UConn President: Fall sports likely to be cancelled

[JimHurley]

Curious.

Does anyone on the board think that the current social distancing restrictions are sustainable, or advisable until a vaccine is developed, distributed, and widely administered ?

Ok, this will really be my last post in this thread. The answer is an easy no. If we wait 12-18 months for a vaccine, the deaths from the economic impact will be far higher than those of the virus. 22 million people are out of work right now. It would easily reach 50 million if we wait for a vaccine. Having such a large number of people with no income would be catastrophic and it’s unrealistic for the government to take care of that many people for a period of time without complete economic collapse.

 

[Guapo]

Ok, this will really be my last post in this thread. The answer is an easy no. If we wait 12-18 months for a vaccine, the deaths from the economic impact will be far higher than those of the virus. 22 million people are out of work right now. It would easily reach 50 million if we wait for a vaccine. Having such a large number of people with no income would be catastrophic and it’s unrealistic for the government to take care of that many people for a period of time without complete economic collapse.

we must kill the people to set them free

 

[tykurez]

LOL. Well on Fox News the other night Hannity described how to go to a ball game in ppe. Somehow he was going to open his mask for just a second to bite a hotdog close it to chew then was it down with beer through a straw. It was a fine demonstration of how unserious his analysis is. Even though he tried to present it as a real proposal. LOL!

For some reason I took freescooter as a Hannity guy ...



(Disclaimer: I don’t go into the cesspool - if it still exists)

 

[mussels]

Ok, this will really be my last post in this thread. The answer is an easy no. If we wait 12-18 months for a vaccine, the deaths from the economic impact will be far higher than those of the virus. 22 million people are out of work right now. It would easily reach 50 million if we wait for a vaccine. Having such a large number of people with no income would be catastrophic and it’s unrealistic for the government to take care of that many people for a period of time without complete economic collapse.

I asked rhetorically, thinking its and easy "no" for everyone. And the next question, "Does anyone on the board think that the social distancing restrictions now in place are unnecessary, and we should immediately remove all restrictions, and open restaurants, movie theaters, Broadway, and sports?" is also an easy no.

But, many of the folks talking back and forth in this thread seem to assume that the other guy would answer yes to one of the questions. A little humility, recognizing that no one has the answers at this point, and we all want the same thing would probably help the discourse.

Edit -grammar correction

 

[HobokenHusky]

Do you understand these estimations would have, in fact, happened had quarantine orders not been put in place?

That's just not true. Estimates that incorporated quarantine orders were also ridiculously over-inflated at the outset. I think the quarantine has done wonders and I support that it was something that we had to do to get the message across that this is serious, but it's ridiculous for anyone to say they know what will happen a month from now, let alone 5 months from now.

 

[Get a Job]

What? This makes no sense. I never argued social distancing doesn't help, you hump. I said the exact opposite.

I said doctors revised their early estimates saying without social distancing we still would never have the millions of deaths they projected for Americans.

Just so I can understand where you're coming from, let's say the number of people people who would die if we implemented a plan you support, whatever that is, is 50,000 more than if we continue with draconian social distancing until we have ubiquitous testing for both live virus and antibodies, and contact tracing, or until we have a vaccine in large enough quantities. Is that acceptable? What would your threshold be?

By the way, I'm not attacking you at all. It's a serious question. Economic hardships definitely lead to deaths, too, so it's totally reasonable to talk about the trade-offs. I am just trying to understand your baseline.

 

[navery12]

Curious.

Does anyone on the board think that the current social distancing restrictions are sustainable, or advisable until a vaccine is developed, distributed, and widely administered ?

I think there's a pretty big gap between saying the social distancing/shutdown is going to continue into the fall and saying there's a chance sports aren't back in the fall which is what a lot of people (including me) are saying. Nobody is suggesting the former, that would be crazy

 

[superjohn]

Just so I can understand where you're coming from, let's say the number of people people who would die if we implemented a plan you support, whatever that is, is 50,000 more than if we continue with draconian social distancing until we have ubiquitous testing for both live virus and antibodies, and contact tracing, or until we have a vaccine in large enough quantities. Is that acceptable? What would your threshold be?

By the way, I'm not attacking you at all. It's a serious question. Economic hardships definitely lead to deaths, too, so it's totally reasonable to talk about the trade-offs. I am just trying to understand your baseline.

I won't put a # on it because I don't know but I think the longer this goes on the risk reward shifts. I think the damage we've already done is terrible but I fear we're going to have a great depression at some point, which will be devastating for all of us and especially devastating to the younger generations. This was sold to us as being all about making sure the health system would hold up and buying us some time, it looks like it's going to hold up but I expect once the weather get cold again after summer we'll be doing this all over again, numbers might spike up right again before then. If the supply chains break down it could be lights out. I've always assumed the virus will have to work it's way through most of the population so we're just kind of delaying the inevitable.

I also think it's worked it's way through our population already a lot more than we think it has so it's not as deadly as we originally thought.

 

[jdb50]

So social distancing help, but also the virus isn’t as deadly as we thought yet every country around the world has been willing to bankrupt their economies to stop this from happening? So who is wrong? Someone has to be wrong.

No government was willing to bankrupt their economy. The choice was to stop the vertical rise in cases and hospitalizations or do nothing. Ambulances in Moscow recently have had to que in line for up to 9 hours to try and get a patient admitted. Hospitals there are starting to get swamped and hospital workers are being infected due to poor PPE. What would the impact be if our hospitals were unable to meet demand if we had all stayed in our normal routines? When Redfield made the comment about the coming fall flu season he was right. A bad flu season can put strain on hospitals. A place like Windham Hospital would be full and they would have to open a closed wing to put patients in. Add that to a return of covid-19 and it will be a very bad situation. For the economy I think some of what Andrew Yang was talking about would be necessary. Giving citizens with no work a monthly stipend until it is under control or over. This is money that will never be paid back by anyone. It is firing up the printing presses. People need to face the facts, we are never going to pay off the national debt anyway. It will never happen. The economy is going to be permanently damaged by this pandemic. To think many of us were in Gampel on March 5th watching a great win.

 

[superjohn]

No government was willing to bankrupt their economy. The choice was to stop the vertical rise in cases and hospitalizations or do nothing.

How is that the only choice? That sure sounds like a false choice to me.

 

[Get a Job]

I won't put a # on it because I don't know but I think the longer this goes on the risk reward shifts. I think the damage we've already done is terrible but I fear we're going to have a great depression at some point, which will be devastating for all of us and especially devastating to the younger generations. This was sold to us as being all about making sure the health system would hold up and buying us some time, it looks like it's going to hold up but I expect once the weather get cold again after summer we'll be doing this all over again, numbers might spike up right again before then. If the supply chains break down it could be lights out. I've always assumed the virus will have to work it's way through most of the population so we're just kind of delaying the inevitable.

I also think it's worked it's way through our population already a lot more than we think it has so it's not as deadly as we originally thought.

I think it is important to keep in mind that prematurely "opening up the economy" could have economic impacts, too. If people are allowed to gather and work, and the infections surge, not only will more people die, but the economy will be negatively impacted as well. The question is whether or not this would be more economically damaging than if people had not been allowed to go back to work in the first place. All I am saying is that one cannot necessarily draw a straight line from relaxing social distancing to improved economy.

 

[superjohn]

I think it is important to keep in mind that prematurely "opening up the economy" could have economic impacts, too. If people are allowed to gather and work, and the infections surge, not only will more people die, but the economy will be negatively impacted as well. The question is whether or not this would be more economically damaging than if people had not been allowed to go back to work in the first place. All I am saying is that one cannot necessarily draw a straight line from relaxing social distancing to improved economy.

For sure. I just don't understand people thinking everything is all or nothing. Since the virus doesn't kill many young people we could maybe start easing young people back into society with common sense changes and go from there, while protecting old and medically vulnerable people. Testing is everything, it would make all these decisions so much easier. Sweden will be really interesting to look at a couple of months from now.

 

[polycom]

For sure. I just don't understand people thinking everything is all or nothing. Since the virus doesn't kill many young people we could maybe start easing young people back into society with common sense changes and go from there, while protecting old and medically vulnerable people. Testing is everything, it would make all these decisions so much easier. Sweden will be really interesting to look at a couple of months from now.

Because young people don’t interact with people who aren’t young? I want to assume you aren’t dumb but you make it very difficult

 

[superjohn]

Because young people don’t interact with people who aren’t young? I want to assume you aren’t dumb but you make it very difficult

That's why you protect the old and medically vulnerable. Geezus, you're obtuse. You've added nothing to the discussion just like every other discussion on this board.

Offer something up for once.

 

[navery12]

Because young people don’t interact with people who aren’t young? I want to assume you aren’t dumb but you make it very difficult

That's why his plan all along has been to continue to keep the most vulnerable (ie elderly) isolated. I have no idea on the likelihood but at face value it makes a ton of sense

 

[polycom]

That's why you protect the old and medically vulnerable. Geezus, you're obtuse. You've added nothing to the discussion just like every other discussion on this board.

Offer something up for once.

move offered nothing because I don’t pretend to be an expert on something I know nothing about. Want to talk about financial strain on the healthcare system sure. But discussing how to manage a pandemic you or I have zero idea wtf to do. But one thing is for sure is that I don’t pretend to have a clue, while you’ve been giving your opinion left and right. But yes I add nothing.

 

[polycom]

That's why his plan all along has been to continue to keep the most vulnerable (ie elderly) isolated. I have no idea on the likelihood but at face value it makes a ton of sense

so let’s have young people out and about interacting with other young people. So who is going to take care of old people? Will you also isolate them? What happens when that person or group of people get it and it spreads then what? What happens when our population of fat young people start dying because age while a factor your own health matters much more according to experts

 

[navery12]

so let’s have young people out and about interacting with other young people. So who is going to take care of old people? Will you also isolate them? What happens when that person or group of people get it and it spreads then what? What happens when our population of fat young people start dying because age while a factor your own health matters much more according to experts

We don't have the ability to keep the country shut down for a year+ so it seems pretty Iogical we're going to have to start to open the country and let people who are more vulnerable avoid large crowds for a bit. And to be clear I never said only old people are the most vulnerable, I just gave the example that was being used.

But to be clear you have no ability for nuance so I'll bow out now because it's clearly not worth it

 

[superjohn]

move offered nothing because I don’t pretend to be an expert on something I know nothing about. Want to talk about financial strain on the healthcare system sure. But discussing how to manage a pandemic you or I have zero idea to do. But one thing is for sure is that I don’t pretend to have a clue, while you’ve been giving your opinion left and right. But yes I add nothing.

Nobody is an expert, it's a novel virus. Everyone is giving an opinion. One thing we all know is what we're doing now isn't tenable. The approach Dr. Katz at Yale had from the beginning has always made the most sense to me considering we don't have a vaccine and may never one. Stops and starts to our lives shutting down enormous swaths of our economy seems like a losing approach that will drag this out for possibly years and destroy the world economy costing us our health and screwing over the youngest in our society for a very long time. I know an opinion and my opinion is worthless.

 

[Stainmaster]

Sweden will be really interesting to look at a couple of months from now.

Yes, Sweden will be very interesting to look at. Sweden has nearly 10 times the number of COVID-19-related deaths than its Nordic neighbors. Here's where it went wrong.

 

[superjohn]

Yes, Sweden will be very interesting to look at. Sweden has nearly 10 times the number of COVID-19-related deaths than its Nordic neighbors. Here's where it went wrong.

That's why you look at them months from now, to say they got it wrong now is just dumb. We all knew they would have more deaths in the short term. Their plan has always been short term pain for long term gain.

 

[David 76]

I asked rhetorically, thinking its and easy "no" for everyone. And the next question, "Does anyone on the board think that the social distancing restrictions now in place are unnecessary, and we should immediately remove all restrictions, and open restaurants, movie theaters, Broadway, and sports?" is also an easy no.

But, many of the folks talking back and forth in this thread seem to assume that the other guy would answer yes to one of the questions. A little humility, recognizing that no one has the answers at this point, and we all want the same thing would probably help the discourse.

Edit -grammar correction

I hope more people get your point. This, like so many things, has become a polarization arguement.

 

[8893]

That's why you look at them months from now, to say they got it wrong now is just dumb.

But it's okay for you to say that about every other approach right now? Got it.

 

[HuskyFich]

F this guy, but only tweet I could find on it lol

 

[polycom]

We don't have the ability to keep the country shut down for a year+ so it seems pretty Iogical we're going to have to start to open the country and let people who are more vulnerable avoid large crowds for a bit. And to be clear I never said only old people are the most vulnerable, I just gave the example that was being used.

But to be clear you have no ability for nuance so I'll bow out now because it's clearly not worth it

I guess? Americans as a populace are too prideful and stupid to understand how to safe themselves. We in no way shape or form can shutdown the majority of small businesses for a year without the government paying everyone. But it can’t be this idea that we pick and choose who has to chance it and who doesn’t. That will setup a horrible slippery slope for businesses who want to restart and employees who don’t want to. What happens when people get sick? Are they allowed to sue their employers? Will the government protect the employees or employers? These are questions that have to be asked and answered before we “open” things up. In other words we need a real plan.