Val Ackerman press conference

[WestHartHusk]

Neither does having 33 million people without jobs and unable to pay for food and rent. There are obvious risks with reopening and there are obvious risks with staying locked down. One thing is for sure and we cannot wait for cases to get to 0 or for a vaccine to reopen the economy.

It's telling that there is a third option - a competent government response - that doesn't even rank on the decision tree.

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

The writing on the wall, especially if places continue to reopen this month, is that there will not be a season.

I have high hopes that I'm wrong, but it seems incredibly unlikely at this point.

The writing on the wall, currently, is not this scenario. The writing on the wall is schedules are likely to be disrupted and/or moved into the spring. It is also incredibly unlikely games will be played with fans.

There is absolutely no clear indication that the NCAA is going to completely cancel the 2020-2021 sports year.

 

[JimHurley]

those 33 million people are going to go right back to unemployed when we have to do this again because we're hasty about reopening.

So keep them unemployed until it blows by? Okay. Tell that to the families who are unable to pay a month's rent and are unable to put food on the table for their children. It's easy for those who are able to work from home or those who have big bucks in the bank to say, but for those folks it's impossible to internalize what those who aren't as fortunate are going through. If I had a family to support I'd much rather get the virus than be unable to feed my family.

 

[krinklecut]

So keep them unemployed until it blows by? Okay. Tell that to the families who are unable to pay a month's rent and are unable to put food on the table for their children. It's easy for those who are able to work from home or those who have big bucks in the bank to say, but for those folks it's impossible to internalize what those who aren't as fortunate are going through. If I had a family to support I'd much rather get the virus than be unable to feed my family.

 

[JimHurley]

It's telling that there is a third option - a competent government response - that doesn't even rank on the decision tree.

If you put your faith in the government to take care of you, you'll always be left behind my friend. That's why I don't get involved in politics. Doesn't matter who is in charge, the government is not a functioning system. Part of the government response was small business loans that would be forgiven and an extra $600 per week in unemployment. Both passed congress, and both have failed the people they intended to help. Why? The government's inability to get anything done.

 

[JimHurley]

View attachment 54078

What?? I'm going to assume you're single then. If you had a family to support and you literally did not have money to feed them, you'd rather stay locked down than go to work and take the risk? Wow.

 

[upstater]

Places will continue to reopen because we cannot wait until cases get to 0 to return to normalcy. Lots of high end reports and studies are coming out now saying the lockdowns and economic effects will cause more harm than the virus itself. Nobody can say for sure, but I think we will be playing a full schedule this season.

The most interesting reports are coming out of Texas. They opened back up and...

Very few people are risking it and/or have cash to burn.

These are just facts that are in several articles I've read.

I'm not going to get into the politics outside of saying we all need a whole lot of help.

 

[upstater]

If you put your faith in the government to take care of you, you'll always be left behind my friend. That's why I don't get involved in politics. Doesn't matter who is in charge, the government is not a functioning system. Part of the government response was small business loans that would be forgiven and an extra $600 per week in unemployment. Both passed congress, and both have failed the people they intended to help. Why? The government's inability to get anything done.

This was the most political post in the entire thread.

The Inspector General for oversight was fired before he even had a cup of coffee! This was done by design.

 

[krinklecut]

What?? I'm going to assume you're single then. If you had a family to support and you literally did not have money to feed them, you'd rather stay locked down than go to work and take the risk? Wow.

I'll take the option that doesn't put my life, and the lives of everyone around me, at risk. Also, married. Also, you said you don't have a family. Also, I don't know what being single or married has to do with any of this.

 

[zls44]

So keep them unemployed until it blows by?.

Or you support them with a social safety net. Like literally everyone else in the world does.

If I had a family to support I'd much rather get the virus than be unable to feed my family.

No you wouldn't. You would not risk giving it to your family as an asymptomatic transmitter. Shut up.

Unless you're a complete psychopath. I guess that's the other option.

 

[superjohn]

yes. not a single state comes close to meeting CDC reopening guidelines, so opening now means a much more robust second wave, meaning we'll be starting from square one.

what we've done so far has worked! we're throwing away that work by opening now.

CDC has been wrong almost as much as the WHO. The virus isn't going anywhere, even in lockdown if you live with a family there's a pretty decent chance you get it. The people who die from the virus overhwhelmingly the old with comorbidities (heart disease, obesity, diabetes) need to be protected better. Things need to start reopening with common sense practices of better hygiene and social distancing.

 

[JimHurley]

I'll take the option that doesn't put my life, and the lives of everyone around me, at risk. Also, married. Also, you said you don't have a family. Also, I don't know what being single or married has to do with any of this.

It's not risk free. You have to be responsible. You're class of '11, the odds of you even being symptomatic from this virus is low, as it is for most under 50 without preexisting conditions. My point of having a family is that you can't know what it's like to not be able to support them. I have family in Missouri who hasn't been able to pay rent for 2 months now and doesn't have a penny for food. They use foods banks. Their unemployment payments haven't been coming. Their lives depend on being able to go back to work.

 

[zls44]

I have family in Missouri who hasn't been able to pay rent for 2 months now and doesn't have a penny for food. They use foods banks. Their unemployment payments haven't been coming. Their lives depend on being able to go back to work.

Those are failures of government support, though. Every single thing you mention is a consequence of not taking care of its citizens. Your life should not be wedded to work.

 

[zls44]

(Apologies for shoving this further in the political ditch)

 

[JimHurley]

Or you support them with a social safety net. Like literally everyone else in the world does.



No you wouldn't. You would not risk giving it to your family as an asymptomatic transmitter. Shut up.

Unless you're a complete psychopath. I guess that's the other option.

If you listened to results coming out, 66% of cases are from those who are staying home. Not those going to work. Those staying home. Also, a social safety net WAS passed. Loans for small business, bailing out industries, and extra unemployment for those out of work. That IS the social safety net supposed to help, which has already passed.

 

[JimHurley]

Those are failures of government support, though. Every single thing you mention is a consequence of not taking care of its citizens. Your life should not be wedded to work.

Exactly. They are supposed to be collecting unemployment but their state is caught up with all the applications coming in. The social safety net passed congress, but it's not be allocated.

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

Exactly. They are supposed to be collecting unemployment but their state is caught up with all the applications coming in. The social safety net passed congress, but it's not be allocated.

I think you miss his point. There's a bigger conversation to be had about the fact that in the wealthiest nation on earth the vast majority of families face financial ruin if they miss a few paychecks. The idea that we talk about figuring out how to have even the most basic of "safety nets" only in the face of unprecedented catastrophe is pretty telling in itself.

 

[superjohn]

Those are failures of government support, though. Every single thing you mention is a consequence of not taking care of its citizens. Your life should not be wedded to work.

There's been many decades of abuse in a society that's set up to pick winners and losers. That can be tackled once we get through this. Right now people have to make a living, people have to eat. The lockdowns aren't at all tenable.

People are dying at home. Suicides are up, alcohol and drug abuse are up, physical and sexual abuse of children is up, kids aren't being vaccinated nearly as much, people aren't going to hospitals for serious health problems because they're scared.

The virus is with us and we have to learn to live with it, there is no waiting it out.

 

[Palatine]

I have to admit this is genius!

 

[JimHurley]

I think you miss his point. There's a bigger conversation to be had about the fact that in the wealthiest nation on earth the vast majority of families face financial ruin if they miss a few paychecks. The idea that we talk about figuring out how to have even the most basic of "safety nets" only in the face of unprecedented catastrophe is pretty telling in itself.

Yeah thanks for clarifying. I saw you quoted me and figured it'd be some snarky post since I know I'm one of your favorites on here

I think the main point I'm trying to make that I feel a lot of people ignore is that these lockdowns and not reopening the economy are also going to cost lives. Lots of them. Homelessness, starvation, suicides, etc. I'm with superjohn, I think we need a responsible reopening using common sense and social distancing.

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

Yeah thanks for clarifying. I saw you quoted me and figured it'd be some snarky post since I know I'm one of your favorites on here

I think the main point I'm trying to make that I feel a lot of people ignore is that these lockdowns and not reopening the economy are also going to cost lives. Lots of them. Homelessness, starvation, suicides, etc. I'm with superjohn, I think we need a responsible reopening using common sense and social distancing.

Yeah I don't disagree with that at all. But I also think this crisis is really driving home the gulf between the haves and the have-nots, and for a country as wealthy as this one there are way too many have-nots.

 

[Drumguy]

CDC has been wrong almost as much as the WHO. The virus isn't going anywhere, even in lockdown if you live with a family there's a pretty decent chance you get it. The people who die from the virus overhwhelmingly the old with comorbidities (heart disease, obesity, diabetes) need to be protected better. Things need to start reopening with common sense practices of better hygiene and social distancing.

Tell that to Dan Spano, the 30 year old personal trainer who died in Norwalk. This is a highly contagious and variable disease. They are finding considerable complication post disease with Kidney, brain, digestive etc. systems.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Don't read ANYTHING into the fact that Nebraska is showing a milder outbreak than Connecticut. Many states are simply not testing or reporting their case data in the same way that we are in the Northeast. This virus is everywhere.

 

[navery12]

I don't think anyone would disagree that we need to responsibly reopen, but does anyone think that's actually going to happen? I'm not worried about 90% of people but those 10% will ruin it for everyone else