jdub27

The shutdown was the "Hammer" part of the theory and was to do exactly that. It was applied (to varying degrees) across the US when it appears it could have been looser in some places and probably done a bit sooner in others. But again, novel virus and all, experts were still trying to understand the virus (and still are). The "Dance" part allows exactly as you describe. Be able to get back to normal but do so in a way that flare-ups and hot spots can be immediately addressed, to help prevent a huge second wave, but that requires testing and/or vaccines, which required time to develop. As with everything, hindsight makes it easy to be criticial of decisions. It becomes even more magnified in situatoni this because we know what the results are but neither side can prove out what would have happened if a different course of action would have been taken. One side will say "we did too much" and the other "it worked, deaths were significantly less than they could have been". Both are probably right but will never agree.

It is almost like this whole thing was caused by a novel virus and experts were scrambling to figure out what they were dealing with while having limited information..... I don't think there was ever any doubt abotu testing/vaccine/second wave either. The "Hammer and Dance" theory has been pretty much what was originally touted with the severity of the Hammer portion being debated and implemented differently. The original steps of closing things down were the most direct mitgation steps available and were taken to allow time for the testing and vaccine to be developed along with slowing the spread, again done with the info experts had at the time but knowing they needed to buy time. The environment has been that way since before this started and that goes for both sides. Trump downplaying it and saying the end of February US cases of 15 would go down to zero shortly. D's criticizing travel restrictions. R's pretending those same travel restrictions actually had any teeth when put in place. Pelois withholding funds for small businesses. It is all politics.

They very well could. Burgum literally laid out guidelines and guidance for starting to reopen the state May 1. https://www.governor.nd.gov/news/burgum-extends-business-restrictions-10-days-outlines-path-forward-reopening

Georgia is going to be the first to test the waters in a limited fashion.

Your analogy attempt was more off the mark than Norwood's kick.

I have to assume you'd also state that flu deaths (along with many other causes) are very much overestimated then as the same methodology is used and there is often more than one cause of death listed?

I would assume that is accurate. Per the CDC guidelines (for at least the death causes portion), there does have to be a logical reason to link it along with showing symptoms. I would assume this would be the same. In regards to Oxbow's quote, I previously showed the actual form and the guidelines that lays out how the death forms are to be filled out. Strange that the CDC specifically addresses and is fine with what he calls "lazy and misleading". It is almost like they trust the medical professionals assessing the situation to use their professional judgement. Oh, and it is how they have filled out forms, well before COVID-19 was a thing because it gives them the ability to go back and study and understand the numbers, along as adjust up or down accordingly once they have a better understanding of the disease. But I'm sure they are all in it, so I guess it makes sense.

COVID-19 PATIENT CALCULUS: Health departments across Ohio now will include people who show symptoms of having contracting the coronavirus but who have not been tested, said Michael Dohn, medical director, Public Health - Dayton & Montgomery County. The change in how patients will be counted doesn’t mean things are worse, he said, but it means health care professionals will get a better count of who is sick and has COVID-19, whether confirmed by a test or not. Probably important to note why that is being done: While the state is tracking confirmed cases, it’s important to note that due to the limited amount of testing available the number of confirmed cases is not a true reflection of actual cases in the state. This is all normal and what is done for other illnesses/viruses as well. The WHO/CDC can't go back and examine the data if it isn't there. Numbers are adjusted up and down regularly after the fact when more information is known. It is medical experts making the determination, not some conspiracy theorist.

Never said either of those things. However I will say that there is plenty of "fake news" or at least plenty of very misleading news from Chris Berg/VNL/POV coming from both ends of the politcal spectrum. Again, feel free to read the actual source documents yourself and explain to me what they actually say and what has actually changed in how death's are reported compared to the past. You understand what a median is correct (i.e. the middle)? That is not the average and nor is it by definition the most likely. There was zero context that backs up the statement that 20k is the most likely scenario.

Feel free to read the actual CDC guidelines I posted. If it is considered a contributing factor to the death, it will be listed as such. Which is how it has always been done. Just because people didn't pay attention before doesn't mean it was different. Are we taking everything that everyone says in those press conferences as 100% accurate now?

It would be determined the same way it always has, whatever the medical professional, who's a trained expert, determines contributed to the death and to what degree. Nothing has changed when people fill out these forms.

It absolutely goes both ways. A lot of clueless people trying to rile people up and also misleading others on what is actually going on. Here's the document Jensen was citing in his commentary. Under the scenario laid out, it is pretty obvious that CoVID was a contributing factor and such is listed as "Probable" based on the information in the scenario. This is in line with how medical experts filling out these forms are directed to do it. On top of that, they regularly go back once information is more clear and more is known, and adjust death totals appropriately, which is why all relevant info is put in these forms. Same thing is done for flu and other viruses. Here's the guidance from the CDC on how to handle it. Again direct to medical professionals who are trained to use their judgement on what caused people to die.

Middle range, or median, does not necesarrily equal most likely. If it did, than they would have stated it that way. There can be up to 20 "causes of death" listed on a medical certificate. Those filling them out are using their best judgements as to what contributed to the death of someone. This is absoltely no different than it has been in the past. If someone has the flu and dies under you exact same scenario, they are counted in the flu death totals. Other than people spreading misinformation about this (looking at you Chris Berg), nothing has changed from how deaths are recorded. But as long as we're down that path, a Reuters article stated that NY is probably understating COVID-19 deaths because people who are dying at home aren't being tested for the virus and they have seen a significant uptick in the amount of people dying at home. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-fdny/at-home-covid-19-deaths-may-be-significantly-undercounted-in-new-york-city-idUSKBN21P3KF

Spring melt has gone almost as perfect as it could have. Sump pumps starting to open up in Grand Forks. Ground is still incredibly saturated so how much moisture in tomorrow's snow will be important. Had it been a rough end of winter/beginning of spring, it could have been ugly with everything else going on.

Wasn't a big surprise, finally official. Sounds like he didn't want to be at UND anymore and that was pretty clear to anyone who had been around certain family members. Not sure if he was concerned about not getting minutes going forward or he just didn't mesh with the type of game Sather wanted to play. Would have been fun to see what kind of threat he could have been in a shooters role in Sather's offense, but regardless, best of luck to him in the future, wasn't meant to be. Push to get Archambault on board and move forward. He appears to have the ability to fill the PG and deep threat roles that this team needs.

All of that coupled with some likely uncertainty in finances at play as well. NCAA announced that payments are going to be reduced and Champions Club renewals coming out in the next few weeks isn't exactly great timing. Can't get candidates on campus and how long do you go with uncertainty. Interesting it was for the whole season but I'm sure it wasn't done on a whim.

Yeah, he's totally on an island with how extreme he's been with the decisions he's made...

Likely going to need a new deep threat though.

Get him here and keep him on the court, he'll be the starting PG next year.

If they ever move them, it will be to the end. They won't take lower bowl seating away from the students unless they completely quit showing up. That isn't an issue for lower bowl seats right now.

The top of 2013, 215, 207, 203 along with all of 216-218, 201-202 and 208-209 do not require donations at this point in time. The subject of making sure UND fans (season ticket holders/Champions Club members) have access to extra tickets for specific games going forward has been brought to the attention fo the Athletic Department. They have done similar things for Gopher hockey, so it should be compatiable with existing systems they use.

I agree, you have the virus experts who want to shut everything down as the only solution. And you have others who just want to go on as is, whatever happens, happens. The answer is somewhere in the middle, which I'd argue right now we are closer to 70/30 as there are still plenty of places open that I wouldn't necessarily say are "essential". We're also pretty far from any sort of lockdown in the majority of the country. India is a lot closer to 100/0 right now compared to the US with 1.3 billion people ordered to stay home for 21 days oustide of health care, law enforcement, media, and other essential services.

That's fine and I don't disagree, but I'm genuinely curious on what alternative you would propose for the current issue? We can worry about enforcing nanny state laws after this is done with to address the other problems. There is apparently something different in how the experts (who see all the same statistics you keep pointing out) are viewing this vs. other things, so let's take worry about the one right in front of us right now.

You've obviously made sure it is very clear you don't agree with the steps/precautions being put in place. I'm honestly curious what your alternative plan of attack would have been and what you would have deemed acceptable as collateral damage? And understand that if you're wrong, the cat is out of the bag and there isn't a do-over on containing it. Or maybe you're just venting? It is an incredibly tough situation for everyone but continuing to criticize the experts who are leading this (or trying to) isn't going to magically make it better.