It’s important, but that’s not the reason the economy is shut down.
Axios Sports: No football would break college sports
- Thread starter BleedGopher
- Start date
It’s important, but that’s not the reason the economy is shut down.
MNGopher23
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 8, 2018
- Messages
- 637
- Reaction score
- 393
- Points
- 63
It's a sin they don't televise it
MplsGopher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2017
- Messages
- 36,668
- Reaction score
- 10,147
- Points
- 113
It's not? Please elaborate
Huh?
There are a ton of pessimistic people on here. When this is all said and done and restrictions are lifted you will likely have one of the largest booms in history. Not all jobs will come back immediately, but in time the numbers will come back and probably exceeded pre-covid19 benchmarks. It is a great time to buy. Anyways, I do expect a large amount of debt/debt service to be eventually covered or abated by the government where main Street won't go broke... because of government interventions or mandates, they kind of have to in some capacity as there are constitutional questions regarding their actions. The government will probably cover medical costs for those affected as well. You will see a ton of spending...(sad). That said we are in it for the long haul and I think a year without sports seems to be likely. You cannot really walk back this hysteria until it is resolved.
Last edited:
It’s about managing the load on the health care system. Do we issue stay at home orders during a bad influenza season? No, we do not. If the system was able to keep up with this mess, I believe we would have taken a different path, which is what we’ll eventually be doing, until we have a vaccine.
So, they are doing this to try and save lives... otherwise why would they care about the load on the system??? Right.
Stay at home orders save lives, but if our system could have handled this, I believe it would have been limited to more vulnerable Americans, which would have resulted in additional deaths. Shutting down the economy is the last resort. That’s was my point.
I disagree that would result in additional deaths...in fact it would result in fewer deaths in all likelihood. People aged 0-49 (66%) would place less than 1/3 the strain on the system the remaining population would. So, I do agree the near complete shutdown is and was a mistake; you can undo the stigma at this point. It is what was done.
I get what you’re saying. Isolating the vulnerable, and leaving the economy open might save lives, if it’s done correctly. It’s definitely something to think about. I hate this as much as anyone. The virus affects a very small percentage of the population, but shutting down our economy negatively affects every single man, woman and child.
hello-world
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2016
- Messages
- 2,542
- Reaction score
- 1,493
- Points
- 113
... what does Axios think is happening to any other impacted business?
It's not going 'break' college sports. It's going to lead to a lot of cost cutting and debt financing just like it is for every other impacted industry.
The University of Minnesota is well capitalized and has an extensive and strong credit history. The athletic department will be just fine.
Like I said yesterday, they should start looking at non-essential cost takeouts, and financing options. Pension funds will be more than willing to lend to Universities. They are basically one of the only safe places to place money right now and the government is offering no yield.
It's not going 'break' college sports. It's going to lead to a lot of cost cutting and debt financing just like it is for every other impacted industry.
The University of Minnesota is well capitalized and has an extensive and strong credit history. The athletic department will be just fine.
Like I said yesterday, they should start looking at non-essential cost takeouts, and financing options. Pension funds will be more than willing to lend to Universities. They are basically one of the only safe places to place money right now and the government is offering no yield.
MplsGopher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2017
- Messages
- 36,668
- Reaction score
- 10,147
- Points
- 113
Say that there were unlimited ICU and ventilators. Infect 100% of the US population, and 20% can be hospitalized in the ICU, doesn’t matter we have the capacity.
But that means 1-3% of the population will die. Maybe 3-9 million people.
With the stay at home orsers, maybe only 1-2% of the population gets infected, and only 1-3% of that die.
I’m vastly exaggerating the difference to make the point: reducing the percentage that ever get infected, saves lives right there.
Those are unrealistic numbers in the context of this disease, or any disease, for that matter.
Fauci has stated numerous times that the social distancing measures, and flattening the curve are designed to ease the burden on the health care system. Does anyone really believe everything would be shut down if we had a severe flu season of 70-80K deaths? Of course not.
MplsGopher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2017
- Messages
- 36,668
- Reaction score
- 10,147
- Points
- 113
I agree they wouldn’t.
Because it’s well known. We know the pattern of how infections will be, each year.
We have no idea how many would’ve been infected, how quickly, if we didn’t shut it down. That’s why it’s shut down.
Meh. First, the mortality rate is nowhere near 3%. They expect it to be below 1%. The best case I read would put it at around 0.6%. Second, not everyone will be infected. Third, it is less about how many are infected but rather who. And lastly, the more people infected assuming it is the low risk, would reduce exposure to the high risk on the back end.
Lives are more important than the economy and college sports.
If population testing finally becomes available like it is in other countries that have competent leadership and the data show the virus is not lurking, a vaccine becomes available to all not later then the end of August and an effective safe drug is found to kill the virus then the football season could start in October.
If population testing finally becomes available like it is in other countries that have competent leadership and the data show the virus is not lurking, a vaccine becomes available to all not later then the end of August and an effective safe drug is found to kill the virus then the football season could start in October.
BTChamp
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2019
- Messages
- 6,928
- Reaction score
- 6,472
- Points
- 113
The ADs for the schools with it need to be pushing the tailgating and beach atmosphere. They would overtake football in revenue if they do it right. If shoes can sponsor, so can Dos Equis. The Most Interesting Man in the World can do autograph sessions.
hello-world
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2016
- Messages
- 2,542
- Reaction score
- 1,493
- Points
- 113
I don't agree with this, and I think that you're going to find that most people don't agree with it. They just don't realize that yet.
The economy doesn't care about individual people, but individual people care a lot about the economy. There was a story published back in January about how 40% of American workers were one paycheck away from poverty. Their rent just came due today.
Give it a couple of weeks and that issue will come right back to the forefront. We should do everything we can, but a lot of people are going to be in dire straits if this shutdown continues much longer.
MplsGopher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2017
- Messages
- 36,668
- Reaction score
- 10,147
- Points
- 113
What “experts” say less than 1%? I’ve not seen any.
In almost any case, it wouldn’t infect 100%. Agreed. It was an exaggerated (as I said) hypothetical that proves the point that reducing the number of people who get infected, saves lives in of itself.
All age groups, regardless if healthy, are at risk for death if infected. An infant died in Chicago. So your third statement is not correct.
Your last statement doesn’t make any sense. Please elaborate, ideally with a hypothetical example. Thank you!
There are some people here practicing medicine and epidemiology without a license.
Fauci knows what he is talking about. Have you ignored the scenes from Italian or NYC hospitals? That does not happen in influenza season.
Other countries are doing the relief efforts better by paying companies not to lay off workers. When the latest disaster relief bill went through Congress it was held up because some reactionaries in the Senate thought the unemployment benefits were too generous!!
So, the mortality rate among the sick is at least 1% and given the large number of the sick not an insignificant number if it it includes your parents or grand parents.
The true mortality number based on the total infected cannot be determined because of the criminal negligence in this administration in not having an accurate, quick test available.The intelligence about how serious this virus is was available to POTUS in early Feb.
The waiting period for results still is about TWO WEEKS!
In any event it does not matter what people on this board think. We are going to be shut down until the wave of infections is over. In the absence of testing that means being shut down is the only solution.
They haven’t determined that the 9 month old died from CV. It’s being investigated.
MplsGopher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2017
- Messages
- 36,668
- Reaction score
- 10,147
- Points
- 113
The report I read said it was. Who is saying it isn’t? Can you help me with a link please? Thank you
Do you know how to use Google?
MplsGopher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2017
- Messages
- 36,668
- Reaction score
- 10,147
- Points
- 113
I do indeed. It’s accepted rule of thumb on GH that those who make a claim are responsible for providing a link to prove that they aren’t making it up. I don’t think you are, and you should be able to provide it in seconds. So I don’t see why you wouldn’t want to do that.
MplsGopher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2017
- Messages
- 36,668
- Reaction score
- 10,147
- Points
- 113
In fact, here is a new report of an infant in Connecticut that died and then tested positive for CoV. https://wgntv.com/news/coronavirus/6-week-old-baby-dies-of-coronavirus-in-connecticut/
This could support the idea that there have been many infants who have died because they became infected with CoV and their deaths were never properly attributed to the disease.
This could support the idea that there have been many infants who have died because they became infected with CoV and their deaths were never properly attributed to the disease.
If you input “9 month old Chicago Coronavirus death” into google, you’ll find enough articles about it to keep you busy for awhile. The cause of death hasn’t been determined, officials say it would be highly unusual for Coronavirus to be the cause of death, and they are investigating.
MplsGopher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2017
- Messages
- 36,668
- Reaction score
- 10,147
- Points
- 113
I already did that in fact, and found several articles from official sources announcing that the infant did indeed die from CoV.
OK, here you go. There are lots of these
IDPH continues to investigate infant’s death: COVID-19 Pandemic March 31 updates
Information in the COVID-19 pandemic is evolving rapidly, so to help keep WGN viewers informed with the latest updates, follow our live blog for March 31, 2020. These updates will mostly focus on t…
wgntv.com
Now, can you show me one that states that CV has been officially determined to be the cause of death? Thank you.
The best data on the mortality rate is from people in confined environments. When data is applied to the rate of how contagious it was while also accounting for proportional representation across groups in society they expect the mortality rate is about 0.6% up to 1%, with the unlikely possibly it is as low as 0.2%.
My third statement is absolutely correct. I never said young people can't die from this, just that it is incredibly rare. Moreover infants just from common sense are in the risk catagory even if less susceptible.
Lastly, if you don't understand my last statement you probably shouldn't be commenting. BUT I will explain...when low risk people who account for up to 66% of the population, who would place less than one third the strain are infected and have disproportionately positive outcomes, these people will not likely go on to catch it again and infect high risk individuals who have a greater risk of negative outcomes while putting over 2x the strain on the system. Right now we have risk groups comingling which is destined for overloading the system. Mitigation is the way to go. Case isolation, social distancing of individuals 50+ ect... Monitor the situation and hold back or release people as the system can manage. Pretty simple. You don't completely shut things down over this...even if it saves a few lives...which is really debatable if you account for unintended consequences.
Last edited:
MplsGopher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2017
- Messages
- 36,668
- Reaction score
- 10,147
- Points
- 113
This is the first link that popped up for me: http://dph.illinois.gov/news/public-health-officials-announce-first-death-infant-coronavirus-diseaseOK, here you go. There are lots of these
IDPH continues to investigate infant’s death: COVID-19 Pandemic March 31 updates
Information in the COVID-19 pandemic is evolving rapidly, so to help keep WGN viewers informed with the latest updates, follow our live blog for March 31, 2020. These updates will mostly focus on t…
Now, can you show me one that states that CV has been officially determined to be the cause of death? Thank you.
"
The Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) today reported the death of an infant younger than one year in Chicago who tested positive for coronavirus disease (COVID-19).
"
Dated March 28. Your link is newer, March 31. So your link wins, here. Thanks for providing it.
Will be interesting to see what IDPH determines, and hopefully they'll announce the findings soon.
Also will be interesting to see what findings will be announced for the 6week old infant death in Conn.