• You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.

Gundy again called out

HuskerFaith

Recruit
If there's one thing that can be clearly demonstrated by watching current events, it's that "experts" can be wrong, and frequently are.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying let's go have a rave (and blatantly disregarding social distancing recommendations shows a clear lack of wisdom). But the models have, understandably, overestimated the results. It's fair to begin discussing when and how our lives should get back to normal.
It’s better to over estimate than under estimate at this point. Actual vs estimated is way more relevant in my opinion. Estimated is more of a planning tool than anything.
 

Middle-aged_Ball_Coach

Scout Team
2 Year Member
As others have said, there needs to be a balancing agent that presents the perspective of tradeoffs because we want the CDC to err on the side of caution. Without that balance, life can't be lived. Just as an illustration, the most dangerous thing that most of us do every day is to get into a car and drive on public roads, yet we do so because we view it as worth the tradeoff. We punish those who don't drive well, and we restrict some who aren't capable of driving well, but we don't shut down the roads because of some new wave of accidents. If you don't like that analogy, how about the bathroom in your house? The most dangerous room in the house is the bathroom, and the most dangerous place in the bathroom is the area next to the tub or shower as that is where more people slip and fall than anywhere else in the house: we don't tear out bathrooms because they're dangerous.

The thing about this lockdown that is so maddening is that we have a central authority (CDC) who is trying to make it as centrally controlled as possible, so we're not supposed to make individual determinations of risk. To take the analogy of the dangerous bathroom and expand it: they've basically told us that bathrooms are too dangerous to use, and they're considering using coercive means to keep us from using them ... for the good of all.

There are going to be Corona virus-related deaths that never show up in any of the CDC statistics for this pandemic. As I type this there are businesses going bankrupt, and people straining through unemployment, and those are two of the most serious causes of stress. Stress manifests itself in many forms, but there will be a lot of folks who not only lose their economic health, but also their physical health, and many will also end up going through divorce. Substance abuse and substance addiction are also more likely in people experiencing high levels of stress. All of these are common factors in depression and suicide.

It is a fiction that shutting down society won't cause other health issues.
 

RedSaidTed

Recruit
So it's really a conversation between healthcare/epidemiology experts and economic experts, isn't it? At a certain point the stifling the economy to save lives stance we're talking now will do more harm than good. There may be a legitimate argument made to loosen restrictions prior to eradicating the virus. Let me correct that. There HAS to be a lessening of restrictions prior to eradicating the virus. Maybe that's 3 weeks maybe it's 3 months. I don't know. I don't feel comfortable listening to a epidemiologist as the sole basis for all of my decision making process if I'm the guy pulling the trigger on this. Does that make sense?
Economists and scientists aren’t in disagreement. Historically economist have indicated that you have to mitigate a pandemic or the economic cost will even be more severe.
 

NJHuskerFan

Recruit
5 Year Member
If my memory is correct, approximately 77% of the fatalities are from people 60 and over and approximately 60% are from people 80 and over. So the senior segment of the population is seemingly much more susceptible to severe complications if they get the virus. Also, no matter what the pre-existing conditions (diabetes, heart or other issues), no matter what the prior conditions, the death is attributed to the virus. While the virus certainly aggrevates existing conditions, the death rate, in my mind, is skewed toward showing the impact of the virus. For a 93 year-old person who dies with multiple pre-existing conditions to be categorized as simply succumbing from the virus doesn't seem in my mind to be accurate. Many of the early deaths were from nursing homes with a frail populace who were presumably in close contact with many others with presumably similar conditions. There seems to be a lack of differentiation as to the breakdown as to the living environment of those who come down with a full blown case of the virus. Also, there is seemingly a large segment of those who test positive that show no symptoms at all and some who show symptoms but have not been tested. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that we really don't have a clear picture of where we stand in terms of contagion rates and morbidity.

In terms of the regional number of cases, here in New Jersey, we're receiving many New Yorkers who come to New Jersey hospitals to get tested and/or treated because many of our hospitals are less crowded. So New Jersey and maybe Connecticut show higher than expected numbers and New York has a correspondingly lower number of cases and deaths. This shows an artificially higher regional aspect to the spread of the disease than if the New Yorkers stayed in New York to be treated. (This situation also apparently exists in New Jersey towns across the river from Philadelphia.) This information comes from several New Jersey doctor friends who are now treating out-of-state patients. I guess what I'm getting to is that we have to take many of the numbers with something of a grain of salt.

What seems to be working is sheltering in place. In areas where the populace is ignoring this practice, the number of cases is much higher than in areas where the practice is being followed.

As to playing football, we'd be bringing in players who have been outside the physical area of the football team and we'd have no really accurate information as to the safety precautions the players or their close friends and relatives have been following. Getting the team together seems to be a risky proposition in my mind. I'd love to see the Huskers play in the Fall, but we don't really know the health risk at this time. And then you consider the fans in the stadium. Lots of unknowns.
 

RedSaidTed

Recruit
If my memory is correct, approximately 77% of the fatalities are from people 60 and over and approximately 60% are from people 80 and over. So the senior segment of the population is seemingly much more susceptible to severe complications if they get the virus. Also, no matter what the pre-existing conditions (diabetes, heart or other issues), no matter what the prior conditions, the death is attributed to the virus. While the virus certainly aggrevates existing conditions, the death rate, in my mind, is skewed toward showing the impact of the virus. For a 93 year-old person who dies with multiple pre-existing conditions to be categorized as simply succumbing from the virus doesn't seem in my mind to be accurate. Many of the early deaths were from nursing homes with a frail populace who were presumably in close contact with many others with presumably similar conditions. There seems to be a lack of differentiation as to the breakdown as to the living environment of those who come down with a full blown case of the virus. Also, there is seemingly a large segment of those who test positive that show no symptoms at all and some who show symptoms but have not been tested. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that we really don't have a clear picture of where we stand in terms of contagion rates and morbidity.

In terms of the regional number of cases, here in New Jersey, we're receiving many New Yorkers who come to New Jersey hospitals to get tested and/or treated because many of our hospitals are less crowded. So New Jersey and maybe Connecticut show higher than expected numbers and New York has a correspondingly lower number of cases and deaths. This shows an artificially higher regional aspect to the spread of the disease than if the New Yorkers stayed in New York to be treated. (This situation also apparently exists in New Jersey towns across the river from Philadelphia.) This information comes from several New Jersey doctor friends who are now treating out-of-state patients. I guess what I'm getting to is that we have to take many of the numbers with something of a grain of salt.

What seems to be working is sheltering in place. In areas where the populace is ignoring this practice, the number of cases is much higher than in areas where the practice is being followed.

As to playing football, we'd be bringing in players who have been outside the physical area of the football team and we'd have no really accurate information as to the safety precautions the players or their close friends and relatives have been following. Getting the team together seems to be a risky proposition in my mind. I'd love to see the Huskers play in the Fall, but we don't really know the health risk at this time. And then you consider the fans in the stadium. Lots of unknowns.
As the military moves members around the members have to quarantine for 2 weeks prior to any interaction. You would have to follow a similar practice with players returning to Lincoln, and all associated personnel. I’m not necessarily suggesting it. Just saying it can be done.
 

Red October

Junior Varsity
5 Year Member
As others have said, there needs to be a balancing agent that presents the perspective of tradeoffs because we want the CDC to err on the side of caution. Without that balance, life can't be lived. Just as an illustration, the most dangerous thing that most of us do every day is to get into a car and drive on public roads, yet we do so because we view it as worth the tradeoff. We punish those who don't drive well, and we restrict some who aren't capable of driving well, but we don't shut down the roads because of some new wave of accidents. If you don't like that analogy, how about the bathroom in your house? The most dangerous room in the house is the bathroom, and the most dangerous place in the bathroom is the area next to the tub or shower as that is where more people slip and fall than anywhere else in the house: we don't tear out bathrooms because they're dangerous.

The thing about this lockdown that is so maddening is that we have a central authority (CDC) who is trying to make it as centrally controlled as possible, so we're not supposed to make individual determinations of risk. To take the analogy of the dangerous bathroom and expand it: they've basically told us that bathrooms are too dangerous to use, and they're considering using coercive means to keep us from using them ... for the good of all.

There are going to be Corona virus-related deaths that never show up in any of the CDC statistics for this pandemic. As I type this there are businesses going bankrupt, and people straining through unemployment, and those are two of the most serious causes of stress. Stress manifests itself in many forms, but there will be a lot of folks who not only lose their economic health, but also their physical health, and many will also end up going through divorce. Substance abuse and substance addiction are also more likely in people experiencing high levels of stress. All of these are common factors in depression and suicide.

It is a fiction that shutting down society won't cause other health issues.
According to some stuff I have been reading a doc in Minne said they are recording any death as Covid 19. If they diagnose Cov 19 they get 10 grand and if they intibate they get 39 K from the federal govmint. mmmmmm
 

Middle-aged_Ball_Coach

Scout Team
2 Year Member
In terms of the regional number of cases, here in New Jersey, we're receiving many New Yorkers who come to New Jersey hospitals to get tested and/or treated because many of our hospitals are less crowded. So New Jersey and maybe Connecticut show higher than expected numbers and New York has a correspondingly lower number of cases and deaths. This shows an artificially higher regional aspect to the spread of the disease than if the New Yorkers stayed in New York to be treated.
It's not just New Jersey and the East Coast where New Yorkers are migrating. I'm hearing too many reports up and down I-90 in South Dakota that there are lots of New Yorkers who are headed to the Black Hills to camp until the quarantine is over. Sounds like a great way to spread a pandemic across a continent.
 

CrabHusker

It rubs the lotion on its skin.
5 Year Member
Economists and scientists aren’t in disagreement. Historically economist have indicated that you have to mitigate a pandemic or the economic cost will even be more severe.
I think there was some disagreement early in this one and I suspect they'll be some again near term.
 

RedSaidTed

Recruit
Can you give me your sources or some links for that? I'll need to read that for context.
It’s a fairly commonly accepted concept in the field. You can search and find consensus among economists. Here’s one link to an article summarizing some research done at MIT.

MIT link

If we think about it logically it makes sense. Can you imagine what would happen if we didn’t take steps to mitigate the spread? Hospitals would be completely overwhelmed and not only unable to treat COVID patients but wouldn’t have the capacity to care for typical patients. And business environments would be overwhelmed with viral spread and sick and dying workers. I don’t want to sound hyperbolic but the scene would be horrific and the economic impact would be devastating.

The restrictions we’re under now are painful and it frankly it sucks. But it’s nothing compared to what it would look like if we didn’t mitigate. My hope is that we make the necessary sacrifices now, take our lumps now, and hopefully we’re in position to ease restrictions this summer and have some return to normal activity by August. My fear is that we won’t enter into our ‘new normal’ until an effective vaccine is on the market in 2021.
 

Hville

Junior Varsity
5 Year Member
As others have said, there needs to be a balancing agent that presents the perspective of tradeoffs because we want the CDC to err on the side of caution. Without that balance, life can't be lived. Just as an illustration, the most dangerous thing that most of us do every day is to get into a car and drive on public roads, yet we do so because we view it as worth the tradeoff. We punish those who don't drive well, and we restrict some who aren't capable of driving well, but we don't shut down the roads because of some new wave of accidents. If you don't like that analogy, how about the bathroom in your house? The most dangerous room in the house is the bathroom, and the most dangerous place in the bathroom is the area next to the tub or shower as that is where more people slip and fall than anywhere else in the house: we don't tear out bathrooms because they're dangerous.

The thing about this lockdown that is so maddening is that we have a central authority (CDC) who is trying to make it as centrally controlled as possible, so we're not supposed to make individual determinations of risk. To take the analogy of the dangerous bathroom and expand it: they've basically told us that bathrooms are too dangerous to use, and they're considering using coercive means to keep us from using them ... for the good of all.

There are going to be Corona virus-related deaths that never show up in any of the CDC statistics for this pandemic. As I type this there are businesses going bankrupt, and people straining through unemployment, and those are two of the most serious causes of stress. Stress manifests itself in many forms, but there will be a lot of folks who not only lose their economic health, but also their physical health, and many will also end up going through divorce. Substance abuse and substance addiction are also more likely in people experiencing high levels of stress. All of these are common factors in depression and suicide.

It is a fiction that shutting down society won't cause other health issues.
Nice post as I have used some of the same analogy to try and grasp some reality of the situation. Put it this way on the driving thing. Almost 300,000,000 people in the United States are exposed to a potential traffic accident or death daily. In a course of a year over 10,0000,000 of those are actually involved in them or should I say catch the disease. Out of that 10,000,0000 approximately 250,000 are seriously hurt enough to need medical treatment and 40,000 die. And yet we don't make people park their cars, close down roads, close Convenience stores and ban the sale of gas just to eleminate the risk.

Put this in perspective. Does 100,000 people dying from the Coronavirus seem steep? On average about .83333 % of Americans die each year. If those 100,000 additional die it would make it .86363 %. Here is another perspective. Out of the reported deaths, most have underlying problems that threatened whether they wouldn't have been part of the death statistics in the next year anyway.

Now am I trying to say this isn't bad? Of course not. Especially if you or your family are the ones that get it. But its bad if you or your family have to deal with any death including that of a vehicle accident. I'm just saying some perspective is needed.
 

Hville

Junior Varsity
5 Year Member
It’s a fairly commonly accepted concept in the field. You can search and find consensus among economists. Here’s one link to an article summarizing some research done at MIT.

MIT link

If we think about it logically it makes sense. Can you imagine what would happen if we didn’t take steps to mitigate the spread? Hospitals would be completely overwhelmed and not only unable to treat COVID patients but wouldn’t have the capacity to care for typical patients. And business environments would be overwhelmed with viral spread and sick and dying workers. I don’t want to sound hyperbolic but the scene would be horrific and the economic impact would be devastating.

The restrictions we’re under now are painful and it frankly it sucks. But it’s nothing compared to what it would look like if we didn’t mitigate. My hope is that we make the necessary sacrifices now, take our lumps now, and hopefully we’re in position to ease restrictions this summer and have some return to normal activity by August. My fear is that we won’t enter into our ‘new normal’ until an effective vaccine is on the market in 2021.
Not saying you are wrong but there is a lot of media driven speculation that we would have completely overwhelmed our hospitals without these drastic measures. There is no proof of that. We don't know closing down business's and the economy has drastically effected the economy and our lives. I believe it has probably slowed down the spread but to believe taking our lumps now with hopes of it being better quicker is contrary to everything that is being said by the experts. Social distancing and shelter in place are designed to drag it out longer. In the end...…...the same amount of people are going to be exposed. Do you want to do it in 2 months or 6 months. Well we are on the 6 month plan. That might be optimistic.
 

Bleed Red

Red Shirt
5 Year Member
According to some stuff I have been reading a doc in Minne said they are recording any death as Covid 19. If they diagnose Cov 19 they get 10 grand and if they intibate they get 39 K from the federal govmint. mmmmmm
Pretty discouraging when it is now being said by front line doctors that intubation and ventilators are being overused and causing more harm than the virus in many cases. Kind of like the small business payroll bail out.....easier to pay people to stay home than actually open and provide a service.

Not saying it isn't necessary or bad, but when money is available, people will find a way to claim it, even if it isn't necessarily going to lead to the best outcome.
 
Top