UConn President: Fall sports likely to be cancelled | Page 7 | The Boneyard

UConn President: Fall sports likely to be cancelled

superjohn said:
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.
Expand ...
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.
 
mussels said:
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 ?
Expand ...
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
 
Get a Job said:
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.
Expand ...
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.
 
polycom said:
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.
Expand ...

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.
 
jdb50 said:
No government was willing to bankrupt their economy. The choice was to stop the vertical rise in cases and hospitalizations or do nothing.
Expand ...
How is that the only choice? That sure sounds like a false choice to me.
 
superjohn said:
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.
Expand ...
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.
 
.-.
Get a Job said:
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.
Expand ...
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.
 
superjohn said:
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.
Expand ...
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
 
polycom said:
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
Expand ...
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.
 
polycom said:
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
Expand ...
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
 
superjohn said:
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.
Expand ...

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.
 
navery12 said:
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
Expand ...

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
 
.-.
polycom said:
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
Expand ...
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
 
polycom said:
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.
Expand ...
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.
 
mussels said:
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
Expand ...

I hope more people get your point. This, like so many things, has become a polarization arguement.
 
.-.
navery12 said:
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
Expand ...
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.
 
JimHurley said:
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.
Expand ...
I remember a couple years ago you were arguing with me and telling me the NCAA tournament committee would never put a team from the AAC in the tournament with double digit losses, even though Cincinnati had made the tournament with double digit losses 1 or 2 years prior. When I pointed out an AAC team had already made the tournament with double digit losses, you still insisted the committee would never put a team in from the AAC with double digit losses.

Now you've figured out the best way to handle a global pandemic. Awesome!
 
polycom said:
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.
Expand ...
I see where you're coming from now and where the disconnect is. I'm not saying groups X, Y, Z are high risk and stay quarantined. Just that people in those groups will have to realize that they're high risk and the country is opening before we have a vaccine to say it's completely safe for them. 100% agree though that there has to be a plan in place before we open up, what that consists of is way above my head
 
huskymedic said:
I’m thinking these demographics might hit close to home for more than a few folks on here based on previous posts looking for medical advise here;)


(I chose this tweet only because of the breakout - not because of the source tweet.)
Expand ...

There's a Brooklyn doc who has been speaking out about the deleterious effects of using ventilators on Covid patients for a while now. He says the normal protocols just haven't been working. Trying to fit a square peg through a round hole.

Analysis urges less reliance on ventilators for coronavirus patients - STAT
www.statnews.com

New analysis recommends less reliance on ventilators to treat coronavirus patients

By using ventilators more sparingly on #coronavirus patients, physicians could reduce the death rate for those put on the machines, according to an analysis published Tuesday
www.statnews.com www.statnews.com
 
.-.
JimHurley said:
www.cnn.com

Coronavirus pandemic will cause global famines of 'biblical proportions,' UN warns | CNN

The world is facing multiple famines of "biblical proportions" in just a matter of months, the UN has said, warning that the coronavirus pandemic will push an additional 130 million people to the brink of starvation.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

A good article for those saying thinking about reopening the economy is selfish when lives are at risk. Keeping the economy closed will ruin just as many, and likely even more lives than the virus. I feel it’s a factual and largely non-biased article.
Expand ...


You would think it would be easier to get Americans food than from keeping from getting sick from a currently unstoppable contagion.

But America gonna America.
 
7774 said:
I remember a couple years ago you were arguing with me and telling me the NCAA tournament committee would never put a team from the AAC in the tournament with double digit losses, even though Cincinnati had made the tournament with double digit losses 1 or 2 years prior. When I pointed out an AAC team had already made the tournament with double digit losses, you still insisted the committee would never put a team in from the AAC with double digit losses.

Now you've figured out the best way to handle a global pandemic. Awesome!
Expand ...

His underlying point is not stupid, whatever you think about his basketball posts. We can't be shutdown the way we are now for 18 months. The cost of that in lives and happiness is incalculable. Now, if it was stay at home or the human species would be dead we'd deal with it, but that is not the case. Part of the "turning of the dimmer" is going to be that there is some, generally manageable risk, of participating in rejoining a society, and keeping those who are most likely to lose their lives if they catch the virus in more of a lockdown state than a healthy 32 year old is a very rational part of the process.

I'm 61, in good health but way overweight. I might choose to stay away from the Rent after the time that they open it and, if I was 30, I wouldn't think twice. But we can't keep everything shut indefinitely just because it's unfair that, if we fully reopen, my sons can go to a game and I can't.
 
Last edited:
businesslawyer said:
His underlying point is not stupid, whatever you think about his basketball posts. We can't be shutdown the way we are now for 18 months. The cost of that in lives and happiness is incalculable. Now, if it was stay at home or the human species would be dead we'd deal with it, but that is not the case. Part of the "turning of the dimmer" is going to be that there is some, generally manageable risk, of participating in rejoining a society, and keeping those who are most likely to lose their lives if they catch the virus in more of a lockdown state than a healthy 32 year old is a very rational part of the process.

I'm 61, in good health but way overweight. I might choose to stay away from the Rent after the time that they open it and, if I was 30, I wouldn't think twice. But we can't keep everything shut indefinitely just because it's unfair that, if we fully reopen, my sons can go to a game and I can't.
Expand ...
You can be way overweight and in good health?

What a Trumpian thing to say.
 


>“The decision regarding face-to-face classes for Fall 2020 will be made with the approval of the Board of Trustees and communicated before June 30, 2020,” Katsouleas said. “Factors contributing to that decision will include the progress on slowing COVID-19, guidance from public health experts, decisions and guidance from federal and state government and the availability of testing among others.”

Katsouleas said faculty should be preparing for online fall courses for planning purposes only, and reiterated that no decision has been made yet regarding the fall semester return. <
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,215
Messages
4,557,551
Members
10,442
Latest member
StatsMan


Top Bottom