Per Andy Katz - They're Actually Thinking About Letting Fans In To Games This Fall
https://247sports.com/college/michigan/Article/Andy-Katz-says-fans-will-have-to-wear-masks-at-college-football-games-in-2020-coronavirus-pandemic-147428064/?fbclid=IwAR22p206SlCYhxs3ltJXRpALb67A4XUScGxHXSzf_Yj-gLQEhpdlkIKJeeg
I know our authoritarian in Michigan is gonna say no, but it's still a neat thought
If they were to do this right now, obviously absolutely no fans.
But hopefully by Fall everyone is wearing masks, there's a vaccine, or it turns out that for example Vitamin D can really help prevent the worse symptoms.
Who would have thought that regular exercise and a healthy diet could be beneficial to preventing sickness?
I agree. Morbidly obese people stay home. Sorry. Dr. Fauci now agrees.
I'm gonna tell you a secret
Only cowards will take the vaccine. Dont take it.
How brave to refuse a vaccine. I'm sure your medal will be in the mail
I'm pretty sure the guy was trolling, but I will say this: I'm extremely nervous about this particular vaccine. The conditions under which it's being developed should terrify anybody -- there's a giant race to an unfathomable amount of cash, with the first to market likely getting nearly all of it, and I have little faith in the FDA doing its due diligence on the trials when the need for a vaccine is so pressing and the timelines are so accelerated.
I will absolutely not be an early adopter of any vaccine that comes to market. I suspect it will initially only be available to individuals with the highest risk, but even after it's generally available, I will wait until there's been time to better judge its safety and its effectiveness.
J you said it better than me.
Well that was a low bar.
So only brave people, who risk to take a new hurriedly prepared experimental vaccine for the build herd immunity in our society will be getting this vaccine then?
It’s an unproven risk so don’t get a vaccine. But you are brave for not taking that risk?
Your logic runs both ways and is therefore nonsense.
J.; Wanna bet it's a placebo? (LOL)
I am also not chomping at the bit to receive this particular vaccine. I don’t have much trust in a pharmaceutical company to know all the effects, long and short term, in such a short time period
Champing, not chomping.
Or, in the case of RGard, "chimping" at the bit.
It’ll depend on how rushed the trials are. Trump is putting a lot of pressure to get a vaccine out there this year, and that could be dangerous.
The shortcuts that are being taken with FDA approval aren't introducing new risks on the clinical side, they're adding risk on the business investment side. For example, a company running an investigatory drug through FDA trials will typically wait until the resolution of one phase before even beginning planning and investment for the next.
Example: Company X runs a drug through Phase I (toxicity study) without major adverse events and gets good results from Phase II (small single-institution effectiveness study).
Under normal circumstances, X isn't going to put money into setting up Phase III (large multi-institution placebo-controlled double blind study), which is incredibly expensive and cumbersome from a regulatory standpoint (approval of protocols, recruitment of patients, packaging of the drug and placebos, etc.-- that takes many months at a minimum, over a year if things are thorny enough), until Phase II is completely done, results are published, FDA is satisfied, etc.
So from a business standpoint, you would never start putting many millions of dollars into setting up a Phase III until Phase II succeeded. Usually there's no point. Except now, there is. The increased risk is presumably worth the cost, so you start setting up Phase II before you even have the Phase I results. You start setting up the uber-expensive Phase III before you have Phase II finished (or maybe even started). If Phase II craps out, you're shit out of luck on your investment. But you haven't shortened or lowered the bar on the trial.
Same deal with manufacturing: you can start before Phase III is even over knowing that you're going to land with a lot of useless product if it fails. This is akin to all those "BUFFALO BILLS SUPERBOWL CHAMPS" T-shirts that got made unnecessarily and got shipped to villages in Africa where they think the Bills are the greatest NFL dynasty of all time, because goddamn 4 in row, amirite?
So now you've just saved a hell of a lot of time (a year or two at least) moving through the whole process, for better (if it works) or worse (if it doesn't, you lost all that capital investment, your stock tanks, the Board fires you, your spouse leaves and takes the dog).
I have a few concerns about the vaccine candidates, but those should be showing up in the trials sooner or later.
I certainly hope that you're right. If the FDA follows its usual processes, and doesn't approve the vaccine under an EUA or something similar, and the shortcuts are only on the investment side, then it's a lot less scary. I'm just worried that there's going to be a lot more pressure from the "do something" side than from the "first do no harm" side.
After all, even approved medications sometimes (rarely, thankfully) end up getting pulled from the market when it turns out that things were missed during the trials.
That’s fair. Political pressures on the FDA are going to be immense. But the data is going to be public, and the planet is going to be checking their work. Not an infallible process by any means but I think they’ll give it a good faith effort unless the agency gets gut rehabbed with political hacks over the summer.
Your last statement is the scary part. I have no confidence in the admin's ability to resist that temptation.
100% agree. A panicked and desperate society seeking a magical answer to the problem. On the other side, pharmaceutical companies skipping certain testing requirements as they rush to get a vaccine to the market that will have little if any real data to back up its effectiveness or safety. I think I’ve seen that movie. Doesn’t it end with everyone dying and/or becoming a zombie?
Books, too -- the plot of Rainbow Six (the original one, not one of the many spin-offs) fits this scenario pretty much perfectly, except that the pharmaceutical company in question is actively malevolent rather than just in a hurry.
Only cowards wear kevlar ballistic plates and the ACH in a combat theatre as well.
I got chickenpox at the age of 30 because my mom told me I had them when I was young. I went through one really bad week that left me with scabs all over my face and back. I wouldn’t wish that misery on anyone. If I had known the real story, I would have gotten vaccinated just like I have been for polio, measles, small pox, flu, shingles, etc. You want to get something nasty, try shingles on for size.
"You want to get something nasty, try shingles on for size."
I've heard that it's really nasty from different people. So much so that I decided go get the newer, more effective vaccine for it (Shingrix) that was developed and came available recently.
I did that in mid-December and got some unpleasant side-effects from it. My temperature spiked to 104 the night of the shot and despite knocking that down with Tylenol the flu-like symptoms continued for the next two days. Bad aches and pains too. Then, on day 4 it all went away just like *POOF*
hopefully it was worth it.
Enjoy your polio, asshole. Don't come running for help.
Without vaccinations, a lot of us wouldn't be here. Science works.
Science works - and I'm as on board as it comes. But that doesn't mean it's infallible. One of the hardest things about science is not to get too invested in the outcome you're seeking. It leads to confirmation bias when you're trying to sort good data from bad.
That's why I almost always look at pre-print (i.e. not peer reviewed) research with a jaundiced eye. If there is independent confirmation of results or findings, it's a safe bet that the conclusions are valid.
I'm talking about the ones that came before: polio, smallpox, mumps, measles and tetanus. Without those, many of our parents and grandparents may not have survived or would've been too sick to have children. But that also points to why time is necessary to develop a vaccine that's safe for Covid-19. To my knowledge, none of those vaccines were developed in 12-18 months.
Precisely. And while it's not unreasonable to think that medicine might have advanced to the point where vaccine development is faster now than it has been in the past, it's also true that research is inherently resistant to timelines.
my kids are fully vaccinated, and when the HPV vax came around I had them vaccinated with that as well, knowing it only covers the most common strains. I had the Hep C vax as a coach, and the booster when it was recommended. I'm by zero means anti-vax... I have a relative who contracted Polio as a kid from the polio vaccine...no vax is infallible. Those of us old enough to catch chickenpox as the only means of immunity are susceptible to shingles...though not everyone. The body does weird things sometimes. Is it better to get it? Sure. should you force anyone to get it as soon as it's available? At this point no...still so much in question. Anyone high risk, or regularly around high-risk people, maybe less debatable. There is nothing absolute with this covid mess.
Science works, except when it doesn’t. What we once accepted as proven science, sometimes gets reversed as we learn and understand more. All scientific findings should be constantly challenged, not discarded, but challenged.
We already have the vaccine, all the best people are taking it. A cocktail of Hydroqloroqine, bleach and UV light shot up your ass are the biggest and best cure, and everybody knows it. Trust me, I’m rich and have all the best words.
I just took a two mile walk around downtown A2 and campus and was shocked by how few people were wearing masks -- maybe 20% -- almost none of the college aged people were wearing outfitted.
The #2 and Magic Brownie from Zingerman's are awesome, as usual. There was an hour and a half wait for takeout.
Um, they are outdoors? The World Health Organization still holds the position that masks are not advisable for low contact situations.
If that’s the case why are people wearing masks in restaurants and grocery stores? Places with effectively NO contact?
If restaurants are “no contact”, where is there moderate contact?
Masks arent advisable for outdoor use, Chad.
Haha. A vaccine by this fall. I have some waterfront property I’d like to sell you in flint
A vaccine by fall? I appreciate your optimism...
Couldn’t help but throw politics in there eh?
Yeah, apparently one of the greatest Universities on the planet with world class health officials and professors know less than a random Mgoblog conspiracy theorist.
Not to defend a political take (in any direction), but it must be acknowledged that the University will not have the final say in this matter. In MI (just as an example, but equally applies to just about any state), the governor will have overriding authority on something like this (especially regarding a publicly funded in-state university). Even if a court were to say that no legal authority exists to prevent this kind of mass assembly, there is always the "power of the purse" in terms of state budget.
Even so, there is still a lot of time remaining to see how the situation develops.
It is not awkward for a publicly funded institution to be governed by its highest elected legal authority in a time of public health emergency. By ignoring the authority (not authoritarian) of the democratically elected official, the whiners (the OP) and the apologists just look silly.
Vote, leave, protest, so what you want. Your freedom to have and write stupid thoughts has not been oppressed. .
Of course they’ll plan for fans at this point.
Every. Fucking. Day. These posts are futile exercises—unsuccessful mental masturbation.
On the contrary I think it's fair - and healthy in a free society - to discuss whether our state's chief executive should possess the extraordinary political power to bypass the legislature and if so, what the duration and nature of that power should be. The voters in November 2018 had no way of knowing we would be in this situation when they went to the polls and it's unknown how they might have voted had they been able to foresee this.
Regardless of whom you support (I voted for her), this is absolutely not something we should just let pass without any comment.
It's all the more concerning IMO that our official plan for reopening is vague and open to interpretation. How are we defining "low" or "more sharp decline" here? What exactly is "robust" testing? People should be asking questions about this. The Governor is our public servant and needs to explain these.
This time in US history is quite unique since it is one of the few times there has been a mass immediate public health crisis (to distinguish it from issues such as opioids, HIV, alcoholism, and a host of other health concerns which could be termed "crisis" but are not requiring immediate, dramatic intervention in the emergency sense) that has seen such dramatic government intervention on such a wide scale and range of life aspects.
To add to the consternation, there is no true established legal framework for determining the extent and separation of powers here - sad to say it, but things would be clearer (legally speaking) if the country were under military attack instead.
The governors are not wrong to try to do their utmost to address the situation and the people/legislatures are not wrong to question it. Ultimately the judiciary will need to settle a number of things at many levels, but it doesn't all need to be done immediately.
But in this case, the "emergency" that would require the governor to make an immediate intervention has passed. Even the federal War Powers Act requires a report to be given to the legislature within 48 hours and limits how long that executive power can be used (60 days). Time now allows for a non-hurried decision about the state's direction to be in the hands of the Michigan legislature, the people's representatives, subject to an executive veto.
The War Powers Act is an interesting example, but it is purely about military action by the US President. When governors call out the national guard in their respective states, it does not require action/assent by their state legislatures.
For something like the current situation, there is not even consensus about what action require legislative approval and what can be done by executive action. There will be much to determine by the courts and legislatures after the fact.
It's all just mental masturbation! There's only one way.. There's only one way to rock!!!
It appears you are not a fan of the constitution, the bill of rights in particular.
The state budget isn't decided by the governor, it's written by the legislature who don't exactly see eye to eye with Whitmer. They have have the final say about school funding.