B10 Football - what month should they start?

[Woodsa]

With a number of advancements since July on the COVID front (significant drop in reported deaths, revelation that only 6% of reported deaths were from COVID alone) coupled with other conferences & high school sports returning to play should allow the B10 to reassess their position. Let's assume for one minute they pull their head out and play fall sports.

What month should they start back up and how many games?

I'll start ...

Start in October | play original conf season

 

[Purdue85]

If they had been following the science, they would have kept the players on the field, keeping options open, preparing for a season, and they'd be ready to go.

Instead, the panic porn was pushed, and now we're looking at mid-October, at the earliest.

Stupidity (and poor leadership) at it's finest.

 

[IndySouthsider]

If they had been following the science, they would have kept the players on the field, keeping options open, preparing for a season, and they'd be ready to go.

Instead, the panic porn was pushed, and now we're looking at mid-October, at the earliest.

Stupidity (and poor leadership) at it's finest.

Thanks Mitch

 

[Purdue85]

Thanks Mitch

?

This was Mitch's position?

 

[IndySouthsider]

?

This was Mitch's position?

Yes his own statement provided evidence.

 

[Purdue85]

Yes his own statement provided evidence.

Missed that.

Where?

 

[IndySouthsider]

Missed that.

Where?

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

 

[Purdue85]

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

I misunderstood your "Thanks Mitch" response. That could have been taken a few different ways.

On balance, I'm a supporter of Mitch, but this was one of those "herd" decisions.

If anyone reverses course and votes differently, it tells us all we need to know about this decision, and would cast significant doubts about the "science" behind it.

 

[lbodel]

I misunderstood your "Thanks Mitch" response. That could have been taken a few different ways.

On balance, I'm a supporter of Mitch, but this was one of those "herd" decisions.

If anyone reverses course and votes differently, it tells us all we need to know about this decision, and would cast significant doubts about the "science" behind it.

How difficult is it to understand? The PAC 12, for example, stated in their cancellation release they needed rapid test results. They have now secured a rapid test - but don't expect to have them until late fall.

This is an ever-changing situation. And it has been for months. I'm not sure why it's so mind-boggling.

 

[lbodel]

For what it's worth, today Maryland has shut down all athletic activities after their latest round of test results came in. 2nd time in a few weeks for the football team.

 

[Purdue85]

How difficult is it to understand? The PAC 12, for example, stated in their cancellation release they needed rapid test results. They have now secured a rapid test - but don't expect to have them until late fall.

This is an ever-changing situation. And it has been for months. I'm not sure why it's so mind-boggling.

I cannot help you with your boggled mind.

The B1G appears on the doorstep of reversing course (may not happen) with ZERO change in the .... "science".

We're now finding out "COVID cases" (translation: positive test results) are now skewed by positive test results that should have never been positive. To the tune of 90% of all tests. That means, 90% (or more) of positives should have been NEGATIVE.

I cannot fathom why people want to continue to push the panic porn. Unless, they have an agenda...

 

[lbodel]

I cannot help you with your boggled mind.

The B1G appears on the doorstep of reversing course (may not happen) with ZERO change in the .... "science".

We're now finding out "COVID cases" (translation: positive test results) are now skewed by positive test results that should have never been positive. To the tune of 90% of all tests. That means, 90% (or more) of positives should have been NEGATIVE.

I cannot fathom why people want to continue to push the panic porn. Unless, they have an agenda...

You don't understand the difference between having a test that you get results in 15 minutes vs. a test you get results in 2-3 days?

Pretty sure the person with the panic porn is the one who obsessively talks about it.

 

[Purdue85]

You don't understand the difference between having a test that you get results in 15 minutes vs. a test you get results in 2-3 days?

Pretty sure the person with the panic porn is the one who obsessively talks about it.

These are tests we've relied on for weeks... and MONTHS... with 90% failure rates.

You don't understand the magnitude of the systemic failure, and your arguments are failing miserably.

 

[lbodel]

These are tests we've relied on for weeks... and MONTHS... with 90% failure rates.

You don't understand the magnitude of the systemic failure, and your arguments are failing miserably.

I guess heads should roll who have been in charge of COVID huh? Is it Mike Pence that leads that task force?

 

[Purdue85]

I guess heads should roll who have been in charge of COVID huh? Is it Mike Pence that leads that task force?

Yeah, Pence. Let's go get him. We'll have Cuomo get him.

Pence is probably feeding the CDC those fake numbers, too.

He's clearly responsible for the testing.

Yeah.

 

[IndySouthsider]

I cannot help you with your boggled mind.

The B1G appears on the doorstep of reversing course (may not happen) with ZERO change in the .... "science".

We're now finding out "COVID cases" (translation: positive test results) are now skewed by positive test results that should have never been positive. To the tune of 90% of all tests. That means, 90% (or more) of positives should have been NEGATIVE.

I cannot fathom why people want to continue to push the panic porn. Unless, they have an agenda...

Can you cite this with objective evidence?

 

[lbodel]

Yeah, Pence. Let's go get him. We'll have Cuomo get him.

Pence is probably feeding the CDC those fake numbers, too.

He's clearly responsible for the testing.

Yeah.

Once again, if you read the full report on what a few doctors have done some small sample studies on regarding '90%', they did not say the test was a "failure", they said the tests either detect COVID-19 or they don't -- but not the volume of the virus. The amount of virus someone tests for can determine whether they will spread it - i.e. they need to be contact traced.

The doctors proceeded to say that the amount of virus someone has changes during the course of the infection. Someone who just contracted it could have small amounts, but 2 days later be highly infected. The doctors then said this is why testing is so important, because people should then be tested the following days and receive immediate results to whether they should be quarantined and the resources should be used to contract trace them.

Again, our testing system is inadequate still. It's a shame that there's no one in the US that can be in charge of this.

So you once again tried to manipulate a basic statistic to fit into your narrative.

 

[Purdue85]

Can you cite this with objective evidence?

No.

Although the NY Times (et al) did.

 

[Purdue85]

Once again, if you read the full report on what a few doctors have done some small sample studies on regarding '90%', they did not say the test was a "failure", they said the tests either detect COVID-19 or they don't -- but not the volume of the virus. The amount of virus someone tests for can determine whether they will spread it - i.e. they need to be contact traced.

The doctors proceeded to say that the amount of virus someone has changes during the course of the infection. Someone who just contracted it could have small amounts, but 2 days later be highly infected. The doctors then said this is why testing is so important, because people should then be tested the following days and receive immediate results to whether they should be quarantined and the resources should be used to contract trace them.

Again, our testing system is inadequate still. It's a shame that there's no one in the US that can be in charge of this.

So you once again tried to manipulate a basic statistic to fit into your narrative.

A high percentage of the positives did not rise to the requirement of being considered positive.

Not sure why this is so hard, and why the need to continue to hold on to the panic.

 

[goboilers2]

I misunderstood your "Thanks Mitch" response. That could have been taken a few different ways.

On balance, I'm a supporter of Mitch, but this was one of those "herd" decisions.

If anyone reverses course and votes differently, it tells us all we need to know about this decision, and would cast significant doubts about the "science" behind it.

Well stated. This, however, is not one of Daniel's shining moments.