neglect the kids. Why is all of this so hard for people to see? And when i bring up all of this stuff about how these rules are seriously effecting children who are in abusive households, i always get crickets from Team Apocalypse because the thought has never once crossed their mind about these poor kids with abusive parents who now cant go to school and are in a living hell all day. There are two sides here and people really need to stop with the one sided BS. It isnt "just about the immunocompromised and elderly" Its also about kids who are in awful situations needing to get away from awful parents for their own survival, and the only way they get away from those parents are schools, after school sports (coaches who are better mentors than their parents) college sports, etc. Its about players like Josh Jacobs who was homeless but had the opportunity to play D1 athletics and is now a millionaire who is able to set his family up because of that opportunity. Its about them too.

Sure, there are consequences to lockdown's etc. but they are deemed less severe than the alternative, and that's not surprising, or wrong.

Its not surprising and its def not wrong but neither is the other side, the non lockdown and cancellation side, but that side gets villified. IMO we will be dealing with the repercussions of this for 5-10 years. IMO we will look back on our response to this as one of the most giant mistakes we have ever made. We will be dealing with mental health and substance abuse repercussions due to this for many many years and that cannot be understated, suicides will rise as will substance abuse as will physical abuse. We will be dealing with other medical issues due to people not being able to get or afraid to get cancer screenings or elective surgeries for at least 2-3 years after this. Then add all the financial issues (which people right now like to say its not important but come back to me about this in 10 years when this is still effecting us). In the end this has been on giant clusterbleep, and it has because every politician on every side is horrendous. From the beginning the emphasis should have been on protecting the elderly and immunocompromised, all of our resources should have gone to that and we should have let everything else run under strict precautions but not cancelled or locked down, and we certainly shouldnt be doing that now when we know more about the virus and can treat it better.

[abloom]

Okay, now we’re talking past each other. Allow me to cut to the quick if I may.

Do you believe that the student-athletes are safer not participating in their falls sports seasons than they would be if they were competing? Because that’s the rationale being put forth for cancelling.

(1) Yes
(2) that is not the totality of the rationale, see my quote from warren
(3) I was simply saying that I stated my facts/opinion statement in response to you saying "I disagree...." to my post where the last comment (that you quoted) included me stating about wearing masks & social distancing.

Thanks. I disagree. I believe they are safer in the controlled environments of practices, meetings, and games than if left to their own devices.

So your opinion is that wearing masks and socially distancing is less safe than wearing masks, socially distancing, and participating in college football?

[millworkguy]

I doubt the cancellation of these seasons has much to do with player safety, but more for the fan and admin safety. That said, surely there would be money to be made safely by having games with no fans

75,000 seats at $60 for 6 games is $27 million in revenue. College football has 105 athletes per team, staff salaries, airfare and accommodations, equipment, etc etc thats alot of money to make up. In d1 there are 130 teams, several stadiums seat more then 100,000, across all divisions there are 850 plus college programs requiring 2800 referees per week at an average annual salary of $60,000. That's $128 million per year.

[Bronco Billy]

(1) Yes
(2) that is not the totality of the rationale, see my quote from warren
(3) I was simply saying that I stated my facts/opinion statement in response to you saying "I disagree...." to my post where the last comment (that you quoted) included me stating about wearing masks & social distancing.

Thanks. I disagree. I believe they are safer in the controlled environments of practices, meetings, and games than if left to their own devices.

So your opinion is that wearing masks and socially distancing is less safe than wearing masks, socially distancing, and participating in college football?

No. My opinion is that this issue is much more complex than what you simplify it down to. The economic and social consequences extend far beyond your solution of just having everyone wear masks and staying a minimum of 6’ apart.

Further, as can be amply demonstrated, numbers and statistics being put forth are questionable at best and we as good critical thinkers should be very skeptical and should beware of either simplistic solutions or of ulterior motives, and further that there are many more considerations that need to weighed.

Something like cancelling college fall sports seasons and thinking the majority of student-athletes are going to be safer as a result indicate to me there is a lot of short-sighted decision making going on.

Now I’ve gotten into this further on a FF MB than I wanted to and am going to cease and desist.

[abloom]

Thanks. I disagree. I believe they are safer in the controlled environments of practices, meetings, and games than if left to their own devices.

So your opinion is that wearing masks and socially distancing is less safe than wearing masks, socially distancing, and participating in college football?

No. My opinion is that this issue is much more complex than what you simplify it down to. The economic and social consequences extend far beyond your solution of just having everyone wear masks and staying a minimum of 6’ apart.

Further, as can be amply demonstrated, numbers and statistics being put forth are questionable at best and we as good critical thinkers should be very skeptical and should beware of either simplistic solutions or of ulterior motives, and further that there are many more considerations that need to weighed.

Something like cancelling college fall sports seasons and thinking the majority of student-athletes are going to be safer as a result indicate to me there is a lot of short-sighted decision making going on.

Now I’ve gotten into this further on a FF MB than I wanted to and am going to cease and desist.

Your question was if it is riskier to play football, the answer is yes. I'll also say that it's safer to not wear masks and not socially distance than it is to not wear masks, not socially distance and play football.

Which statistics are questionable at best? Please demonstrate that they are questionable.

[kadun2]

So your opinion is that wearing masks and socially distancing is less safe than wearing masks, socially distancing, and participating in college football?

No. My opinion is that this issue is much more complex than what you simplify it down to. The economic and social consequences extend far beyond your solution of just having everyone wear masks and staying a minimum of 6’ apart.

Further, as can be amply demonstrated, numbers and statistics being put forth are questionable at best and we as good critical thinkers should be very skeptical and should beware of either simplistic solutions or of ulterior motives, and further that there are many more considerations that need to weighed.

Something like cancelling college fall sports seasons and thinking the majority of student-athletes are going to be safer as a result indicate to me there is a lot of short-sighted decision making going on.

Now I’ve gotten into this further on a FF MB than I wanted to and am going to cease and desist.

Your question was if it is riskier to play football, the answer is yes. I'll also say that it's safer to not wear masks and not socially distance than it is to not wear masks, not socially distance and play football.

Which statistics are questionable at best? Please demonstrate that they are questionable.

Stats/polls are so easy to manipulate/skew. Everyone knows that. With the sensitive political divide that this pandemic has created, depending on which political side you are on, it is reasonable, in my opinion, to question related statistics.

[kadun2]

The game of football is a killer in and of itself. Its barbaric. CTE for these players is far more of a threat than covid will ever be. There are two sides to this whole equation and im sick of it just going back to "Well people die from Covid, no one dies from Covid lockdowns or cancellations". Guess what? They have and they will. 5-10 years from now many of these football players who missed their shot in the pros because they couldnt play this season are going to die for reasons such as substance abuse, suicide, poverty, etc. Perhaps if they had this opportunity they would have had a different life and would have survived. This goes for the general public as well, all these businesses going under and jobs lost are going to kill people, the repercussions of this will kill CHILDREN also which no one mentions. More children will die and suffer from Covid lockdowns and regulations than will from the disease. Why? Because their parents cant feed them, or because they have been forced to stay with abusive parents instead of going to school, or because their parents picked up a drug habit due to depression of not having a job, leaving them to neglect the kids. Why is all of this so hard for people to see? And when i bring up all of this stuff about how these rules are seriously effecting children who are in abusive households, i always get crickets from Team Apocalypse because the thought has never once crossed their mind about these poor kids with abusive parents who now cant go to school and are in a living hell all day. There are two sides here and people really need to stop with the one sided BS. It isnt "just about the immunocompromised and elderly" Its also about kids who are in awful situations needing to get away from awful parents for their own survival, and the only way they get away from those parents are schools, after school sports (coaches who are better mentors than their parents) college sports, etc. Its about players like Josh Jacobs who was homeless but had the opportunity to play D1 athletics and is now a millionaire who is able to set his family up because of that opportunity. Its about them too.

Sure, there are consequences to lockdown's etc. but they are deemed less severe than the alternative, and that's not surprising, or wrong.

Its not surprising and its def not wrong but neither is the other side, the non lockdown and cancellation side, but that side gets villified. IMO we will be dealing with the repercussions of this for 5-10 years. IMO we will look back on our response to this as one of the most giant mistakes we have ever made. We will be dealing with mental health and substance abuse repercussions due to this for many many years and that cannot be understated, suicides will rise as will substance abuse as will physical abuse. We will be dealing with other medical issues due to people not being able to get or afraid to get cancer screenings or elective surgeries for at least 2-3 years after this. Then add all the financial issues (which people right now like to say its not important but come back to me about this in 10 years when this is still effecting us). In the end this has been on giant clusterbleep, and it has because every politician on every side is horrendous. From the beginning the emphasis should have been on protecting the elderly and immunocompromised, all of our resources should have gone to that and we should have let everything else run under strict precautions but not cancelled or locked down, and we certainly shouldnt be doing that now when we know more about the virus and can treat it better.

Well said.

[abloom]

No. My opinion is that this issue is much more complex than what you simplify it down to. The economic and social consequences extend far beyond your solution of just having everyone wear masks and staying a minimum of 6’ apart.

Further, as can be amply demonstrated, numbers and statistics being put forth are questionable at best and we as good critical thinkers should be very skeptical and should beware of either simplistic solutions or of ulterior motives, and further that there are many more considerations that need to weighed.

Something like cancelling college fall sports seasons and thinking the majority of student-athletes are going to be safer as a result indicate to me there is a lot of short-sighted decision making going on.

Now I’ve gotten into this further on a FF MB than I wanted to and am going to cease and desist.

Your question was if it is riskier to play football, the answer is yes. I'll also say that it's safer to not wear masks and not socially distance than it is to not wear masks, not socially distance and play football.

Which statistics are questionable at best? Please demonstrate that they are questionable.

Stats/polls are so easy to manipulate/skew. Everyone knows that. With the sensitive political divide that this pandemic has created, depending on which political side you are on, it is reasonable, in my opinion, to question related statistics.

I didn't say that they couldn't be poor stats or misinterpreted, I asked for specific ones.

[Bronco Billy]

ROGER GOODELL
COM, NFL

The NFL announced that the COVID-19 positive test rate in the NFL's first two weeks of training camp is below 1%.
Some players have opted out and training camp practices were delayed, but the NFL remains on track to play the season opener on time. NFL owners have invested a lot to protect their players and staff inside team facilities, and the players have enough on the line to take protocols seriously. What happens when players begin traveling for games is unknown, but today's report is great news for the NFL's chances of getting in games. The NFL said they'll continue with daily testing "until further notice."

[murphysxm]

Stats/polls are so easy to manipulate/skew. Everyone knows that. With the sensitive political divide that this pandemic has created, depending on which political side you are on, it is reasonable, in my opinion, to question related statistics.

I would argue heavily that the political divide you speak of began long before the pandemic.

[CGW]

Stats/polls are so easy to manipulate/skew. Everyone knows that. With the sensitive political divide that this pandemic has created, depending on which political side you are on, it is reasonable, in my opinion, to question related statistics.

I would argue heavily that the political divide you speak of began long before the pandemic.

Read some articles from the 70s and 80s or even before, you will find that it is nothing new. The difference now is that people use Twitter and Facebook to get their news (for good or bad.)

[kadun2]

Stats/polls are so easy to manipulate/skew. Everyone knows that. With the sensitive political divide that this pandemic has created, depending on which political side you are on, it is reasonable, in my opinion, to question related statistics.

I would argue heavily that the political divide you speak of began long before the pandemic.

Read some articles from the 70s and 80s or even before, you will find that it is nothing new. The difference now is that people use Twitter and Facebook to get their news (for good or bad.)

Thanks,
I should have used the word “aggravated” or something like that. “Created” was a poor choice.

[Csl312]

Rah Rah I want to be entertained so I'll ignore the vast majority of experts who say that it would be a bad idea to play football and claim its safe.

It's true that the vast majority of college age people have a relatively minor course (it's still often more than a couple days of discomfort). But how many are you willing to sacrifice for football? If 2 players die is that worth it for a football season? New data indicate that active high level athletes may be at increased risk for heart problems. Is that OK?

And let's be realistic here. The potential number of players who could suffer from long term complications is at least equal to the number who were going to parlay their nfl career into life long security. Especially on a percentage basis. Furthermore I have a hard time believing that skipping this season will have such a catastrophic effect on a large number of players that their lives will be ruined. Aren't they still getting their shot at completing a college degree?

As far as the greater impact on society I think that is a bit overstated as well. First off I can assure you at least in my area of the country people are back to doing all kinds of routine elective medical care. Secondly why is now suddenly the time so many care about psychiatric issues and domestic abuse? And do we really think that society functioning normally was the one thing keeping kids in abusive households safe? Again those things are real and will be real impacts of the lockdowns. But in the end that will be a smaller impact than widespread infection.

But by all means, continue to ignore experts, continue to blame things in politicization, and continue to disregard the health of all the other members of your community who might want to avoid getting sick. That's the American way right? But it's also people's choice to do what they can to slow and limit the spread of disease. Sorry if that means you have to find something else to watch on TV for a year.