Pete Thamel: Time to face reality: ‘No one is playing college football in the fall’

But the more important issue is that the pandemic is the most disruptive event to occur to the home country since WW2.
Millions are out of work, people are not able to pay rent, banks are looking at enormous losses from bad loans, over a hundred thousand are dead, millions more seriously ill and some disabled from the virus, etc, etc and some people are jumping up and down with anger because some kids will not play a game to entertain them.
This is clearly not the greatest generation.

You’re looking at it all wrong. College football contributes billions to the economy, so add more job losses to your “out of work” number. Since it is expected that a significant number of programs will be unable to weather the storm, many of those jobs won’t come back.
 

So your answer to the bad economy of the USA is to play college football?
The Nobel Prize in economics may be yours next year.
 

So your answer to the bad economy of the USA is to play college football?
The Nobel Prize in economics may be yours next year.

That isn’t even what I said. I was responding to your asinine “game” comment. To the people who depend on it to feed their families, it’s more than just a game.

Let me guess...you have a government job, or something along those lines? Guaranteed income? I don’t care if I’m wrong, but that’s the impression I get.
 




Our government screwed us. If we had respect of experts and did not make this thing a Democrat vs Trump game, we would be playing for sure. Idiots running around saying its a hoax or saying their freedoms are compromised has compromised our routines, season and lives. Mitigation of the virus in most of this country was joke and now it is too late, it is out of control. Saying we play and let the virus play out is selfish. Keep doing what we are doing now as a country will cost a lot more than a few weeks of staying home and following some easy and basic protocols in public.
Don't blame the Democrats on this one. Trump didn't do what he should have done. People aren't listening to Waltz. Many people aren't wearing masks or following social distancing. Until we do, the problem persists.
 


So your answer to the bad economy of the USA is to play college football?
The Nobel Prize in economics may be yours next year.
I think the Nobel Prize has been won for equal to or less than that. 🙂
 

In order to play college football it has to be old rules, your to sick to play you sit out, otherwise you play. Mass testing and sitting positive players means the season is over.
If that's true, (I don't necessarily agree) it's over. There's no way they're going to let someone who's positive just go ahead and play while they can still transmit it.
 



Don't blame the Democrats on this one. Trump didn't do what he should have done. People aren't listening to Waltz. Many people aren't wearing masks or following social distancing. Until we do, the problem persists.

So the Democrats are right and the Republicans are wrong, but we also shouldn't make this a political issue?

Walz based his whole policy on the MN models that said this was the week we were going to see ~1,000 deaths per day in Minnesota. All based on 'data and Science'.

We've had ~300 non-nursing home deaths TOTAL in four months. I guess Walz still knows best.
 

That is what some countries did that were very affected or did not want to become so.
And it worked.
Yep. A nationwide lockdown in March with enough testing to trace hot spots afteerwords might have worked. It's too late now.

Every/state county for themselves makes it pretty hard to coordinate playing professional or major college sports.
 

Mulligan, define resurgence. Approximately 25% of all tests in the US occurred in the last 3 weeks.
The percentage of positive tests is rising. It's not just what the stable genius claims; that it's due to more testing.
 

Not sure where you got your stat but here is the daily data from The Covid Tracking project.

Using some math:
Since June 12, increase in avg daily tests: 37%, and the increase in avg daily cases: 152%
Look at your data source go back 3 weeks and do the math.
 



Look at your data source go back 3 weeks and do the math.
Minus mutations, it would also stand to make sense that the death rate will continue to decline, which already has already occurred.

Additionally, for college age and younger more people have lost their life to influenza/pneumonia since this began and we were post influenza season. Everyone should be careful and plan based on their risk profile and put effort into a healthy lifestyle to the extent that is possible. There are also many consequences to not living that no one has attempted to measure because many are indirect.

 

So the Democrats are right and the Republicans are wrong, but we also shouldn't make this a political issue?

Walz based his whole policy on the MN models that said this was the week we were going to see ~1,000 deaths per day in Minnesota. All based on 'data and Science'.

We've had ~300 non-nursing home deaths TOTAL in four months. I guess Walz still knows best.

You're missing the part where those models were predicting the number of deaths *if MN did nothing*. The fact that MN locked down and has had a slow re-opening means we should see numbers way lower than the predictions, because that means the plan *worked*.
 

The percentage of positive tests is rising. It's not just what the stable genius claims; that it's due to more testing.
Do politics have to enter every conversation? I am an independent and the goofs on both sides have to have opinions that fall in line with the party they support. People should think for themselves...it's long over due. Death rate matters more than infection rate unless infection rate means permanent loss of something.
 

You're missing the part where those models were predicting the number of deaths *if MN did nothing*. The fact that MN locked down and has had a slow re-opening means we should see numbers way lower than the predictions, because that means the plan *worked*.
Look, I have ran teams that have created some of the most sophisticated models in the world. Most of these people were talking foolishly about COVID and the "models" they were pitching could be dismissed in seconds. If you are going to pay for something, you had better know what you are getting in return. Wisconsin has been open for 2 months and has a similar population to MN and modestly lower COVID rates and half as many people who have passed away from it.
 

You're missing the part where those models were predicting the number of deaths *if MN did nothing*. The fact that MN locked down and has had a slow re-opening means we should see numbers way lower than the predictions, because that means the plan *worked*.

Not exactly. I do recall thinking whoever created those models must have been smoking something.

On March 25, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz presented two scenarios describing the state’s future outlook related to the COVID-19 outbreak. One projection showed that cases would peak around April 26 in Minnesota if there were no mitigating steps to slow the virus. The death toll in this scenario could reach 74,000. The other scenario showed a time frame with significant and staged mitigations in place that pushed the peak to about June 29 and projected deaths in the 50,000–55,000 range.

https://www.sph.umn.edu/news/modeling-covid-19-for-minnesota/
 

Much later (May 13), Walz downgraded it to 29,300 deaths by June 29th, assuming a stay at home order remained in effect.


Minnesota's latest COVID-19 model shows a shorter time to peak epidemic, more intensive-care demand and more deaths.

There will be 29,030 deaths caused by the pandemic and 3,397 ICU beds in use at the June 29 peak, the state's new modeling, dubbed "Version 3.0", found.

The scenario assumes a stay-at-home order through May 18--as Gov. Tim Walz has currently imposed--followed by a three-week "soft opening" and ongoing social distancing for vulnerable populations.


 

That isn’t even what I said. I was responding to your asinine “game” comment. To the people who depend on it to feed their families, it’s more than just a game.

Let me guess...you have a government job, or something along those lines? Guaranteed income? I don’t care if I’m wrong, but that’s the impression I get.

My guess is a student, considering the repeated hyperbolic posts. I suspect the educators and staff and the U and elsewhere expect to keep their full salaries for the duration while others wither on the vine. Sacrifice is for the little people.

People can be simultaneously disappointed in the poor response and behavior of our irresponsible electorate and their leaders (this is a wide spectrum, non-denominational issue) and be disappointed football and school for kids looks increasingly far away. In the grand scheme of things the loss of football is minor but make no mistake there will be knock effects we can’t predict.

The problem right now: staff in hospitals here in CA are being overworked and are overwhelmed. There are supply issues. Time to dial things back including football. However, things could and probably will look very different in 3 months. Rapid testing devices, saliva-based, there is hope...
 

In other words, the “experts” were off by a little bit.

 

Yep. A nationwide lockdown in March January and early February with enough testing to trace hot spots afteerwords might have worked. It's too late now.

Every/state county for themselves makes it pretty hard to coordinate playing professional or major college sports.

The horse was out of the barn by March. We are not Germany or Sourh Korea.
 

You're missing the part where those models were predicting the number of deaths *if MN did nothing*. The fact that MN locked down and has had a slow re-opening means we should see numbers way lower than the predictions, because that means the plan *worked*.

The modeling had six scenarios. The numbers being thrown around were indeed for a shutdown through the end of May. The model was schit.
 

So the Democrats are right and the Republicans are wrong, but we also shouldn't make this a political issue?

Walz based his whole policy on the MN models that said this was the week we were going to see ~1,000 deaths per day in Minnesota. All based on 'data and Science'.

We've had ~300 non-nursing home deaths TOTAL in four months. I guess Walz still knows best.
Watching the house floor tonight. Much false information being spread on the floor. Rep. Gruehagen, Rep. Neu, and Rep. Daudt being the worst. Shouldn't be a Democrat or Republican issue but Daudt has made it one.
 

You're missing the part where those models were predicting the number of deaths *if MN did nothing*. The fact that MN locked down and has had a slow re-opening means we should see numbers way lower than the predictions, because that means the plan *worked*.

Incorrect

The modeling had six scenarios. The numbers being thrown around were indeed for a shutdown through the end of May. The model was schit.

This is correct. The 1,000 deaths per day included the shutdown and social distancing.
 

Watching the house floor tonight. Much false information being spread on the floor. Rep. Gruehagen, Rep. Neu, and Rep. Daudt being the worst. Shouldn't be a Democrat or Republican issue but Daudt has made it one.

I agree, it shouldn't be, but both the Democrats and Republicans have made it that way. What was the incorrect information that was said?
 

Treatments will continue to get better. They already have, actually. That probably has something to do with the lower death rates the Southern states are seeing. I think we just need to learn to live with it until the vaccine gets here. Yes, that includes taking extra precautions, especially with the most vulnerable. There is no perfect answer.

Meanwhile, if you’re obese, now is the time to do something about it. I read that one of the consequence of the lockdowns has been that lots of people have gained a considerable amount of weight sitting around their house. Now, many of them are likely more at risk of complications should they become infected with the virus.
Could the lower death rates be attributed to the fact that the biggest increase in infection rates is among 20-35 year olds? The population least likely to die from infection?
 

The modeling had six scenarios. The numbers being thrown around were indeed for a shutdown through the end of May. The model was schit.
Something had to be done. You don’t make decisions by pulling them out of a hat

A model with solid ideological underpinnings, even if it gives a false prediction, is still better than nothing.
 

Could the lower death rates be attributed to the fact that the biggest increase in infection rates is among 20-35 year olds? The population least likely to die from infection?
That is part of it. But also improvement in treatment of serious cases. We have an actual, scientifically proven medicine, remdesivir, when before there wasn’t any.
 





Top Bottom