FB: Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[emma17]

I think the point your observation misses here is that for many schools, maybe even most with the rapid expansion of sports-driven enrolment over the last 20 years, sport isn't an optional extra but a fundamental component of financial viability.  Sports driven enrolments are essential for many school budgets and schools cannot operate without them.  The order of business you put forward, school first and sports second, is not the order that many institutions must consider for financial viability.

I think you are putting way too much effort into this part. We lost part of a winter season and all of spring, but it seems like the fall is the big tipping point for athletics. Losing a single fall is as passable for most DIII institutions as having lost a spring.

I just think we have an impasse in how we think about things. You think this is an issue of personal risk. I see this as societal risk because a person taking risk can and will have an effect on society. It's like drunk driving. Yes, it's your risk to drive drunk, but when you plow into a bystander your personal risk just effected someone else. It's your risk to play football, when you then visit the grocery store and pass the virus along to someone else, it becomes societal risk.

We don't ban alcohol, but we do make consequences for personal risk spilling over into society. If we want to frame this virus as personal risk, allowing football or high risk gatherings, then we need to make consequences for if the personal risk passes into society. Right now, because the consequence isn't there, people don't value the risk appropriately.

Personal risk and impacting society doesn't stop at these examples. In my opinion, it should lead to an honest discussion of the elephant in the room. The reality of COVID 19 deaths is the significant role comorbidity plays. Yes, all ages and all levels of health contract COVID 19, however, those with two or more comorbidities (obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes, (age to a degree) etc) make up the vast number of deaths.
I know this sounds cold, but these are facts. Obesity (the kind that can be controlled) not only exposes the individual to greater poor health outcomes, it also has a tremendous cost impact on society. I can link study after study of the costs associated with obesity. These costs aren't contained by the individual, they are spread over society. Your health insurance premium is absolutely impacted by the behaviors of others. Your life insurance premiums the same. Insurance premiums rise because it costs the healthcare system $ billions.

[OzJohnnie]

Here's a handy 2-minute video from the CDC explaining who is at "higher risk for severe illness" with COVID-19 and what actions they should take to manage the risk.  In case anyone is looking for accurate advice or information.

https://youtu.be/LBHPUegGIpA

It's a pretty clear set of circumstances which puts a person in the high risk category.  Please look after yourselves with extra care if you're in this position.

(It comes from this page at the CDC which is a good starting point for their COVID information: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-at-higher-risk.html)

[hazzben]

In other news JJ Watt crashed a Bethel Football offensive meeting on Zoom today



Backstory is great. One of the players DM'd him the meeting link and asked him to join. And low and behold, Watt jumped on!

[retagent]

I think the point your observation misses here is that for many schools, maybe even most with the rapid expansion of sports-driven enrolment over the last 20 years, sport isn't an optional extra but a fundamental component of financial viability.  Sports driven enrolments are essential for many school budgets and schools cannot operate without them.  The order of business you put forward, school first and sports second, is not the order that many institutions must consider for financial viability.

I think you are putting way too much effort into this part. We lost part of a winter season and all of spring, but it seems like the fall is the big tipping point for athletics. Losing a single fall is as passable for most DIII institutions as having lost a spring.

I just think we have an impasse in how we think about things. You think this is an issue of personal risk. I see this as societal risk because a person taking risk can and will have an effect on society. It's like drunk driving. Yes, it's your risk to drive drunk, but when you plow into a bystander your personal risk just effected someone else. It's your risk to play football, when you then visit the grocery store and pass the virus along to someone else, it becomes societal risk.

We don't ban alcohol, but we do make consequences for personal risk spilling over into society. If we want to frame this virus as personal risk, allowing football or high risk gatherings, then we need to make consequences for if the personal risk passes into society. Right now, because the consequence isn't there, people don't value the risk appropriately.

Personal risk and impacting society doesn't stop at these examples. In my opinion, it should lead to an honest discussion of the elephant in the room. The reality of COVID 19 deaths is the significant role comorbidity plays. Yes, all ages and all levels of health contract COVID 19, however, those with two or more comorbidities (obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes, (age to a degree) etc) make up the vast number of deaths.
I know this sounds cold, but these are facts. Obesity (the kind that can be controlled) not only exposes the individual to greater poor health outcomes, it also has a tremendous cost impact on society. I can link study after study of the costs associated with obesity. These costs aren't contained by the individual, they are spread over society. Your health insurance premium is absolutely impacted by the behaviors of others. Your life insurance premiums the same. Insurance premiums rise because it costs the healthcare system $ billions.

You are a brave man emma. There is so much data that is being overlooked or even suppressed. Pointing things like this out is not diminishing the risk, or undermining the effort to mitigate. The more information, the better. There will be some garbage put out, but the way to counteract that is to put forward valid, verifiable information. Facebook and google want to be the arbiters of all that is true and right, but they have not been holier than thou.  Too many are taking what CERTAIN "experts" have to say, and ignore anything that differs. As with any crisis there are those who will try to profit from it. Aluminum siding, or used car salesmen have nothing on them.

Use your common sense, while listening to those who are on the front lines. Just be aware that in this fluid situation, they have not always been correct or consistent, i.e., no need to wear masks, oops, wait, wear a mask.

[jknezek]

I think the point your observation misses here is that for many schools, maybe even most with the rapid expansion of sports-driven enrolment over the last 20 years, sport isn't an optional extra but a fundamental component of financial viability.  Sports driven enrolments are essential for many school budgets and schools cannot operate without them.  The order of business you put forward, school first and sports second, is not the order that many institutions must consider for financial viability.

I think you are putting way too much effort into this part. We lost part of a winter season and all of spring, but it seems like the fall is the big tipping point for athletics. Losing a single fall is as passable for most DIII institutions as having lost a spring.

I just think we have an impasse in how we think about things. You think this is an issue of personal risk. I see this as societal risk because a person taking risk can and will have an effect on society. It's like drunk driving. Yes, it's your risk to drive drunk, but when you plow into a bystander your personal risk just effected someone else. It's your risk to play football, when you then visit the grocery store and pass the virus along to someone else, it becomes societal risk.

We don't ban alcohol, but we do make consequences for personal risk spilling over into society. If we want to frame this virus as personal risk, allowing football or high risk gatherings, then we need to make consequences for if the personal risk passes into society. Right now, because the consequence isn't there, people don't value the risk appropriately.

Personal risk and impacting society doesn't stop at these examples. In my opinion, it should lead to an honest discussion of the elephant in the room. The reality of COVID 19 deaths is the significant role comorbidity plays. Yes, all ages and all levels of health contract COVID 19, however, those with two or more comorbidities (obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes, (age to a degree) etc) make up the vast number of deaths.
I know this sounds cold, but these are facts. Obesity (the kind that can be controlled) not only exposes the individual to greater poor health outcomes, it also has a tremendous cost impact on society. I can link study after study of the costs associated with obesity. These costs aren't contained by the individual, they are spread over society. Your health insurance premium is absolutely impacted by the behaviors of others. Your life insurance premiums the same. Insurance premiums rise because it costs the healthcare system $ billions.

I don't disagree. But pointing out other risks doesn't diminish the one that resuming playing football represents. Also, the morbidity is the effect of passing on the virus, the undervalued risk is the person who does pass it on having been in a large group environment. So it's a bit cause and effect. The goal is to block the cause, or at least properly value the risk of the cause, so the effect (death and continuing sickness) is harder to propagate.

[OzJohnnie]

Yeah, I'm not persuaded.  The reason is that your goal of your personal safety can be accomplished by locking yourself up. You don't need to lock me up as well to do it.  We'll see you in 18 months when you emerge from your cave.

[GoldandBlueBU]

It looks like SJU has managed to sneak out of the MIAC along with UST, since they're apparently making offers now... Duff - what do you know about this?

https://twitter.com/TrentFinney33/status/1255914328546594816

[jknezek]

Yeah, I'm not persuaded.  The reason is that your goal of your personal safety can be accomplished by locking yourself up. You don't need to lock me up as well to do it.  We'll see you in 18 months when you emerge from your cave.

We will see how it goes this fall. Personally I hope it's safe to play. I believe if students are in dorms, then it's safe for football. My question remains, will it be safe for students to be in a dorm environment? Enjoy your freedom.

It's good to see you went back to sarcastic b.s only a few posts after saying how nice it was to have people debate respectfully.

[jamtod]

Yeah, I'm not persuaded.  The reason is that your goal of your personal safety can be accomplished by locking yourself up. You don't need to lock me up as well to do it.  We'll see you in 18 months when you emerge from your cave.

We live... in a society.

[OzJohnnie]

Yeah, I'm not persuaded.  The reason is that your goal of your personal safety can be accomplished by locking yourself up. You don't need to lock me up as well to do it.  We'll see you in 18 months when you emerge from your cave.

We live... in a society.

Look, I'm done with this conversation.  What I've tried to give you every chance to realise but you've come up short is that a society includes many opinions, including ones like mine.  You're insistence that your opinion is the only one which is legitimate is so amazingly close minded that it's, frankly, stunning.

There is legitimate discussion beyond your view.  You refuse to entertain it.  Great work on reasonable language in support of an unreasonable position. Pat yourself on the back.

[OzJohnnie]

Here's the challenge to the j-team in support of locking everyone up.  Demonstrate, with some support, that your unreasonable position is supported by actual risks.

And after you attempted that then account for the counter examples.  You want me to agree to lock up society then demonstrate the justified fear.  Let's see it.  You have asserted in various ways that playing football will kill some unknown large number of people.  Prove it.

[OzJohnnie]

Yeah, I'm not persuaded.  The reason is that your goal of your personal safety can be accomplished by locking yourself up. You don't need to lock me up as well to do it.  We'll see you in 18 months when you emerge from your cave.

We live... in a society.

Apparently a society with no social.  Nice dystopia you've built here.

[jamtod]

Yeah, I'm not persuaded.  The reason is that your goal of your personal safety can be accomplished by locking yourself up. You don't need to lock me up as well to do it.  We'll see you in 18 months when you emerge from your cave.

We live... in a society.

Look, I'm done with this conversation.  What I've tried to give you every chance to realise but you've come up short is that a society includes many opinions, including ones like mine.  You're insistence that your opinion is the only one which is legitimate is so amazingly close minded that it's, frankly, stunning.

There is legitimate discussion beyond your view.  You refuse to entertain it.  Great work on reasonable language in support of an unreasonable position. Pat yourself on the back.

I... don't think that's the case at all. We have differing fundamental understandings of how this works and what the scientific data shows. I absolutely agree that tough decisions have to be made and a lot of them can go either way.

"We live in a society" is a common internet meme, apparently generally meant to imply that society is imperfect. In this case, my implication is that my decisions for personal safety are not my own. I don't subscribe to a libertarian understanding of freedom, but rather one that means we have an obligation to one another. Reasonable minds can disagree about what that looks like, no doubt, and I've engaged those conversations elsewhere with people I deem reasonable.

I also believe that my decisions affect those around me, including family members that I live with who are in higher risk categories. And some of those football players in the fall or whenever we resume will be in similar situations, so it's not just a simple decision of "keep the vulnerable locked away" to avoid the risk. Likewise for folks in the stands if the game resumes with crowds. We all take on some level of responsibility for that.

I'm not in a position to make these decisions for the general public, but having a baseline understanding of what the data shows and what the unknowns and risks are is key to that decision. This continues to evolve and in addition to the possibilities of a societal outbreak, there is early research showing possible (data is limited and early, worth investigating further and keeping an open mind on) negative effects (Kawasaki) on children who have had COVID and possible long-term impacts on lungs for even young healthy people. So it may not be as simple as only the old and vulnerable are impacted, even if they are the primary deaths we are seeing. There are a ton of unknowns in this for our leaders to evaluate and for me to try to educate myself as much as I can to make good decisions for my family. Beyond that, you can assume whatever you want about my motivations.

[jknezek]

Here's the challenge to the j-team in support of locking everyone up.  Demonstrate, with some support, that your unreasonable position is supported by actual risks.

And after you attempted that then account for the counter examples.  You want me to agree to lock up society then demonstrate the justified fear.  Let's see it.  You have asserted in various ways that playing football will kill some unknown large number of people.  Prove it.

Your central belief that not playing football equals locking up society is such a logical farce that there is no point in trying to discuss anything. It's a ludicrous exaggeration that is the typical refuge of someone who doesn't want to think a problem through rationally and so he or she tries to frames the other side using an extreme and pointless position. It's the type of rhetorical dead end utilized by those unable to counter a proposal.

Kind of like when someone says they are "done with a discussion" and then posts 4 more times trying to score points with a last word.

[OzJohnnie]

You're going to have a heard time making a winning position if it requires a starting point that libertarians don't care for other people.  I can see how it gets pretty easy from there if you start with "people who disagree with me are heartless."