tmwiese55

Simply look at NYC death graph and try to convince yourself lockdowns don't work. Look at it and go, so if we'd kept on the path that led to those deaths in March/April would we have more or less deaths now than with what we did instead. Look at every major country that did one and the decrease it led to in all of them. And then look at how they've gone up since lockdowns/restrictions were lifted. Yes there isn't a shred of evidence, it's an overwhelming amount that it shouldn't even be debatable, yet here we are. Yes, this is 100% factual that less people are dead now because of it. Again, did it help enough to warrant the economic burden is a fair debate but to act like this doesn't work is just wrong to continue to spread to the world. OSS, for some reason a stupid analogy popped into my head thinking about this. Remember the Jurassic Park back and forth of "so you're telling me a population of females will...breed?" and Malcolm says the "uhh, life finds a way" line. In this case, me saying "so you mean to tell me that people not interacting will pass a disease that needs interacting?" and you saying "well, yea stupidity/selfishness finds a way". Haha. Essentially that's kind of what you're getting at, we weren't gonna stop the people anyway so why bother. it kind of comes down to that, like I said it worked in the limited degree it did. You'd rather say, well that didn't really work all that great anyway, so whatever just do nothing. I'd say, we need to stop telling people this is BS so that it works better.

You're not getting my point but just opting to be sassy and dismissive instead. Gotcha. We didn't decrease interactions on any significant scale. Schools were open for most of the time and the people who would frequent a dine-in restaurant in Milwaukee right now, aren't curtailing their interactions, they just find new ones. Did you see Lake Geneva, or the Dells ALL summer? My point is that we did the worst of both things. We took away any chance for these places to be profitable while being laughably bad at limiting contact simultaneously. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that locking stuff down means the virus has nowhere to go. The problem is we didn't actually do that. We had ice cream stands with lines around the block on day one and arbitrary rules about what's "essential." You're conflating my point "lockdowns don't work." My point is that joke lockdowns don't work and that's exactly what we had. Although, since you brought up human to human contact, it should be reiterated that Disney/Universal are seeing 100k people a day and have been for 6 months there's been no conclusive link to an outbreak at either place, while the state is overall doing a lot better with infection rate than WI. Even if their numbers are fudged, they would have to be drastically fudged to be where WI is. You're going too black and white on it. Did our half baked lockdowns "work", I agree no. But it's not necessarily all or nothing. Did they work better than doing nothing, 100% absolutely factual. It's just shocking this is still debated this long into all this, especially with generally smart people. If folks weren't running around everywhere the whole time telling people this stuff doesn't work then maybe we'd have actually gotten more people on board so it worked better/more than it did. Whether it was worth the economic cost for however extra it helped/worked is debatable and a discussion. But to act like we'd have the same dead right now if we'd have simply gone on like normal is just 100% wrong.

Well, this won't be popular, I don't agree. I know this is the thing everyone likes to say because it makes us feel good about what we've done but I genuinely question the impact that it had, if any significant one at all. If Milwaukee were to green light everything this instant, the people who are scared to walk outside wouldn't be lining up at Sanford. They would continue to proceed with caution. Reckless people have continued to behave recklessly throughout the 10 months. Enormous parts of Florida have all but ignored Covid completely and there is no discernible difference between FL and WI. They have just over 2x the documented cases and 4x the people. They've had (daily festivals) Disney World and Universal open since June. Call me crazy, I just don't think our half-hearted distancing measures did anything at all. Most of the times I was out and about I found them being ignored all over the place. I remember trying to arrange curbside pickup at a restaurant in April and the guy just told me to come inside when I got there. I walk in and there are 10 people inside, half without masks, just getting their food. The thing is moving its way through WI at will and I don't actually believe it would be worse if the public messaging were any different. People are doing what they're comfortable with and for a lot of them that means whatever they want. I don't think most of the US mitigated anything. We just did the worst of both methods. Closed a bunch of stuff, made it impossible for lots of service-oriented businesses to survive, and locked down so ineptly that we didn't stop the sickness at all either. OK. So way more human interactions wouldn't have led to less human to human spread. Gotcha.

Call me crazy, but I think if we just operated like normal this whole time with things like full restaurants/bars everywhere, festivals, sporting events, schools etc I think we'd have many more people dead.

Yes, good stories. As one who looked at those and thought "what's the point, the way I'm doing things now is easy enough" I never thought of some of those special needs situations mentioned. What a difference these things could make for a ton of people like that, life changing differences for them and their families.

Yup, my take is essentially the B1G was correct in not bothering with this. But they were incorrect in that they didn't foresee the backlash forcing them to play. If they had they could've planned accordingly like other conferences with makeup weeks put in place. The health guidelines and all that put in place by B1G seems solid but that all should've been planned out in the summer. Really, we pay the AD departments millions of dollars and it seems they sat on their hands all spring/summer like this was going to magically go away and then winged it at the end.

Interesting topic I've never gone down the wormhole on before. Good info and takes by all and my reaction is it does seem insurance would be something new to try, nothing else has worked the last 30 years. I also don't see a problem with kind of singling out this issue, to me it's the same as singling out smokers which no one has a problem with. On this overall obesity/overweight topic Bill Burr has had some good bits on it over the years. If you want some laughs this weekend, which everyone needs these days, go down a Bill Burr trail on Netflix. Top of my head I'd think this topic was more in one of the more recent ones.

I'd probably agree that after the initial making everyone aware of co-issues such as obesity it has probably faded a bit in the background. However, I'd tend to agree with it not being a huge topic since what does it matter, our obesity is the reality of the situation we're dealing with. We can't snap our fingers and change that or just say that's their problem and let them die. But to way this topic was just brought up in this discussion. I believe the point was we've been telling the US (not just since covid) their weight is way out of control for 30+ years now and very few people care. We've been well aware of this problem for a long time. I guess I don't see the value in saying "told ya so" to them rather than doing what we can to help as many as we can in this situation.

Thanks. Seems a positive sign as well. Especially along with some people's posts about how even after vaccine some people will get it but just not get sick. Quick question though. I hope I didn't miss it if it was mentioned in there but this wouldn't be showing people who are 'presymptomatic' as not being able to spread? I struggled with the phrasing there so hopefully what I'm asking makes sense. Basically, getting at the issue of folks who don't know they have it for 4-5 days being spreaders before realizing it taking proper precautions, etc. I would read this study as being a separate issue than that?

And he goes for it on 4th down in some unusually aggressive spots and not the obvious ones. I think there was one time against NW that he went for it on 4th and 1 on UW's own 45 or something like that. Then didn't go for it on 4th down on the opponents 36. And then went for a 4th and 6 later in the game while in FG range. It was debatable since they needed a TD to tie. But 4th and 6th isn't the same as 4th and 1-3. You needed two scores to win the game, assuming the K was healthy should've took the points and got that positive on the board after struggling so long. NW got the ball after they failed and got one or two good plays and the FG for the two score lead. Whole sequence of events changes if he takes the points. I couldn't believe he didn't go for the 4th down inside the 40 after earlier going for one on the wrong side of the 50.

I think you could maybe change that to Americans. Americans are pretty selfish. Myself included. I fall into the 'pretty good about stuff' group, but I have also done/gone to some dumb places during all of this. Europe is exploding and people are protesting lockdowns. All the Asian countries that had beat it back in spring had cases go right back up as soon as they opened up. This is not simply an "American" problem. True. Difference is they at least did do it once and that led them to try reopening, but now don't want to go back to it. America essentially never did it outside of the NY area. ETA: As stout pointed out I don't think it's quite the same

So nice to see a light at the end of the tunnel. I was kind of optimistic on all this and for moving quickly considering the whole world is working on it. But of course you never knew what would happen, so good to see it's moving along in a positive direction. And those 90% effective numbers are more than I'd have guessed, even if they don't hold that high it's still a great sign. Also good to see no news or reports on politics involved. Trying to claim credit after the fact is what it is I don't care, but just leave all of that stuff out of the scientific process and communications and not give anyone reasons to not trust it. All in all, so far this all seems to be done as well as jabronis like us could reasonably ask/hope.

Making it even more curious why it was announced a couple days AFTER the election... They knew way before election day, yet waited? lol [sarcasm]Everything is political, especially in an election year[/sarcasm]. Have to love the irony here.

Plus 1 to Reilly. Well said.

Generally agree with the overall points of it being too much "masks masks masks" which could be giving a false sense of security. And the overall that people seem to be a bit looser when wearing them, in my limited experience. However, your premise that the push to masks has led to the people (especially the younger you mentioned) feeling like that gives them clearance to do a bunch more stuff might be off. It could be kind of the other way around. Govt/Medicals etc knew people were going to start doing stuff as they couldn't be locked in forever, so if that's going to be the case then try to get them to wear a mask. I mean, in WI and many other places you had people protesting to open up, politicians suing the govt to overturn lockdown, the president telling his people to open up and not listen, etc. Plus, for the economy we had to open up somehow, that couldn't go on forever. So the mask push comes from thinking "well, we can't stop the people and no way to enforce a lockdown, economy has to start moving, so I guess next best we can do is get as many to wear a mask when they're out". It's a bit of a chicken/egg thing. Also, I'm not saying it's for sure that way or that you're wrong. I'd lean to that being the more important factor and your points being a part of it too, but idk. It's just another way to think about or factor in case you didn't think of from that angle.

Franks deal in PHX was for two years. Not a FA.

Don't forget there was that study at least about 2 months ago by now showing the severity of the illness was affected by how much (so to speak) of it you took in when you got infected. I'm not sure what follow up was done on that or if it's been verified by other studies or not though. Also really shouldn't put too much stock in that cases have gone up after the mandate in WI. First, go to the rural areas and they don't really follow any of it (distancing, masks, etc) while also opening things back up. But along with what others have said in way, wearing a mask at the grocery store is a blip on the radar if you then hang out with people at your house (or wherever) without a mask. People just don't wear them when hanging in their small groups(and this is ignoring any comment on if the mask would matter when they are hanging). The fatigue of this all has just led to tons of that happening now vs earlier on. Combine that with the huge uptick in people being around each other at schools of all kind and all other increases in 'opening things up'. And that's not to blame/rip on anyone, just that human interactions are massively up Sept-now vs say April-Jun. Agree on the humans not robots issue point and the overall point that I've seen more people looser on the distancing stuff since mask came on, like it gives too much of a false sense of security. Not so sure where that govt conspiracy is even going as it has so many basic flaws in logic.

I would have questions with the whole premise of how that study was done to begin with, talk about a lot of variables involved. That said, it is a different way to do it and should be looked at and reviewed. But taking it as grand evidence that masks are a joke as it's trying to be pushed here is a big stretch imo. Essentially it involves ignoring study after study by reputable sources showing one thing, yet putting all stock in a bit off an odd type of study that shows different. Seems like some strong confirmation bias there. But similar to things I think Snapper has been saying it could be that since people are doing so many other things and the horse is out of the barn that it just won't matter too much at this point. A study done like this could support that. But that doesn't mean the mask itself does not' reduce the amounts getting in and out in the way that basically all studies show. And I'd agree the latest only topic pushed as masks masks masks is probably giving the impression to too many that they're shields and that's just not true. Keeping distance and limiting being around people is still the most important. A study like this could show that because it supposedly made them spend 3 hours out in social situations around people, basically that if you're going to do bad things for large chunks of time you're still at risk. I think Machu used the Reduce Reuse Recycle as a good way to describe as well.

You basically have 3 locks in B1G, SEC and ACC champ (Clemson or ND). If a Pac 12 wins out that's it. If not you have a debate between BYU, ND (assuming Clemson W), and then a losing title game team like UW. That spot would also be swallowed up if Florida were to beat Bama in the SEC title game, then Bama would get the 4th spot. Florida looks like a monster right now so that is very possible.

Same, opens about a 21 pt spread. I was hoping IU would get overrated and get a line around 10-14 and I was going to go hard on OSU. Seems Vegas is finally figuring out to start jacking up the OSU lines more than you'd normally do. For the playoffs, don't forget if USC or Oregon goes undefeated. Both almost lost this week. To free up a spot for ND/BYU or a conf title game loser like UW Pac 12 probably has to free up a spot.

That off-field stuff is great and all, but aside from one year that was blessed with a crazy easy schedule, MN has been consistently terrible on the field during the Fleck era. Those type of results for player coaches lead to them making an involuntary career change. They lost a lot defensively from their team last year, and the cupboard has proven to be bare behind it this season despite plenty of time to recruit talent while it was on PJ to recruit. And don't forget not only was the schedule easy they also got very lucky in like 3-4 games early in the year they really should have lost. Lose just two of them and then you're looking like a normal 7-5ish type year for MN. That said, I witnessed that stomping MN gave at UW two years ago. Probably the worst home game I remember witnessing. Have to give credit for that and that was a huge improvement statement for them to break that streak. I think he can get them to be consistently descent, say on the Iowa type level. That's a very realistic and doable goal for them. Thing is I think he'll be looking to jump to a better job first chance he gets.

All true on Rivers. But sometimes that's all you can do as the best guys aren't available. Also, obviously Rivers is a shell of his former self too at this age. Overall point was too many are too quick to call someone complete trash if they're not elite. I guess its the nature of internet/hot take culture these days. I used to say similar in regards to Jay Cutler, obviously we all saw his flaws and I used to laugh at his picks vs GB, but what else were they going to do bench him and play someone like Jim Sorgi? And how's it been going on the QB front since he left. Of course it can work the opposite where you shake it up and get lucky in the draft, but it's a big gamble. Being the 14th-18th best QB in the world but not top 5 doesn't mean you're trash. Prime Rivers/Cutler were probably even slightly better than that range.

I'm no big Rivers fan or anything. But I find it kind of funny how much he gets dumped on. He gets bashed and talked about how he should be benched basically after every loss. Yet here they are 6-3 in first place. Seems too many people forget there is a middle ground between being awesome (Wilson, Mahomes, Arod etc) and sucking/trash/awful.

Winston from MSU to me doesnt have the quickness for a lead G in the NBA. I'm generally low on him, but yea I could totally see Malcolm Brogdon type level happening. Where he's not ideal if he has the ball in his hands a ton but if his 3 pt shot is real he's good enough to attack closeouts. I suppose that late in the draft I wouldn't really complain, he has a chance to make it.

All shooting for me. Even buy a 2nd rounder and grab another one. Hopefully one pans out fairly quickly. If there was one who had ballhandling/quickness to be a lead handler in ball screen that's great too, strongly doubt that's available for them though. So likely 3 and D types but hopefully who can at least attack a close out.