?[LOCKED] Additional background on why the Purdue game was played despite Stefanovic's positive COVID-19 test

Submitted by FrankMurphy on January 22nd, 2021 at 11:20 PM

Stefanovic tested positive yesterday after having tested negative the previous day. Nonetheless, Stefanovic had been quarantining and had not had any contact with anyone else in the program since the team returned from their game at Ohio State. Purdue apparently informed Michigan (and Ohio State, which they had just played) of Stefanovic's positive test as soon as they learned of it on Thursday. Per Howard and the players, Purdue was fully transparent and gave Michigan the the option of postponing the game. Howard consulted with the players and with the doctors, and Michigan asked that the entire Purdue team take PCR tests. Purdue honored that request. When all of the results came back negative, Michigan decided to proceed with playing the game. Howard and the players praised Purdue for their transparency and cooperation.

https://www.mlive.com/wolverines/2021/01/with-covid-threatening-to-cancel-game-michigan-appreciated-purdues-transparency.html

[LOCKED the thread because a few too many MGoUsers took it in the wrong direction by making unnecessary personal attacks on others. I'll be issuing warnings later in the Mod Sticky thread, once I completely combing thru the thread after lunch.] 

Bambi

January 22nd, 2021 at 11:52 PM ^

I mean it's great that everyone is happy with how Purdue handled it and that Purdue was transparent, but that doesn't change the fact that this was probably a very risky game to play.

Everyone on Purdue tested negative, which is great, but per the OP Stefanovic was testing negative and had no contact with anyone on the team since the OSU game. But yet by Thursday he was testing positive. We know the incubation period for this virus is up to 5 days (if not more in some cases), and Purdue's last game was Tuesday night AKA 3 nights ago. There's a very real chance Purdue players who tested negative today will test positive in a few days, and that could potentially now spread to Michigan too.

Even reading the quotes by Livers and Brooks, they basically say "We didn't want to play but then Purdue was transparent so we decided we were okay with it." Purdue being transparent is wonderful and necessary, but that has no bearing on transmission of the virus once you get on the court. I'm sure the medical staff gave their input and clearly OK'd Michigan playing, but that doesn't mean this game was played without risk. Hopefully it's a non-issue, but none of this changes the fact that you could have rescheduled the game and played it at a time when neither team was dealing with an active positive.

 

Joined: 10/12/2013

MGoPoints: 23158

Squad16

January 23rd, 2021 at 1:43 AM ^

"Very risky", definitely not. 

"Some risk", certainly. 

You are not contagious the entire time the virus incubates. Typically, you can't spread the virus until ~24 hours before you have enough viral load for a positive PCR test (rapid are less accurate). Stefanovic tested NEGATIVE on Wednesday (and then positive on Thursday), which is a very good sign because that means it's definitely possible he wasn't contagious on Tuesday. Also, another thing worth remembering here is that COVID-19 has nowhere near a 100% transmission rate, even with close contact, even with contagious people involved. Measles is an example of a disease with a devastingly high transmission rate, COVID is not that. If you think back to the pre-pandemic days, if someone had the flu in your class or office, you certainly might have gotten it. But very rarely did everyone, and sometimes nobody did. COVID is likely somewhat more contagious than the flu, but it's much closer to the flu than it is to measles in terms of its spread. 

I've also seen additional reporting that the vast majority of Purdue's other players previously had, and recovered fully from, COVID this past summer. Which also reduces the risk of them transmitting it to us. 

There is certainly risk though. However, all of this is about reducing risk, not eliminating it. Zero risk is not the correct goal in this situation. 

Joined: 01/04/2018

MGoPoints: 2137

MGoBlue96

January 23rd, 2021 at 2:00 AM ^

Official cdc stance currently though is that reinfection is not out of the realm of possibility and there has been some research that has found antibodies may only last 90 days or so after infection. Supposedly Purdue's previous ones were in August. But yes I agree with your conclusion that UM took some risk. Too many unknowns to conclude if that was somewhere between small or more.

Joined: 12/26/2010

MGoPoints: 26190

gbdub

January 23rd, 2021 at 9:00 AM ^

The CDC cannot conclusively prove (to scientific standards of certainty) that reinfection cannot occur. They are also similarly saying that vaccination may not stop spread. (They were, and largely are, in the same way uncertain about mask effectiveness)

And they are, in the narrow scientific standards of certainty way, correct to say this. But it’s a long shot - other similar diseases do not behave that way and we have no evidence to suggest that reinfection or spread-while-immune are likely. 

Joined: 02/16/2010

MGoPoints: 26791

TATEisGREATyo

January 23rd, 2021 at 12:08 AM ^

Holy shit this world has gone full blown retarded.  People have gotten sick...since forever.  Cold?  Oh get tested.  Yep...Rona.

Flu symptoms?  Shit you are a risk to society, we have never seen anybody a threat to society this bad.

 

 

Joined: 09/05/2009

MGoPoints: 558

TATEisGREATyo

January 23rd, 2021 at 12:24 AM ^

Let me guess, you are a mask wearer and you agree to get tested whenever they tell you to.  The cases are basically ALL mask wearers, because they go and get 'tested' which has become so inaccurate it's not even funny.  Why are us maskless people not getting tested?   We see through the bullshit.  So keep wearing that mask and pretending it works, and keep believing in 'science' and government is looking out for your well being. ??

Joined: 09/05/2009

MGoPoints: 558

Blue Me

January 23rd, 2021 at 8:22 AM ^

My wife is Japanese and has been living there for the last five years looking after her parents.

Japan has a population of 127M living in a country the size of California of which 80% is uninhabitable due to the very mountainous terrain. They are living right on top of each other.

They immediately donned masks and a verifiable national contact tracing program was put in place. They quarantined last spring for about as long as we did in Michigan.

There have been under 3,000 Covid deaths in Japan and my wife and her 87 year old mom went to a rotary sushi restaurant last night.

And you're an idiot who should be gelded so that you can't pass on your sub-par genetics.

Joined: 02/17/2019

MGoPoints: -3001

WindyCityBlue

January 23rd, 2021 at 9:09 AM ^

I’ve worked a bunch in Japan and have been there countless times. Comparing them to us with respect to disease management is apples to oranges. Despite being more population dense, they have had some built in advantages:

1. They are a small island so you can easily keep people out 

2. Since SARS they wear masks quite regularly anyway for many years  

3. Their culture is averse to touching (ie hand shakes, hugging, etc.)

4. Probably the most culturally homogenous country in the world

5. Probably the healthiest people in the world which limits the issue of co-morbidities

But man, I miss Japan. Love the food. Once this pandemic eases up, I’m going back. 

Joined: 07/23/2008

MGoPoints: 41505

Blue Me

January 23rd, 2021 at 11:34 AM ^

There are some common fallacies among your points. I first moved to Japan over 30 years ago and lived there for a decade:

1. They are a small island so you can easily keep people out 

-- CV was not brought to the US by marauding Canadians and Mexicans. It largely came to the US from Europe. Michigan was particularly impacted early because of Metro Airport and the business traffic between SE MI and FCA's HQ in Turin.

2. Since SARS they wear masks quite regularly anyway for many years  

-- The use of masks in Japan pre-dates SARS. Japanese folks have worn them during allergy season out of consideration to others since I arrived there in 1987.

3. Their culture is averse to touching (ie hand shakes, hugging, etc.)

-- CV is an airborne disease and it's impossible to socially distance when commuting on trains which is the norm. Residences are much, much smaller than in the US.

For the sake of comparison, Washington, DC and Tokyo proper are about the same size. DC has a population of about 600,000 and Tokyo 12M.

It's the mask usage that sets them apart. Not to mention a coherent national contact tracing program.

4. Probably the most culturally homogenous country in the world

-- What does that have to do with the spread of a highly transmissible airborne virus?

5. Probably the healthiest people in the world which limits the issue of co-morbidities

-- A much higher percentage of Japanese smoke than in the US and diabetes has really spiked over the past few decades as the diet had changed substantially (they're pretty close to US levels now IIRC).

Importantly, it is also the oldest country in the world from a demographic perspective.

The bottom line is their federal government had a plan and the populace is much more mature -- I've yet to hear of a bunch of rednecks plotting to kidnap, try, and execute a governor there for taking measures that infectious disease doctors recommend. Not the sort of "Michigan Difference" we should be proud of IMO.

Joined: 02/17/2019

MGoPoints: -3001

Jeff_GoBlue

January 23rd, 2021 at 1:14 AM ^

Yes this!  As the doctor in my family says... we can keep kicking the can down the street but eventually your going to get it.  For those thinking the vaccine is the savior...  even if it works, it's not going to last forever.  You will need to keep getting vaccinated.  The main question right now is how often.  Will it be 3 months, 6 months, who knows.  

It's not going to be over until we all get it.  Protect the old and compromised.  That's all we can really do.

Joined: 12/22/2020

MGoPoints: 571

MGoBlue96

January 23rd, 2021 at 1:42 AM ^

No it's really not:

1.  At its currently mortality rate that is  around 4 million dead Americans. I don't know about you but I'm not ok with a strategy that leaves millions of Americans dead.

2. Hospitals would be pushed past the breaking point, which would cause more deaths on things unrelated to covid. Many hospitals have already been at or over capacity at points without the numbers a herd immunity strategy would cause. Keeping hospitals from overcrowding is a point that continues to go over people's heads for some reason.

3. You talk about uncertainty regarding the vaccine, but there is still a ton of unknown or not confirmed with the virus itself. At the moment the official CDC stance is that reinfection can not be ruled out and that some preliminary research indicates antibodies may only last 90 days or so from initial infection. That type of uncertainty does not lend itself to a herd immunity strategy.

The herd immunity strategy would be flat out idiotic and it is amazing a doctor of all people wouldn't understand why that is not a viable strategy based on point 2 alone.

Joined: 12/26/2010

MGoPoints: 26190

Squad16

January 23rd, 2021 at 1:49 AM ^

I don't think he's advocating for herd immunity, didn't he say to "protect the old and the compromised"? 

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with either of you outright, but also the "current mortality rate" is VERY inflated/misleading if you are using confirmed cases as the denominator in that equation. The actual cases are MUCH greater than confirmed cases because of how poor testing was early on in particular, but even now we're still missing tons. 

(AKA, if confirmed cases are 100 and we had 1 death, it may look like mortality is 1%, but if there really were 200 cases and we just missed testing 100 of them, it would only be 0.5%). Many epidemiologists believe we could be missing a *majority* of cases (and certainly were March-May). 

Joined: 01/04/2018

MGoPoints: 2137

MGoBlue96

January 23rd, 2021 at 2:11 AM ^

When you say the only solution is everyone getting it you are in fact advocating for that strategy. Also it is amazing to me that people think reporting is a one way street, at one point Florida and some other states had pneumonia deaths 5-6 times higher than average, but yet were not classified as Covid.  So yes I think people are being incredibly naive and one sided if they believe only over reporting has occurred. And even at your .5% that is still over 1.5 million.

And again the mortality rate number is not the biggest issue, whether its .5 or 1, hospitals would still not be able to cope with the number of hospitalizations. That is quite frankly indisputable and again would lead to massive capacity problems for all other patients and collateral deaths as a result.

 

 

Joined: 12/26/2010

MGoPoints: 26190

caliblue

January 23rd, 2021 at 3:29 AM ^

Actually I will take the opposite stance. If one looks at excess mortality of 2010 vs the average of the last few years the number of covid deaths is probably much HIGHER than the official number, which may lead us to underestimate the death rate

Joined: 11/02/2008

MGoPoints: 2146

jpo

January 23rd, 2021 at 8:24 AM ^

I think part of the problem is that there's an equivocal meaning to "herd immunity." As a strategy--that is, intentionally exposing people to the virus as you would your children to chicken pox--it's not a good one for reasons mentioned. Inter alia, it would overwhelm our hospital capacity. But it is the goal we're after. For those who cringe at the idea of "herd immunity," tell me what else the end of this pandemic looks like. I'd rather get there by vaccine than exposure, but the pandemic isn't over until there is sufficient immunity in the population, which, sad to say, includes the death of those who couldn't produce sufficient immune responses at the point of exposure. The degree to which mask-wearing (a low-cost high-effect strategy) or lockdowns (high-cost and debatable-effect) or hand washing (low-cost probably low-effect) help mitigate the problem, particularly associated deaths, is a matter of prudential deliberation and thus discussion. 

I don't like wearing masks, but it's a very low-cost approach that all the evidence suggests has a high-effect. To refuse to do so demonstrates, in my estimation, a certain anti-social tendency.

Joined: 01/11/2015

MGoPoints: 2297

Jeff_GoBlue

January 23rd, 2021 at 10:35 AM ^

Totally agree with you that herd immunity is the only thing that ends this.  A lot is unknown about this virus but one thing that is for sure is that it is a form of cold virus.  It is going to keep changing and will remain highly contagious.  

My point about the vaccine is that the covid vaccine will not be an effective long term solution.  You will not be permanently immune once vaccinated.  They know you will need to be re-vaccinated, they just don't know the timeframe yet because they only have 3 months of actual results.  

Where I disagree with you is how we get there.  I'd rather get there by letting my immune system do it's job.  Our bodies were built for it and we have about 200,000 years of results.  If you are older or have health issues, sure, get the vaccine but it is not going to be the answer.  

This virus is not going away, the vaccine is not going to end it.  It will still be here next year, the difference is that hopefully by then it will be nothing more than a cold or the flu because the majority of people have already had exposure.

Sadly, as we see in the total number of deaths increase, that number will continue to rise.  My hope is that the vaccine can help that population.  

Joined: 12/22/2020

MGoPoints: 571

Blue Me

January 23rd, 2021 at 11:45 AM ^

No, we can all get vaccinated and achieve herd immunity. Nobody knows yet if booster shots will be required. It's also important to have adequate stock in, and a method to deliver, antibody treatments for those who do contract it. The previous administration failed on procuring adequate stocks of vaccines and antibody treatments and programs to administer them. Shocked that a failed casino owner and reality show host couldn't have done better.

Covid will be an afterthought 18 months from now with proper management.

Joined: 02/17/2019

MGoPoints: -3001

snarling wolverine

January 23rd, 2021 at 11:40 AM ^

Yes it would be.  And I follow the guidelines.  It's just that the idea that we'd end the pandemic by masking up is a bit off the mark.  Following the guidelines won't end the pandemic, it just can make it less deadly in the short run.  The pandemic will go on until most people have antibodies to Covid, either by vaccination or infection.  

Joined: 12/14/2011

MGoPoints: 98745

MFun

January 23rd, 2021 at 1:51 AM ^

Ron, 

The hyperbole about climate change should be challenged aggressively. 

The entire democratic field last year insisted that it was an "Existential Crisis". To Whom?? 

How absurd. This is Al Gore type of hysteria. 

If we want to solve problems with the negative effects of fossil fuels, we need to stop the hysteria, and work on comprehensive, methodical alternatives... which we are. 

This type of change does not happen within a decade. Radicalism is not productive. 

Joined: 09/11/2020

MGoPoints: 705

blue in dc

January 23rd, 2021 at 9:49 AM ^

The reason we are proceeding so slowly with moving away from fossil fuels is not the people who are worried about climate change, it is the people who claim it is not a problem.   
 

““Even at scenarios of low warming, each region of the world will face severe risks to national and global security in the next three decades. Higher levels of warming will pose catastrophic, and likely irreversible, global security risks over the course of the 21st century.”  That quote comes from a report authored by a number of national security experts, not a bunch of treehuggers.

https://climateandsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/a-security-threat-assessment-of-climate-change.pdf

 

Joined: 01/22/2011

MGoPoints: 20401

Blue@LSU

January 23rd, 2021 at 11:07 AM ^

The entire democratic field last year insisted that it was an "Existential Crisis". To Whom?? 

Well, the DoD has labeled climate change as a threat to national security. That's not exactly what I would consider a radical organization. I guess it would also be an existential crisis to anyone living in areas influenced by rising ocean levels or farmers whose livelihoods are hurt by severe droughts just to name a few examples.   

Joined: 11/04/2016

MGoPoints: 81378

MGoBlue96

January 23rd, 2021 at 1:07 AM ^

First: Both the total deaths and mortality rate of covid are higher, so you literally have no valid point here

Second: What the hell are you even talking about here? 

Third: I don't watch any news network, I don't even have access to any of them with the apps I have.

You sir are quite frankly an idiot and people like you are a big reason why we have the numbers we do. I really wish people like you understood that downplaying Covid as just the flu or cold is pretty damn insulting to 410,000 dead Americans and their loved ones.

Joined: 12/26/2010

MGoPoints: 26190

Jeff_GoBlue

January 23rd, 2021 at 1:22 AM ^

I am not agreeing with his tone but his point was in regards to the total number of deaths in the past year vs other years...  not the total number of covid deaths vs flu deaths.

I don't know if that data is in yet but it will be very telling.  Right now the population that has been most affected is 75+ and compromised.  This is the same population that would have died from the flu or other illnesses.  Unfortunately, covid is a new virus and their bodies cannot fight it off.  This would be similar to the Spanish Flu in 1812.  

Until everyone is exposed this will continue.  The virus is not going away.  When it is no longer 'new', this virus will be no different than a cold or flu virus.  Unfortunately since no one has had it before, it crushes the old and sick.

Joined: 12/22/2020

MGoPoints: 571

evenyoubrutus

January 23rd, 2021 at 7:02 AM ^

That article says those are estimates from the CDC, and that finalizing the data takes time.

I'm not trying to debate anything or win an argument but I honestly don't know what to believe anymore. Anyone who questions the pandemic is automatically labeled a conspiracy theorist, an idiot, moron, selfish, etc. Honest discussion seems to get shut down with bullying and name calling.

I just have questions that I'm sure people will call me Qanon for asking. but nobody seems concerned with the fact that the CDC brazenly lied about the effectiveness of masks early on in order to save it for medical personnel. It would seem that if someone close to you lies to your face, they become untrustworthy. 

AND, if it turned out that this was overblown all along, would they be honest about it? Would anyone in government controlling the lockdowns publicly say "oops, we were wrong. We know a lot of you lost your businesses and livelihood etc but it looks like we made a mistake."?

I am curious why the WHO changed the standard of positive COVID cases to needing TWO positive PCR tests as well as clinical presentation this week. 

I also would like an explanation as to why a close family friend was admitted to the COVID ward after she presented with a fever (and only a fever) but had a negative test. She was exposed to a confirmed case three days before, so presumably they labeled her as a COVID case because of this? But I don't know. How many people have been documented as COVID+ without a positive test?

There are also stories about people dying from other causes but then documented as COVID. Like, LOTS of stories. Are these real? Have these been investigated? 

Why are flu cases down so much this year? I honestly am curious for a real answer. That's all.

And this whole nursing home controversy, is it real? I have no idea, because the only people talking about it seem to be Qanon types. But I haven't seen anyone denying it either.

I'm not trying to be confrontational. I honestly truly have not seen a satisfying answer to these questions. I know I'll be negged and called a denier but whatever ?‍♂️ I agree that a deadly pandemic should be taken seriously. It just seems that everything, EVERYTHING has a political agenda behind it now.

Joined: 11/04/2008

MGoPoints: 178669

Gulogulo37

January 23rd, 2021 at 7:46 AM ^

"AND, if it turned out that this was overblown all along, would they be honest about it? Would anyone in government controlling the lockdowns publicly say "oops, we were wrong. We know a lot of you lost your businesses and livelihood etc but it looks like we made a mistake."?"

Dude. What cave have you been living in? Trump talked about how overblown it was the entire time. That's why the US is in the situation it's in. It's a big part of why he lost. Plenty else wrong in your post but how can you possibly think everyone in government has been advocating lockdowns since the beginning?

Joined: 03/16/2010

MGoPoints: 28379

evenyoubrutus

January 23rd, 2021 at 8:27 AM ^

I post that I'm tired of everything having a political agenda, and I just have questions that I'd like answers to, that I'm not trying to have an argument. And your response is: "DURR ORANGE MAN BAD"

And

"Everything is wrong in your post."

If you're just trolling you're doing an excellent job of it.

I honestly just have questions. And your post is the kind that gets a bunch of upvotes.

There are so many pseudointellectuals here and you don't even know it.

Joined: 11/04/2008

MGoPoints: 178669

Blue@LSU

January 23rd, 2021 at 10:46 AM ^

I think the problem is that people have a hard time differentiating (1) those who truly have questions about this thing and sincerely want to know answers so they can make informed decisions, and (2) the deniers that sow doubt about its seriousness by asking seemingly innocent answers. 

So for instance your two questions 

"AND, if it turned out that this was overblown all along, would they be honest about it?” 

“Why are flu cases down so much this year?”

can be understood in two ways. If you are the first type of person, then you genuinely don’t know about these things and want to know the truth. But if you are the second type, then you believe you already know the answer and are, through the very act of the question, suggesting that the virus was overblown or that regular flu cases are being quantified as Covid cases. It’s really a question of knowing or not knowing which type of person you are facing given that the second type has an incentive to mimic the first type.

My own impression is that you are the first type. I like most of your comments on the board and find most of them to be thoughtful. But given the amount of misinformation that is intentionally being spread about this thing, I can also understand why people are a bit quick to question why someone is questioning. Unfortunately this is the world we now live in. 

Joined: 11/04/2016

MGoPoints: 81378

blue in dc

January 23rd, 2021 at 11:47 AM ^

His response was not “durr orange man bad”

He disagreed with your assertion that the government as a whole has overblown the issue.

He pointed out specifically

1. Trump talked about how it was overblown the whole time - this seems pretty undeniable

2. He asserted that the situation was worse because Trump downplayed it.   While this is an opinion, it isn’t a crazy one

3. It is a big part of why Trump lost - once again, a pretty reasonable opinion.

You can certainly disagree with his assertions, but he was questioning one of your key questions with pretty reasonable points.

Joined: 01/22/2011

MGoPoints: 20401

evenyoubrutus

January 23rd, 2021 at 11:55 AM ^

I did not assert that the government as a whole has overblown the issue. I didn't assert that ANYONE has overblown it. I'm asking what if, what if it has been overblown and this was realized by those doing it. Would they admit it? Instead he went off about Trump, and didn't address anything about my actual question. 

Joined: 11/04/2008

MGoPoints: 178669

blue in dc

January 23rd, 2021 at 12:31 PM ^

There have been plenty of examples of people on this blog going off on Trump.    This is not a particularly goid one.    It is hard to take you seriously when you say things like that or things like: “I get that is the official statement, but then why is COVID spreading so much? It's an honest question. Because to me, the answer is either that masks protect from the flu but not from COVID, or that flu cases are being erroneously counted as COVID. Is there another explanation I'm not considering?

If someone had asked you 12 months ago, if many people in this country started wearing masks, stopped taking airline flights and going to restaurants, many people worked from home and many students took classes from home, would you expect flu cases to go up, down or stay the same?    I’m pretty sure that most people with even a little understanding of how the flu is transmitted would say that they would expect flu cases to go down.   This isn’t about some “official statement”.    It is about having a basic understanding of biology and the ability to apply a small amount of logic, things one would hope that anyone with a college degree (and many without) would have.

Joined: 01/22/2011

MGoPoints: 20401

evenyoubrutus

January 23rd, 2021 at 12:45 PM ^

Then don't take me seriously. You are one of the smarter people here  IMO and so when I see your username I generally stop and read what you have to say, so let me be clear. This isn't about my wanting to win an argument. I thought your explanation about immunizations of influenza made sense and I can buy that, but I also know that much of what is "known" is often based on data. So I am simply curious about why influenza spreads less easily, from a physiological standpoint than from a statistical standpoint.

Joined: 11/04/2008

MGoPoints: 178669

IDKaGoodName

January 23rd, 2021 at 7:59 AM ^

Sadly the political agenda is tied to more and more things these days, civil liberties and safety etc. 

I agree with you tho that it’s getting to the point of unbearable now though. You can’t have an educated discussion with discourse and find both parties are better and more understood coming out the other side. And this is completely separate from what political belief system people align with. Everyone is so excited to get their point across they can’t be bothered to stop and listen, ask questions and consider the answers, and utilize information from various sources and facets. Everyone is more interested in arguing and regurgitating the new (fake or not) news/information they have gathered from a radio show, their favorite news platform (typically a polarizing source) or word of mouth. 
 

it’s a scary thought that everyone has a platform with social media and the internet now, and so much of this country has a hard time qualifying sources they pull info from. 

I had a guy at work watching some dumbass conspiracy Qanon videos and talking about it, and I just let him talk. Then at one point he says in passing to someone else he has roped in to watching “Oh I forgot IDKAGoodName is a democrat.” I found it tasteless and annoying that, as I’m preparing for a heart surgery, I have to even make a comment about my political beliefs in relation to some ridiculous YouTube video you happened upon, and it fits your narrative of our government so now we have to listen or check it out otherwise be bullied. Why can’t it just be that I’m not interested right now? And why do I have to be labeled a democrat just for not wanting to watch a video? And, would this guy even care if I WASNT a democrat and still didn’t want to watch the video/disagreed? No, probably not. Because people don’t give a fuck to listen anymore. It’s just like when you meet someone new and you are so focused on the introduction and shaking hands and stuff that you totally miss their name because you are too focused on what you are going to say. People hear one fact or one piece of news and that’s it, they run with that and turn their ears and brains off. 
 

Anyway, I told the guy I’m not a democrat, I don’t subscribe to a specific political party, and that I have specific beliefs in what our citizens should be allowed to do and how they should be governed, and I didn’t think either major political party stood for all of these views, and I reiterated that I simply couldn’t get behind Donald Trump for a multitude of reasons, but the one I site most is that I have a young family and I don’t want my children looking up to a president that acts and carry’s himself the way Donald Trump does and did.

tl;dr: things and stuff. Politics sucks cuz it’s not real anymore (was it ever?), the policy makers hardly care about us, everything is politically agenda-fied. Play sports, don’t play sports. Noodle, don’t noodle. I’m just excited to get back to this blog being mostly about things and people I enjoy, good jokes, and very little politics (by comparison to the last year (or last 4 years I suppose)).

Joined: 12/17/2018

MGoPoints: 7378

Hensons Mobile…

January 23rd, 2021 at 8:49 AM ^

I'll play.

but nobody seems concerned with the fact that the CDC brazenly lied about the effectiveness of masks early on in order to save it for medical personnel. It would seem that if someone close to you lies to your face, they become untrustworthy.

I have been dubious about this from the time they said don't wear masks and outraged since they copped to essentially lying about it.

AND, if it turned out that this was overblown all along, would they be honest about it? Would anyone in government controlling the lockdowns publicly say "oops, we were wrong. We know a lot of you lost your businesses and livelihood etc but it looks like we made a mistake."?

Unanswerable, I suppose, but I do think it's possible that government officials could say, "Now we know the risk is X. Thank you for taking precautions until we could determine that."

I am curious why the WHO changed the standard of positive COVID cases to needing TWO positive PCR tests as well as clinical presentation this week. 

I don't know anything about this. Is that good? Bad? I think protocols are allowed to change with new information.

I also would like an explanation as to why a close family friend was admitted to the COVID ward after she presented with a fever (and only a fever) but had a negative test. She was exposed to a confirmed case three days before, so presumably they labeled her as a COVID case because of this? But I don't know. How many people have been documented as COVID+ without a positive test?

There are also stories about people dying from other causes but then documented as COVID. Like, LOTS of stories. Are these real? Have these been investigated? 

So you don't know, and I don't know. I think the data is probably not 100% exact. There are all kinds of gray area cases probably. You can either take that uncertainty and question everything and have no answers or use that as an excuse to believe that lizard people are molesting children in pizza parlors or you can be a sheep and trust that well-intentioned people in charge are doing the best they can in the interest of civilization. Choose your own adventure.

Why are flu cases down so much this year? I honestly am curious for a real answer. That's all.

Guessing it has to do with all the social distancing. (Preemptively, if this is where you were going, but there are still lots of covid cases because it spreads more easily than the flu because no one was vaccinated or had built any level of immunity because it's a novel virus).

And this whole nursing home controversy, is it real? I have no idea, because the only people talking about it seem to be Qanon types. But I haven't seen anyone denying it either.

No idea what you're talking about but if it's only on Qanon then I would say there's your answer. This goes back to are you choosing lizard people or sheep.

Joined: 09/12/2019

MGoPoints: 50312

evenyoubrutus

January 23rd, 2021 at 9:01 AM ^

Wow. Thank you for the responses.

The nursing home controversy is that governors like Cuomo ordered COVID patients to be moved into nursing homes, potentially exposing the most at risk people. Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned Qanon, I simply meant it seems like I see people bringing this up on Twitter, a lot, but I haven't seen an alternative explanation (like, yes, they did this, but there's more to the story). And so the presumption is that this was done intentionally to inflate the infection and death rates. 

AFAIK this happened in PA and supposedly in Michigan as well, so of course people raise an eyebrow that these are blue states.

I have to believe there is another explanation for this. But I haven't seen it addressed. So I am simply asking if there is one. 

(Sorry, just realized I accidentally cropped out the source of that article below. It is from NBC News affiliate in NYC)

Joined: 11/04/2008

MGoPoints: 178669

Hensons Mobile…

January 23rd, 2021 at 9:27 AM ^

(I just noticed your screenshot above includes the explanation for the policy. So you did see the explanation already.)

AP story via apple news from June is the first hit on my google search:

https://apnews.com/article/b29d0a5eb51a5aed21d5efe132c33374

Short lived policy that was changed due to public outcry.

Cuomo’s explanation was that he wanted recovering (and he believed at the time not infectious) patients moved to clear up hospital beds for more dire patients.

He also claims any covid breakouts at the nursing home resulted from the workers, not the moved patients, although there appears to be no proof either way.

There is probably no evidence to suggest that governors were nefariously trying to kill people for the political agenda of getting Trump ousted. But some people choose to believe it and I can’t disprove it, certainly not to their satisfaction.

Joined: 09/12/2019

MGoPoints: 50312