Exactly, that's why I would never give in to the outrage mob. It will never be enough, they will always find something to be outraged over,
Uh, the government most certainly DOES owe everyone an explanation anytime you remove liberties. That doesn't mean it can't ever be done or justified, but we should demand extremely strong reasons before allowing such a step. Also, a court ruling from 1905 doesn't mean there can't be subsequent new rulings, nor does that situation (from that case) exactly apply here.
Either way, I'm not saying they can't make such ordinances (they obviously can), but we know that they can't be enforced (as they've already said it won't be).... which makes it nothing more than political grandstanding. We don't need more political crap mixed in with something that shouldn't be political at all.
I wouldn't rename it to anything. Leave it as is the screw the outrage mob.
Why is it such a reach to recognize those low infection and mortality rates are because of the decisions and sacrifices we made a few months ago.
Actually, the mortality rate has (almost) nothing to do with those efforts and sacrifices. The mortality rate of the virus has very little to do with the spread, it's largely determined by the virus itself and our ability to treat it medically. Yes, shutting things down and limiting interactions etc have undoubtedly reduced the speed of the spread of the virus, but there's also a big downside -- economy, mental health and so forth.
It's just a very tough situation, and there is no perfect answer or course of action. Everything has pros and cons and we're all just navigating things as best we can.
Actually, liberties will continue to be taken away as long as people allow that to happen -- virus or no virus. That's just the nature of humanity and government. That's why you have to be especially vigilant to protect liberties during times of crisis, because it becomes very easy to justify taking liberties at that time. For example, it was very easy to justify during WWII to round up Japanese-Americans, take their liberties away and put them in camps. Times of crisis provide "cover" for significant overreach, so we should all be even more wary of losing liberties during those times.
The bottom line is, wearing a mask protects others from potentially getting the disease from you. Nothing more, nothing less. Wearing a mask in any situation where you are indoors with others or close to them is IMO just a considerate thing to do, and I always wear one when going anywhere indoors. That's just considerate and logical. I also have no problem with business mandating that you have to wear a mask if you want to go there, that's their right.
That said, I do have a problem with the government mandating masks for all in an entire city as Ginther has done. It won't (and can't be) enforced, so it's essentially just political grandstanding. He's playing to his base and the media, as if this disease hasn't already gotten ridiculously politicized, this is just adding fuel to the fire. No word about spreading disease etc from Ginther when thousands were gathering, protesting, rioting and looting, but NOW it's absolutely critical to make everyone wear masks by creating an unenforceable ordinance. That's just plain stupid and political garbage.
The number of cases measured through testing is highly dependent on a lot of things, like the number of tests performed, the age of those getting the disease (younger people are more likely to be asymptomatic), test availability etc etc etc. The number of "confirmed cases" is for the most part not a useful stat because there are too many uncontrolled factors at play, and it easily misinterpreted.
Even the number of deaths, which should be a much more straight forward hard stat is not reliable because of the varying guidelines for what is to be counted as a coronavirus death and what isn't. In some places everyone with the disease at the time of death is counted as part of the deaths even if the disease had nothing to do with the death (for example, died in a car crash, tested for covid post mortem, has covid = "coronavirus death!"). The death's stat is far from perfect, but better than the number of cases stat.
IMO, the best indicators of how things are really going is the number of hospitalizations due to covid, and ICU admittances due to covid. That's where you can really see the trends and what is actually happening, and the numbers aren't subject to as many factors and variability. If the number of people that have to be hospitalized is increasing, the disease is spreading and getting worse. Same for ICU's. If those numbers are flat or declining, then there's no indication that the disease is spreading more.
In fact, if the number of cases goes through the roof while the number of hospitalizations and ICU admitances stays flat, it's good for everyone because it means more and more people are becoming immune without suffering serious enough ill effects to have to go to the hospital, and we're getting closer to an end in sight.
Yeah, I saw the email from them today and said "whaaat?" They went from $40 per month to $65, and in return all you get is worthless channels like MTV and other crap I don't care about. No thanks.
Now the only question is whether I can just get rid of all tv service or whether I will find another option.
Yeah, but lets face it, what good is BTN if there's no Buckeye games to watch anyway? BTN sucks horribly, the only things to watch on there are replays of Buckeye games and live Buckeye games.
And yes, a 50% increase in a couple of years is nuts. I have YTTV now and am 100% going to cancel before the new price kicks in.
I agree completely. Big time college football has been a business for a long time. It might be just me, but there really doesn't seem to be that much difference anymore between college and pro ball, other than the athletes in CFB not getting paid as much. It's all so manicured with ultra professional facilities, trainers, coaches, nutritionists and so forth. All good stuff, but to me it makes CFB more like the minor leagues for the NFL than what it used to be. Sure, players have always had dreams of making it to the next level and be a real pro, but now the CFB levels (at least the elites at the top) are essentially just NFL teams in the making.
I know it's a business and always has been, but the notion of actual collegiate athletes competing has pretty much left the building. Heck, even high school is pushing in that direction, with schools like IMG etc where it's essentially just the minor leagues for big time CFB.
That might seem like a good idea, to get everyone infected now, but in reality it's a really really bad one. For one, while statistically a young healthy person has very little risk, individuals are not governed by population statistic. How would you feel about your plan if if one or more people end up with serious (possibly permanent) problems from the virus -- or even death? Also, we don't actually know for a scientific fact what kind of immunity you develop once you've fought off the infection. Does it protect you for a day, a week, a month, two months, forever? We just don't know. Assuming this thing works like most coronaviruses, it's reasonable to assume there is at least some period of immunity, but we don't know how long and how effective.
The other factor to consider is that you could infect all the team at once, and they'd (likely) all be fine.... but what about their families? Grandparents? People they come into contact with? The only way that could conceivably work is to infect everyone at the same time, then quarantine them from their family and everyone else (outside of teammates) for at least 2 weeks. That's simply not realistically feasible.
I used to love college football because it was a great "pure" distraction from all the crap going on in the world. Sadly, that's not even close to being the case anymore, and I find myself not caring as much about CFB as I once did.
None of us are privy to the contract itself, but I'm assuming there's a whole lot of legal stipulations about conditions for getting out of the contract and so forth. The lawyers are going to make a boatload either way, but I'd think the UA lawyers must be pretty confident that they have grounds to terminate the contract. Probably there will be some sort of settlement to UCLA gets some money but not the bulk of the remaining money under the deal.
Talk about disrespekt.....
I'm perfectly fine with having other crappy coaches like Franklin get ranked higher and win coach of the year and so forth, as long as the Buckeyes just keep winning what actually matters --- the games on the field.
Haha, that's hilarious!
I didn't say it doesn't happen, I just said I think it's nuts. If you can't fly in a plane without a freakin' duck in a diaper with you, then you're a crackpot who should not be on a plane anyway.
The problem is with this thing, that if those "low risk" people get it, they might not even know it, and they can easily unwittingly infect other "high risk" people.
Personally, I think an event outside is more than likely to be fine either way though. If not, with all the groups involved in protesting and rioting all over the place, we'd see a massive spike in cases everywhere there are big riots/gatherings.
Making masks mandatory certainly would help.
There is? Apparently you are way better informed than the medical and general science community. They are basically saying "we think there's a period of immunity after someone gets it, but we're not sure if that applies to all or some fraction of people, and we're just not really sure at this point".
Of course, I don't keep up with the avalanche of information about this stuff, and I don't trust 99.9999% of what the general media says to be the truth, but that's where I believe things stand.
I believe I read about the US naval ship where a bunch of people tested positive, were taken off the ship, quarantined for 21 days, then tested twice to make sure they were no longer positive, and then allowed to return to the ship. Some of them came down with COVID19 again weeks after returning to the ship. What that means is, either the testing methodology is not very good (so there's no way to determine if someone is really "negative"), or getting the disease does not necessarily give the person immunity to it .... or both.
At this point, we just don't know yet.
This whole idea of an emotional support animal is nuts IMO. If you're that emotionally unstable or weak that you can't go out without your favorite animal, you shouldn't be out among the normal population, perhaps catching the game from your own couch with your pet alpaca is a better idea for ya!
That's exactly what I thought when I saw she was a chancellor at SUNY. I so hope that I'm wrong but I suspect we can see tOSU continue to head down the PC rabbit hole. Ugh.
There's something very 'corporate' or business like with Urbs, which is also what makes him successful (see also Saban, Nick). They could take that approach anywhere in CFB and apply it just the same and it would work. Tressel is Ohio through and through. Successful doing it in his own way, but he wasn't able to make tOSU into a national brand the way Urban was.
Ooh, thanks Stantmann, I had completely forgotten about that one. That will be the next one I'll go watch when I have a chance :)
I don't think he's a sleazeball at all. I think he's just one of those guys that simply can't "turn it off". That is an excellent trait for a head coach to drive a great winning program, but not a always a great trait for a person.
I don't think that's going to happen, but it is a possibility.
It took a while for Chaunvin to get arrested because when a cop does something during the course of his work it's different than if you or I do something and kill someone in the process. You have to first determine if what he did is actually illegal or simply negligent in the course of his job. I'm assuming the investigated and concluded what he did was criminal, and they proceeded from there. It doesn't need to be in 5 seconds, I'd rather they do their due diligence and make sure they have a solid case.
What grounds would there be to arrest the other 3? From what I can tell, putting a knee on someone's back when cuffing them or holding them down is not uncommon. The cop appears to have gone too far, but what exactly did the other 3 do that's criminal? I can't fit it into any criminal charge.
I agree that we're seeing pent up anger and frustration boiling over, but it still baffles me that this particular case is the one that is the supposed catalyst. This is a case where it seems things actually worked the way they were supposed to. As in, the cops got fired, the guy is being charged etc. I'm sure there were plenty of cases that were much more egregious and unjust where the culprits did not have the just consequences.