Bulls may play football even if there are no students on campus!!!

[Friscobull]

2 minutes ago, brybull1970 said:

Quarenteening healthy people has occured before in human history, most natably when viruses and desease could be spread easily, there was a high mortality rate and there was no medical mitigation plan for treating symptoms. The human race has also evolved over the centuries to value human life so we are more apt to take more dramatic steps to save and protect lives.

But let's say we just quarentine only the sick people, but how do you know who is sick when we are only testing 2%-3% of the population and some of those infected are asymptomatic? If you have an answer for that then I completely agree with yout plan of letting the healthy people back out without any restriction.

Lastly, for those complaining about being quarenteening you need to grow a pair. Only one state is completely locked down still, and you can still go out to do essential activities, walk, play golf. For those that think this is rough, think about the people in England who quarenteenined for over a year due to the Black Death, still had 75M+ people due and did it without electricity, Netflix, video games and the intenet. 

I am fine during this time , financially very secure like you but unlike you I give a **** about others and realize this type of reaction is not sustainable for many.  At times we must experience an acceptable loss for the benefit of the common good.  Don’t tell me to grow a pair you ******* *****,  you are the one cowering under your bed.  

[JTrue]

16 minutes ago, Friscobull said:

That is what I thought

You thought you wanted a legitimate example? I gave you one.

But if you're craving more. There are far more than 3 examples here of healthy people being quarantined. Complete with citations so that you can check the accuracy of the research in the event you don't trust a Harvard paper.

https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/8852098/vanderhook2.html?sequence=4

Edited May 20, 2020 by JTrue

[Friscobull]

3 minutes ago, brybull1970 said:

Nice. How many people are you cool with dying so you and others can get back whatever it is you can't live without? 100k, a million? Clearly you value a hightened quality of life over life itself. And I'm not cowering under my bed lol...I'm just not going to expose myself and take unneccesary risk - I've actually played more golf in the last 2 months than I have in the last 2 years. I'm just finding other stuff to do to help mitigate the risk.

You remind me of this guy - he's fine with people dying as long as its not anyone he knows. 

 

 

You are out golfing all the time collecting a fat check while 36 million are out of work, you clearly don’t give a crap about anyone but yourself and your lifestyle.  It is not about people wanting to go out to eat but actually being able to eat.  We will agree to disagree on this one Bry, you are probably late for your next Tee time, let’s do this again in the future.  

[puc86]

1 minute ago, brybull1970 said:

Nah, my next tee time isn't until Friday so I can keep doing this with you.

I do have two members in my household who are laid off so we aren't unimpacted. I would have been more inclined to understand your point if you would have led with "we need to find a way to get 36M people back to work", but instead you went with "You cannot keep locking down healthy people because we are concerned about virus with a death rate of less than 1 percent, it is truly illogical", which itself is a misleading statement.

I think you'll find most people will agree with you that getting people back to work neds to be a priority, but where you lose people - and you should have seen this by the responses you have gotten - that we can't say there is an acceptable loss of death in order for that to happen. While need to balance reopening the economy while still mitigating the risk of a future wave. 

So just ignore it so as to not accept people’s sensitivities? There is an acceptable amount of risk with every single activity in life, efforts are made to mitigate it and if the mitigation’s benefits aren’t seen as valuable enough to justify the loss they are ignored. Every single vehicle death is percent preventable by making vehicles illegal (something even a full lockdown cannot even boast) but getting places faster is determined to save enough time that we are just fine with 1.35 million people dying every year. Corona will be lucky to have that death count yet the solution of locking the world up for what could be eternity is more intrusive than even taking away their vehicles.

[Friscobull]

17 minutes ago, brybull1970 said:

Nah, my next tee time isn't until Friday so I can keep doing this with you.

I do have two members in my household who are laid off so we aren't unimpacted. I would have been more inclined to understand your point if you would have led with "we need to find a way to get 36M people back to work", but instead you went with "You cannot keep locking down healthy people because we are concerned about virus with a death rate of less than 1 percent, it is truly illogical", which itself is a misleading statement.

I think you'll find most people will agree with you that getting people back to work needs to be a priority, but where you lose people - and you should have seen this by the responses you have gotten - that we can't say there is an acceptable loss of death in order for that to happen. We need to balance reopening the economy while still mitigating the risk of a future wave, and I think you are seeing our governors attempting to strike that difficult balance.

I assumed a rationale person would have interpreted employment was my point and not because I missed going bowling?  We use acceptable loss all the time in the military and this is where a leader must make a difficult decision even in this circumstance.  I am glad you weren’t leading us back then or this thread would be in German.

[NewEnglandBull]

What y’all talking about? There is a virus thingy taking place?

[puc86]

1 minute ago, brybull1970 said:

I always love the "how people die every year" strawman argument lol...are you okay with every member of your household dying related to the virus if it means the vast majority of the country gets back to work and the economy reopens.

It is anything but a strawman argument for this specific argument. You specifically claim that it is 100 percent unacceptable to be comfortable with any form of collateral damage in bringing back 36 million people to work which is an absurd corner to paint yourself into. There is inherent risk in most every activity and we mitigate it based on the perceived value of the activity for us vs the perceived risk to ourselves, which means everyone is okay with a certain number of people dying from pretty close to every single thing that they do and that number inches higher depending on the perceived value of the activity. Generating ones livelihood is a pretty big one for most people so it probably has a higher number of deaths people would be comfortable with than they would be willing to freely admit. The odds of everyone in my household dying from Covid19 in even the worst of death rates is beyond a trillion to one so ya I think I am more than comfortable with those odds.    

[puc86]

4 minutes ago, brybull1970 said:

I never said that, but thanks for making up a quote to further your argument. Can we go back to talking about your equally ridiculous idea of USF going the independent route? 

I started thinking through what a schedule might look like and it actually wasn't half bad, but I struggled with the finance and other sports side of that. I'd imagine something a schedule something like this:

Home

• P5 school (ACC - since we have historically played them more than any other P5 conference) as part of a 2-for-1
• P5 school (Other) as part of a 2-for-1
• UCF (if they don't refuse to play us if we bolt the conference - I could see them trying stick it to us just to make life more challenging) as part of a home-and-away
• G5 in state school (Florida Atlantic or Florida International) as part of a home-and-away
• G5 school (MWC, MAC or Sun Belt) as part of a home-and-away
• FCS in state school (FAMU or BCC) as a payday game

Away

• P5 School (ACC) as part of a 2-for-1
• P5 school (ACC) as part of a 2-for-1
• P5 school (Other) as part of a 2-for-1
• P5 school (Other) as part of a 2-for-1
• G5 in state school (Florida Atlantic or Florida International) as part of a home-and-away
• G5 school (MWC, MAC or Sun Belt) as part of a home and away

In years where we play UCF on the road we would only play 5 home games, or we would have to try and work in a low level G5 payday with a Charlotte or Coastal Caroline type.

 

1 hour ago, brybull1970 said:

Nah, my next tee time isn't until Friday so I can keep doing this with you.

I do have two members in my household who are laid off so we aren't unimpacted. I would have been more inclined to understand your point if you would have led with "we need to find a way to get 36M people back to work", but instead you went with "You cannot keep locking down healthy people because we are concerned about virus with a death rate of less than 1 percent, it is truly illogical", which itself is a misleading statement.

I think you'll find most people will agree with you that getting people back to work needs to be a priority, but where you lose people - and you should have seen this by the responses you have gotten - that we can't say there is an acceptable loss of death in order for that to happen. We need to balance reopening the economy while still mitigating the risk of a future wave, and I think you are seeing our governors attempting to strike that difficult balance.

[Friscobull]

39 minutes ago, brybull1970 said:

And I was also waiting for the military strawman argument.

But if you fell like reopening the economy is worth more people dying then I assume you are comfortable with it being people you know, love and care about. Because those people you are willing to scarifice to reopen the country are people that are known, loved and cared about.

While we can't mitigate every death I don't think we should be cavalier about sarificing life in favor of a hightened lifestyle. 

The argument holds true in everyday life and not just the military, I am not cavalier but pragmatic about acceptable risk.  I have parents in their late 70’s in Fl and I could lose them to this illness or something else, but one day I will lose them,  we cancelled a family reunion in Florida this summer because they were not comfortable with family coming in from all over and I respect their decision.  You keep saying heightened lifestyle and I am not advocating for that, I simply want the majority of people to be able to make a living.  I would hate to lose someone I love from this virus but it could happen, I can die from it as well, if it happens then I can live with that unless it is me than of course I won’t be able to live with it.  This is my last post on the subject,  if you can’t understand my position (don’t have to agree) by now then you are a lost cause.