We live in a republic, we have no choice but to trust each other.
I find it absurd that we are all the sudden concerned about the microscopic chance Covid will harm 18-22 year olds without preexisting comorbidities when playing a game that includes perpetual concussions.
You may argue that its actually about contact with others, and that is fine, but its another issue. This article is couched as being about the safety of the players. We should be realistic about what those risks are and acknowledge that those risks are microscopic in comparison to risks these young people regularly take on. The media has routinely over-inflated the risk to young people, likely this was done so the youth would be scared into following protocols and thus will not become asymptomatic carries. But that sort of deception will only last so long and it warps our ability to choose policies that are scoped to the problem.
Bb has this wonderful ability to beat the snap and create leverage every time. He’s a guy I love to have for goal line situations
I’ve been watching the ABC coverage and I don’t like it at all. Among my issues:
personal stories—“congratulations on realizing a lifelong dream mr nfl draftee, now tell us about your darkest trauma!”
please quit preaching to me about staying home. I’m watching this for escape not to be scolded. If anything the nfl is provoking the opposite response. I know have a desire to attend a large house party.
maybe I’m just a jerk. It’s probably that.
He probably ends up killing it somewhere else.
There will be football. We are singularly focused on this risk and it is causing a loss of perspective. By fall, there will be a widespread realization of the actual risk to most of the population. Things will be different. However, there will be football.
You said it much pithier than I could manage
I believe it is the study linked below that put the risk of death to a healthy individual under the age of 65 as the same as driving 9 miles to work everyday
I mentioned changing mindsets in general and you strawmaned my argument. My comment isn’t just about the Governor’s statement but about a general shift it seems I’ve perceived throughout the public. For instance, player safety is referenced.
I do find it a bit absurd to reference the health of 19 year old football players that available data demonstrates the cohort is not at that great of a personal risk (infecting vulnerable cohorts is another issue). Meanwhile, those same individuals are repeatedly smashed by 300 lb masses at full speed.
we see it as acceptable that these young men have accepted that great risk, yet, we fret about the remote chance they face serious health consequences of this virus? Any reopening carries risks. We should not forget we routinely face risks.
At some point the goal has morphed from "flatten the curve" to "ensure no one gets infected ever again." This second goal really isn't workable. We live our lives with a myriad of risks, but, we continue to live. At least we have until this point.
Yes there always seems to be someone somewhere that isn't being safe enough and is thus being vilified.
es we're at a point at which even pretty sick folks are being turned down for testing. There are likely thousands, if not millions, of covid19 cases in the U.S. that are unaccounted for.
Another question that is being shouted down: on cause of death record keeping. Are we at least doing "but for" causation when we count covid19 deaths? This question is being ignored and treated as silly. It is not a "conspiracy theory." I don't know the answer. I am curious and I haven't seen a satisfactory answer.
Additionally, what has the overall morbidity been in the U.S. during the relevant period?
This used to be a safe harbor from that attitude indeed. I think having questions or a different take on this subject provokes passions because people are dying and sacrificing etc. So, it feels more personal. That said, I see similar behavior on sports related subjects.
Been a while since we've chatted and its always a pleasure. I am surprised at all the downvoting these days. But alas, the days of the premium lounge are long gone.
Look at us. Outcasts again. Causing trouble in the back of class. Good company at least.
Have not those recommendations changed over time? The WHO parroted the idea that there was no human to human transmission, for instance.
Is there not a debate about whether herd immunity is best built all at once or over time? Are there not health departments in various countries pursuing slightly different strategies?
We're all talking about risk management and policy. What I've seen on this site and everywhere is a person asks a question or makes a point beyond the "medical" narrative and that person is shouted down. That's unfortunate.
Doctors and medical professionals have certain expertise and should be listened to. That does not mean that they should be the final arbiters of things or not asked tough questions. Doctors are subject matter experts used to inform our decisions. But these should be OUR decisions.
In my experience, doctors sometimes phrase things not in a way that is most accurate, but in a way that provokes a response they think best.
An example is the masks. It doesn't take a medical expert to realize that a mask has at least some ability to reduce the chance a person will become ill or pass an illness. Yet, we were told that this is a "myth" and that masks could make people more prone to infections for a variety of reasons. All of those reasons were stretches at best (you don't know how to properly wear a mask).
Now, the wearing of masks is being advocated. The "science" on masks hasn't changed. The reasons the public was dissuaded from using them was so that doctors and medical personnel could maintain access to them. That is a legitimate concern and that cohort should have priority access to such things, but, the fact is these personnel bent the truth in the beginning to achieve a public health goal. Now imagine the silliness of shouting down a person that said back then "masks will help. Maybe not 100% but they'll reduce the risk of illness."
Currently there is an obvious effort to play up the personal risk to young people. The data shows that cohort is incredibly unlikely to suffer long term negative consequences or death. If a doctor, a nurse, or the pope, says otherwise, they are distorting things. The risk is infection of others that are vulnerable. That is a serious risk. However, different types of risks have different policy prescriptions. Saying so doesn't make me stupid, or mean that I am taking any of this less serious than others.
Justin just has a tendency to sail passes a bit in the first until he gets locked in. I think getting hit settles him down a bit and when the knee is an issue Day is hesitant to run JF early. But, I didn’t think he was indecisive.
KJ is a dark horse candidate for player of the game tonight
I think this game is a bit ugly for the Buckeyes early. Some missed passes on o. A big pass play (with blatant holding) on D. The Buckeyes don't look bad, just a bit out of sorts. Its 17-7 Clemson at the half. The Buckeye Oline starts to wear Clemson down in the second half. Those 4 yard Dobbins runs begin to pop for 20, 30, 40. Fields breaks one for 25. Olave and Victor each snag key first downs. Wilson catches a long 40ish yard deep ball. The Buckeyes also make some adjustments on D and Lawrence begins to misfire and throw out of bounds. The Tigers still move the ball but the Buckeyes are making key tackles for loss taking them off schedule. By the fourth quarter, Ohio State is up 24-20. The Bucks keep grinding and make it 34-20 with about 6:30 left. TL catches fire and gives us a scare, but its too little too late.
Ohio State 37, Clemson 27.
A couple of things that jumped out at me vs. TTUN. Inside of the line was magnificent. TE blocking has been underrated. Later in the game, JK was keyed in on and there was a whole lot of JF had he kept. JF at even 85% will help open room for JK. Would love to see JF keep early and pop a big one which causes Clemson to stay honest the rest of the game allowing the Buckeyes to ride JK.
In any event, the other Dlinemen need to get penetration. If I am Cooper, I'd be really tempted to play in these last two.
I don't think folks are taking JF being more healthy into account. I wouldn't be surprised if JF rips off a long run very early in this game.
So sayeth he then shall it be resolved: a Buckeye Victory. Long live Jambi.
Chase will be a top 3 pick in the draft. He's one of the most dominant DEs to come out of college in a while. NFL teams only trust top tier LT against players like that. Jackson may be really good--but is he that level? This reminds me of young Taylor Decker being matched up and killed by Kahlil Mack in 2013. Decker is a solid/good NFL LT but he was still young and Mack is an elite pass rusher. Even though Decker did ok percentage wise in that match up, Mack was able to make huge plays. Mack finished the day with 2.5 sacks, 2.5 tackles for a loss, tackles and an INT return for a TD. He caused another fumble but it was called back because of a facemask. I think we move Chase around a bit just like Buffalo did, but, if his primary matchup is Carman without help, Chase is going to have similar numbers. 3ish sacks, and at least cause one TO.