Unverified Voracity Is Moving To South Korea If They Let Him Which They Won't
[Lead photo HT: Tony Barnhart]
Sponsor Note. If you've got a small business this is a good time to have a lawyer check out your Ps and Qs. If you're starting one there's no time like the present to get yours off the ground. Here's an idea: drive around picking up children and taking them somewhere. It doesn't matter where. Just, you know, away. You can bring them back if you want. Later.
![hoeglaw_thumb[1]_thumb (3)](https://mgoblog.com/sites/default/files/hoeglaw_thumb%5B1%5D_thumb%20%283%29.jpg "hoeglaw_thumb[1]_thumb (3)")
If you're starting a voluntary child abduction company, that sounds like something with a lot of legal bits to figure out. Richard Hoeg is the man to do that. He's got a small law firm specializing in small businesses. Even if you're not planning on going into a business as fraught with complications as child… well, I don't want to say "care"…
Even if you're not going into a business as fraught with complications as child relocation, having a solid legal foundation for what you're doing will prevent problems in the future. Hoeg it up! This slogan is unauthorized.
If only. South Korea has resumed playing baseball, albeit in a modified form.
KT Wiz held a socially distant first pitch before their game today pic.twitter.com/DR0R9wulRi
— Dan Kurtz (@MyKBO) May 5, 2020
Random sports things have resumed!
We have a smoke delay, there is a building on fire near one of the stadiums pic.twitter.com/b5mUnkO10t
— CJ Fogler (@cjzer0) May 5, 2020
The Bundesliga is preparing to resume as well.
Both South Korea and Germany had no-bullshit, hardcore responses to coronavirus. This Atlantic article describes the Korean response in exacting detail. South Korea had the advantage of a preseason game, as it were, when MERS ran through their hospital system a few years ago. The government reacted with a lack of transparency and was blasted out of office afterwards. Mask wearing is culturally entrenched; idiots cosplaying as militia aren't roaming around demanding that nail salons re-open; public health is not politicized.
So they get baseball and soccer. We get nothing.
[After THE JUMP: maybe I'll start writing about old television shows]
Nothing, defined. Warde Manuel on the possibility of resuming sports in the fall:
“It is very difficult, if not impossible, for me to ask our student-athletes to return to campus to play a game when other students are not going to be returning,” Manuel said on a “Get Lit” virtual town hall with Edyoucore, a financial literacy advocacy group.
“That is just unfathomable to me as I think about it. I could listen to arguments and be a part of discussions, but it is just hard for me to imagine that happening.”
The current plateau where R0 is ~1 with everything in lockdown isn't going to cut it, because as soon as you start relaxing portions of your half-ass lockdown your R0 goes above 1 and then you have to shut everything else down again. Without massively expanded testing capacity and tracing ability—both of which would have to be coordinated from the federal level—we aren't getting sports this fall.
Warde also addressed the G-League thing whilst Getting Lit:
"I don't think college basketball was hurt because Lebron James, Kevin Garnett and Kobe Bryant went early to the NBA," Manuel said. "That is terrific for them. Now we missed having them in college, but it didn't hurt college basketball. It didn't put college basketball in a bad position."
The NCAA is wrong about many things but not wrong that the enterprise is about more than having mutants who can leap over buildings.
A couple of building blocks. "Returning" is doing a lot of work in a conference that just shed Chase Young and AJ Epenesa but Michigan's defensive ends were very good a year ago:
Highest graded returning B1G edge defenders:
— PFF College (@PFF_College) May 5, 2020
1. Aidan Hutchinson, Michigan - 82.9
2. Kwity Paye, Michigan - 80.9
3. Samdup Miller, Northwestern - 78.6 pic.twitter.com/PlrHo6t7Xd
Another reason that Uche's snaps were relatively limited: everyone who pushed him to the bench was pretty good.
Sigh. Wilton Speight confirms his status for the Spot game:
never been a shoulda/coulda/woulda guy. all I know is The Game with a collarbone cracked in half wasn’t ideal. https://t.co/Wv9W5FT8Ct
— Wilton Speight (@WiltonSpeight) May 1, 2020
I am emphatically a shoulda/coulda/woulda guy! That sucks! Aaaaaaargh!
Try to wrap your head around it. Virtually every article about name and image rights that quotes an NCAA-affiliated person is guaranteed to have at least one quote that breaks your brain:
Smith and co-chair Val Ackerman, who also serves as Big East commissioner, said some of the most important details about how these future moneymaking opportunities will be regulated are yet to be determined. Ackerman said finding a way to prevent boosters and "overzealous individuals" from using endorsements as a way to pay for athletic performance or recruiting enticements remains one of their chief concerns. NCAA members will have to figure out a way to use school compliance officers and NCAA staff to make sure that endorsement deals reflect a real market value for the services provided.
"It's vitally important that we maintain some level of integrity and fairness," Ackerman said. "We believe guardrails on boosters will help us mitigate the potential of recruiting inducements."
I know that this woman's job requires her to shut off various avenues of thinking but jeeeeez. This is phrased to imply that bringing some money above the table is a reduction in "integrity and fairness." Even if narrowly targeted at the idea that boosters are going to buy croots, that happens all the time now and you do nothing about it.
The NCAA wants to regulate it so that players can make money on the fame their athletic exploits bring them… as long as none of that compensation is actually for the athletic exploits themselves. The only thing more futile than an impossible task is a pointless impossible task.
DO NOT READ BRAIN WILL BREAK. [throws cutlery]
Mark Emmert with an all-timer: "Our efforts over the years to improve the student-athlete experience have often been met with increased litigation and challenges that significantly limit the NCAA's ability to address those needs and opportunities."
— Dan Wolken (@DanWolken) April 29, 2020
I got nothing.
Silencing Chase Young will do that. One Michigan player cracks Mel Kiper's too-early 2021 first round:
14. Jalen Mayfield, OT, Michigan
HT: 6-5 | WT: 319 | Class: Junior
There is some projection here because Mayfield has started only 13 college games at right tackle. But I really liked what I saw from him in the biggest games, including when he was lined up against No. 2 overall pick Chase Young in the Wolverines' loss to Ohio State in the regular-season finale. Mayfield has some upside, and I'll be watching closely this season.
Ben Mason is the top-ranked FB and Kwity Paye the #5 DE.
And if you're thinking "wait shouldn't there be an implausible Big Ten West QB on this list", well, yeah:
1. Trevor Lawrence, Clemson
2. Justin Fields, Ohio State
3. Trey Lance, North Dakota State
4. Jamie Newman, Georgia
5. Tanner Morgan, Minnesota
Morgan is far less ludicrous than most guys in the bin after a 10 YPA, 30 TD, 7 INT season but his offense relies so heavily on RPOs and two totally rad receivers that I'm guessing he doesn't project to the league particularly well.
Waivers might stay. The NCAA legislation process is the very definition of byzantine so I can't tell you exactly what this means but it doesn't seem good for the prospect of a single free transfer for D1 athletes:
The NCAA Division I Board of Directors said Thursday that it does not recommend potential changes to the transfer waiver process.
The Division I Council is expected to vote on a one-time transfer waiver in May that would allow student-athletes in football, men's and women's basketball, baseball and men's ice hockey to transfer and compete immediately at their new school. As it stands, student-athletes in those five sports have to sit out one year before competing.
The Transfer Waiver Working Group recommended waiver guidelines change to allow the one-time transfer waiver, but while the Board of Directors recommended lifting the moratorium on transfer legislation, it disagreed on changing the waiver process.
This is permanent legislation and unrelated to any COVID-19 special exemption, and also this thumbs down is merely advisory. It could still go through. I don't know how much influence the Board of Directors has over the membership.
Terrible content, excellent grave dancing. If I wanted to make money writing about sports I would not hire this person. If I wanted to cause the most agony for the people who left en masse I would hire this person:
ROB PARKER JOINS REVAMPED DEADSPIN
“As the FOX Sports personality announced he was joining Deadspin, Parker also stated he was leaving The Shadow League, where he contributed as a columnist since 2013.”
Next hires up: Jason Whitlock and Hulk Hogan's jimmer-jabber.
Etc.: The Luiz Suarez handball turns ten years old. Yelp and Grubhub are undeserving of your business. Michigan econ professor on cubic fits and the appropriateness of applying them to a pandemic. CHET. The Athletic is welcome to call it "Draftageddon." EA is begging to pay people for their NIL rights.
Taiwan is not culturally homogeneous, but keep displaying your ignorance.
Do you know what "asymptomatic" means? You really are dumb.
Ethnically, not culturally, if you prefer. Per the ROC government, Taiwan is 95-97% ethnic Han. That's not to say that there aren't disagreements between, say, the Hakka Han and the non-Hakka Han, or the Han and the aboriginal Taiwanese, but it certainly doesn't have the diversity of the USA.
Go to YouTube and you'll see all sorts of videos of how far coughs and sneezes travel. The 6' rule reduces the amount of transmission by something like [80%].
All of this sucks. It's nice to anonymously make a quasi-political argument on MGoBlog once in while. The points don't work so unless you say something really offensive and get the banhammer, I'm glad you can blow off some steam here.
Aerosol spread from talking is 2-3 feet.
Would be nice yo see a cite for that as I cited a study above suggesting
“Recent studies show that people infected with the new coronavirus could be spreading "aerosolized" viral particles as they cough, breathe or talk in a 13-foot radius”
Honestly, it's worse than that. If you're right about aerosol transmission -- the problem isn't that it might go 3 feet or 13 feet. The problem is that they can hang in the air for an average of 9 minutes. Even if you're not within 3 feet of someone who's talking at any given time, people will walk around.
It's been aerosolized in a lab. It will almost certainly spread easier in dry winter weather because of that property.
"But researchers in the U.S. have aerosolized the novel coronavirus in laboratory settings – mechanically spraying virus into the air so that it floats. They found it can remain in the air for more than an hour."
People put droplets in the air just through regular breathing and talking too. Then they touch their uncovered faces and touch things. It's astounding that you're going with this "masks don't work" angle.
J, that's mathmatically, epidiomoligically, and in every other way wrong!
Masks may indeed slow the spread, no one ever said they'd halt it. There's still surface contact issues to deal with, which were the primary driver of shelter in places regs, weeks before they added masks to the guidelines. Those are "curve flattening" measures, and they're working -sometimes dramatically - in areas that follow them. Look merely at the rates of new cases flattening in NY & CA.
Look now instead at areas that didn't - many still going up.
But to suggest that if they're not stopping the virus dead they're not working? Cumong man!
This entire discussion is part of what Brian was referring to as politicizing this - you stated you're personally offended by wearing a mask. And you've made that personal feeling into a "right" that in your mind supersedes thousands of others just trying to keep themselves and their families safe and well (yes, those pesky children!)
As for the momentary inconvenience of TSA screening - yeah, if it even just scares potential 9/11 type actors from trying to board, I'm down with being part of that theater!
So stay home, don't wear a mask, don't fly, don't do anything! You'll no doubt be better, healthier & happier for it! As will we...
But to suggest that if they're not stopping the virus dead they're not working? Cumong man!
I have barely left my home for the past six weeks. There has been a mask ordinance in place in my city for nearly a month, now. Please tell me why new cases are still being reported?
And you've made that personal feeling into a "right" that in your mind supersedes thousands of others just trying to keep themselves and their families safe and well (yes, those pesky children!)
One of the primary responsibilities of society is balancing individuals' rights. But it's very difficult to have that conversation in a climate where few are willing to compromise, and most of the public discourse is along the lines of "if it saves even one life" / "won't somebody please think of the children." The problem is, that can be used to justify almost anything.
As for the momentary inconvenience of TSA screening - yeah, if it even just scares potential 9/11 type actors from trying to board, I'm down with being part of that theater!
At what cost? We spend billions of dollars a year on the TSA, who have stopped a grand total of zero terrorists. The TSA scares nobody from trying to board. The air terrorism problem was solved when Flight 93 was brought down by the passengers. Anybody who tried to rush the cockpit of a flight today would be stopped before they got anywhere near the door.
So stay home, don't wear a mask, don't fly, don't do anything! You'll no doubt be better, healthier & happier for it!
But whose decision is that to make?
I have barely left my home for the past six weeks. There has been a mask ordinance in place in my city for nearly a month, now. Please tell me why new cases are still being reported?
Seriously? Is this rhetorical? Please tell me this is rhetorical or otherwise a joke. Do we actually have to explain to you how the virus can still spread even though J isn't leaving his house and a mask ordinance is in place?
I think you had better -- if you intend to insist upon continuing to extend and to enforce these orders.
I can look out my window and see that traffic is down precipitously. Most people are staying home. Most people have been staying home for weeks. Logically, if these orders were effective, they should have worked by now. If masks save so many lives, why, after three weeks of wearing them, are there still new infections? Do you really believe that it's just people who aren't abiding by these orders who are causing it?
My theory, on the other hand, is that these orders aren't effective, that you can't stop a virus, and therefore that there's not much point in trying.
Have you ever heard of New York? Italy? Spain? That's why there's a point in trying. It's one thing to live under conditions where the virus is spreading slowly. It's another thing to live under conditions where the virus is going absolutely unimpeded and is flooding hospitals and overfilling the morgues.
The orders have been very effective, lowering the R0 from about 2.6 to ~1.2. That's a near halving in infection rate. That makes a HUGE difference when you're dealing with exponentials.
You can't be serious if you don't know why there are new infections.
1) Essential workers and people that need to visit those businesses (like grocery stores) and others that can't really control their situations (prison inmates) are getting infected, sometimes rapidly.
2) we're doing this super half-assed, which is fine by me. I don't wan't to do the things needed to really bring R0 close to 0. China bolted shut the doors of apartment buildings (among many other draconian measures). Italy and Spain weren't even letting adults out of the house to exercise. I live in Los Angeles and Mayor Garcetti has been pretty strict relative to most of the country but we still only have to wear masks inside of businesses that are open (i.e. the grocery store), and we're allowed to basically do whatever we want outside. There are people in parks, people riding bikes, people running and walking all over my neighborhood, most without masks. I've taken my kids to the beach for the past five weekends despite it being "closed". The police and lifeguards just smiled at us playing in the sand. I got take-out food a couple weeks ago and people were sitting at a bunch of outdoor tables at this restaurant, not social distancing, masks pulled down to their necks. People complaining about what is actually written in these executive orders are just getting angry for the sake of it. Enforcement is very low, because it's impossible. They're basically suggestions and if you egregiously violate the suggestions, the orders give the authorities the ability to crack down but they don't want to arrest people (and they aren't - don't cite two instances in the whole country in a months time).
And this is in a city where most people support the lockdowns. I'm sure social distancing compliance is worse elsewhere.
3) So people in the above two categories are getting infected and then they infect their households. Again, I'm glad we're doing this. It would be horrible to be quarantined alone, but that's what China and many Asian countries are doing. If you test positive, you get put in a hotel / enforced quarantine.
I loved the movie Flight 93! But to think THAT stopped hijackers, not the TSA is, well - most of what you've posted today has been questionably informed, as numerous others have pointed out.
But that one? Doozy dude! You're damn near a wack job if you think they're more scared of you & your Aunt Millie than the gun toting security you yourself cited as intimidating you into submitting to humiliating & unconstitutional searches before you board a plane!
And in answer to your question of how many terrorists have they stopped?
You say zero, I have no idea why?
I say dozens, maybe hundreds haven't even tried.
But that commitably insane shoe bomber did get by them, which is probably why we have that even higher level of scan that so troubles you!
Oh, for Pete's sake. I don't have any intention to blow up a plane. Therefore, intimidating me doesn't do anybody any good.
Who stopped the underwear and shoe bombers, BTW? Passengers.
I suppose I can't argue with the "dozens, maybe hundreds" of people that you've invented. Sure, lots of imaginary terrorists may have been stopped. Given the abysmal detection rate that the TSA self-reports, I doubt that very many real terrorists are deterred...
The lockdowns/quarantines have had a major affect in limiting the spread of the virus. Had we not done that, cases would've exploded. Just because the virus hasn't been eradicated doesn't mean they didn't have a significant impact. Without social distancing, masks, stay-at-home orders, etc. the virus would've overwhelmed the hospitals. Also - it's too early to go back out now. We've succeeded in flattening the curve in many areas but the measures weren't really enough and there were probably way too many people who were not taking the proper precautions. While cases are down, they need to be lower to prevent other outbreaks.
(how can anyone be an expert on an unknown disease, I wonder) - there are plenty of people in a range of professions who by training and experience have significant expertise at responding to new and unknown diseases. They aren’t that novel.
It wasn't until people realized that their local hospitals never got overrun, and were actually laying off staff and risking bankruptcy - wasn’t keeping hospitals from getting over run the point of the stay at home orders?
that they started claiming that the measures we have in place will stop the virus. - While you can probably find some outliers, except maybe for New Zealand, where are these people suggesting that stay at home orders are about stopping the virus?
While you can probably find some outliers, except maybe for New Zealand, where are these people suggesting that stay at home orders are about stopping the virus?
That seems to rule public discourse. "We can't reopen yet because the virus will start to spread again." Even Brian's R0 > 1 vs R0 < 1 is exactly this: "staying at home stops the virus."
Here are California’s criteria to move from Phase 1 (current stay at home orders) to phase 2 opening lower risk work places
To move from Phase 1 to Phase 2, here are the indicators state officials are considering:
- Hospitalizations and ICU trends remain stable
- Hospital surge capacity maintained to meet demands if there are increased infections in the next stage from increased movement
- There is sufficient PPE to meet demands, including anticipating future needs and knowing PPE can be secured
- Sufficient testing capacity to meet demand
- Contact tracing capacity statewide, including working with local health authorities and governments to make sure capacity is there
They are not talking about stopping the virus, they are talking about being able to ensure they don’t have a surge. You can certainly argue they are too stringent, but they are definitely not designed to stop the virus. I have not checked all 50 states but I don’t think there are any criteria out there significantly more stringent than these.
- Contact tracing capacity statewide, including working with local health authorities and governments to make sure capacity is there
This is an absolute nonstarter. You're talking months before cases would drop to the level where trace and track could work.
Wear a mask you moron.
I refuse to wear a mask, but I'm also not violating the mask rules. I'm staying home instead. I don't like it, but I'm not going to risk jail time to prove my point. Perhaps that makes me a dilettante.
What an incredibly weird hill to die on.
You're reaching, man. 1. It's not pseudoscience; it's proven to help protect others. It doesn't protect YOU very much, but it greatly reduces the chances that droplets from your mouth or lungs travel into someone else's mouth or lungs. If people don't understand by this point that wearing a mask is an act of respect and kindness for other humans and not an act of fear... I don't know what to say.
Point 2: Yes - I understand that, under normal circumstances, masks make people seem suspicious and that attitude is amplified for people of color. These aren't normal circumstances. Masks are quickly becoming normalized (would be normalized faster if Mike Pence didn't think he was so fucking special). I don't know about you, but at this point, I'm more suspicious of someone without a mask than someone with since NOT wearing a mask is a now a sign of disrespect and rebellion.
And yeah... I'm sure Billy Bob with his AR-15 at the state capitol is against wearing masks because he's concerned for the safety of mask-wearing blacks and hispanics.
1 - I have yet to see a study that actually proves that. blue in DC's came closest.
2 - That isn't how the subconscious works. You can't just overrule thousands of years of social evolution.
And #3 - he doesn't speak for me. (But, I like your subtle job at the south. Well done). I won't judge you by the actions of window-smashing Antifa nuts on May Day, and you don't judge me by LARPers. Deal?
No, that's exactly exactly how the brain works. It's incredibly adaptable. It learned to be afraid of masks while watching a couple cop dramas and it learns to trust mask wearers in a pandemic almost instantly.
I'm not judging you by the actions of LARPers who share some of your attitudes. But I do think it's fair to judge your attitude and logic based on what you've communicated in this thread; that you refuse to wear a mask because:
a) In your opinion they make no difference in slowing the spread of disease despite the guidance from Dr Fauci, the WHO, and entire nations that are doing a much better job at containing this than we.
b) You, a middle-aged white guy, is worried about how other people might pre-judged a mask-wearer of color. So instead of helping to normalize mask use for those people by conforming to the guidance, you help them out by refusing to wear a mask. Got it.
c) You're convinced that, since these weeks of measures haven't eliminated the spread, they aren't worth the effort. Sure, that exponential curve flattened its trajectory, but what's the point? Can't stop a virus so let's all swap spit and let the chips fall.
I'm going to assume that your attitude is less about this pretzel logic you've laid out and more to do with the team you're affiliated with. Nothing I can say will change your opinion since your opinion is more about the symbolism than the science. Still, please consider a mask. I mean, it doesn't even mess your hair up. It doesn't hurt, and you can leave the house with 3-day's of stubble and bad breath and know one can tell. All good.
a) I don't particularly care about slowing the spread of disease if the same total number of people will eventually get infected.
b) Again, I haven't gone anywhere. If I absolutely had to go somewhere, I would wear a mask, because it's the law.
c) See point (a). The "flatten the curve" crowd kept moving the goalposts. The area under the curve is the same. Same number of infections, just slower.
I'm going to assume that your attitude is less about this pretzel logic you've laid out and more to do with the team you're affiliated with.
See, that's why it's so difficult to have meaningful discussion in this country. I don't have a "team."
Nothing I can say will change your opinion since your opinion is more about the symbolism than the science
What science? We seem to have different goals here. If we're going to have X cases anyway, I'd rather we had them as fast as our hospital system will allow, so that we can start to recover.
Still, please consider a mask.
I will not. I refuse to do business with anybody that is overtly afraid of me. Then again, as I've pointed out, I'm not hurting anybody, because I'm not going anywhere.
a) new treatments are being investigated daily. I haven't seen the stats but I suspect the survival rate is probably rising and would be expected to continue to do so the more we learn. Also if we slow the spread and a vaccine is developed, we just saved a lot of lives.
masks are absolutely being normalized. Get out in the world (with a mask) and you will realize that.
LOL... so you refuse to wear a mask. Unless you go out... In which case you'd totally wear a mask because that's the law. But you don't go out at all, ergo you refuse to wear a mask? I guess I can't argue with that.
Who thinks these measures are going to stop the virus (and I assume you mean completely stop it as in eliminate new infections in the near future)? I don't know anyone that thinks that's possible or that that's the new goal. One goal was to stop the exponential increase in cases that would have overwhelmed ICUs, and it seems like the measures succeeded in precisely doing that.
Even still, many hospital ICUs were overrun in some places that were early hot spots. The problem with a policy aimed at not overrunning ICUs is that it's impossible to get it just right. And it's fair to argue that having some beds available is better than having too few. It's fair to be overly cautious when the "just right" line is an impossibly unknown tightrope to walk.
Another goal was to buy time to get more testing and contact tracing up and running so we could have the best balance between deaths and normalcy as possible, like Japan has achieved. They didn't shut many things down. They've used a scalpel (testing and contact tracing with selective quarantines) where we had to use a sledgehammer (total lockdowns).
For whatever reason, we've had no national support for these types of measures that would enable the reopening of the economy AND a low number of deaths (which is sustainable until a vaccine comes). It's like we threw our hands up and said, hey, we'll print trillions of dollars and make it rain in the financial markets but that saving lives stuff sounds like a lot of work so we'll just eat the 200,000 deaths and call it good.
Also, you hiding behind this insane argument about wearing masks being dangerous is so incredibly ignorant. Context, bud.
Wearing masks when there isn't a pandemic does trigger mistrust. Because the intent of the mask without there being another reason for wearing one is to hide one's identity.
Wearing a mask during a pandemic engenders trust because the wearer is showing they they are aware of the situation and doing her part to keep others safe. In the current context, it's the exact opposite. People walking around without masks are seen as not doing their part to protect other people.
Your scientific studies aren't taking context into account. You're just using this stupid argument to justify that your argument is really about you wanting to choose whether you wear one or not.
For the record, I completely agree with your first point that it's unclear whether masks help, and telling people to wear any face covering might be worse (if it requires tying or adjusting or whatever, then you keep touching your face, etc).
But the science is inconclusive at best, so I just don't understand why wearing a mask is such a big deal. If it turns out that it helps, even if only marginally and it makes people feel safe around me, sure, I'm not complaining that I have to wear it to the grocery store. I also can't smoke in the grocery store so as not to expose people to second hand smoke and I think that's fair.
Even still, many hospital ICUs were overrun in some places that were early hot spots
In the US? NYC sounded very bad for a week to ten days. Elsewhere?
The problem with a policy aimed at not overrunning ICUs is that it's impossible to get it just right. And it's fair to argue that having some beds available is better than having too few
Agreed 100%. But I don't they came even close to getting it "just right."
Another goal was to buy time to get more testing and contact tracing up and running so we could have the best balance between deaths and normalcy as possible
Uh, maybe? But, I can tell you right now; that's impossible in the US. Too big, too mobile.
Your scientific studies aren't taking context into account. You're just using this stupid argument to justify that your argument is really about you wanting to choose whether you wear one or not.
Again, you're making the same mistake that others have made -- assuming that your conscious thoughts can overpower the subconscious.
But the science is inconclusive at best, so I just don't understand why wearing a mask is such a big deal. If it turns out that it helps, even if only marginally and it makes people feel safe around me, sure, I'm not complaining that I have to wear it to the grocery store.
Because this is where I've chosen to draw my personal line against being told what to do for my own good. Other people will have their own lines. If the government can force me to wear a mask, against my will, based upon questionable science, because it makes people "feel safe," what else can they do? Where does it end?
I'm not going to go through every point here and argue, but here are a couple that I just couldn't bypass
- There are no "COVID-19 Experts" at this point yes, but people who have studied infectious diseases for decades are certainly experts in how to handle them. And by expending resources and time to learn about the virus, they would become "experts" at it. If we're going by your analogy, modern scientific progress would forever be halted by a lack of "expertise" on the advancements they're discovering and nobody would spend any time listening to them.
- All of those "flatten the curve" discussions that spoke of the same number of cases always referenced that being the outcome if people didn't take protective measures. Yes, there won't be "herd immunity" to a novel virus and meaningfully treating it won't be possible without high-quality therapeutics and a vaccine, but (a) you can locally limit/possibly wipe out an outbreak by limiting the ability of the virus to spread, which can be helped by mask usage, and (b) due to the asymptomatic and delayed signs of infection, people can transmit it unknowingly.
- Trying to claim mask usage could lead to POC being shot by racists is just batshit crazy, even though sadly it's true. Yes, racism will not be solved by COVID-19. But a guy just got gunned down in the middle of the day by two piece-of-shit personal-liberty cosplayers and he didn't have a mask, so POC might as well cut down on the number of things that can kill them by protecting against a virus.
The rest of your post is equally silly but those just jumped out. By all means keep talking about your inability to drink beer in a bar and, until recently, not be able to wander around the gardening section of Home Depot as an affront to the Founding Father's visions for this country, but save me wrapping yourself in the flag.
"J"---Pay attention: The mask STOPS YOU FROM INFECTING ME. The mask STOPS ME FROM INFECTING YOU.
Why is this so difficult for you and a very loud minority in this country to understand?
Masks are marginally effective, for the mask wearer, in blocking inbound flow of the virus; they are, however, quite effective in blocking outbound flow of the virus. This is because it (a) blocks most of the particles leaving the nose and mouth after a sneeze/cough and (b) blocks the wearer from putting their hands in contact with their nose and mouth and then smearing the virus onto surfaces.
So the benefit of mask wearing is at the aggregate - if everyone wears a mask, transmission is reduced by quite a bit. But one healthy individual individual wearing a mask only reduces the risk marginally - models suggest 20-30%. Nonzero, but not huge on its own.
So all the sophisticated UM grads must be liberals and the slack jawed blue collar types can only be conservatives, huh? Considering leftists love to call conservatives “ignorant” your statement really lacks self awareness. I have 2 degrees from Michigan and am definitely not liberal (consider myself more of a libertarian). Most of my friends and family are alums as well, some of them are liberal, some of them are conservative.
Obviously, everything about the pandemic sucks. But I think we would agree that the “big picture” aspect of this that is most troubling is that not even a viral pandemic could get Republicans and Democrats to stop pointing fingers at each other. Neither side is 100% right or wrong on this and too much energy is being wasted on gaining political points.
14, I did not create the demographic that the president is overwhelmingly more popular among those with lower levels of education. Were you suggesting that's a "liberal elite" cliche? It is not, sorry. Congrats on your Michigan degrees, however!
The sarcastic tone I took was most definitely intended to poke those who I knew would rush to the comments section to criticize the publisher of this blog for stating his opinion about the politicizing of the shelter & mask guidelines. You say it's "troubling" that left & right can't stop pointing fingers of blame even during a pandemic, and I agree. But when it comes to issues like a pandemic, it's more important than EVER that education and knowledge are allowed to lead the way, not an obsession with gun rights!
In most cases, but in these type of circumstances most of all - willful, belligerent ignorance are a danger to more than just the individuals and their immediate circle. Their "rights" put tens of thousands at unwanted, unneeded risk!
It's not actually true that the president is overwhelmingly more popular amongst those with lower levels of education. In fact, very even right now. That is a big shift from Republican supporters for the past 40 or so years who tended to be far more educated than democratic supporters so that might make you feel like they support the president because it's more than you might expect of a "republican".
But if you consider only white people, yes, lower educated white people do overwhelmingly support the president (and that was the shift from previous years - this demo had been more evenly split prior to 2016). Non-white people with lower levels of education overwhelmingly do not support the president.
I have a good friend who grew up in the late 80s-early 90s in Chicago. I grew up at the same time in Michigan. We have wildly different opinions of Bill Laimbeer.
It is obvious to me that the government shutdowns because of the virus has served to further widen the political divide.
I loved Bill Laimbeer and ALL the Bad Boys! Fuck anyone that disses Bill!
But I don't believe our political divides are widening - they're already a gaping crevasse.
I feel like a lot of people from various points on the spectrum (the uber alt freedom fighters probably excepted) are actually coming together, working together, trying to flatten the curve to varying degrees.
What is being revealed, right here in this thread for instance, is how different people feel varying ways about what and when government should be able to exercise the powers that they are in the pandemic. My sense is they're so triggered about what this could be a precedent for, they've kind of gone mad. Look at the faces on some of those shouting, inches from the officers! Unhinged!
What will it take if people won't take the experts seriously after 2.2 million deaths?
I resent the "Walverines" connotation. You would be hard pressed to drive through any neighborhood in the state today without passing a house with a Michigan flag and a message of solidarity or gratitude for essential workers, far more than we have degrees to account for. That whole Walmart thing is a Sparty whine because they struggle to attract fans who have any choice in the matter.
No. If Obama were managing the pandemic the same way, Obama supporters would be happy, non-supporters would complain, and visa versa. The majority of society blindly supports legislation just based on party affiliation. This is exactly why there has never been any place for politics on this blog. No one wins. I’m really disappointed that the CEO of the sports blog I go to to escape all the bullshit of the world has now succumbed like everyone else. I suppose we should be happy that it lasted as long as it did.
As someone who dipped their toe in politics during the Obama years, the Left base actually had very little patience with Obama. They wanted him to aggressively prosecute the banking industry after the housing crash and provide mortgage relief. Obama didn't. They wanted the healthcare law to have a government-run public insurance option. None of the three Senate bills or the House bill ever had a public option.
The base was unenthusiastic during 2010 in the wake of the rise of the Tea Party, so Democrats lost the House. With the House under rule of a party determined to block almost everything Obama tried to do, the base got even more unhappy, and Democrats lost the Senate in 2014. Even fewer progressive wish list policies got passed, and that's how you got leftists saying there was fundamentally no difference between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton (who was running on mostly the same platform as Obama), and BAM Trump presidency.
You thought Michigan fans had thin patience? If Obama had a pandemic where he squandered the early months and 50,000 people died in a single month, his "base" would be helping to source the torches and pitchforks.
Apologies in advance if this "here's how a political base actually thinks" is a little too political.
Oops double post.
i can say that there are no militia cosplay in SKorea because well, guns other than hunting riles (these are air rifles too i believe) are illegal to own.
Also, all male Koreans have to serve mandatory military service and the thought of wearing any camo gives almost all men PTSD. and women don't really enjoy the sight of men in military uniforms either.
interestingly, bullet casings are 'controlled material' in SKorea. So after every bullet has been fired, the shooter has to account for the whereabouts of each casing. If a casing is unaccounted for, say during an exercise or at the shooting range, you could observe the WHOLE base on their knees looking for it. so even holding a rifle can give PTSD. that's why they hate even going to reserve training.
I wish I had four hands so I could give these titties 4 thumbs down.
As dumb as this comment is, unfortunately politicians run policy which then they inevitably fuck up, we run around in circles and start over again. The reason why politics in American doesn’t really matter to this author, is because the people who actually make this country go are out doing shit, rather than taking a 3 month Hiatus only to return to fucking filibuster. Fucking goddamn filibuster, that’s a thing.
Then are rewarded with excessive and multiple terms due to apathy, despair, and on top of that life long benefits, including heath insurance. Why the hell would they change the status quo with new policy?
//end rant
tl: dr Don't like it go to 247.
Anyone surprised about which of the two camps(Openers vs. Closers) that Brian is in, hasn't paid any attention to what he's written over the years. Its also his blog and he has been pretty consistent in using it to air his views on different issues. Whether you agree or disagree(I'm in the disagree camp) its a view that came from considered thought, so I don't see what the problem is.
Also it'd be nice if the protestors would quit LARPing, its stupid and makes the message seem confused.
Its also his blog and he has been pretty consistent in using it to air his views on different issues.
Sure, but he also wrote the "no politics" rule. Anyway, I wasn't surprised; it's just that it'd be nice if people would acknowledge that intelligent, well-meaning people can take both sides of this discussion.
Also it'd be nice if the protestors would quit LARPing, its stupid and makes the message seem confused.
I agree 100%.
Comments