OldSchoolSnapper

Would just like to clear up that I wasn't serious about the SunnyD.

Fortunately, if you live in a cold-weather state or just don't get outside much, SunnyD is loaded with it and is best consumed by the pint.

My gut feeling is that he is either done, or back for way less. I just do not get the sense that he wants to deal with a new clubhouse at this stage in his career. We will see.

We can do option 1, and I think it is a fair option, but I think it is also the option that has no realistic alternative because I never expected enough people to comply with the rules in the first place.

I'm confused by "Restrictions are a result, not a cause." Are you arguing that restrictions are the result of business failures? He's saying the restrictions are because of Covid explosions, not the cause of a failing business. Which I think is flawed because a) we started forcing things closed before there was an explosion and b) what I just posted above.

I think that's highly debatable and kind of why there is an argument. Closing things like Kohl's for 2-3 weeks probably achieved next to nothing and absolutely decimated FY for companies like that. It was ultimately their decision, but it really wasn't. The last Evers order that was shut down had many bar and restaurant owners saying it was useless because they can't operate at a profit with 25% capacity. The crux of the whole thing is that if you don't believe this really mitigates anything, then all you are doing is taking a business's chance of survival from say, 35% to 0. I would strongly disagree that restrictions are always a result and not a cause themselves.

It isn't that simple though. Take for example Disney World, a massive operation which is allowed to open but under capacity limits which drastically lower the crowd, which in turn have led to tens of thousands of layoffs (more yesterday), which leads to fewer people pumping money into the businesses that are opened. This is just one example and an extreme one, but it applies all over the place. Disney Land has had it even worse, they still haven't been allowed to open - at all. Fewer weddings are fewer photographers, bartenders and DJs getting paid. The concession workers at sporting events, the bartenders at the Riverside, etc. The retail chains are not offering the same level of seasonal staff because the demand and crowds aren't there. This would have happened on some level anyway, there would have been lower attendance at anything regardless. The argument is that the restrictions take what would already be a recession of sorts and add red tape that make something already difficult even more so. If you aren't exposed to the people being ruined by the economic aspect of this, it's pretty easy to forget that they are there. The local theater in my town is likely going to be killed off by this. The margins are paper thin as is; they are relying entirely on donor money that is going to dry up without shows for a year. Which also means nobody staying at the hotel or out of towners eating at the local restaurants. Now, of course crowd control of Disney is a good idea considering that as it is now you couldn't distance in any way if you lifted those limits, but those are questions that start getting more difficult the longer it drags out. If we are at Thanksgiving 2021 it gets more difficult for me to go along with laying off 50k people to continue failing at containing a virus. Lives do have a price, they always have, and there is a "throw your hands up" point where you realize we can't function at 8-10% unemployment when we aren't having any success containing the thing either.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. It's true that some were, but as I said, some were actually postponed from the beginning of the spring, in the brief period when nobody was willing to go. There was quite an extended period when air travel was a big no-no, and even if you wanted to get on a plane, it was difficult with all the schedule mangling and cancellations. Then there were the gathering limitations, which hamstrung a bunch of the venues from having them. These relaxed, but by that time, there were logistics concerns and a delay in holding them again. And as I also said, weddings boom every year beginning in August and through October. So, the volume of them definitely increased a bunch toward the end of summer. But I think the important distinction is that if I made a list of things we really need to try and make work, school is at the top. Weddings would be among the first things I would say "yeah, we don't need this," if I were the supreme leader.

Schools, while they are daily things for many, are largely the same people together over and over again, and depending on the school, this has been strictly enforced lots of places. Obviously, there's plenty of opportunity for kids getting it from parents who went somewhere and bringing it back, but a wedding is an absolute petri dish nightmare. They are people from all over the place, who then start drinking, lose all inhibition, and then scream with each other while they sweat and dance. There is also going to be a strong reluctance from at-risk people to skip them, grandma can't miss it, etc.

I would add wedding season. A lot of the earlier ones were postponed, but that is money wedding season every year. And those, anecdotally speaking, seemed to be a disproportionately common thread in the people I knew who actually got it. The number of weddings, a completely elective thing that can be made official and celebrated later, has been unbelievable to me.

I think any temperate states were going to see a worse spike once summer ended, to what degree our measures influenced it, I have no clue. Without a drug to really put a dent in things, winter was going to be a problem. My estimate, and maybe I'm wrong, is that this is going to be worse in the coming months than it has been at any point. This really emerged when weather started to get better. It's now getting worse and the counts are already ballooning, I'm not sure it's the cause, but I think it's going to compound the problem as we move forward. It just does not look like a good recipe to me. I'm highly skeptical of our ability to adhere to lockdowns all winter. Life finds a way, so to speak.

I think expecting someone to post a link proving lockdowns do or do not work is a bit of a fool's errand. I believe his claim is fair, there is evidence they don't work, and also evidence they do. There is evidence that obesity, weather and GDP are better indicators of what happens versus a lockdown. I'm not sure how you would gauge the effectiveness of them either with terrible tracing data, massive numbers of under-reported cases or people lying about their behavior. It will probably be years until there is any kind of agreement as to how effective they were. Nearly everything we have right now is half a story, "i.e., cases dropped, but it was also 78 degrees" kind of thing. We don't need a study to tell us that if everyone locks indoors for 1 month there is nowhere for a virus to go, but that's not how this unfolds in reality.

Personally I don't think the mandates work because the people willing to have 8 beers at a pub right now are going to do that somewhere else as well as any other high-risk activity they feel like doing, and they will not be alone when they do so. I don't think they work because the people who take it seriously participate in far fewer high-risk activities. As you said yourself, the numbers at church and restaurants are down anyway. It all just feels like "Duck & Cover" at this point. They can't say nothing. Even if they knew we were trying to stop tidal waves with paper plates, nobody is going to say that. This thing is going run its course in the US. I just don't understand how anyone thinks closures and masks are still going to do a thing in this country. We are this far in and they haven't worked; you can argue until you're blue in the face that they work, and it's the people that don't, but my point is that it's the same outcome. The lack of participation is an actual variable in the problem; it's not something you can just say "people are selfish" and toss aside. It's as real a problem as the virus and the plan forward has to take it into consideration.

No it isn't, but that's not what I said anyway. I said there are businesses that 100% are done if they are forced closed for 2 months again. That's just a fact. Mandates or not, yes some will fail, but others won't. You remove their fighting chance with a government-mandated closure. I can't stress this to you enough, as an employee of a F500 retailer, seeing brick and mortar sales fall to literal 0 overnight and stay there for weeks is crippling. It directly led to mass layoff. You can bandage bleeding and adapt to a reduced guidance, what you cannot do is handle a literal 0. This is exactly what I'm saying though. Without a VAST majority of voluntary participants, the measures are minimally effective at best. My point is continually being misconstrued into "people are dying and you would rather grab a burger," when my point is that people are dying regardless of getting the burger because they are finding another place to transmit. Publicly accepting death isn't a viable option for public leaders so they can't say it, they have to enact something or they aren't doing anything. For the lockdown to work it had to be swift, forced, and early. Half-hearted stuff eight months too late is just a waste of time and, in my opinion, going to do a lot of harm for little to no benefit. Frankly, I think banning dining and such this late in the game is just kind of a joke. We're about to enter winter, which we have not dealt with at all in a Covid world. Millions of people are about to be home from work and school and hosting Covid superspreader parties.

It keeps businesses alive and people employed that are 100% going to fold with another round of closures, which is something that you can't really argue for without being called cold or pro-death or something, except the only reason I'm considering that is because the complete lack of our ability to contain it makes the loss of life a sunken cost. Basically, my belief is that if you quarantine, you have to actually enforce it with the military in the streets for it to actually work as designed. This thing where you close stuff, destroy the service industry, and leave people to their own devices (where 1/2 "adapt" and spread it anyway) is the worst of both worlds. This country just does not have the cohesion to wave this thing away with mandates and stern letters from the CDC. The government isn't capable of protecting society from itself, as you say.

Sorry, but this seems fairly tone-deaf considering the current spike in infections/hospitalizations that is taking place right now. If we had 1)done better at actually implementing/listening to/complying with restrictions earlier on, perhaps we'd be better off now, and 2)Large amounts of people are still ignoring the severity because of nothing more than partisan politics. It truly is surreal. Perhaps we wouldn't be talking about the 'cure' taking over a year if people on the whole had helped more along the way? I don't get how it's tone-deaf, I'm simply saying what is happening. You said that people are doing whatever they want and it just isn't accurate. Things are not normal, particularly not in large cities. On your first point, I thought I addressed that in my original post. We can complain about that all we want, but it is a reality of the situation. Does anyone think we will have widespread compliance with any kind of government order? Like millions and millions of people aren't going to spread this over Thanksgiving against the advice of the CDC? I don't think it's productive at this point to keep planning to beat this as if suddenly people are going to wake up and start strictly following the guidance. They just won't. We have 8 months of evidence to prove it.

I don't think that's true, I think politicians have been writing checks they can't cash. There were early reports we could have one by August. I strongly doubt we have a widely distributed vaccine by July, and would not be surprised at all if we have nothing. The most recent things I've read have said Q2/Q3 of next year would be an achievement. I'm not holding my breath for any movement on this soon.

I don't think that's true. Chicago just banned indoor dining again last night. More kids are getting sent back to virtual school daily. There are countless conventions and festivals cancelled, tons of restrictions on sporting events, we don't have concerts, Broadway shows, etc. I realize that people like dismissing these as elective things we don't "need," but tell that to the people whose livelihood is rooted in them. After a calendar year goes by, I would say that yes, you do need those things, as they are vital parts of being human. I am just saying that you can dismiss someone prioritizing those things as "selfish" after a month, or two months, but it becomes a bit more muddled when a year has gone by.

Had to get tested today and it felt like the whole city of milwaukee was getting tested. They did awesome moving us through but from anecdotal and hard evidence it seems obvious this inst going away any time soon in Wisconsin And the longer this drags the question/discussion about the cure being worse than the problem needs to be re-explored. I understand this is a bit of chicken and egg in that if we could feasibly lock everyone inside for 1 month it would help, but in the realm of reality where we know that won't happen, is the expectation really that people won't get on a plane for 2 years? People aren't going to have their wine and cheese nights for 2-3 years? What is the duration of time at which point the majority accepts that viruses without actual treatments, aside from locking ourselves indoors, kill a lot of people and have throughout history? We can bemoan reckless behavior and people's selfish decisions if we want to, but that is still part of the reality we live in. It is far easier to make the argument that being are being selfish when calling for a 2 month quarantine than it is after 16 months.

Tonyan left the Tampa game early with an injury and is still hobbling, that has something to do with his being quiet. Rodgers loves him. I think getting Ertz probably had to do with a lower price tag to get another receiver than being displeased with their TEs but that's just my guess.

I don't see the need there. They don't have world class TEs but I haven't been watching the games thinking boy, we need to upgrade TE. The group they have is getting it done. They need front 7 help and maybe a WR like Devin Funchess would have been.

You can renew online but can't get the RealID, but the RealID requirement was pushed back to 2021 and I would guess will likely get pushed again as this drags on. It's very quick to go back in and get the Real ID after you renew, I had to do it a while back. Your passport (if applicable) also serves as a Real ID.

I think this game is kind of showing that the Bears are who we thought they were. I guess having a good year, but they're going to be limited by QB play.

I'd really like them to make a move here if it is available. Lowry has been absolutely horrid, and Lancaster has been banged up though his play has been a bit better this year. They may like Keke and Adams, who both seem to be making strides this year, but I think one more d-line body would be very useful in fixing the broken run defense. The extension they gave to Dean Lowry was mystifying to me when they did it.

I don't agree. He was a WR that was good right away and had a very steady trajectory, became a really good player, and then tore his ACL, which was a much more devastating injury even that recently than it is now. Then there was the incident where someone got shot and died in his lap, which sent him to therapy and had a devastating effect mentally, and he continued getting hurt too. I think that anyone who clearly remembers 2003 and 2004 (fair if someone doesn't, it WAS 16 years ago) would hesitate to say Walker wasn't a special player before he got hurt. As far as him not being Jennings, Nelson or Adams, that is a pretty lofty standard. Those are 3 of like the top 8 WRs they've ever had. I also agree with whoever made the comment about the 03 team going to the Super Bowl. It certainly had that feel and by the playoffs was as good as anyone. Ahman Green was one of Wolf's last strokes of genius for the Packers. One of my favorite players they've ever had.