Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Corona Virus


Ja  Rhule
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Ja Rhule said:

I have been reading foreign news and I’d say one thing...  we better be glad we are in US.  Other countries told their people to stay home, cancel schools and no stimulus.  Some countries raised taxes to help with government lost revenues.  Citizens of those countries actually point finger at US and say how it should be done.

Just pull out the giant Federal Government credit card.

We use the plastic here better than anywhere on earth

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Ja Rhule said:

I have been reading foreign news and I’d say one thing...  we better be glad we are in US.  Other countries told their people to stay home, cancel schools and no stimulus.  Some countries raised taxes to help with government lost revenues.  Citizens of those countries actually point finger at US and say how it should be done.

A lot of countries can’t “print” more money like we can. If you don’t control your currency, you have limited options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, imminent rogaine said:

We are about to pull a Ron Rivera and Co. w the Coronavirus. Jump out to a big lead with aggressive offense and defense then at half time we switch tactics and go 3 and out every series and play prevent while the opponent makes a comeback.

I get the sentiment but the analogy doesn’t really work. The point of flattening the curve isn’t that less people will get sick, it’s to prolong the amount of time it takes for the virus to move through the population. The same number of people are going to get sick no matter what we do. “Winning” is no longer an option.

Given the fact that so many hospitals around the country are far below capacity right now, it doesn’t make sense to keep up these lock downs in many areas. We need smart measured ways of letting people go back to work, life, etc.

This virus is going to be around a while. The economy can’t outlast it under the current restrictions.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Nailed it.

Except I'd say it's more like watching Shanahan screw up this year's Super Bowl. You're out to a nice lead what you do and then decide to switch tactics and have a Jimmy G vs. Mahomes shootout then act shocked by the results. It won't be going too conservative that seals our fate on this one, it'll be over-aggressiveness. You already have Trump pounding the drum in the White House and now we're watching a coalition of Democratic governors band together, both vying to put themselves in position to claim victory on re-opening the American economy.

Well I meant aggressive and conservative in terms of how we “attack” virus mitigation.

Good one w shanahan. 28-3? 

Edited by imminent rogaine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tbe said:

I get the sentiment but the analogy doesn’t really work. The point of flattening the curve isn’t that less people will get sick, it’s to prolong the amount of time it takes for the virus to move through the population. The same number of people are going to get sick no matter what we do. “Winning” is no longer an option.

Given the fact that so many hospitals around the country are far below capacity right now, it doesn’t make sense to keep up these lock downs in many areas. We need smart measured ways of letting people go back to work, life, etc.

This virus is going to be around a while. The economy can’t outlast it under the current restrictions.

Models use constants to predict the future; if you change the variables, you scrap the model. If we change tactics and go back out, it will just spike at a later date. We won’t have flattened anything, just delayed the spike.

The only way hospitals aren’t at capacity is because they aren’t doing any normal procedures. My wife’s neuro icu department is now fully covid. All of the other departments have filled up and spilled over. 
 

I agree that a return to normalcy has to be controlled and measured and has to happen at some point. I just really doubt anyone’s ability to ensure that it happens safely.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, imminent rogaine said:

Models use constants to predict the future; if you change the variables, you scrap the model. If we change tactics and go back out, it will just spike at a later date. We won’t have flattened anything, just delayed the spike.

The only way hospitals aren’t at capacity is because they aren’t doing any normal procedures. My wife’s neuro icu department is now fully covid. All of the other departments have filled up and spilled over. 
 

I agree that a return to normalcy has to be controlled and measured and has to happen at some point. I just really doubt anyone’s ability to ensure that it happens safely.

 

There has to be a way to prevent a spike while allowing low risk people to venture out. Require face masks, keep 6ft from others when possible, work from home when possible, etc.

These things completely depend on where you live, but doable in many places.

I don’t know where you live, but I heard many places in Texas and other mid west states are averaging 50% icu capacity right now. Charlotte typically runs at 100% capacity from what I understand, so there is alway an issue here.

Anyway, the bottom line is their is no way to guarantee safety. We need to understand and be ok with some controlled risk. The fallout from these job losses are going to get worse and could in the end be much worse than if we did nothing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, philit99 said:

Scientist now warn that all Americans should practice social distancing until at least 2022 or until a vaccine is finalized. Wow

https://www.mdlinx.com/physiciansense/new-study-why-social-distancing-may-need-to-continue-until-2022/

I can pull things out of my ass all day.  If this were a board game that’s a great idea.  Do “scientists” ever operate in the real world where people have bills and mortgage payments?  I’d rather just take my chances with the virus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BIGH2001 said:

I can pull things out of my ass all day.  If this were a board game that’s a great idea.  Do “scientists” ever operate in the real world where people have bills and mortgage payments?  I’d rather just take my chances with the virus.

People are going to do whatever it takes to survive and I'm sure "scientists" recognize that as well as any of us.  That doesn't change the reality that until an effective vaccine is available social distancing is a good strategy whenever possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BIGH2001 said:

I can pull things out of my ass all day.  If this were a board game that’s a great idea.  Do “scientists” ever operate in the real world where people have bills and mortgage payments?  I’d rather just take my chances with the virus.

Those were Harvard researchers, so no, they have no idea.

This quote was interesting:

Intermittent social distancing, while an immediate inconvenience, is actually delayed gratification in the sense that it will shorten the epidemic duration, as well as the total length of social distancing. It represents, the researchers wrote, “the only way to avoid overwhelming critical care capacity while building population immunity.”

Basically, we need a lot of people to get the virus but at a rate the healthcare system can take care if them. Keeping everyone home forever won’t do this.

Of course, off and on social distancing will leave a lot of people unemployed for a very long time.

Long term unemployed  people = people who can’t social distance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Have you seen the mock drafts lately?   Most of them have us taking a QB. Just because you aren't high on these QBs doesn't mean the Panthers or other teams aren't.   If you want me to be real I just think you a Tmac homer and all you care about is us drafting him. It's why you get so defensive when people mention other prospects.   Be open to other people's ideas. Nobody in this thread is saying anything bad about your boy Tmac. 
    • Oh good lord Interest doesn't mean interest in making a bad trade to take the player, that's why I had such a long post, to accurately describe why those are two different things, but you don't like to listen to that stuff.  Being interested in a player doesn't live in a vacuum. It's very simple... there isn't a #1 draft pick type of grade on any of these QB's, if there was, we'd just take them.  You can't bluff a pick everyone knows you won't make, and trying to trade the pick is the CLEAR signal that you're not taking the QB. Just because the Raiders would have interest, doesn't mean they're going to bail us out of a situation we don't want to be in, they'd be smart about it and just sit put, let us take a non QB as we'd be telling the world we're not taking one just by trying to trade the pick, and then they'd take him at #2 (either with their own pick or by trading less to get that one). Oh, and your point of "if nobody is willing to make the trade, you obviously just take the best QB" is quite literally the dumbest thing I've ever read on here. If nobody is willing to trade up to take the QB, then it's OBVIOUS that the QB isn't worth taking with that pick, so OBVIOUSLY taking the best QB there is just OBVIOUSLY stupid and a bad pick. The moral of it is if there is a QB worth taking, we're taking them and not making the trade.  If there isn't a QB worth taking there, nobody is trading up to #1 to take one, we just showed the NFL how bad of an idea that is 2 years ago, it's really not hard to see. You keep making up this mythical situation where there is a QB who has shown to be worth trading up to #1 for and we'll be able to leverage that into a trade.  But we're the most QB needy team in the league, if we end up with the #1 pick, either we are taking a QB #1 or no QB is going #1 unless we get VERY lucky and two teams in the Top 5 fall in love with one prospect and we can play them off each other and fleece one of them. But again, I can't see that happening, as if there was a QB worthy of that, we're just taking him ourselves.
    • Sanders is with Tom Brady brand and that's his mentor. The Raiders owner was with Sanders taking pics at a Vegas game together.   It doesn't take much to connect the dots that Vegas will be interested in Sanders as their franchise QB. Oh yeah and guess who hasa small ownership stake in the Raiders Tom Brady.   I guess this is just another made up Madden idea by me huh?
×
×
  • Create New...