Five Ala players have tested positive

[Techster]

Can you supply a link to said evidence from a credible source? Every credible source I've read has indicated otherwise.

We were predicted to get the "second wave" in October/November with the rest of the world, if numbers coming are correct, the second wave will hit our shores in 7-10 days.

People are stuck in an echo chamber of what they want to believe about this virus. I hope everyone that thinks the virus isn't a big is on the correct side, because the other side will not be pretty.

So we just wait and hope for the best.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

We were predicted to get the "second wave" in October/November with the rest of the world, if numbers coming are correct, the second wave will hit our shores in 7-10 days.

People are stuck in an echo chamber of what they want to believe about this virus. I hope everyone that thinks the virus isn't a big is on the correct side, because the other side will not be pretty.

So we just wait and hope for the best.

Funny that Switzerland and Denmark have almost completely re-opened, and the number of cases in those countries is going down.

 

[TooTall]

The recent spikes can be attributed to 2 factors:
A. More people are getting tested.
B. The protests/riots and reopening (just people going out in general).

What we have to keep in mind and aware of is the infection rate versus the death rate. Ratio speaking, the more positive tests, the percentage of deaths will go down.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm
As the first chart in the link shows, even as states reopened, the death rate continued to fall at a pretty good clip week to week. The news is only reporting that infections are up, and they are not mentioning that death rates are falling, even as states are reopening or that hospitals are better prepared to handle a covid positive patient now than they were in March.

We will have a full schedule, and should have full stands. We are 84 days away from "Toe meets leather"!

 

[BleedGoldNWhite21]

I was a history major, math went in one ear and out the other with out bouncing around.

But 6% death rate means that 94% of people who catch it will live. Pretty good odds.

300,000,000+ in the USA with 114K dead represents .038%. (work hard enough and the argument will match the stats lol)

All kidding aside, there is more and more evidence everyday that we knee jerked reaction the heck out of this. Some precaution is/was needed, but not shutting down life as we know it.

These aren’t just stats. These are people. These were people. You say 114K deaths isn’t a lot for 300 million people, but 300 million people don’t have the virus. Let’s say we open fully and 5% of the US population gets the virus and 6% of those people die. We’d lose 985,000 people when we had the knowledge and means to prevent many of those deaths. Hell, even if we said that 1.5% of the country got it at a 94% survival rate, that’s still almost 300,000 people dead.

 

[Techster]

These aren’t just stats. These are people. These were people. You say 114K deaths isn’t a lot for 300 million people, but 300 million people don’t have the virus. Let’s say we open fully and 5% of the US population gets the virus and 6% of those people die. We’d lose 985,000 people when we had the knowledge and means to prevent many of those deaths. Hell, even if we said that 1.5% of the country got it at a 94% survival rate, that’s still almost 300,000 people dead.

Unfortunately, stats mean nothing to most people unless it directly affects them. Furthermore, it's not just deaths...I'm not sure why that's the only stat people point out. There's also hospitalizations, and ongoing medical issues even after people recover.

Given the amount of college SAs that participate in college football, and everyone's rush to get them back on the field, statistical chance of a football player being hospitalized (or worse) is almost certain. When that happens, I fully expect the NCAA and colleges to tuck tail and hide from it. Right now it's just a game of odds...unfortunately some poor SA will be the loser. That colleges are starting to make SAs sign waivers tells you all you need to know...lawyers and insurance companies got involved. They know what kind of financial blowback could occur, but they are protecting themselves while trying to reap the rewards of their contracts.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Unfortunately, stats mean nothing to most people unless it directly affects them. Furthermore, it's not just deaths...I'm not sure why that's the only stat people point out. There's also hospitalizations, and ongoing medical issues even after people recover.

This. After a battle people tend to look at casualties as only the deaths. People tend to ignore the very real effects the survivors feel.

This may seem like an extreme comparison, but as of now, so little is known about the long term effects and damage of this disease that the US Military is disqualifying from service anyone who tests positive for antibodies to it. Even if you were asymptomatic.

 

[TooTall]

The above posts are 100% correct. People are statistics. 100% of us who read this will die at some point, it's part of life. That's why my whole argument has been to let people go if they want to. If you don't feel safe going, then don't go. If you feel safe going, but only if you wear a mask, then wear a mask (you know like the Spanish flu game photos have shown). It's the same thing with folks who don't go to the Sept home games because it's too hot. Personal choice. (and no im not comparing the heat of Atlanta in Sept to the virus, don't be dumb.)

However, as far as the healthy college age men playing are concerned, the effects of the virus are minimal at most. If the military is holding off letting people enlist who have had it, I guess most of us in our prime would have been denied entrance, they are kinda of selective ya know. If a player has asthma or diabetes or any other preexisting condition, NCAA give them a medical redshirt year, no question. But those who are not at risk, play ball.

But what about coaches you ask? They have freedom of choice as well. Medical leave is, or should, available to them if they are over 50 or have preexisting conditions.

How many of yall get upset at the number of people killed on Georgia roadways (over 1,500 last year, not including life altering injuries and recoverable injuries), but you continue to drive to Atlanta for games?

Life is about risk/reward situations and making the best choice for yourself. And yes money does win out and it will win out here. Too much money is made for colleges to not have a season. Most of the time it supports many other sport teams for the school.


If I can go to Walmart or a protest or Tanger Outles in Locust Grove that was packed to the gills yesterday, we should be allowed to attend an outdoor sporting event. Because let's face it, we cannot shut down our country until a vaccine is found. It could be as early as Christmas or as late as NEVER, you know like the HIV vaccine. Are we to hide out for the rest of our lives? If that is what makes you feel safe, then do it. But, love it or hate, personal freedom is ingrained in us as Americans. I will never force you to attend a game nor make fun of you for wearing a mask, but in turn, don't criticize or make fun of me for attending. I will attend all home games. If you're not there, all we can ask is that you cheer for the white and gold from your couch.

 

[FredJacket]

The above posts are 100% correct. People are statistics. 100% of us who read this will die at some point, it's part of life. That's why my whole argument has been to let people go if they want to. If you don't feel safe going, then don't go. If you feel safe going, but only if you wear a mask, then wear a mask (you know like the Spanish flu game photos have shown). It's the same thing with folks who don't go to the Sept home games because it's too hot. Personal choice. (and no im not comparing the heat of Atlanta in Sept to the virus, don't be dumb.)

However, as far as the healthy college age men playing are concerned, the effects of the virus are minimal at most. If the military is holding off letting people enlist who have had it, I guess most of us in our prime would have been denied entrance, they are kinda of selective ya know. If a player has asthma or diabetes or any other preexisting condition, NCAA give them a medical redshirt year, no question. But those who are not at risk, play ball.

But what about coaches you ask? They have freedom of choice as well. Medical leave is, or should, available to them if they are over 50 or have preexisting conditions.

How many of yall get upset at the number of people killed on Georgia roadways (over 1,500 last year, not including life altering injuries and recoverable injuries), but you continue to drive to Atlanta for games?

Life is about risk/reward situations and making the best choice for yourself. And yes money does win out and it will win out here. Too much money is made for colleges to not have a season. Most of the time it supports many other sport teams for the school.


If I can go to Walmart or a protest or Tanger Outles in Locust Grove that was packed to the gills yesterday, we should be allowed to attend an outdoor sporting event. Because let's face it, we cannot shut down our country until a vaccine is found. It could be as early as Christmas or as late as NEVER, you know like the HIV vaccine. Are we to hide out for the rest of our lives? If that is what makes you feel safe, then do it. But, love it or hate, personal freedom is ingrained in us as Americans. I will never force you to attend a game nor make fun of you for wearing a mask, but in turn, don't criticize or make fun of me for attending. I will attend all home games. If you're not there, all we can ask is that you cheer for the white and gold from your couch.

Well said.

Speaking only for myself. It is a fact I am going to die. I have no idea as to the timing or circumstances. I am currently in excellent health as far as I know.... with no deadly disease working in/through my body.... but I am not 100% sure of that. To the extent one can prepare... I am prepared (mentally) to die. I'd like to live for awhile longer...very much. I think I understand the risks I take daily (driving, exercising, eating, interacting with family and strangers). There is much I cannot control. This virus falls squarely within the "realm of the possible" for me; and just like EVERYTHING else I can list or think of... I will do what I can to avoid getting it and avoid transmitting it unwittingly. But I am really struggling with treating it as if there really is much more we all can do to avoid its impact.

It is what it is (a virus thats spread is basically understood and can be mitigated)... we are what we are (mortal beings who are by nature in NEED of together-ness and affirming relationships)... I just don't see how we can do much more to change either IT or US.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

It is what it is (a virus thats spread is basically understood and can be mitigated)... we are what we are (mortal beings who are by nature in NEED of together-ness and affirming relationships)... I just don't see how we can do much more to change either IT or US.

The bolded part is what's causing so much consternation. We know how to stop the spread and mitigate it, and have been attempting to as a nation for a couple of months now, but a large amount of people don't want to continue to do so.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

How many of yall get upset at the number of people killed on Georgia roadways (over 1,500 last year, not including life altering injuries and recoverable injuries), but you continue to drive to Atlanta for games?

This is really bad logic.

 

[Jim Prather]

This is really bad logic.

Not really. He is making the point that everything we do in life requires an implicit acceptance of a certain level of risk. If we deem the risk acceptable we take part in the action - like driving a car. If we deem it unacceptable, we don't. Attending a football game should be no different.

 

[WreckinGT]

Not really. He is making the point that everything we do in life requires an implicit acceptance of a certain level of risk. If we deem the risk acceptable we take part in the action - like driving a car. If we deem it unacceptable, we don't. Attending a football game should be no different.

This logic would make a lot more sense if we weren't dealing with a contagious disease. Unfortunately, we are. If we all start to take the "personal decision" angle on everything we do then many people are going to needlessly die because of our own selfishness.

 

[BleedGoldNWhite21]

The above posts are 100% correct. People are statistics. 100% of us who read this will die at some point, it's part of life. That's why my whole argument has been to let people go if they want to. If you don't feel safe going, then don't go. If you feel safe going, but only if you wear a mask, then wear a mask (you know like the Spanish flu game photos have shown). It's the same thing with folks who don't go to the Sept home games because it's too hot. Personal choice. (and no im not comparing the heat of Atlanta in Sept to the virus, don't be dumb.)

However, as far as the healthy college age men playing are concerned, the effects of the virus are minimal at most. If the military is holding off letting people enlist who have had it, I guess most of us in our prime would have been denied entrance, they are kinda of selective ya know. If a player has asthma or diabetes or any other preexisting condition, NCAA give them a medical redshirt year, no question. But those who are not at risk, play ball.

But what about coaches you ask? They have freedom of choice as well. Medical leave is, or should, available to them if they are over 50 or have preexisting conditions.

How many of yall get upset at the number of people killed on Georgia roadways (over 1,500 last year, not including life altering injuries and recoverable injuries), but you continue to drive to Atlanta for games?

Life is about risk/reward situations and making the best choice for yourself. And yes money does win out and it will win out here. Too much money is made for colleges to not have a season. Most of the time it supports many other sport teams for the school.


If I can go to Walmart or a protest or Tanger Outles in Locust Grove that was packed to the gills yesterday, we should be allowed to attend an outdoor sporting event. Because let's face it, we cannot shut down our country until a vaccine is found. It could be as early as Christmas or as late as NEVER, you know like the HIV vaccine. Are we to hide out for the rest of our lives? If that is what makes you feel safe, then do it. But, love it or hate, personal freedom is ingrained in us as Americans. I will never force you to attend a game nor make fun of you for wearing a mask, but in turn, don't criticize or make fun of me for attending. I will attend all home games. If you're not there, all we can ask is that you cheer for the white and gold from your couch.

Leaders on the battlefield know they will lose hundreds, maybe thousands of soldiers, but they strategize the best way to attack that avoids as many casualties as possible. That’s all we’re saying. And yes, it may be unpopular, but college football is a luxury with a capital L-U-X-U-R-Y. During times of war or, you know, a global pandemic, it’s not unreasonable to expect certain luxuries to be postponed to potentially keep people more safe.

Yes, we all die, but that doesn’t mean life is not important. Do you go to funeral homes and go “get over yourself! 600,000 other people died today!” When the towers fell, did you go “3,000 lives? What’s the big deal?! Flu kills more people every year!” Do you not have any sympathy for your fellow man? These my be stats to you, but they are other people’s loved ones.

 

[Jim Prather]

This logic would make a lot more sense if we weren't dealing with a contagious disease. Unfortunately, we are. If we all start to take the "personal decision" angle on everything we do then many people are going to needlessly die because of our own selfishness.

So let's play devils advocate - based on your implicit assumption we should not go out because we might catch a deadly disease. As a corollary we should not go out because we might inadvertently kill someone else due to having contracted this deadly disease.
Now let's extend this logic to our favorite example of driving a car. In this scenario, we should never drive a car because we might accidentally get hit and killed by someone we never saw coming (i.e. "catch" the virus). Similarly, we should never drive a car because we might get into a serious accident and kill someone else (i.e. "transmit" the virus). I don't know about you, but I don't think I am going to give up my car anytime soon.
Regardless, my personal recommendation is to socially distance yourself from other cars by at least 30 feet while moving.

 

[WreckinGT]

So let's play devils advocate - based on your implicit assumption we should not go out because we might catch a deadly disease. As a corollary we should not go out because we might inadvertently kill someone else due to having contracted this deadly disease.
Now let's extend this logic to our favorite example of driving a car. In this scenario, we should never drive a car because we might accidentally get hit and killed by someone we never saw coming (i.e. "catch" the virus). Similarly, we should never drive a car because we might get into a serious accident and kill someone else (i.e. "transmit" the virus). I don't know about you, but I don't think I am going to give up my car anytime soon.
Regardless, my personal recommendation is to socially distance yourself from other cars by at least 30 feet while moving.

Even if you hit and kill someone while driving, which is fairly rare, you killed one person and possibly yourself. Maybe in a really bad accident a few others are involved. The "spread" stops at a handful of people. The spread of a contagious disease does not stop at a handful of people. The whole point of social distancing and limiting large crowd sizes is to avoid hotbeds for community spread. It's not really to ensure individual personal safety.

 

[Jim Prather]

Very good, we have made progress! We agree that the analogy is applicable if imperfect. So now let me extend the rest of your argument. It is an acceptable risk to drive a car because if you get into a deadly accident you might only kill yourself and perhaps 1-2 others. However it is not acceptable for a larger number of people to be at risk (via virus, etc.).
At the end of the day, you have made a risk assessment and deemed driving a car to be "safe enough". Likewise, someone else might view that as too much risk and choose never to drive.
The question then becomes does that give that person the right to tell you that you could never drive a car again because THEY didn't feel safe about driving?

 

[TooTall]

The bolded part is what's causing so much consternation. We know how to stop the spread and mitigate it, and have been attempting to as a nation for a couple of months now, but a large amount of people don't want to continue to do so.

I'm a small business owner with only 3 total employees. So no, I do not want to shut down the economy again until whenever.

But honest question: Say the GTAA comes out today and says the schedule will be played as is and the fans are allowed to attended, are you going to the games this year?

I have a feeling you won't. And if you do you are using my argument for me....Personal choice.

This discussion is like many political or religious conversations. Both sides are entrenched in their beliefs and they will remain so. So, let's agree to disagree and move on to arguing about whether things that really matter, like the design of the new turf.

 

[Techster]

The bolded part is what's causing so much consternation. We know how to stop the spread and mitigate it, and have been attempting to as a nation for a couple of months now, but a large amount of people don't want to continue to do so.

The fact that people continue to attempt a comparison with an infectious disease to a car accidents tells you the disconnect we are all having.

I understand the need to keep things open as the ones hurt the most are Main Street businesses and those that are not in the postion that some are and need the income. That is not lost on any of us. Unfortunately, this virus sucks all around.

Only thing I personally hope for is the best for everyone, and that they find a vaccine ASAP.

 

[FredJacket]

The fact that people continue to attempt a comparison with an infectious disease to a car accidents tells you the disconnect we are all having.

I understand the need to keep things open as the ones hurt the most are Main Street businesses and those that are not in the postion that some are and need the income. That is not lost on any of us. Unfortunately, this virus sucks all around.

Only thing I personally hope for is the best for everyone, and that they find a vaccine ASAP.

The car accident analogy only illustrate how individuals do personal risk assessments... that may impact themselves and others. Do I drive a car or not based on the possibility of injury or death to me or someone else? The same "kind" of assessment can me made regarding the virus. Do I go out and do these things and carry myself this way based on the risk to me and others...and what should I do to mitigate that risk. Those using the analogy to say car accidents kill people the same way the virus does are making a poor analogy...not just poor but wrong.

No analogy is perfect.... but I think the 'debate' is over risk assessment...not cause of death or the domino effect of the activity/risk. I understand there is indeed a potential domino effect with the virus... and not with car accidents. The reason we cannot all agree on how / what we should be allowed to do re the virus... is we cannot agree on what level of risk (to us and others) is worth taking.

Edit... I give you an AMEN to the vaccine thing. Hopefully... sooner rather than later the science will beat this thing into submission.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Not really. He is making the point that everything we do in life requires an implicit acceptance of a certain level of risk. If we deem the risk acceptable we take part in the action - like driving a car. If we deem it unacceptable, we don't. Attending a football game should be no different.

Yes. It is. It's extremely poor logic. Instead of debating the matter at hand, instead accuse people of selective moral outrage. So I will play this game.

Using the driving analogy, it's still not about personal choice. The question is why the government ALLOWS us, it's not a constitutional right, to drive cars when they know full well people will die due to accidents. The answer is that the risk has been deemed low enough to be negligible. It's why we don't shut down every year for seasonal flu. As with a battlefield commander, the costs have been measured and determined to be within acceptable parameters. Had COVID-19 been similar to flu in its contagiousness and morbidity, then we wouldn't have shut down.

Now, I was responding to a poster who has continually put forward false numbers and bad math to prove his point, and when that fails, throws logical fallacies accusing people of selective moral outrage.

We have always had personal choice to stay off roads and stay away from others who are sick. What we have NOT always had was a government forcing us to do so.

Bad logic.