PeaveyFury

Unfortunately, Big Ten rules state that 6 (5%, technically) players with positive tests on a roster = mandatory game cancellation.

Reports that Paul Chryst has tested positive as well.

Yep. At this point, the season is somewhat in jeopardy for Wisconsin. A team must play 6 games to make the Big Ten Championship, and pending further details, they may be required to cancel 3 of their 8 scheduled games. Not good.

So the people putting out the data don't fall into your political ideology so the data is not right got it. So you are not interested in reading something and learning something because you are afraid your ideology will be challenged. Closed minded indeed. 1)Don't assume anything about my political ideology, you'd be surprised. 2)I'm interested in reading most anything. Whether I use it to actually draw any conclusions, though, depends solely on its credibility. 3)As Machu and igor and perhaps others here can weigh in on, there's a direct inverse correlation in scholarly research between initial bias and reliability of conclusion. As such, I prefer to base my own personal conclusions based on sources that don't start from a place of bias. In short, I think that "group that supports the opening of the economy releases a study showing that it's bad to not have an open economy" should be viewed with reasonable skepticism, not cited as absolute proof in any claim. I don't think your claim is summarily wrong. I'm just wondering about the reliability of the sources you used to come to that conclusion.

That's not what the claim was. A link was asked because of this direct quote: The data points to the lockdowns as an absolute failure and should not be an option ever. I think there's plenty of room for debate and it will certainly be a part of 'infectious disease 101' going forward, but to speak in such an absolute is just illustrative of the point I made in my previous post.

I think your point is valid, though perhaps an overly optimistic view of society as a whole. I'd agree wholeheartedly with your view if people had drawn a conclusion based on their own review of data and reputable sources. Sadly, I believe that views on this are largely derived from what 'their side' tells them to believe/think, and subsequently how to act, and is often based on inaccurate or blatantly misleading 'reporting' on social media, cable news channels du jour, etc. I actually thing OSS has made one of the better arguments at this point that I've been presented with regarding the state of things- there's literally nothing we can do to prevent up to 45% of the population from acting in a risky, dangerous way. Are we better to just let them Darwin themselves at this point and open back up while those that take a different view duck and cover and try to avoid being collateral damage? You still have an ethical dilemma with those that have to work in the industries that can't allow people to themselves to be safe and have other people making that choice for them, but that's the only real counter-argument I have.

Can you provide studies that show this data from reputable sources? We'd all like to see the backing of this claim. Sadly, these miss the mark: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.24.20078717v1 -Published 5/1/2020. Things have changed a bit since then. https://gbdeclaration.org/ - Impartial? A quick look at the backing org: "The declaration was sponsored by the American Institute for Economic Research, a libertarian, free-market think tank headquartered in western Massachusetts." https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-failed-experiment-of-covid-lockdowns-11599000890 Paywall https://www.wsj.com/articles/public-health-experts-rethink-lockdowns-as-covid-cases-surge-11602514769 Paywall https://www.aier.org/article/experience-from-other-countries-show-lockdowns-dont-work/- Again, impartial? It is a 501©(3) nonprofit[4] that partners with the Atlas Network and other Koch-funded think tanks." Hopefully either not behind a paywall (or directly linked to the backing data) or impartial/reputable?

Can you provide studies that show this data from reputable sources? We'd all like to see the backing of this claim.

They made it one freaking game. Unreal.....

Tone-deaf because complaining about the length of restrictions while the effects of the virus are ballooning. If we were in a lull and case were staying level or declining, I'd actually agree with you. Businesses are being closed BECAUSE people are doing whatever they want, so those businesses have to be closed to protect society from itself. We certainly agree on this point. But I don't know how opening everything back up helps in any way, other than to make people feel better about their poor personal choices.

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?

What cure is being utilized right now, exactly? People are basically doing what they will. Efforts to implement a 'cure' are being fought tooth and nail by the people who continue to diminish the current situation, and a large portion of the population is just ignoring any attempts to curb it. So what 'cure' are you referring to?

Ertz is two years removed from a 116(!!!!) catch, 1200 yard receiving season, and just last year had 88 catches and 900+ yards. I love what Tonyan has done, but Ertz has historically been on a completely different level.

Everson Griffen to the Lions for a 6th that could become a 5th.

They have said that nobody tested positive prior to the game on Friday. Could have acquired it celebrating on Friday night after the game or on Saturday, or it could be a false positive. Two false positives is unlikely, right? Doesn’t it seem far more likely that he tested negative Friday morning as he had been only recently exposed? I, and probably a lot of people thought about the celebration aspect as well, but exposure to a positive rapid test in less than 48 hours seems unlikely.

I doubt this story gets better for the Badgers. For him to have tested positive over the weekend, he had the virus during Friday's game, and may have been contagious. I'd say there's a greater than 0% chance the game gets cancelled as others potentially test positive this week....

Early, unverified reports that Chase Wolf also did not practice today, so that’s really great.

I think the fact that a league that gives even the most modestly successful head coaches multiple opportunities to lead a team didn't give Sherman another chance is more telling than anything, honestly.

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 virus has a habit of making bold predictions look silly after a month or two. I'm gonna wait and see how winter plays out before declaring "winners" in the Sweden did it right or wrong sweepstakes. But I will say that all these articles comparing Sweden to the rest of Europe always seem to forget to compare them to the countries on either side of them. Comparing Sweden to Spain is like comparing Wisconsin to Alabama. Different climate, culture. I think it's also reasonable to examine whether the source of a study like this has a history of impartiality or bias, FWIW.

I'd trade a mid-rounder for any of their receivers for sure. You're right that Watt would be super exciting, but the finances just don't work.

Quick thoughts once again: 1)I know it's a fairly bad Texans team with an interim coach, but a win is a win, especially when you're missing half your starting secondary and two of your top players on offense. Considering how they lost last week, it's nice to bounce back so convincingly. 2)Someone questioned earlier why Houston has managed to stay so mediocre despite seemingly having talent on both sides of the ball. I think there's a debate in another thread here about the effectiveness of coaches related to MM/Sherman etc. I think you can make a case that talent makes a coach look better than they may be, but bad coaching can make the results on the field poorer than the talent suggests it should be. See the Jim Schwartz led Lions, etc. among dozens of other examples. 3)Great bounce-back game for the offense, especially considering the lack of Jones/Bakh. I think this may have been a glimpse of next year without Jones due to cap concerns and the organization understanding the bad idea it is to give a RB a huge 2nd contract. Williams seems like a smarter, cheaper re-sign. He performed well yesterday. 4)I said last week that the offense seemed to work better without Adams because they spread the ball out better. Obviously, yesterday shows that Adams is still one of the best receivers in the league for a reason. I don't think a single throw that went to him wasn't either A)completely uncontested, or B)only put in a place where it was either him that came down with the ball, or no one. Good QB play yesterday, obviously. 5)The defense actually played fairly well, I thought. Put in terrible position a couple of times, and they really did well to hold Houston to FG tries. 6)Other than Scott's monster day punting the football, which was great to see considering his bad end to last year, the special teams looked as bad yesterday as they have all year. All you have to do on special teams to be acceptable is not lead to plays that give the other team possession/field position, and they failed at that yesterday. As I mentioned earlier, it shows you the 'crap rolls downhill' aspect of injuries.... a guy activated this week due to Ervin/Jones being out misses a block that leads to a botched punt, etc. Also illustrative of how quickly bad ST play can open a window for a team to get back into a game despite being dominated for 3 quarters. 7)Amos and Preston Smith had nice games after slow starts to the year. Martin looked good in his first action, and I think we all hope he can be alongside Barnes going forward pending injury news on Barnes. 8)All told, back to being considered one of the top teams in the NFC after a clunker. I won't sleep on MN in any game, but it'd be really nice to roll into the 49ers game with one loss.

To make a long discussion short, in looking at Smith's contract a couple of weeks ago, it was clear it was designed to be a two-year deal. There's almost zero chance the Packers pay him $16 mil next year or $16.5 in 2022, and there was an out built in after this year. I'd say it's far more likely that he's off the roster next year than on.

Sometimes I forget that the Jaguars and Chargers exist(mostly because they’re usually bad and their games mean nothing to me as a Packer fan). And they’re playing each other today.

Garrett was a Cowboy so got a longer leash with Jerry and the fan base. MM was more of a typical JJ move, hire the big name to appease the fans I think Garrett’s Cowboy connection was 99% of the reason he wasn’t canned two seasons earlier.