I donât know how this will all materialize, but from a travel perspective playing the Big 12 will not help us at all. However, playing against the Big 12 and exceeding expectations on the field would be huge. Interesting opportunity.
Definitely doesnât help us unless WVU schedules us along with Marshall and ODU for their OOC.
Anyway, when I read that, realized it applied more to âwesternâ C-USA schools than the conference as a whole.
All of our current non-conference games are bus trips. Playing any Big 12 school would require more travel.
I would think trading a trip to Denton for one to Morgantown could have its advantages. Of course, it would mean one less C-USA game.
clt says we should go ahead and start scheduling our future mates in the sec
So what I donât understand is why we are so afraid for our students. They are not in a demographic that is very susceptible to this virus. The level of outbreak for the 18-24 demographic is very small. According to the NCDHS the mortality rate is 0% for this age group with 7% the percentage of this age group in NC with the virus.
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/coronavirus/article241800456.html
One can be a carrier without being symptomatic.
The student population is still not in a lot of danger based on the numbers reported and students returning is what the post was referencing. We have to crawl out of the depths sometime and start living again. I just donât believe the campuses have to be closed. Reference the students in Florida who partied on the beaches during this time. How many have succumbed to the virus from this population? I donât know the answer, but I havenât heard anything that would lead me to believe that there has been a huge problem.
See Earlyninerâs reply above. What you are saying is that studentâs shouldnât worry for their own health. What heâs saying is that maybe they ought be concerned for other more vulnerable populations.
Everyone gets As if they kill off half of their professors.
But as a society this means we change and adapt. People who are at risk should wear face masks and stay at home versus the ones who are not. If the college student goes to see grandma, chat outside with a mask on. When the games start in the fall some people will probably not attend because of their risk to the disease. However, the games should still go on and those at risk can stay home and watch it on tv.
This. All this.
We have a fine line between society protecting everyone else in society and people protecting themselves. We have to find a balance here. We absolutely canât stay closed down to protect the vulnerable, but we canât just act as if there isnât a vulnerable section of society.
I agree, but what we have to remember is that we are more than capable of assessing our own risks. The government doesnât require everyone having sex to wear a condom, and they havenât shut down places where sex occurs like hotels, universities, etc⌠Married people or those not at risk donât need to wear one. If you think you are at risk you do. It is the same with anything. People need to take their own risk assessments and determine what is safe and not for themselves. If going to college or going to a football game puts you at risk donât do it. If interacting with other people puts you at risk, wear a mask, gloves, etc. to protect yourself. There are some pretty common sense solutions out there. The hypocritical piece is that we can choose to go to Loweâs and buy flowers or other things of choice, but I canât choose to go get a haircut or go workout. Once again, if you are at risk grow that mop out and get a Peloton.
I wonât get too in depth into this whole post, but thatâs an incorrect analogy for several reasons, including required consensual physical contact vs high infection rates for being near people, etc.
What I will say is that the government DOES require you to wear clothing for health and safety (no shirt, no shoes, no service and other sanitary issues)- this is no different except that itâs a TEMPORARY measure to help fight off a much more infectious and much more deadly concern (not to mention the numerous, lasting complications that occur from contracting the virus- permanent neurological deficits, cardiovascular complications, etc.).
Also, this situation has shown that people canât make informed decisions for the whole and are willing to put others at risk at high rates because they feel like it (even if theyâre sick and donât know it, become sick and spread before they realize it, or simply are overly confident that they can fight it off- no matter how it affects those they spread it to). People do have to go to the drugstore, grocery stores, etc., so they have to interact with people to some extent even in harder lockdowns.
Finally, this poses a major issue for people because, if your job technically reopens and you donât feel safe returning for a plethora of reasons, then you canât collect unemployment for choosing to not return to your job immediately. Premature reopening is disproportionately going to hit those hourly employees who actually donât have a real choice.
These regulations arenât unique among current laws, nor are they even recent in promulgation. Plenty of clothing regulations for health and sanitation in public.
None of your examples are comparable with an asymptomatic carrier or a delayed onset of symptoms that can be easily transferred through non intimate contact.
I realize there is a desperation to try to find some kind of comparable situation that buttresses the I wanna do what I wanna do argument, but there isnât one. Carriers are a risk to everyone and unless we can reduce that number we cannot protect or control the disease. There are ways to achieve it but we are months behind in preparation, so unless you want this thing to explode into a 2nd wave and drag on for far longer, we need to finish the prep work we should have done months ago, before we even think about reopening. As you pointed out, there are already too many non-essential businesses opened as essential, and too many people not exercising proper protection procedures.
Ab-so-Lute-ly!!!