FB: Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[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.

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.

You say playing football is a risk. Prove it. Substantiate your claim.  As simple as that. Demonstrate a factual basis for your fear of playing football.

[Mr. Ypsi]

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.

You say playing football is a risk. Prove it. Substantiate your claim.  As simple as that. Demonstrate a factual basis for your fear of playing football.

Oz, I think you know I have been a fan of yours for years, but I think you have gone over the edge.  "Prove it."  How can you PROVE something that is thus far hypothetical?

We DO know that coronavirus is pulmonary, spread by emissions or surface contact.  AND that it can be spread by people without symptoms or prior to the appearance of symptoms.  Football locker rooms would seem to be even more hotbeds for contamination than dorms, and football would be a rather different sport with 'social distancing'!   And that's for the players, coaches, referees, etc.  Fans in the stands (if any) are a whole different animal. 

IF there was adequate testing, my answer would probably be different, but there isn't.  We don't know the prevalence of infection, or even the prevalence of deaths ("excess mortality" data suggests that deaths attributed to COVID-19 may be less than 50% of actual pandemic deaths).  Since we are basically 'flying blind', all my instincts say caution is better than rash action (that cloud you're about to fly though may have a cliff at the other side )

The evidence says that playing football IS definitively a 'risk'.  It is up to the observer to decide whether or not it is a risk worth taking, but, YES, it is a risk.

[miac952]

This isn't a zero sum game and too often it seems we are treating it as such. Lock everything up vs open the entire economy to what it was. Stay home or die. Maybe it's just the polarization of everything these days

I think we can soon cross threshold's like opening up the barber shop or salon with some limits. A couple people working with masks on and a couple of clients in chairs, with full cleaning in between, and appointments pre-scheduled makes sense. Relatively low infection risk and it gets thousands back to work. But small college football is different. It puts a little cash in the schools hand, some play $ for referees, and athletic trainers, and some work study $ for a group of students, but beyond that has negligible impacts on the economy. All with a really high rate of potential spreading of infection.

Also, we may not need to worry about player mortality, but you can bet your butt, a number of players on each team have asthma and a number of other morbidities. The consequences of getting this don't start and stop at death. Those above, even though they may be young, could end up with long term lung damage and other insidious challenges. These are the decisions school presidents are faced with.

A brief reminder that a D3 President was the first individual that I am aware of to exclude fans from a live sporting event in the earliest stages of this. I ridiculed the move by Johns Hopkins during the NCAA basketball tournament as overreach, but reflecting back now, fully understand the decision making. The same set of risk/reward decision making will be made by DIII institutions, presumably sometime in July. They don't have shoe contracts and tv deals to protect. I HOPE we have football in the Fall, but I can see a strong potential for no football. If students return to campuses the odds increase.

[DuffMan]

miac952, I have disagreed with the majority of what you have posted in the past 10-odd years, but I concur with your COVID opinions.

[jamtod]

miac952, I have disagreed with the majority of what you have posted in the past 10-odd years, but I concur with your COVID opinions.

Same but for DuffMan.

[OzJohnnie]

I'm going to take a short break from posting.  I can't seem to avoid posting on COVID and I don't want to talk about that here.  So to stop myself I'll just pause for a while until the urge passes.  I'll rely on you all to get this back on track.

[miac952]

On a lighter note the JJ Watt story is pretty damn sweet! Love the spontaneity of it all. Doesn't appear it was some pre-planned event. Just a guy who loves football hanging out with a bunch of college kids who love the game.

[art76]

On a lighter note the JJ Watt story is pretty damn sweet! Love the spontaneity of it all. Doesn't appear it was some pre-planned event. Just a guy who loves football hanging out with a bunch of college kids who love the game.

True confession - I just had to Google JJ Watt, because I had no idea who he was. Now I know that Bethel was only one of the schools he dropped in on - still cool!

[MadRedFan]

I'm all for moving on, and I have a couple hundred posts and I know there are many people here who have many times that and are personal friends and so forth, but I have to ask this (as a Johnnie fan but not a Johnnie), and maybe this is too "deep" for this discussion, altho there have been some seriously heavy philosophical posts in the last few days --

but, how does this whole "shelter-in-place", watch out for your neighbor, vs. do your own thing, high risk people get out of the way deal fit in with Benedictine values: community living, hospitality, justice, peace, respect for persons, stewardship??? 

Just wondering how serious some people are about, as someone said, that we live together in a society.  We're in this together!!

I sure hope there is football this fall.

[jamtod]

I'm going to take a short break from posting.  I can't seem to avoid posting on COVID and I don't want to talk about that here.  So to stop myself I'll just pause for a while until the urge passes.  I'll rely on you all to get this back on track.

Take care of yourself Oz. These are weird and frustrating times for all sorts of reasons.

[retagent]

I think what OZ, and I, are trying to say is that there is room for discussion as to what the best path might be, Sweden, for example has not locked down, but has given the populace guidelines which many are following to some degree or another. It so far has meant that the death toll seems to be a bit higher than other similar countries that have followed A MORE STRINGENT REGIMEN. I BELIEVE THAT WE WILL NOT KNOW WHICH MODEL IS BETTER FOR QUITE SOME TIME. Sweden IS HOPING THAT "HERD IMMUNITY" WILL HAVE A BENEFICIAL EFFECT IN THE LONG RUN. WE WON'T KNOW FOR A YEAR OR SO WHETHER THAT IS THE CASE. HEY MAY HAVE A HIGHER spike, but shorter run of cases. (Sorry, I hit CapsLlock and will not reenter text)

The other issue is that far too many (and not pointing to anyone on here) want to virtue signal, and come up with accusations like, "you don't care if people die." They don't seem to want to take into account the deleterious effects of the lockdown, not only economic, but psychological and physical health effects. There should be room for disagreement without ad hominum attacks. Argue the issue not the person.

[Pat Coleman]

I feel like there are broad attacks in more than one "direction" on this issue, as I read across multiple message boards on this site. No one group is solely the target of such animosity.

[art76]

There should be room for disagreement without ad hominum attacks. Argue the issue not the person.

+K retagent

[MUC57]

There should be room for disagreement without ad hominum attacks. Argue the issue not the person.

+K retagent

+K from me too, retagent! 😷

[emma17]

IF there was adequate testing, my answer would probably be different, but there isn't. 

Mr Ypsi, I'm curious if you have a definition in mind for the above?
At the pace testing capacity/availability/result speed is increasing in the US, by the time football rolls around "adequate testing" may be in place.

From a personal risk standpoint, i liken it to wearing a helmet on bicycles, wearing a live preserver on a boat, taking vitamin C, getting a flu shot, wearing a hat in the winter and all the other precautions we have the right to choose. I would choose for society to be open to those that are ok with the personal risk. 

From an impact on others standpoint, I think choice exists for those that are vulnerable as well.

There will be situations where the vulnerable are infected by the "risk takers", but those numbers will be low, and then you enter into comparing the same risks the vulnerable have always had prior to COVID.