ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 1177 of 3903
« First < 17767710771127116711731174117511761177 117811791180118111871227127716772177 > Last »
Nzoner's Game Room>***NON-POLITICAL COVID-19 Discussion Thread***
JakeF 10:28 PM 02-26-2020
A couple of reminders...

Originally Posted by Bwana:
Once again, don't come in this thread with some kind of political agenda, or you will be shown the door. If you want to go that route, there is a thread about this in DC.
Originally Posted by Dartgod:
People, there is a lot of good information in this thread, let's try to keep the petty bickering to a minimum.

We all have varying opinions about the impact of this, the numbers, etc. We will all never agree with each other. But we can all keep it civil.

Thanks!

Click here for the original OP:

Spoiler!

[Reply]
PHOG 08:09 AM 04-07-2020
Originally Posted by PAChiefsGuy:
That shit is going to be stupid with no fans in the stadiums. To each their own but I wouldn't watch it.
Sports networks would be all over it. Not to mention the regular networks.
[Reply]
BigCatDaddy 08:11 AM 04-07-2020
Originally Posted by Pasta Giant Meatball:
Sports without fans will suck absolute monkey nuts...especially baseball all played in Arizona. Not buying the "better than nothing!" The crowds are the difference makers to me.
Maybe in thr NFL and NBA, but MLB regular season baseball? Really?

Pump in some crowd noise. You will be fine.
[Reply]
DJ's left nut 08:11 AM 04-07-2020
Originally Posted by Monticore:
What about false negatives .
Depends on the reason for the negatives and the rates. If it's because of how they're administered (which is my guess), then you just make sure the people conducting the tests know exactly how to do so. Or if one 'style' of test is giving more false negatives, don't use it.

But it still seems unlikely that you'll have some massive outbreak that fells an entire team (or even more than 3-5 players on it) because of a false negative. Especially not if players continue to enforce hygiene and basic distancing, which is possible in baseball. Even if someone sneaks through the net, they are still not likely to mass infect their teammates before showing symptoms (or having a single teammate show symptoms).

These worst case scenario freakouts continue to be built on an exponential growth presumption that simply isn't coming to fruition.
[Reply]
O.city 08:12 AM 04-07-2020
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
I think they are the same people who work in the service department scheduling for satellite and cable companies.

"Your appointment is confirmed and your technician will arrive sometime between 8:00am and 5:00pm."
Any model is only as good as the assumptions put into it. As we’ve seen they didn’t have anywhere near the right ones be it due to lack of testing or just lack of info I don’t know.

Something is way off for sure
[Reply]
BigCatDaddy 08:12 AM 04-07-2020
Originally Posted by PHOG:
Sports networks would be all over it. Not to mention the regular networks.
Absolutely. WTF else are you going to do? Ratings at all time highs.
[Reply]
O.city 08:14 AM 04-07-2020
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
Their data is based upon information from a Lancet study published last week that was largely dependent upon early reports of caseload from Wuhan. Therefore, if one is skeptical of the information from Wuhan, then this information is also lacking.

It also makes a number of assumptions: that people are tested four days after the initiation of symptoms, and that detection rates are constant over time.

Their takeaway is also that we must substantially improve detection before easing restrictions, lest a new outbreak occur.
I don’t trust China for sure. But we have the diamond princess that would line up somewhat with these numbers as well
[Reply]
DJ's left nut 08:15 AM 04-07-2020
Originally Posted by Pasta Giant Meatball:
Sports without fans will suck absolute monkey nuts...especially baseball all played in Arizona. Not buying the "better than nothing!" The crowds are the difference makers to me.
They did the no fans game in Baltimore a couple years ago because of riots or something and I actually thought it was great.

Football would be a different animal. Baseball, especially regular season baseball, just isn't heavily influenced by the crowd. It's an individual sport played as a team more than it is a team sport. I just don't think you lose much there.
[Reply]
Pasta Little Brioni 08:16 AM 04-07-2020
Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy:
Maybe in thr NFL and NBA, but MLB regular season baseball? Really?

Pump in some crowd noise. You will be fine.
Yuck. I get it though. Personally, I'm the one with the sound up to infinity to hear the crowd reaction to things. Would be so empty.
[Reply]
'Hamas' Jenkins 08:17 AM 04-07-2020
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
But what parts of it?

Because there's not a short term answer here. This is going to be something we need to slowly open the taps back up on and be able to adjust back to keep things contained here and there.

And because we just locked everything down, we have no idea if the 'simple' social distancing gave us 80% of the gains we made or not. If so, that's the obvious way to proceed. We don't know if we can open schools back up or restaurants. We don't know if bars w/ 50 people maximums would help enough to keep the curve reduced to manageable levels.

And why? Because everyone made louder and more extreme predictions over and over again. So we never got a halfway decent control.

We have no idea what is necessary or overkill because we never bothered to tailor an approach due to to hysterical models.

It was terrible science and terrible policy. We learned nothing towards putting together a long-term plan. "Oh well, anything to make an omelet" is not an acceptable approach to this thing.
What were they supposed to do with the information presented to them? China locked down an entire province. SK implemented extreme measures to isolate and trace contacts. Other EU countries went into lockdown before the US.

If you're a public health official presented with with that information, knowing that you have a respiratory virus that is both highly contagious and virulent, installing half measures opens you up to the worst of both outcomes--massive death and economic calamity.

This was always going to end up getting Monday Morning QB'd. If the death toll ended up being lower than anticipated, people would complain that too much damage was done to the economy. If the death toll ended up higher, people would complain that not enough was done.

Rather than complaining, perhaps we should be happy if the death toll is lower because it means that the solution to the problem resulted in far less death and stress to the health care system than we could have anticipated. It isn't common, but sometimes therapies are *more* effective than you would have estimated.

And if that is the case, it allows you to implement an easing of restrictions at a greater rate, which I think we all believe would be a good thing.
[Reply]
PAChiefsGuy 08:19 AM 04-07-2020
Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy:
You wouldn't watch baseball because there arent amy fans?
Well I don't watch baseball at all so it really wouldn't matter whether there were fans or not. But now that I think about it, it might work for baseball idk I'm not familiar enough w the sport to comment but as far as NFL/NBA no I wouldn't watch it if there were no fans.

They make a huge difference in those sports and make the game more exciting. It wouldn't be the same, it'd be weird. I'd rather watch a movie or play COD and then just check after the game who won.
[Reply]
Bugeater 08:20 AM 04-07-2020
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
But what parts of it?

Because there's not a short term answer here. This is going to be something we need to slowly open the taps back up on and be able to adjust back to keep things contained here and there.

And because we just locked everything down, we have no idea if the 'simple' social distancing gave us 80% of the gains we made or not. If so, that's the obvious way to proceed. We don't know if we can open schools back up or restaurants. We don't know if bars w/ 50 people maximums would help enough to keep the curve reduced to manageable levels.

And why? Because everyone made louder and more extreme predictions over and over again. So we never got a halfway decent control.

We have no idea what is necessary or overkill because we never bothered to tailor an approach due to to hysterical models.

It was terrible science and terrible policy. We learned nothing towards putting together a long-term plan. "Oh well, anything to make an omelet" is not an acceptable approach to this thing.
And there are STILL people screaming that we need to do more....
[Reply]
Pasta Little Brioni 08:21 AM 04-07-2020
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
They did the no fans game in Baltimore a couple years ago because of riots or something and I actually thought it was great.

Football would be a different animal. Baseball, especially regular season baseball, just isn't heavily influenced by the crowd. It's an individual sport played as a team more than it is a team sport. I just don't think you lose much there.
Oh, I get it. Not the way I'm wired though. Maybe spoiled too by the great fan support of the teams I've followed, too used to going to games to get a fix, and the game day atmospheres.
[Reply]
wazu 08:22 AM 04-07-2020
Originally Posted by PAChiefsGuy:
Well I don't watch baseball at all so it really wouldn't matter whether there were fans or not. But now that I think about it, it might work for baseball idk I'm not familiar enough w the sport to comment but as far as NFL/NBA no I wouldn't watch it if there were no fans.

They make a huge difference in those sports and make the game more exciting. It wouldn't be the same it'd be weird. I'd rather watch a movie and then just check after the game who won.
If Chiefs are playing, I'm watching. Don't care if it's pre-season. No fans wouldn't be that much different than an away game at Chargers.
[Reply]
PAChiefsGuy 08:24 AM 04-07-2020
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
What were they supposed to do with the information presented to them? China locked down an entire province. SK implemented extreme measures to isolate and trace contacts. Other EU countries went into lockdown before the US.

If you're a public health official presented with with that information, knowing that you have a respiratory virus that is both highly contagious and virulent, installing half measures opens you up to the worst of both outcomes--massive death and economic calamity.

This was always going to end up getting Monday Morning QB'd. If the death toll ended up being lower than anticipated, people would complain that too much damage was done to the economy. If the death toll ended up higher, people would complain that not enough was done.

Rather than complaining, perhaps we should be happy if the death toll is lower because it means that the solution to the problem resulted in far less death and stress to the health care system than we could have anticipated. It isn't common, but sometimes therapies are *more* effective than you would have estimated.

And if that is the case, it allows you to implement an easing of restrictions at a greater rate, which I think we all believe would be a good thing.
I agree.

Fauci himself said he would rather overreact than underreact, all the nonscience people will always criticize no matter what but part of the reason it might not get as bad as predicted is because of the measures we've taken.
[Reply]
PAChiefsGuy 08:25 AM 04-07-2020
Originally Posted by wazu:
If Chiefs are playing, I'm watching. Don't care if it's pre-season. No fans wouldn't be that much different than an away game at Chargers.
No doubt. I'm sure a lot of fans would but I wouldn't. Just wouldn't be the same. I'd check the highlights out though for sure.
[Reply]
Page 1177 of 3903
« First < 17767710771127116711731174117511761177 117811791180118111871227127716772177 > Last »
Up