tmwiese55

Watching MIA I unfortunately couldn't help but think how perfect Giannis would work in the Bam role for MIA, facilitating from the elbow on O. But of course Giannis tacks on his ridiculous open court on top of it. Hate to say it but MIA and Dal seem like good options who, I think but not sure, have cap space for him next year. I don't think he and Bam fit well together though, so to this topic maybe a sign/trade happens with them where Bucks get back Bam and Herro? That's best case scenario though, I can't imagine we'd get that much back if it's just a facilitating type trade.

Fair enough. I don't believe I have, as I said I stand by the whole overall point. I appreciate his pointing out a mistake (especially appreciate his take as he comes from this background), and how to improve on writing and discussing in a better more inclusive way. Go crew, need this one tonight. ETA: Good post FTC

Yes the correct phrasing should be there is not evidence to think this wouldn't be like the other ones (where you're immune for a period and then vulnerable again). I went a step far in saying the lack of evidence one way is in itself evidence of the other. Regardless, it still looks likely to be that case. I had the phrase "seem" in it the whole time to try and make that point that it's unknown but that wasn't adequate. Overall I don't backtrack at all from the point. He just correctly pointed out I overstated something and I agree. The things I called 'evidence' are not at that level yet. Seems, likely or looks that way maybe, but I agree evidence is too strong a word and too definitive. But I guess if you think my overall point of not basing a plan on making a big unknown assumption and to be safe/cautious is the irresponsible route so be it. Not the one advocating for millions of people to get it and then it'll just go away, and pushing this flawed idea out to people as a solution to undermine the distancing stuff.

Thanks, good points. Yea not trying to fit a world view. I have no desire it for it not have a long long immunity. I took a leap/assumption/overstatement when they say 3-4 months is known now in that it ends at the 3-4 month window, when all they mean at this point is that's how far they know as of now and the rest is unknown at this point (which is what I said the whole time). Basically I came at the initial statement from the wrong side and you pointed it out. It seems it would be very surprising if this was a one/done things like chicken pox or even a long long several 10 type year thing. There will be immunity for a while, didn't mean to seem like I disagreed with that, and it seems likely it will go after some period of time, how long that is is still up in the air. If you let it run wild like these people are advocating, you might end up in a big loop once people are able to get it again. Yes exactly though, who knows what Covid will look like. That's what I'm getting at, they really don't know on this so it's seems a risky route to have your plan assume it's the case when hundreds of thousands of lives are in the balance. Here were a couple on reinfections stuff that's all so early to take anything substantial from: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/08/some-people-can-get-pandemic-virus-twice-study-suggests-no-reason-panic https://www.today.com/health/covid-19-reinfection-can-you-get-coronavirus-twice-what-does-t190764

Yea they're summaries and I just grabbed the first. If you're saying it shows immunity for some period of time, yea that seems to be the consensus. I didn't mean or say there's no immunity at all. Says in some of these how they're tracking how they go down over time, which some have and some haven't. The summary on them seemed to be a few months looks Ok and then it's up in the air, which is what I said. And within all the few I clicked it mentioned studies where they go down over time in some degree, like most other ronas.. But yea I take your point that perhaps my phrasing was poor and should've been like 'it hasn't been shown you're immune for an extended period of time, just a few months so far". Seems so far they only know 3-4ish months is safe, then who knows. Again perhaps I overstated because yea that doesn't mean for sure that's it either. But factor in that some have been getting twice, some data shows while some don't, and how other viruses work that seems the more likely event. But in summary the point is just: Most other coronaviruses don't work this way Other flu strains don't work this way So probably not the safest route to plan a whole strategy that this one will work this way when you factor in the math others have pointed out in regards to potential lives lost. Seems a very risky game to play. Especially with the possibility if people can get it again say 4-6 months later (or whatever it ends up being) and the cycle kind of just keeps continuing. Making that assumption seems a risky leap. Alternate of buying time until vaccine seems a much safer route. And then if we get lucky and this does have a really long immune period (I think one of the big name coronas like SARS of the past did have a 10-12 years area), well that's great and a big big help. But seems risky or wishful thinking to plan as if that's the case. Feel like we should start being on the conservative side of it instead of the winging it and kind of hoping for the best approach we've been on.

Good stories all, hope it keeps up. I hit about 30 down since shutdown and am sitting around 25 now after some activities the last few weeks hurt. With no end in sight to this I plan on going more and getting close to the glory days numbers. For me, I agree with some who've posted about how heavily working out ends up not helping as much as you'd think because it makes me hungry. Since shutdown having way more free time has allowed for easier workouts like leisurely walk/jobs or shooting hoops as opposed to normal life where you tried to cram a bunch in a short period time, which would just make me hungry and eat it all back. I've had more success with just light so you don't get the need to eat so much. But of course everyone is different.

Sorry, no I didn't read it that way. Googling here are two first things up. But this is all still too early to know anything for sure, which is why I said 'seems'. But with how other coronaviruses work it seems a risky venture to assume and/or planning a strategy like it's one and done when other coronas don't work like that. The language or vibe commonly seen out there is that it seems you should be safe/good for 3 months but then its an unknown and still tbd. Where that comes from I'm no expert, but that's why I said 'seems'. Personally, I know one person who's had it twice. Once at the beginning and then again recently. Of course, there's a chance for a false positive when just looking at one person though and he wasn't really sick the first time, 2nd time was serious. https://www.healthline.com/health-news/how-long-does-immunity-last-after-covid-19-what-we-know https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/could-covid-19-immunity-really-disappear-months/614377/

Can you please provide a link to the relevant study? A study that shows people get multiple colds? Is that really disputed? IDK here is something that says coronaviruses are one of the types that cause common cold. https://www.niaid.nih.gov/diseases-conditions/coronaviruses . Probably a zillion other places that say it too. Overall the point is that obviously people get multiple colds, and people can get the normal flu again (which of course mutates too). It all varies on how long you have a sort of immunity from any of them. But the notion that herd immunity will somehow eliminate it when all these other ones repeatedly come back seems off. This isn't like the chicken pox (or at least from what's said so far, and since other coronas are this it's logical this won't either) where you get it once and you're done which is what the herd immunity are implying.

Yes I expected better from Keston this year too. But let's pump the brakes, he hasn't even played a full season yet. He has clear room for improvement and it's generally off to just think someone is a finished product in their rookie season, especially when half of it has been this messed up weird year.

Sure. Saw a post on herd immunity yesterday relevant to what was just discussed. Production from herd immunity is a theoretical construct assuming: 1) sufficient exposure to Covid 2)immunity following infection or vaccine is sustained 3)the virus does not mutate while propagating in the millions of infected Americans Number 2 is the big one people who keep pushing this need to look into before putting all the eggs in that basket. People can contract other coronaviruses multiple times after a period of time. Just think how you can get multiple colds, etc. So far the evidence seems it to be the case with this one as well. Tack these things pointed out onto the math/numbers pointed out above and you have a very risky proposition/road to go down here. IDK seems the safer route is to find ways to deal with the complications (focus on that instead of still having to argue and convince people this is real) of the distancing things which clearly work/slow to buy time until a vaccine is workable to help with the exponential growth aspects of the spread. Without the exponential spread issue, at some point hopefully it fades in the background like normal flu.

Your conspiracy theories don't even make sense. Do you think Fauci, Birx, Redfield etc. would hesitate to throw Trump under the bus if they believed the truth was being suppressed? There's been nothing but leaks the last four years on everything, yet somehow this conspiracy is all being kept private. Your first example has already been proven false. Admiral MacKenzie already explained original guidance was asymptomatic people didn't need tobe tested IF they self quarantine. Which is still true, but message was changed because people were ignoring that 2nd part. When you keep saying "from the top" I agree with you, but it's the top of the CDC, top of the task force, etc. If Trump, Pence whoever was pulling strings it would be on the Washington Post's website in 2 minutes. Yes, I do and I think it's clear they have to tip toe around him. But sure OK if you say so. The guy publicly disagrees and undermines them pretty much on a daily basis and is their boss. Literal headlines news about him downplaying it. Seems pretty straightforward to me. But yea, it's probably made up. The sources are either lying, or the all the media citing them are just making it up. Classic fake news. The beacon of truth is the reality tv star who's been a crook his whole life and is caught blatantly lying every day. If anyone here hasn't seen Chernobyl on HBO you should just because it's so good, I'm sure it won tons of awards. But you'll see tons of parallels to what's going on now.

Just two examples recently were when they changed the testing guidelines to say people who didn't show symptoms didn't need to be tested even if they'd been exposed. It was leaked and reported this came from the top. Second one, they released the expanded airborne info and then had to pull it down. Both things have reports/leaks saying this came from the top down. But sure I guess they're probably making it up. He basically rants about in his speeches too. https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=iNFrX_X2NKzAytMPvqWiqA0&q=white+house+pressures+cdc&oq=white+house+pressures+cdc&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzoOCC4QsQMQxwEQowIQkwI6AggAOggILhCxAxCDAToICC4QxwEQrwE6CAgAELEDEIMBOgUIABCxAzoOCC4QsQMQxwEQrwEQkwI6CAguEMcBEKMCOgUILhCxAzoLCC4QsQMQxwEQowI6CwguELEDEMcBEK8BOgoIABCxAxBGEPsBOgYIABAWEB46BQghEKsCUJgHWOskYPElaAFwAHgBgAGMAogBzwuSAQYyNC4xLjGYAQCgAQGqAQdnd3Mtd2l6&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwj12vrvroDsAhUsoHIEHb6SCNUQ4dUDCAk&uact=5&safe=active&ssui=on My guess it will be ridiculous and probably criminal once these people are allowed to speak freely on how this has all been handled if/when there is a new administration.

Yea to clarify what I meant on CDC. I absolutely would trust the science people involved, but there is an abundance of reports those people are not being allowed to just say what they're finding and what they currently think. So I don't think pointing out how they're going back and forth on some things should be viewed as some indictment on scientists overall like was being pushed here as evidence that scientist don't know what they're doing. They say something, then they have to deal with the admin/powers correcting them to align with the politics. And having clear politically motivated things pushed out from them they don't agree with. So I think I phrased poorly initially, probably should've focused on the communications/messaging that is leading to mixed messages, not the actual science. I trust the science people fully, I wish the politicians would let them do their thing and stay out of it. Essentially i'm saying don't hold it against the science people with what's going on with the CDC comms right now.

A few days ago it was reported an undisclosed player had sickle cell and couldn't play. Then this news on Pearson, probably a safe guess there but I'm sure it'll come out eventually. But I guess the Jazz Peavy stuff never came out. That said, I don't think we need to know everyone's personal medical stuff for amateur athletes.

This is 100% correct, and has even gotten worse in recent years, as many companies have stopped differentiating between "sick time" and "vacation time". It may look trivial, but it actually disincentivizes people from actually staying home when they are ill, so they don't burn their valuable vacation time. Corporate America sucks sometimes. Yup, and there will likely be a large shift to allowing remote work. This should have opened many companies eyes that many jobs don't need to sit at a desk for 9 hours straight to get the same results. We have an outdated model dating back to the factory/assembly line days which needs to be modernized.

Were so close on Monday too which would have them in a good spot. If Woody doesn't give up that HR on the 1-2 pitch they're out of that inning and into Williams/Hader. Granted they might have tried someone else for one inning in between and it would've affected our pen for Tuesday, but they'd have been in a good spot. Get the W today and you're sitting pretty well.

Lol yup, hopefully that is a lasting change that comes from this experience. I'm one who almost never gets sick, but I still find it gross having to sit there near people hacking up a lung, blowing their nose constantly, etc. Have to assume a school with young kids is even worse.

Made the mistake of having espn shouting heads on for a bit. We're on Wednesday and they're still screaming about ATL and that onside. Acting as if these players were morons, didn't know the rule, most embarrassing mistake ever, etc. Maybe I'm crazy, but I totally see what happened. They knew the rule and that if it didn't go 10 yds the game was over. So they were staying away because of that, then all of a sudden it took a right turn and made the 10 yds and boom they're in trouble. It was exactly what the hope was with trying the kick that way. Sure someone should have jumped on it a bit before as they saw what was happening, but I totally get how it happened. And if someone did jump on it a yard or two before 10 but it slipped out these same people ripping on them now would be ripping on that guy for being stupid enough to touch it before 10 yds. I know it's easy pickings to rip on ATL for blowing that game, but this seems overblown to me.

I don't blame Kwik Trip for not wanting to fight with people, you're paying someone $11/hr and now they have to confront and get in fights with people (and get close to strangers in the process). Why not put the focus on the people themselves who won't listen. Yea I look back on some of the micro anal stuff at the beginning and kind of chuckle a bit, and did at the time. I remember the chains on my park's hoops being tied up and thinking it. Some of the 'for show' things still going on now but I guess the early things you can kind of brush off as folks just didn't know so be cautious while it's figured out. A thing to remember when ripping on scientists for not knowing everything is that this process is being played out publicly. The process of figuring this stuff out is usually behind closed doors with no public watching. So testing theories and finding out which are right/wrong isn't something the public sees. Now, they see one thing that ends up not being 100% accurate and it means these guys are all idiots and/or on of 'they' who is making this all up. People dedicating their life to science and helping people usually for not a ton of money or notoriety, get ripped on by people sitting around at home who don't know anything. For politics in things like CDC, there is plenty of stuff out on that and has been leaked on the pressures their getting from the administration. They had to change those testing guidelines a few weeks ago from it. Then have to pull back on things like the recent spread info. Administration contradicts them on vaccine stuff. It would be nice if these people were just allowed to give their best info/help they can without having to worry about it. It would be nice to think these people are honest and doing their best instead of accusing/treating them as corrupted, incompetent, or dishonest. But of course, the people reporting that are part of the 'they' so must be making it up and/or the people leaking are part of the 'they' as well. I'd generally agree with folks saying schools seem to be ok so far a month-ish in. I'm sure it helps having the cities remote though so the ones open are the less risky spots, which makes sense. Question to those close, remember the issue brought up before about the standard about treating any symptom as if it's covid? Most of us here said how if you're actually going to enforce that it's kind of pointless to open. Has common sense kind of taken over to have some leeway on that, even if the actual protocol wasn't officially change?

No it doesn't. It's spread by close contact of humans and is slowed by reducing/limiting contact of humans, it's that simple. The airborne spread has been a thing since the beginning, I don't know how anyone can even argue it. Bars is a theory? It's people crammed close together in a close environment usually with poor ventilation, this is exactly the prime environment for it to spread. And yes there has been real world proof of it too. This is basic factual stuff and here we are still have to argue it for some reason. If you want to talk about unnecessarily argumentative this is it. CDC has been corrupted by politics now, eliminate them from the convo. It will be crazy the stories we hear once those people are allowed to speak freely.

Good posts guys. This isn't really that complicated as far as how it spreads and how to stop/slow it, yet people keep trying to grasp at straws to undermine. The complication comes into the ramifications of actually doing it, people's incomes, businesses going under, schooling, childcare etc. Then how to find a balance that is most amicable for most amount of people. Which is where I mentioned govt support for bars/restaurants, there was some of in the stimulus but nothing compared to us bailing big business and end goal of keep stocks up. Obviously that is not an easy problem to solve no matter what side of politics you're on, but it would be nice if we could just focus on those issues instead of having to waste time arguing with people still (after 6+ months of being basically wrong every step of the way) trying to undermine the basic science, which isn't really complicated at all.

Correct, it will continue to be mostly ignored outside of he cities. But keeping the order in place does give some backing to a business who does choose to follow/enforce it to be able to say "hey the government says it's the rule" so don't yell at me. And for that business to at least have their employees do it even if they don't want to fight with customers. And, it keeps it in place in the cities, which it seems to me have been doing ok throughout in keeping low numbers and not having our state be a problem state (exception being the bringing students back which was obviously going to spike numbers). To add to Turbo's and Peavy's, it's sad or too bad much of it also comes from the need to sit in a bar and get drunk. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy that as much as the next guy. But a big chunk of this issue is straight from bars. Which I obviously feel bad for the bar owners just trying to keep their business, and that's where govt assistance should have come in to help them. But I do see an irony when looking at bars and then the University system though. Obviously the vast majority of people with the U would've been on the "this is serious, trust science etc" side the whole time and been ones to say bars shouldn't open. Well, bar owners needed money so they open. Push comes to shove, the university chose money the exact same way.

We just have to put up some number on Bauer this week to screw up his stats, then Burnes have a good game in is start. Simple, haha.

Getting game 1 here would be huge with Woodruff. Top of my head I think his last start was just so-so, so he's due for a good one tonight. Gray pitches tomorrow fresh off a DL stint I think for back issues, so who knows what you're getting there but its a good bet they're not getting last year or earlier this year level Gray. Sure would be nice to dump on the Cards over the weekend and make the playoffs while eliminating them. I know in history it's usually the opposite, so it would be great to do it to them. Preferably with Braun delivering some kind of game winner on them. I've been somewhat not into it this year with the weird year and the team being not great, plus NBA playoffs, but I think I'll be dialed in this week to see what happens

Its so overblown too. Everyone got 2/3 of their original crossover games, then they worked backwards to eliminate games. Nebraska had a rough one to begin with and they still do.