Will we have a 2020 NFL Season?

[gopkrs]

70% seems like a fine start. We'll see about the other 30%, most of them will think long and hard about not taking it if that means no pay.

I don't have a lot of patience with that. If it is effective; I will take it and let the others do what the hell they want. But it is bad for the children who can't make up their own minds.

 

[Poppa San]

I don't have a lot of patience with that. If it is effective; I will take it and let the others do what the hell they want. But it is bad for the children who can't make up their own minds.

I have not heard of any children being involved in any vaccine trials. I'd think thrice if my children were in this age group. Especially before next summer. I said early on somewhere that this is like chicken pox. Relatively harmless to children but dangerous to adults.

Chickenpox symptoms in adults typically resemble those in children, but they can become more severe.

5 years from now with or without a vaccine, this is how it will be viewed.

 

[gopkrs]

I have not heard of any children being involved in any vaccine trials. I'd think thrice if my children were in this age group. Especially before next summer. I said early on somewhere that this is like chicken pox. Relatively harmless to children but dangerous to adults.
5 years from now with or without a vaccine, this is how it will be viewed.
I meant when it is available for everyone. I guess I am just saying that I will take it when it seems effective and then I won't worry about getting infected or infecting anyone else.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Once again I have to mention European soccer leagues. Those players make a lot of money and are young as well but someone teams are able to make it work. There's no reason the same shouldn't be able with the NFL.

You continue to ignore the vast differences between Europe and America when it comes to prevalence of the virus. Yes, if America can reduce the spread of the virus by 67% in a month, I agree with you.

 

[Conan Troutman]

I don't have a lot of patience with that. If it is effective; I will take it and let the others do what the hell they want. But it is bad for the children who can't make up their own minds.

I'm just talking about NFL players - I assumed the 30% was the percentage of players not voluntarily taking the vaccine. What the rest of the population will or won't take isn't really all that relevant as far as football on the field is concerned - if all players are immune, you can play a full season no matter what. Attendance is an entirely different matter of course.

 

[rmontro]

I'm just talking about NFL players - I assumed the 30% was the percentage of players not voluntarily taking the vaccine.

Nah I was talking about the general population, not players. Actually since I wrote that I saw another poll that said 26% wouldn't take it, so it's dropped a bit.

I doubt that a vaccine will play much into this football season, since if one comes out it will likely be toward the end of the season. And depending on availability, they may be requiring people to be a certain age to get it at first, so the players might not able to get it even if they wanted it.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

People will take the vaccine (once approved) if states implement escalating fines for not doing so, and making it mandatory to enter certain stores, hospitals, etc. 26% percent will shrink to single digits pretty quickly. Keeping this around for longer than it needs to be gives it a chance to mutate even more than it has, which we don't want. The study out of Yale with saliva tests is promising. In a perfect world, a test like this would be available EVERYWHERE. You'd submit a sample before entering a public place and if positive, head home and start your (mandatory) isolation.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

You continue to ignore the vast differences between Europe and America when it comes to prevalence of the virus. Yes, if America can reduce the spread of the virus by 67% in a month, I agree with you.

Once again, I understand the situation is way worse in the United States than it's in Europe.

If players adhere to social distancing the league should be able to keep going with strict testing in my opinion. That might be an issue with too many of them though.

 

[Poppa San]

People will take the vaccine (once approved) if states implement escalating fines for not doing so, and making it mandatory to enter certain stores, hospitals, etc. 26% percent will shrink to single digits pretty quickly. Keeping this around for longer than it needs to be gives it a chance to mutate even more than it has, which we don't want. The study out of Yale with saliva tests is promising. In a perfect world, a test like this would be available EVERYWHERE. You'd submit a sample before entering a public place and if positive, head home and start your (mandatory) isolation.

Why should I be fined for not taking a vaccine for a disease that NOBODY I PERSONALLY KNOW has gotten? I know OF people like the pregnant women in the QC lab or the guy with the cane in HR. But nobody I associate with on an ongoing basis. Heck, my 85 yo father on dialysis says he won't take it. The best vaccine for this in the US will be November 5th.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

Why should I be fined for not taking a vaccine for a disease that NOBODY I PERSONALLY KNOW has gotten? I know OF people like the pregnant women in the QC lab or the guy with the cane in HR. But nobody I associate with on an ongoing basis. Heck, my 85 yo father on dialysis says he won't take it. The best vaccine for this in the US will be November 5th.

Cmon man. Let's use logic. I don't know anybody that's personally had: measles, mumps, rubella, tb, hep b, etc. Just because I don't know anybody affected doesn't mean I shouldn't vaccinate to protect the vulnerable. Not vaccinating is incredibly selfish and dangerous if it allows the virus to mutate into anything more dangerous. Those aforementioned viruses haven't caused a quarantine in our lifetimes. If we want things to get back to normal I can see a mandatory vaccination program and the way to get participation is to hit people in their wallets. Either that or no admittance to public buildings (schools, stores, sports, etc.) for non-vaxxers.

 

[Poppa San]

Cmon man. Let's use logic. I don't know anybody that's personally had: measles, mumps, rubella, tb, hep b, etc. Just because I don't know anybody affected doesn't mean I shouldn't vaccinate to protect the vulnerable. Not vaccinating is incredibly selfish and dangerous if it allows the virus to mutate into anything more dangerous. Those aforementioned viruses haven't caused a quarantine in our lifetimes. If we want things to get back to normal I can see a mandatory vaccination program and the way to get participation is to hit people in their wallets. Either that or no admittance to public buildings (schools, stores, sports, etc.) for non-vaxxers.

It is hard to get current data broken down for some reason. Back in mid June 60% of deaths were 75+ years old. Dropping a decade to 65 raises that to 80% You want mandatory vaccination for those age groups? be my guest. At the opposite end were 26 deaths for those <15 and aboot 2500 when expanded to <45. Vaccines for these ages are almost wasted.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

It is hard to get current data broken down for some reason. Back in mid June 60% of deaths were 75+ years old. Dropping a decade to 65 raises that to 80% You want mandatory vaccination for those age groups? be my guest. At the opposite end were 26 deaths for those <15 and aboot 2500 when expanded to <45. Vaccines for these ages are almost wasted.

This again is faulty logic. Say we get a vaccine like Shingrix for Covid-19 (which is an excellent vaccine btw) good at preventing complications, but cases still creep through even for those who have vaccinated. That would mean that if there is a group of unvaccinated jabroni's out there they could still infect vaccinated folks. Wanna live in a society where you can't see your grandparents? And what good would a vaccine be for anyone if these same jabroni's are mutating this virus?

 

[Poppa San]

This again is faulty logic. Say we get a vaccine like Shingrix for Covid-19 (which is an excellent vaccine btw) good at preventing complications, but cases still creep through even for those who have vaccinated. That would mean that if there is a group of unvaccinated jabroni's out there they could still infect vaccinated folks. Wanna live in a society where you can't see your grandparents? And what good would a vaccine be for anyone if these same jabroni's are mutating this virus?

You do realize there is an animal reservoir for Sars-Cov2? Felines for one. Mink for another. The virus is now global and multi-species. It will never go away and it can mutate just as well in the wild as well as in jabroni's. I would rather get my B & T-cells up to speed to recognize and minimize the damage of this virus and most of the forms it will mutate into as they make the rounds. That is similar (can't find the cite) to how the historically recurring measles outbreaks among children would reinforce the antibodies in the adults that had previously had the disease, preventing their reinfection.

 

[ARPackFan]

People will take the vaccine (once approved) if states implement escalating fines for not doing so, and making it mandatory to enter certain stores, hospitals, etc. 26% percent will shrink to single digits pretty quickly. Keeping this around for longer than it needs to be gives it a chance to mutate even more than it has, which we don't want. The study out of Yale with saliva tests is promising. In a perfect world, a test like this would be available EVERYWHERE. You'd submit a sample before entering a public place and if positive, head home and start your (mandatory) isolation.

Slightly less than 50% of the US population over 18 get a yearly flu vaccination that is only 60% effective in preventing flu. That means only 30% (.5 x .6) of the US is actually immune to the flu in any given season yet that is sufficient to provide adequate barriers. Even when produced, the COVID-19 vaccines will not be available in sufficient quantity to inoculate all 330 million in the US and by FDA standards will have been a "rush job" subject to legal challenge by anti-vaxxers. If you are not in the targeted groups for initial vaccination then you get to be a jabroni by selection rather than choice. In a perfect world everyone would get a yearly flu shot along with a few others but in actuality we just need "good enough" coverage to interrupt infection vectors. Mandating COVID-19 vaccinations would be an exercise in futility.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

You do realize there is an animal reservoir for Sars-Cov2? Felines for one. Mink for another. The virus is now global and multi-species. It will never go away and it can mutate just as well in the wild as well as in jabroni's. I would rather get my B & T-cells up to speed to recognize and minimize the damage of this virus and most of the forms it will mutate into as they make the rounds. That is similar (can't find the cite) to how the historically recurring measles outbreaks among children would reinforce the antibodies in the adults that had previously had the disease, preventing their reinfection.

You do realize that mutations that allow the jump from one species to humans are much rarer? The reservoir matters for the next outbreak, not the current one which has mutated MULTIPLE times already. Mask up, vaccinate, be responsible. Effort to the contrary is exhausting everyone's patience when life sucks right now. Getting back to normal includes vaccination - that's the bottom line. Anyone who doesn't, IMO, and has a fatal case that's tracked to them should pay funeral expenses and be subjected to a massive fine.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

Slightly less than 50% of the US population over 18 get a yearly flu vaccination that is only 60% effective in preventing flu. That means only 30% (.5 x .6) of the US is actually immune to the flu in any given season yet that is sufficient to provide adequate barriers. Even when produced, the COVID-19 vaccines will not be available in sufficient quantity to inoculate all 330 million in the US and by FDA standards will have been a "rush job" subject to legal challenge by anti-vaxxers. If you are not in the targeted groups for initial vaccination then you get to be a jabroni by selection rather than choice. In a perfect world everyone would get a yearly flu shot along with a few others but in actuality we just need "good enough" coverage to interrupt infection vectors. Mandating COVID-19 vaccinations would be an exercise in futility.

Fair points. New methods for vaccine production and funding are making things progress quicker. Also, existing coronavirus vaccine research was helpful to get a head start on making a vaccine. Being at human trials already is not a surprise considering that the scope of this virus has been the biggest medical emergency in our lifetime... Given that, you'd think people would be more open-minded to vaccinating... But apparently not.
You're right, we'll likely see waves of initial vaccination including the vulnerable and those in the health profession, then out to the rest of the population. In an ideal world, I'd like to see arranged times and schedules for when your vaccine will be offered. If you don't attend, fines begin and then no access card for public places. That's if I was running the show anyway! haha.

 

[rmontro]

So since states have started to reopen, and the warmer weather is upon us, the number of daily new cases have basically doubled from a few months ago, yet the number of daily new deaths has been cut in half. It's been long enough now that it doesn't appear that the number of new deaths are going to increase with the number of new cases.

We've talked about possible reasons for that previously. Better treatment options, a younger and healthier group of infected, increased testing including asymptomatic, etc. But it's at least some good news, right?

You're right, we'll likely see waves of initial vaccination including the vulnerable and those in the health profession, then out to the rest of the population.

If there are problematic side effects, they will probably be worse in the elderly and infirm population that will be among the first to receive the vaccine. That could scare off some of the people who are lower on the list.

 

[HardRightEdge]

That sounds tragic. I'm guessing more people today are opposed to vaccines for conspiratorial rather than religious reasons. And suspicion of the government. Seeing how the experts have been all over the place on this, I'm not sure "trusting science" is that good of an idea either. Although you have to act on the best information that you have at the time. Which sometimes changes over time.

That bolded statement? That is science. Scientists knew little about how this specific virus would behave. It was a best guess based on prior analogs. Data is gathered, lab studies are done, perspectives are refined.

Quoting a scientist in August as being "wrong" about Covid-19 based on something he said in January falls somewhere between stoopid and disingenuous, probably both, particularly when he's been repeatedly right ever since.

When talking about measles vaccines, for example, epidemiological studies have been done out the ***** over decades. They are safe no matter what the anti-vaxers say, the same people having their autisitic kids drink bleach as a purported cure, or most recently drink bleach as Covid-19 cure.

We need to understand what "safe" means in that case. It does not mean infallible. It does not mean it is necessarily safe for you. It means that your odds of staying healthy (and those of the people around you) are better with it than without it, and the more people who take it the better the odds for everybody.

I am neither religious, conspiratorial not superstitious. I believe firmly in science practiced responsibly (it sounds stoopid to say otherwise), so I sure wouldn't be taking that new Ruskie vaccine because that's being pushed out under bad science. And frankly, I won't be elbowing my way to the front of the line for the first Covid-19 vaccine developed by reputable scientists at this rate of speed especially being in good general health and living in a place tests have been coming back 98-99% negative. (Thank you, Goverenor Cuomo.) A Phase III double-blind clinical trial with 30,000 subjects is a pretty good test of safety, never infallible, but a new-new drug for a new-new virus may show something different when pushed out in the 100,000's into the general population. And in this case, even reputable scientists may be pressured into mistakes or confirmation bias.

As for some moms and politicized governors and school administrators saying there is no concrete proof that masks prevent spread of the virus, that's beside the point. You don't need concrete proof for such a simple measure, "evidence suggesting" is more than sufficient. There's no way you could ever get concrete proof, so it just sounds like a loony excuse. No responsible scentist is going to put infected people and non-infected people together in a lab in controlled experiements with masks then without them to see what happens. Masks reduce viral load going and coming--you don't need anything more than that to know you should wear one.

There's no other way to put it--anti-science is stoopid, politically motivated or profit motivated. Or, again, perhaps all three.

 

[rmontro]

Quoting a scientist in August as being "wrong" about Covid-19 based on something he said in January falls somewhere between stoopid and disingenuous, probably both, particularly when he's been repeatedly right ever since.

I have a feeling that same courtesy doesn't apply to politicians.

 

[Poppa San]

You do realize that mutations that allow the jump from one species to humans are much rarer?

It isn't a mutation in mink. It is the same virus that also happens to infect mink.

. Effort to the contrary is exhausting everyone's patience when life sucks right now.

The only change to my life since this started is I have to mask up to run into the gas station to pay up or to run into the store for milk. Also most dine in restaurants have reduced their menu selections since they are all disposable menus now and they print them on one page. Atmosphere is so strange it has taken the enjoyment out of dining out. I have been to 2 large weddings the past 2 months plus threw a graduation party. Roughly 6-700 mostly different people between the 3 events. NO ONE has reported back as being Covid infected. (and only a few elderly people masked)

waves of initial vaccination including the vulnerable and those in the health profession,

My wife says she will leave the health profession if she is pressured or forced to take a vaccine sometime before next summer or fall.

evidence suggesting" is more than sufficient

Sounds like anecdotes. Hydroxychloroquine hoopla ring a bell?

or most recently drink bleach as Covid-19 cure.

Are there cites for this of parents being prosecuted for child abuse?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I have been to 2 large weddings the past 2 months plus threw a graduation party. Roughly 6-700 mostly different people between the 3 events. NO ONE has reported back as being Covid infected. (and only a few elderly people masked)

It seems you were lucky that truly none of the people attending those events was infected. If there would have been only one you would most likely talk about knowing a significant amount of people who caught the virus at one of those get togethers.

 

[Poppa San]

It seems you were lucky that truly none of the people attending those events was infected. If there would have been only one you would most likely talk about knowing a significant amount of people who caught the virus at one of those get togethers.

Or more likely that at current rates around .08% of the state is infected at the moment and those that know so are either too sick to go out or self isolate. The news plays up the super spreader events that occur but one rarely hears about the same events where nothing happens such as the ones I attended.

 

[HardRightEdge]

[The benefits of mask wearing] sounds like anecdotes. Hydroxychloroquine hoopla ring a bell?

Yes, mask wearing is anecdotal in some respects, as is going to a mask-free wedding where nobody contracts the virus or when an autistic child drinking bleach snaps out of it. In none of these cases has there been a double-blind plecebo study or a large epidemological study over several years. However, there are some key differences.

Only "evidence suggests" that giving hydroychloroquine to a Covid-19 patient is bad idea. It might in fact cure some patients. However, it has been shown to have severe side affects even in patients for whom the drug was designed. "Evidence suggests", in a limited test of VA Covid-19 patients, that it kills as many as it cures. But such a limited study amounts to anecdotal evidence.

There is only "evidence to suggest" that drinking bleach doesn't cure autism or Covid-19 in since there have not been any studies of the matter. This is the argument of the proponents...no scientific "proof". On the other hand, bleach is known to be highly toxic in humans with no "evidence to suggest" it could be helpful. Injesting bleach might work in some cases if somebody cares to try it knowing the risk it might kill you. You are free to choose your poison, so to speak.

Any medical treatment balances efficacy with risk. There are known medical risks with taking hydroxychloroquine or drinking bleach. So a key difference is there is no medical risk in wearing a mask or social distancing. By your own experiece the only negative side affect is not enjoying a meal out or perhaps those parties had everybody been wearing masks.

So, why bother wearing one? What's the "evidence suggesting" it might help? If you come in contact with the virus "evidence suggests" that the severity of symptoms (or if one subsequently exhibits any symptoms at all) is a function of viral load--how many and how large the viral particles you injest. If an infected person's mask prevents any particles from being spewed in the air or the un-infected person's mask prevents any particles from being injested, "evidence suggests" that's a plus. Futher, "evidence suggests" social distancing allows for spewed virus particles to be dispersed, diluted if you will, before being injested by someone 6 feet away, thereby reducing viral load. The same idea prevails in the suggestion that it is better to gather outdoors than indoors. But that's based on how other viruses have acted, what is known about this one, and how the immune system functions. It amounts to scientific "common sense" rather than hard scienctific proof like the common sensical idea that drinking bleach is a bad idea.

It is possible that masks do nothing particularly meaningful in and of themselves since only "evidence suggests" they will. There has been no double-blind plecebo study of 30,000 people on the matter. And there never will be. We don't want the Josef Mengeles of the world practicing science and medicine. So if you're waiting for concrete proof you'll be waiting forever. Then you start sounding like the bleach drinkers. It is possible, however, two people face to face wearing masks are reminding each other to keep their distance and they won't be swapping spit in a hook-up frat party either, the kind that are now shutting down universities. So you got that much if the viral load theory is correct which only "evidence suggests" based on the behavior of other viruses, what is known so far about this one, and what is know about the immune system. Like not drinking bleach, it amounts to merely scientific "common sense", not concrete proof. Who knows, wearing a mask might have a placebo affect. We'll never know that either.

Are there cites for...parents being prosecuted for child abuse [for having autistic children drink bleach]?

I don't know. It's purported to be a diluted solution if that makes a difference. That exhausts my interest in exploring the matter. Feel free to explore it further on your own and report back.

Are there instances of parents being prosecuted for refusing to give their kids the measles vaccine? There are also jurisdictions and school districts that have dictated that a person cannot be required to where a mask. Has anybody been prosecuted or fired for requiring others under their authority to wear a mask? I don't know that either, but I'd be curious to know. If I had to guess, I don't think that's the case with the measles vaccine but I would not be surprised at all if sombody was arrested or fired in the other situation.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

Yes, mask wearing is anecdotal in some respects, as is going to a mask-free wedding where nobody contracts the virus or when an autistic child drinking bleach snaps out of it. In none of these cases has there been a double-blind plecebo study or a large epidemological study over several years. However, there are some key differences.

Only "evidence suggests" that giving hydroychloroquine to a Covid-19 patient is bad idea. It might in fact cure some patients. However, it has been shown to have severe side affects even in patients for whom the drug was designed. "Evidence suggests", in a limited test of VA Covid-19 patients, that it kills as many as it cures. But such a limited study amounts to anecdotal evidence.

There is only "evidence to suggest" that drinking bleach doesn't cure autism or Covid-19 in since there have not been any studies of the matter. This is the argument of the proponents...no scientific "proof". On the other hand, bleach is known to be highly toxic in humans with no "evidence to suggest" it could be helpful. Injesting bleach might work in some cases if somebody cares to try it knowing the risk it might kill you. You are free to choose your poison, so to speak.

Any medical treatment balances efficacy with risk. There are known medical risks with taking hydroxychloroquine or drinking bleach. So a key difference is there is no medical risk in wearing a mask or social distancing. By your own experiece the only negative side affect is not enjoying a meal out or perhaps those parties had everybody been wearing masks.

So, why bother wearing one? What's the "evidence suggesting" it might help? If you come in contact with the virus "evidence suggests" that the severity of symptoms (or if one subsequently exhibits any symptoms at all) is a function of viral load--how many and how large the viral particles you injest. If an infected person's mask prevents any particles from being spewed in the air or the un-infected person's mask prevents any particles from being injested, "evidence suggests" that's a plus. Futher, "evidence suggests" social distancing allows for spewed virus particles to be dispersed, diluted if you will, before being injested by someone 6 feet away, thereby reducing viral load. The same idea prevails in the suggestion that it is better to gather outdoors than indoors. But that's based on how other viruses have acted, what is known about this one, and how the immune system functions. It amounts to scientific "common sense" rather than hard scienctific proof like the common sensical idea that drinking bleach is a bad idea.

It is possible that masks do nothing particularly meaningful in and of themselves since only "evidence suggests" they will. There has been no double-blind plecebo study of 30,000 people on the matter. And there never will be. We don't want the Josef Mengeles of the world practicing science and medicine. So if you're waiting for concrete proof you'll be waiting forever. Then you start sounding like the bleach drinkers. It is possible, however, two people face to face wearing masks are reminding each other to keep their distance and they won't be swapping spit in a hook-up frat party either, the kind that are now shutting down universities. So you got that much if the viral load theory is correct which only "evidence suggests" based on the behavior of other viruses, what is known so far about this one, and what is know about the immune system. Like not drinking bleach, it amounts to merely scientific "common sense", not concrete proof. Who knows, wearing a mask might have a placebo affect. We'll never know that either.


I don't know. It's purported to be a diluted solution if that makes a difference. That exhausts my interest in exploring the matter. Feel free to explore it further on your own and report back.

Are there instances of parents being prosecuted for refusing to give their kids the measles vaccine? There are also jurisdictions and school districts that have dictated that a person cannot be required to where a mask. Has anybody been prosecuted or fired for requiring others under their authority to wear a mask? I don't know that either, but I'd be curious to know. If I had to guess, I don't think that's the case with the measles vaccine but I would not be surprised at all if sombody was arrested or fired in the other situation.

The patience you have is remarkable, I commend that when we're seeing such silliness in the world these days... I usually just hit these guys with this when the question of masks come up and move on, lol...

 

[HardRightEdge]

The patience you have is remarkable, I commend that when we're seeing such silliness in the world these days... I usually just hit these guys with this when the question of masks come up and move on, lol...

That's funny, particulary that guy's "PhD".