ADVERTISEMENT

Coaches and COVID-19 [UPDATE 9/19: FSU head coach diagnosed]

Mar 19, 2018
1,491
1,953
113
There has been much discussion about the differential impact COVID-19 has based on the age and health status of the infected. Some posts have emphasized that younger people, such as college football players, have much lower risk of severe complications and can resume most normal activities while older and less healthy people should use more precautions, including shelter-in-place.

Perhaps football can move forward with adequate safety measures for the players. To the best of my knowledge, though, there hasn't been any discussion of coaches. Kirk Ferentz will turn 65 in August and Ken O'Keefe will turn 67. As far as we know, they are relatively healthy, especially Kirk. Phil Parker is younger, but at 57 is approaching that "magic" age of 60. Jay Niemann may have reached it. Chris Doyle is probably the next oldest at 51. Football can't happen without the coaches; our head coach and a couple of others are in the vulnerable population. Short of coaching by Zoom, what would be reasonable safety measures for conducting practices, meetings, and games?
 
There has been much discussion about the differential impact COVID-19 has based on the age and health status of the infected. Some posts have emphasized that younger people, such as college football players, have much lower risk of severe complications and can resume most normal activities while older and less healthy people should use more precautions, including shelter-in-place.

Perhaps football can move forward with adequate safety measures for the players. To the best of my knowledge, though, there hasn't been any discussion of coaches. Kirk Ferentz will turn 65 in August and Ken O'Keefe will turn 67. As far as we know, they are relatively healthy, especially Kirk. Phil Parker is younger, but at 57 is approaching that "magic" age of 60. Jay Niemann may have reached it. Chris Doyle is probably the next oldest at 51. Football can't happen without the coaches; our head coach and a couple of others are in the vulnerable population. Short of coaching by Zoom, what would be reasonable safety measures for conducting practices, meetings, and games?
As a 66 year old coach who will be coaching HS baseball next week, thanks for bringing this up. The scary thing is, your working with players who think they are invincible and could be carrying the Virus yet completely a symptomatic.... I wii wear a mask and be very careful but it’s scary. At least at a D1 level they can get tested on a regular basis.Catching it early is critical
 
Good point OP.

I know that a primary reason K-12s have remained closed is because of the potential risk to staff/admin, not so much to the kids ...who we now know don't have the "high risk" that those over 55 have.

I suspect it's also what will probably keep them in eLearning mode as classes start this fall as well.
 
As a 66 year old coach who will be coaching HS baseball next week, thanks for bringing this up. The scary thing is, your working with players who think they are invincible and could be carrying the Virus yet completely a symptomatic.... I wii wear a mask and be very careful but it’s scary. At least at a D1 level they can get tested on a regular basis.Catching it early is critical

Think back to when you were 16 or 17. Immortal and bullet proof.
 
Yes, the real risk is the support staff around them. At least the coaches are getting paid a lot for this risk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GOHOX69
Do you think there will be a measurable risk of Covid by the time the camps open?

For example, old geezers like me look at the numbers-and Kirk is certainly a play the numbers guy-and see that the total number of Covid cases in the US represents only .00533 of the population. That means any one person has a 99.4666% of not contracting Covid.

While that number doesn't control for age it also doesn't control for the significant percentage of cases and deaths in nursing homes and among a population with significant respiratory complications, and even those cases arose primarily in about six metro areas.

Part of the catastrophic fall out from Covid was the hysterical overreaction to the early gross exaggeration of the risk of contracting and then dying from Covid. Gotta stop thinking and talking about this like the Great Plague of 1665 or even Spanish Flu a century ago.
 
Do you think there will be a measurable risk of Covid by the time the camps open?

For example, old geezers like me look at the numbers-and Kirk is certainly a play the numbers guy-and see that the total number of Covid cases in the US represents only .00533 of the population. That means any one person has a 99.4666% of not contracting Covid.

While that number doesn't control for age it also doesn't control for the significant percentage of cases and deaths in nursing homes and among a population with significant respiratory complications, and even those cases arose primarily in about six metro areas.

Part of the catastrophic fall out from Covid was the hysterical overreaction to the early gross exaggeration of the risk of contracting and then dying from Covid. Gotta stop thinking and talking about this like the Great Plague of 1665 or even Spanish Flu a century ago.
That's not a valid way to evaluate your risk of contracting COVID, and not representative of how a disease works at all. We know that when 70-80% of the population has the disease and is subsequently immune, your chances of contracting it are nearly 0 (the "herd" immunity). By your math I would have an 80% chance of catching it.

The reaction was not an overreaction. Many more would have died if life continued as normal even one more week in March. UIowa released a study today discussing that for the state of Iowa. Had we acted a few days earlier there would have been less death.
 
That's not a valid way to evaluate your risk of contracting COVID, and not representative of how a disease works at all. We know that when 70-80% of the population has the disease and is subsequently immune, your chances of contracting it are nearly 0 (the "herd" immunity). By your math I would have an 80% chance of catching it.

The reaction was not an overreaction. Many more would have died if life continued as normal even one more week in March. UIowa released a study today discussing that for the state of Iowa. Had we acted a few days earlier there would have been less death.

Disagree. You evaluate a disease by measuring the afflicted and mortality rates. That is real data, not modeled or hypothesized. At least if the purpose is to create public policy.

For example your herd immunity theory is correct but you failed to recognize the most critical element of herd immunity. The virons weaken as they mutate while the mammalian resistance strengthens as we become progressively more immune. The virus becomes progressively less dangerous as it spreads.

Indeed, the diminishing number of people that favor a prolonged shut down mainly argue that the universe of undiagnosed persons contains some exponential subgroup of a symptomatic Covid cases. If that is true, which seem rather unlikely given what we know about the virus, then herd immunity is already developing far faster than is recognized. Also, if true, it means that the actual risk of an adverse health impact from Covid is less likely and significant by whatever exponent or increment the total cases are understated in the "confirmed cases" data.

Give me a cite on the U of I study and I'll drill down in detail.

What actions taken when would have "saved lives"? Based on existing empirical data the economic damage will be followed by a hard spike in a variety of mortalities. These "actions" aren't without devastating effects on other people, including death and diminished life expectancies, far more people than have contracted and many exponents more than the unfortunate death count from Covid. The inability of "scientists" to look beyond their immediate field of inquiry allow them to excel at seeing every detail of every tree while leaving them utterly blind to the forest. The non scientific approach to Covid by scientists and the politicians they advise has been laughable.
 
I’m soon to be 65. Pretty healthy with very few issues. HS softball starts in Iowa June 1st. I’m a volunteer coach that helps at all the practices and I not sure if I should continue. Pretty hard to social distance for a coach!
 
Disagree. You evaluate a disease by measuring the afflicted and mortality rates. That is real data, not modeled or hypothesized. At least if the purpose is to create public policy.

For example your herd immunity theory is correct but you failed to recognize the most critical element of herd immunity. The virons weaken as they mutate while the mammalian resistance strengthens as we become progressively more immune. The virus becomes progressively less dangerous as it spreads.

Indeed, the diminishing number of people that favor a prolonged shut down mainly argue that the universe of undiagnosed persons contains some exponential subgroup of a symptomatic Covid cases. If that is true, which seem rather unlikely given what we know about the virus, then herd immunity is already developing far faster than is recognized. Also, if true, it means that the actual risk of an adverse health impact from Covid is less likely and significant by whatever exponent or increment the total cases are understated in the "confirmed cases" data.

Give me a cite on the U of I study and I'll drill down in detail.

What actions taken when would have "saved lives"? Based on existing empirical data the economic damage will be followed by a hard spike in a variety of mortalities. These "actions" aren't without devastating effects on other people, including death and diminished life expectancies, far more people than have contracted and many exponents more than the unfortunate death count from Covid. The inability of "scientists" to look beyond their immediate field of inquiry allow them to excel at seeing every detail of every tree while leaving them utterly blind to the forest. The non scientific approach to Covid by scientists and the politicians they advise has been laughable.
If you want to evaluate your personal risk of infection that way that's your choice. Here's the UIowa report.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dbrocket
If you want to evaluate your personal risk of infection that way that's your choice. Here's the UIowa report.

Seriously? First, its just a model based on 9 days of data. The model assumes infections would continue at the initial, 9 days, rate into infinity. Second, the initial data set, from which the infinite progression of the virus would continue to infinity, is tiny. Third, that data is inconsistent with larger surveys done in other states, large or small, that do not support the extensive shut downs, although it appears that U Iowa "study" controls for one factor, PPE masks.

Finally, and most importantly, that study addresses neither of my concerns. We're now roughly 80 days out of the first known case. Iowa, at least the Des Moines area has not seen universal or even a majority of the population wearing PPE masks, yet the infection rate is, as of today, 0060152 %, leaving 99.39847607108937 % of the population Covid free. That 99.399% of the population that is not infected cannot spread the virus because they aren't carrying the virus. So the public health risk appears minimal. Second, the cost of the "mitigation" efforts has been catastrophic to far more people than Covid-making the cure much worse than the disease for far more people that have Covid, or even the larger universe of people that have Covid in the family.

So I'm going to evaluate my risk as consistent with statistical reality and not some fear mongering "study" that begins with a disputable assumption and a microscopic test sample. I'm going to avoid nursing homes, hospitals, testing centers-which works out well for me 'cuz I hate those places anyway. Great reason to avoid shaking hands, already OK with me 'cuz I hate shaking hands. Then I'm going to bet I'm part of the 99.39847607108937 % of the population that don't have Covid.

I'll bet the U Iowa coaching staffs will be prudent but not paranoid and pretty much do what I'm doing.
 
I’m soon to be 65. Pretty healthy with very few issues. HS softball starts in Iowa June 1st. I’m a volunteer coach that helps at all the practices and I not sure if I should continue. Pretty hard to social distance for a coach!

Hit 'em hard. If you don't have Covid you can't spread Covid. There are virtually no Iowa cases among the high school and young adult population. Hell, there are almost no cases among the population that has HS aged children. Unless you're in the very small number of the very lucky and due for kick in the nuts or luck for shit and disaster is inevitable, your risk of getting Covid is in the hundred thousandths of one percent.

Now the heart attack caused by the heat and humidity at some Iowa softball tournaments.....
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Wadukester
Seriously? First, its just a model based on 9 days of data. The model assumes infections would continue at the initial, 9 days, rate into infinity. Second, the initial data set, from which the infinite progression of the virus would continue to infinity, is tiny. Third, that data is inconsistent with larger surveys done in other states, large or small, that do not support the extensive shut downs, although it appears that U Iowa "study" controls for one factor, PPE masks.

Finally, and most importantly, that study addresses neither of my concerns. We're now roughly 80 days out of the first known case. Iowa, at least the Des Moines area has not seen universal or even a majority of the population wearing PPE masks, yet the infection rate is, as of today, 0060152 %, leaving 99.39847607108937 % of the population Covid free. That 99.399% of the population that is not infected cannot spread the virus because they aren't carrying the virus. So the public health risk appears minimal. Second, the cost of the "mitigation" efforts has been catastrophic to far more people than Covid-making the cure much worse than the disease for far more people that have Covid, or even the larger universe of people that have Covid in the family.

So I'm going to evaluate my risk as consistent with statistical reality and not some fear mongering "study" that begins with a disputable assumption and a microscopic test sample. I'm going to avoid nursing homes, hospitals, testing centers-which works out well for me 'cuz I hate those places anyway. Great reason to avoid shaking hands, already OK with me 'cuz I hate shaking hands. Then I'm going to bet I'm part of the 99.39847607108937 % of the population that don't have Covid.

I'll bet the U Iowa coaching staffs will be prudent but not paranoid and pretty much do what I'm doing.
Ok. Do you work in insurance, or another actuarial field by chance?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dbrocket
Ok. Do you work in insurance, or another actuarial field by chance?

No. I did have four grad level stats classes getting my first MA (Econ). Does that count. Might have picked up researching, analyzing, critiquing, and defeating data based claims through other endeavors.
 
No. I did have four grad level stats classes getting my first MA (Econ). Does that count. Might have picked up researching, analyzing, critiquing, and defeating data based claims through other endeavors.
That's good, you probably would lose money if you sold insurance.

I can't really follow your math but on one hand discussing the invalidity of a small data set with the other hand giving definite figures to the 14th decimal place tells me you're not really working any data. While the Iowa sample size is small, there are many other areas of the world with more complete data that modelers can use. Italy and New York City have great case studies in how this disease can spread in a population if left unchecked.

So, certainly evaluate your personal risk however you want to, but it is not accurate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dbrocket and BBHawk
Hit 'em hard. If you don't have Covid you can't spread Covid. There are virtually no Iowa cases among the high school and young adult population. Hell, there are almost no cases among the population that has HS aged children. Unless you're in the very small number of the very lucky and due for kick in the nuts or luck for shit and disaster is inevitable, your risk of getting Covid is in the hundred thousandths of one percent.

Now the heart attack caused by the heat and humidity at some Iowa softball tournaments.....
I agree with most of what you say. Many young people who have it are not showing any symptoms. That’s the only part that bothers me. I don’t want to live in a bubble and I won’t, but there are risk I can avoid!
 
  • Like
Reactions: GOHOX69
People with a healthy immune system, covid is essentially the flu. Don’t live your life in fear. Get out and enjoy life to it’s fullest.
What counts as a healthy immune system varies with age.

COVID is NOT "essentially the flu" for any age group. It's a novel virus and we don't know its potential long-term impact, even for people who recover quickly. It attaches to T-cells and so could negatively effect the immune system. (That's certainly one reason why the body is slow to respond to it.) The chief medical officer at my local hospital is a pulmonologist (MD from Stanford), and he says this virus can inflict the worst lung damage he has ever seen.

Not living in fear should mean everyone taking reasonable precautions. Living life to its fullest right now would be crazy, not brave. I cancelled my trip to Italy this spring and I won't be going there soon. Doing so was smart, not cowardly.
 
That's good, you probably would lose money if you sold insurance.

I can't really follow your math but on one hand discussing the invalidity of a small data set with the other hand giving definite figures to the 14th decimal place tells me you're not really working any data. While the Iowa sample size is small, there are many other areas of the world with more complete data that modelers can use. Italy and New York City have great case studies in how this disease can spread in a population if left unchecked.

So, certainly evaluate your personal risk however you want to, but it is not accurate.

That "studies" data set has nothing to do with my math. Two different concepts.

The critique is of the tiny data set. It covers only the first 9 days following the first diagnosed case in Iowa. That's concept 1; a small and perhaps unique data set. Remember, infectious disease takes the most vulnerable first and dies out (rarely disappears completely for any disease) because the virons weaken through mutation and the mammals become less susceptible through our mutation. Hence, the tiny data set is but one of the flaws in the study you presented. Its not related to Concept 2.

Concept 2 is measuring the risk of Covid using the total cases and total deaths to date. My math uses very large, indeed complete data sets,(e.g. the entire population of the US, the total number of Covid cases and the total deaths to date), current to almost the minute of my post. I broke down the percentages of actual cases relative to the total population (e.g. infection rate) and then the total number of deaths relative to the total number diagnosed cases (e.g. mortality rate).

I used the tiny micro fractions for the purpose of demonstrating that the risks are in orders of magnitude measured in the thousandths of one percent. It exemplifies how tiny the actual Covid infections are relative to the entire national population and the very low death rate among the infected.

Neither Italy or NYC are representative of the larger United States, in general, and Iowa in particular. Almost 40% of all Covid cases/deaths are found in about a 20 mile radius of Manhattan. How many of those cases would have been prevented if nursing homes (most common Covid death) weren't forced to admit Covid patients. How much infection spread because NYC maintains a public hygiene much lower than most of the rest of the country. Are the homeless more likely to contract an infectious disease and then spread into the rest of the population?

Italy? Italy? To quote the brilliant rhetor Joe Biden "c'mon man." Italy doesn't have public hygiene like most of the United States. Have you ever been to Italy? Of course the Italian analog fails for another reason, Italy took the first germ bomb leaving China after the US travel ban. Due to Chinese duplicity the Italians had hundreds of people merging into the general population before anyone really knew anything about the virulence of the disease. Its a disease that predominantly attacks the elderly. Didn't look it up but I'd bet the median age in Italy is at least six years older than the US-hence larger percentage of vulnerable population.

By the way, you know I'm not saying nothing should have been done to flatten the infection curb, only that risk is slight and will probably remain so. I'm also saying the reaction has done more damage than the epidemic would have caused had nothing been done.

You are right about one thing though. I would not be good at selling insurance for many reasons, none of which would be an inability to accurately describe a prospect's risk of an insurable event. Selling ideas...well, that's an altogether different endeavor. Fortunately there's a place for everyone and everyone in their place.
 
That "studies" data set has nothing to do with my math. Two different concepts.

The critique is of the tiny data set. It covers only the first 9 days following the first diagnosed case in Iowa. That's concept 1; a small and perhaps unique data set. Remember, infectious disease takes the most vulnerable first and dies out (rarely disappears completely for any disease) because the virons weaken through mutation and the mammals become less susceptible through our mutation. Hence, the tiny data set is but one of the flaws in the study you presented. Its not related to Concept 2.

Concept 2 is measuring the risk of Covid using the total cases and total deaths to date. My math uses very large, indeed complete data sets,(e.g. the entire population of the US, the total number of Covid cases and the total deaths to date), current to almost the minute of my post. I broke down the percentages of actual cases relative to the total population (e.g. infection rate) and then the total number of deaths relative to the total number diagnosed cases (e.g. mortality rate).

I used the tiny micro fractions for the purpose of demonstrating that the risks are in orders of magnitude measured in the thousandths of one percent. It exemplifies how tiny the actual Covid infections are relative to the entire national population and the very low death rate among the infected.

Neither Italy or NYC are representative of the larger United States, in general, and Iowa in particular. Almost 40% of all Covid cases/deaths are found in about a 20 mile radius of Manhattan. How many of those cases would have been prevented if nursing homes (most common Covid death) weren't forced to admit Covid patients. How much infection spread because NYC maintains a public hygiene much lower than most of the rest of the country. Are the homeless more likely to contract an infectious disease and then spread into the rest of the population?

Italy? Italy? To quote the brilliant rhetor Joe Biden "c'mon man." Italy doesn't have public hygiene like most of the United States. Have you ever been to Italy? Of course the Italian analog fails for another reason, Italy took the first germ bomb leaving China after the US travel ban. Due to Chinese duplicity the Italians had hundreds of people merging into the general population before anyone really knew anything about the virulence of the disease. Its a disease that predominantly attacks the elderly. Didn't look it up but I'd bet the median age in Italy is at least six years older than the US-hence larger percentage of vulnerable population.

By the way, you know I'm not saying nothing should have been done to flatten the infection curb, only that risk is slight and will probably remain so. I'm also saying the reaction has done more damage than the epidemic would have caused had nothing been done.

You are right about one thing though. I would not be good at selling insurance for many reasons, none of which would be an inability to accurately describe a prospect's risk of an insurable event. Selling ideas...well, that's an altogether different endeavor. Fortunately there's a place for everyone and everyone in their place.
You should read about the 2003 SARS outbreak. That didn't die off on its own, it only went away after massive intervention.

Your math says my risk, working at home, is the same as a Tyson packing plant employee's risk, yet the incidence rate in the meat plant employees is much higher than the work from home folks. Why?
 
That "studies" data set has nothing to do with my math. Two different concepts.

The critique is of the tiny data set. It covers only the first 9 days following the first diagnosed case in Iowa. That's concept 1; a small and perhaps unique data set. Remember, infectious disease takes the most vulnerable first and dies out (rarely disappears completely for any disease) because the virons weaken through mutation and the mammals become less susceptible through our mutation. Hence, the tiny data set is but one of the flaws in the study you presented. Its not related to Concept 2.

Concept 2 is measuring the risk of Covid using the total cases and total deaths to date. My math uses very large, indeed complete data sets,(e.g. the entire population of the US, the total number of Covid cases and the total deaths to date), current to almost the minute of my post. I broke down the percentages of actual cases relative to the total population (e.g. infection rate) and then the total number of deaths relative to the total number diagnosed cases (e.g. mortality rate).

I used the tiny micro fractions for the purpose of demonstrating that the risks are in orders of magnitude measured in the thousandths of one percent. It exemplifies how tiny the actual Covid infections are relative to the entire national population and the very low death rate among the infected.

Neither Italy or NYC are representative of the larger United States, in general, and Iowa in particular. Almost 40% of all Covid cases/deaths are found in about a 20 mile radius of Manhattan. How many of those cases would have been prevented if nursing homes (most common Covid death) weren't forced to admit Covid patients. How much infection spread because NYC maintains a public hygiene much lower than most of the rest of the country. Are the homeless more likely to contract an infectious disease and then spread into the rest of the population?

Italy? Italy? To quote the brilliant rhetor Joe Biden "c'mon man." Italy doesn't have public hygiene like most of the United States. Have you ever been to Italy? Of course the Italian analog fails for another reason, Italy took the first germ bomb leaving China after the US travel ban. Due to Chinese duplicity the Italians had hundreds of people merging into the general population before anyone really knew anything about the virulence of the disease. Its a disease that predominantly attacks the elderly. Didn't look it up but I'd bet the median age in Italy is at least six years older than the US-hence larger percentage of vulnerable population.

By the way, you know I'm not saying nothing should have been done to flatten the infection curb, only that risk is slight and will probably remain so. I'm also saying the reaction has done more damage than the epidemic would have caused had nothing been done.

You are right about one thing though. I would not be good at selling insurance for many reasons, none of which would be an inability to accurately describe a prospect's risk of an insurable event. Selling ideas...well, that's an altogether different endeavor. Fortunately there's a place for everyone and everyone in their place.
So, there are around 6 million car crashes a year, or about 0.026 crashes per driver (227ish million drivers in US). Expanding your reasoning, everyone would be charged a premium reflecting 0.026 crashes per year. Someone commuting 50 miles a day for work would be charged the same insurance premium as someone who drives 10 miles a week. You're taking population wide incidence numbers by the total population for your Covid risk calculation, which is what I'm doing here. Explain the difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dbrocket
You can't argue with stupid. Covid-19 is like Darwin's theory in action - eventually it will wipe out the antivaxers and idiots arguing that it is just a flu. Just ignore them and let them have their parties now.

But be sure to avoid them and their ilk. They will be spewing virus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GOHOX69
You can't argue with stupid. Covid-19 is like Darwin's theory in action - eventually it will wipe out the antivaxers and idiots arguing that it is just a flu. Just ignore them and let them have their parties now.

But be sure to avoid them and their ilk. They will be spewing virus.
People who give up freedom for security deserve neither. Benjamin Franklin, go argue with him.
 
Those of you with the patience to argue with these a-holes are doing God's work. This virus is serious. It's not the apocalypse. It's not the Black Death. It might not even be the Spanish Flu. But it's killing a lot of people, will kill a lot more, and could have killed many more still if not for the actions of many millions of individuals who sacrificed their leisure and convenience to save others' lives.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SB_SB
Those of you with the patience to argue with these a-holes are doing God's work. This virus is serious. It's not the apocalypse. It's not the Black Death. It might not even be the Spanish Flu. But it's killing a lot of people, will kill a lot more, and could have killed many more still if not for the actions of many millions of individuals who sacrificed their leisure and convenience to save others' lives.
That’s what I think of tobacco and alcohol also. But we tax that so those deaths are accepted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CaboKP
You can't argue with stupid. Covid-19 is like Darwin's theory in action - eventually it will wipe out the antivaxers and idiots arguing that it is just a flu. Just ignore them and let them have their parties now.

But be sure to avoid them and their ilk. They will be spewing virus.
I don't think most "COVID is just the flu" people are stupid, but find it easier to listen to the very loud group in the media and politics that are underplaying its severity for their own selfish ($$$) reasons. Far less anxiety inducing to think this isn't serious, won't affect me, cure is worse than the disease, etc etc, than to admit they or their family might get seriously ill. The talking heads saying as much every night become a comforting presence; certainly that way for some people in my life. Feels better denying the problem than be concerned, I get that.

I have extended family that were TERRIFIED they would catch Ebola in 2014, enough so that one person bought masks, gloves, goggles, etc (which has actually come in useful now). If you contract Ebola it's pretty serious, but the risk of getting it in Eastern Iowa was near zero then and now. However, even though your personal risk of dying from COVID is much lower than Ebola if you contract it, you are much more likely to contract COVID than Ebola, which means on the whole each of us has a far greater chance of dying from COVID than Ebola. These family members treat COVID as business as usual, eating out, etc. There's a weakness in our ability, as humans, to evaluate large scale personal and societal risk, which is showing during this pandemic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dbrocket
I just want to point out it’s been perfectly fine to protest in large groups without any distancing in cities and states where governors had strict policies against all such gatherings. No school, no sports, no walking on the beach, no swimming in water BUT mass protests are fine!

What does that say about the load of BS about the true impact of this virus now? And guess what... this is all happening in cities across this country without a vaccine! No mayor, governor or political attempts to prevent such activities in fact the same ones are now encouraging these gatherings!
 
I just want to point out it’s been perfectly fine to protest in large groups without any distancing in cities and states where governors had strict policies against all such gatherings. No school, no sports, no waking on the beach, no swimming in water BUT mass protests are fine!

What does that say about the load of BS about the true impact of this virus now? And guess what... this is all happening in cities across this country without a vaccine! No mayor, governor or political attempts to prevent such activities in fact the same ones are now encouraging these gatherings!
That's not what I read in my local paper this morning. It was an AP article, so maybe you don't get a newspaper or yours doesn't subscribe to AP. A Google search shows it appeared in multiple sources. Here is a link to one.
 
That's not what I read in my local paper this morning. It was an AP article, so maybe you don't get a newspaper or yours doesn't subscribe to AP. A Google search shows it appeared in multiple sources. Here is a link to one.

I do not see anything in this article that states that an elected official, even if concerned, was taking immediate action to shut down large protest gatherings yet the local tavern owner has to run at 50% or less capacity.

Have to love this logic for risk of virus vs risk of losing life by police....

Ingram, 25, who was wearing a mask, said she has asthma and was worried about contracting the coronavirus. But she said as a black woman, she always felt that her life was under threat from police and she needed to protest that.

So you have an underlying medical condition but you are so worried about your life being under threat from law officers that you are going to protest which could bring you into contact with law enforcement in a negative way should something go wrong?
 
I do not see anything in this article that states that an elected official, even if concerned, was taking immediate action to shut down large protest gatherings yet the local tavern owner has to run at 50% or less capacity.

Have to love this logic for risk of virus vs risk of losing life by police....

Ingram, 25, who was wearing a mask, said she has asthma and was worried about contracting the coronavirus. But she said as a black woman, she always felt that her life was under threat from police and she needed to protest that.

So you have an underlying medical condition but you are so worried about your life being under threat from law officers that you are going to protest which could bring you into contact with law enforcement in a negative way should something go wrong?
That's called courage to stand up for your beliefs.
 
That's called courage to stand up for your beliefs.

So your narrative that you posted earlier about so many ignoring social distancing that are putting your life in jeopardy because of pure ‘selfishness’ as you stated does not apply now? Got it - nice consistency.
 
So your narrative that you posted earlier about so many ignoring social distancing that are putting your life in jeopardy because of pure ‘selfishness’ as you stated does not apply now? Got it - nice consistency.
Nope. They are wearing face masks (protects others) and trying to have some distancing. At least they are trying.
 
ADVERTISEMENT