Per Schlissel: UM will not have football this fall if students not on campus
WSJ article just out this morning has a discussion with UM president Mark Schlissel (pointing out that he is also a formally trained immunologist) - he believes a decision will be made in the next few weeks, but if students are not back on campus neither will football.
It's a fucking pandemic. Let the trained medical professionals form the opinions based on the data they have, and then follow their fucking guidelines.
If you want to form an opinion on something and yell about it online you can pick any other topic.
What is the intelligent point that is being made though? Has there been any point that shows wearing masks are a bad idea? Going through "J"'s posts, the points he has tried to make are:
- "Just stay home".
- Since the virus hasn't been completely eradicated, the masks clearly aren't working
- "The 6 foot barrier is more effective"
- Masks make people feel like they can abandon social distancing guidelines
To me, this just seems like changing the point of discussion to try and make unsupported arguments seem better. Of course staying home is more effective, but that's not possible for most people. Of course the 6 foot barrier is more effective but that doesn't mean they are mutually exclusive. Social distancing/Wearing masks is certainly more effective than just social distancing on it's own (although you could debate the added benefits would be minimal). The eradication argument is simply silly and not at all worth responding to based on recent evidence showing that wearing masks is effective.
The only point that isn't simply changing the argument is about people ignoring social distancing measure because they are wearing a mask. I personally have not seen this in any regard but don't have any evidence to refute it but I highly doubt this statement is based on anything but speculation and one-off experiences.
Regardless, it's not cool to speak to anyone with the tone of "fucking fuckity-fuck prick ass bitch Republican who needs to die". But it is certainly reasonable to call out selfishness if actions warrant it, and I have yet to see an argument presented that shows not wearing masks in close quartered spaces is anything but selfish.
@ J. How do you know how people are actually behaving? You said in a comment on this very thread that you are staying home. Is that true or a lie? If true, then I assume you are making broad generalizations based on anecdotal trips to the grocery store or pictures you saw on the internet. You are always very certain about everything COVID-19 related so just trying to understand how you are gathering your facts that feed such certainty.
That's a fair point. I'm judging what people are actually doing by two things -- anecdotes I'm seeing online or in the news and my basic knowledge of human nature. I've only left my neighborhood once a week for the past six weeks, and in each of those cases just went to do a pickup, so I'm not able to generalize from my personal experiences.
So, while it's possible that the anecdotes I'm seeing are a small fraction of the populace, and most mask-wearers are assiduously keeping physical distance from other people, that doesn't really seem likely, because it's quite contrary to human nature. In fact, it was one of the reasons that The WHO originally recommended against masks -- the understanding that people would see them as a less-inconvenient substitute for distancing.
If "other people" think they need to be protected, they can stay the fuck home.
Yeah fuck the immunocompromised and eldery! Amirite???
Your proposal is to fuck the poor, the young, and the healthy so that the elderly can continue going to the grocery store instead of getting their food delivered.
Your position is just objectively more evil.
I'm literally just saying that people should wear a fucking mask... yep, that's definitely more "evil" than people who are saying that at risk people should isolate themselves from society so others don't have to be slightly inconvenienced
Stupid fucking comment Larry Appleton.
Man fuck those restaurant owners and workers. They want to break into your house and sneeze on your family.
Every State is going to have to do what they feel is right. SC and TN are virtually completely "open" as of the last week or two. Michigan has decided differently with "quarantining" till the middle of June.
Two things that I think people forget with such hysterical coverage of this pandemic. One is "Risk". Risk cannot be eliminated. Nor do the powers that be know exactly when it is best / risk is lowest to reopen things with out causing catastrophic economic damage (which is simply going from one pandemic to another kind of pandemic).
Secondly, is (after working for more than 20 years in the medical field) doctors are often wrong. Just because you have a "Dr." if front of your name and an "M.D." after doesn't preclude you form making mistakes or being wrong. Doctors are wrong making decisions just like your accountant, financial planner, builder, teacher, postman, etc can be wrong. Every one of these physicians, and i do appreciate their work, are looking at data that isn't perfect, difficult to interpret what it exactly means / is saying, and then making the best decision that they feel is correct. They aren't perfect answers, but many of their conclusions (albeit not malicious in their conclusions and doing what they think is best with the information given) will be 100% wrong.
As an M.D., I agree. It's more than just a doctor's human limitations. We are limited by both data and our narrow expertise. The data is incomplete and our expertise is typically limited to medical matters. In this debate, physicians are not able to adequately assess the economic or other costs of a lock down. We can conclude it will likely limit the spread of the infection but that's about it. And with our limited data, we don't even know how much lock downs really help, especially at different stages of a pandemic. We don't know if they will prevent another increase of infections or not. And we don't exactly know all the other costs which are human, economic and even health related. Lock downs are negatively impacting our ability to care for other disease, even putting some hospital systems at risk of collapse. And there is a significant impact on our quality of life. And then there's the legal/moral component - is it morally acceptable or legal for our government to force prolonged lock downs, depriving people of their basic rights including the right to earn a living? Physicians can't answer those questions. In fact, there is probably no good answer or choice - either way, this disease will cause a lot of death and misery.
I see so many on both sides of the debate making broad assumptions which may or may not be true while showing anger or contempt towards those who believe otherwise. We all need some humility and not assume any of us have all the answers. We need to be open-minded, listen to every person with expertise in different areas and work together to try to find the best answers for everybody.
Great post Remdog! It is because of all of these massive "We Don't Know's" that I think we are getting to a tipping point of needing to reopen the "markets". A lot of personal destruction is happening, and if we knew exactly the cost of the sacrifice people are making that would be worth it, but we don't.
I business travel and I am currently in the field. What I have especially noticed is that young women don't wear their masks. Not sure why but it bothers me. The company I am currently working for has a saying, I wear my mask for you ,you wear your mask for me.
I you are caught without your mask except for lunch or breaks which you must be six feet away, you are suspended for a week. Second time can be termination.
I still believe we are learning why some people get it others are not. My son in law's grandmother had the virus but his grandfather did not. They didn't go out for eight weeks. Their housekeeper came in twice. Nobody else. He was tested negative three times plus an antibody test was negative. There are people indicating blood type may make a difference. O type may have a type antibodies.
Let’s just say, for the sake of argument, that you might not have all the information in every situation and are making some rather broad assumptions based on one item of clothing people are or aren’t wearing.
Say for instance, somebody has a spouse that worked in a COVID unit, from the beginning of the pandemic and that front-line worker and their entire family all came down with Coronavirus and verifiably tested positive due to exposure while attempting to save people.
They now have antibodies, but it’s been months since they’ve all recovered, so they aren’t at risk as a carrier / transmitter.
So that person that’s of no danger to themselves or others decides to go out into public with no mask on, but a holier-than thou person (maybe in Wisconsin?) sees it and thinks they have all the data and are morally superior to “mouth breathing morons” even though they are likely far more removed from the actual fight against the virus as well as what’s happening on the front lines.
Seems like people are awfully willing to break out their “Jump to Conclusions” mat just because they feel like they want to project their imagined OUTRAGE and personal / political opinions on people without actually having any real clue as to what’s going on (on any level).
Maybe, just maybe, some people are incredibly familiar with the cost and have come to the decision that there is still room for personal freedom & autonomy while still respecting their fellow man.
Nah, couldn’t be. Even first-person experience is secondary to those that think their degree of outrage makes them the arbiter of justice. Can’t be any real reasons - it’s gotta just because people want to go get drunk at a bar.
Oh, and since this is probably sadly necessary... /s
Yeah, that’s probably what’s going on.
/s
I love your post, but referencing the ‘jump to conclusions’ mat is 100% the reason I upvoted you immediately.
Just for accuracy, developing antibodies from previous exposure to a disease does not guarantee that you are immune from infection. Every disease has different parameters regarding antibodies and this one has a lot of unknowns still. You could have some immunity, but it could end after a certain period of time. You could have no immunity.
From the CDC:
We do not know yet if having antibodies to the virus that causes COVID-19 can protect someone from getting infected again or, if they do, how long this protection might last.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/testing/serology-overview.html
Yes, a lot of unknowns etc. etc. blah blah blah. We also don't know to what extent 6-foot social distancing protects people. We think it works.
We also think that antibodies will protect you from this disease. We have good reason to believe that: if antibodies did not protect you from disease, they wouldn't be antibodies, but more critically, we would all walk around sick all day, every day, all our lives. We would be suffering from multiple colds at once. The probability is very high that antibodies protect you. The chances that you "could have no immunity" are microscopic at best and would make COVID-19 different from every other respiratory virus in the world. If that weren't true, pursuing a vaccine would be insanely stupid.
We're pursuing one anyway. That means we think antibodies work. Maybe we don't know for how long, but we think they work. But all this caution about what "we don't know" is a one-way street. We haven't lab-tested and peer-reviewed any highly rigorous studies about masks and 6 feet, so by the same standards "we don't know" about antibodies, we don't know about those things either, but we tell everyone to do it anyway. Why? Because in any instance where we don't know something, the experts always take the most cautious line possible, rather than adhering to a single standard and only advising when we do know something.
It’s a big assumption that someone who has previously had the virus cannot again acquire and transmit the disease. there are multiple reports of people with second infections. there’s a ton of unknown’s, one being that antibodies protect you from further infections. the other unknown is whether we are dealing with the same virus from late ‘19. latest i saw this morning is that a dozen mutations have been found in US tracing alone.
so to speak in absolutes and behave with disregard of what is unknown is irresponsible.
Those reporters are false positives. No second infections yet recorded.
SQ - I think you are confused. Maybe you meant "false negatives"? Example:
- Test 1 Positive
- Test 2 Negative - This is the one Fauci and company think was in error.
- Test 3 Positive - "Oh no, it's come back!"
Big assumption? It is rare to not be immune for at least three years after recovery per Dr. Fauchi's Senate testimony.
Nice point on the dozen mutations being a potential challenge.
I believe it would be irresponsible to assume the worst is going to happen just because it is possible. How does one get out of bed in the morning?
You're striking a distorted contrast. The institution willing to set billions on fire has billions in reserve to weather the storm. The waiter losing hundreds does not have hundreds in reserve. There are legitimate concerns on both sides. Your comment is just as insensitive and inane as the idiot going maskless to the grocery store because "freedom"
I applaud Schlissel for keeping the student body and athletics unified in mission and I do think he's got a uniquely advantageous perspective to deal with this situation given his medical background.
Wouldn't it be great if we as a country didn't feel the need to politicize every fu**ing thing, including a contagious disease? It's everywhere -- people lashing out at each other in judgment on both sides, deepening the already cavernous divide, and our government is just stoking the flames. A centralized plan coming from trustworthy sources would be awesome. Is that too much to ask?
Yes it is, Wendy. Yes it is.
It certainly is for Appleton here.
Both sides are guilty of doing this.
Respectfully, I don't agree that this is a both sides issue. I think that it's easier to say that than to assign fault. But I fail to see reasonable evidence of both sides being at fault.
On the one hand, there are people who claim that those advocating for continuing the stay-at-home order have absolutely no concern for lost jobs, businesses, or the economy. They don't believe masks work. They believe that their own personal right to not wear a mask supercedes all else, including another person's right to be protected from the virus, but that's probably a moot point because these people don't think masks help to begin with. On the other side, you have people who think that those not wearing masks or following orders are selfish bastards, even if those people practice distancing or live in areas where the virus is not a problem. I know one person who takes pictures of people who aren't wearing masks and posts them on social media, to shame them. On both sides, there's an unwillingness to listen to the other side because hey, it's the other side. And there's a tone that both sides take, making it exceptionally difficult to ever come to place where there could be constructive discussion. I'm guilty, too, and on certain issues, I'm immovable, but when it comes to the virus, I agree with elements of both sides of the argument, and I'm trying not to let my politics get in the way of what makes sense and what the science and data are telling us.
You can tell the politics of an individual by observations. If you wear a mask you most likely are a registered democrat. If you do not wear a mask you are most likely a register Republican. I'm sure there can be some exceptions to the above observations.
If wearing a mask is too much of a “shared sacrifice” for people during these times, this Country is in far worse shape than I ever thought.
Because the whole, "it's for her health and protection too" is bullshit. We're sick of a couple of libs getting together, determining that this is how it is, based on projections and guesses (or politics) and then demanding how everyone else respond to it.
You people crying over and over and making the ridiculous "sociopath" comparisons...well, you are going to be disappointed. Your arguments are not compelling and your soapbox is rickety.
I don't wear a mask, will not wear a mask and I live for the time when one of you morons approaches me in public.
Your internet tough guy act is wearing thin
"We're sick of a couple of libs getting together, determining that this is how it is, based on projections and guesses"
I think the word you're looking for is "science."
nj - What science is Whitmer using? She keeps saying data and science but doesn't specify WHAT data or science. Is it too much to ask for someone to say "we need X number of days of reduced cases" or "reduction of Y percentage..."? Opening up huge manufacturing plants seems a lot riskier than opening up (for example) barber shops. But there is NO WAY she is going to let salons open when she has been publicly challenged by a barber!
I'll bet there are hundreds of thousands of people at Home Depot, Meijer(s), Kroger(s), Lowes, DQ, Nurseries, etc this holiday weekend. From my observations over the last week, ~95% or more are wearing masks.
Summer is here. People are moving on with life - with or without "permission". Whitmer sees that too - so things will open up soon.
So when they won't let you in the front door of Cabela's because of their mask requirements, are you going to shoot your way through?
This is not a liberal or conservative argument. Your mask is not to protect you it is to protect others.
I want things opened up. If you want things opened up wear the mask.
I am in a state that is 50% open. Most people are doing there part. Except for the part where your ears tops are irritated from the rubber band I like them. I don't blow my nose as much because I am not breathing the crap in the air.
It's astounding to me how people are so adamant about opening things back up immediately, but also won't wear a mask
This pretend Marine sounds like a 12 year old playing tough guy on the Internet. Not worth engaging, I suggest others move on.
Just to be clear, Five out of Five Fakes Marine, in your world, only “liberal” people have gotten together to try to tell the rest of the population how to live?
You'd shit your pants.
Let's say you're right -- the "libs" are completely wrong. No big loss for you if you wear a mask in a public, indoor space. But do you (ever) think it's possible that you're wrong? Why not err on the side of caution?
Larry, I like you, and i'm glad you participate on the blog, but I wish to be critical of your take, as a friend, and hope that you recieve it well. I recognize that you're upset here, and issues like these in the news are already heavily polarized and inflamed, much by design. It feels to me, however, that your post is purely based on emotion, instead of being a typical well reasoned and thought out argument of yours. When you attack or insult people the way that you have here, it usually makes you look worse than those you've aimed your attack at, and turns people off to your point of view, regardless of its merits. It's really counter productive to whatever message it is you believe in sharing, as hurling insults at people is not going to convince anyone, in fact human beings are highly likely to double down just to spite you when met with reactions like this. I would encourage you to be more calm, and be willing to look at things from the opposite point of view, from time to time.
This is so rich...you fuckin people are the wiki of lemming. Dumb fucks. Someone that has always had freedom, mocking freedom. You feel like you need a mask, wear a mask. But when you try to tell me what to do...you can eat a dick. Fuckin jackasses.
And here come the nearly illiterate opinions.
Much like the illiterate, but I'm so fucking smart post that started this "discussion".
I think it’s an obvious statement. If there’s no kids on campus of course they wouldn’t have football. This isn’t any kind of win for you.
Oh please. If massive institutions were willing to set billions of dollars on fire to "do what's right", college athletics would look WAY different than it does not. More likely is that some institutions are doing a cost-benefit analysis and deciding that the liability exposure to having athletics but not students on campus is not worth the revenue.