TrueBlue4ever

I can't imagine how this place would be right now had we not won the Cup again and had the delay to the start of the season right now. That win has washed away so many frustrations and kept a lid on the anxiety of the current state of things. I still remember this board at halftime of the Calgary game, when O'Shea was being fired and run out of town along with LaPo and Richie Hall.

I was in Regina for the West Final (which is now the best CFL game I have ever attended live, replacing the 1994 Division Final against Baltimore and the Matt Dunigan 713 game as my previous co-favorites), and driving home after I listened to the entire pre-game, game and post-game show on the CJOB audio vault just to hear how Bob Irving called the game I had just seen live. Most enjoyable 6 hour drive of my life.

I still have all 3 playoff games on my PVR. Will not be deleting those for a long time, especially while the current season is on hiatus.

So I am curious as to why you each see this as the outcome? What kind of hard numbers do you think would be needed? I saw one quote of over $100, if you are talking per game I'm not sure where that figure would come from. I don't think you can compare to a $65 cost for a UFC "event" evening and need to consider a package like NHL Network of NFL Sunday Ticket. I'm just throwing out numbers with no real heavy in-depth analysis, so please point out all the flaws in my accounting (I'm sure there are many). But the stats I found showed an average weekly 2019 TV audience of around 500,000 fans per CFL game on TV, with increased numbers for bigger games like Canada Day, Labour Day, Thanksgiving, and playoffs pushing 1,000,000 viewers, and Grey Cup 3-4 times that. If you charged $10 per game based on 500,000 average TV fans per game, over an 81 game season that's over $400 million. For me, who spends $1600 per year for 2 season ticket seats and parking (and I'm not considering buying drinks, food, or 50/50 tickets), the cost of $810 for an entire year of every CFL game doesn't seem that exorbitant to me given what I'm already paying for just 10 games. And the NFL Sunday ticket is something like $300-400 is it not, just to be able to watch an early and a late afternoon game of your choice, but you are paying for 2 full games of action. Now of course, ratings for free TV do not equate to the same ratings for pay-per-view, but the boost in CFL Draft ratings does show an appetite for the game, and with nothing else live or new on, one would think that this would create a boost in the numbers, especially to those won't have no other option to see a game with fans not allowed in the stands. Yes, one PPV subscription could cover 2-4 people vs. one person, one seat bought at a game, but even if you cut ratings in half and factored in that one PPV purchase covers 2 people, that's 125,000 subscribers per game and over $100,000,000 in the season. So I'm sure this is way too simplistic, and I'm not trying to be contrarian here. I want to explore what the numbers would be and how people get to the individual figures they think are realistic. How far off are my estimates and why are they off?

All I know is, without Ambrosie, this would never have happened.

Without citing any evidence of women’s intelligence, I can confidently say that, based on the actions of men throughout history alone as my basis, I have every reason to believe women certainly are inherently no dumber.

Criminals are accused of many things. Being smart is never at the top of the list of those accusations.

If the Rodney King video could result in acquittals, nothing would surprise me here.

Aw, and we were doing so well just ignoring Pigseye's posts for a while.

Since you bypassed the first half of the video, here is part of what she is referring to, based on the doctor she name dropped. https://time.com/5820556/ventilators-covid-19/

Nope. Well aware of the history, parties involved in this specific instance (not that it would be different for any other pairs of posters, not singling these guys out as the problem - we all have it in spades, present company included), and the nature of internet boards in general. Just thought I'd flag it early, hopefully nip it in the bud, and avoid the inevitable 3 pages of sniping and irrelevant tangents. But hey, I'm not the police (yet, I've declined the request to moderate), so have at it if you wish. Or is that an inaccurate assessment?

How to derail a thread 101.

Hey, hey, hey. Hands off my avatar!

More for the 98% to consider and the 2% to dismiss with whataboutisms. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/04/29/joe-biden-sexual-assault-allegation-tara-reade-column/3046962001/

Do you mean punching certain people in the face when all other reasonable options fail? Right there with you.

Well played, sir.

Except it's raccoon, with 2 "C's". But who needs accuracy when you have a clever meme, right. internet? Kind of like this fake that's making the rounds:

He already did the "100,000-200,000 will be a success, because it could have been millions" speech a month ago, so he already set his goalposts before. He also saved "billions and billions of lives because of the China travel ban" - very impressive for a country of 330 million.

I think the insinuation was that the science for this virus is not the same science that rules all other viruses in terms of infection rates or mortality rates, but fair point that they were not ignoring science. But it used to be “science” that the earth was flat or leeches were the best medical treatment, so old science may not be the best science as we evolve.

I pulled up some articles based on a search “Sweden COVID health care strain” to see if the health care system has not been overwhelmed as you say. Here are 4 that I pulled from that don’t necessarily take that point of view. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thelocal.se/20200406/heres-what-healthcare-workers-in-sweden-are-saying-about-the-coronavirus/amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/coronavirus-second-wave-sweden-lockdown-herd-immunity-covid-19-1500046%3famp=1 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.news-medical.net/amp/news/20200419/How-are-the-interventions-against-COVID-19-working-in-Sweden.aspx https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/swedish-coronavirus-no-lockdown-model-proves-lethal-by-hans-bergstrom-2020-04 Also, two of the more favourable articles in that regard also say that Sweden’s goal absolutely WAS herd immunity as quoted by their own health experts. Beyond that, there are 2 other things in your post that I’d take strong issue with: 1) Saying “they’ve seen these viruses come and go many times before and that this one will be no different” is the root of the problem according to the science we have. The numbers of cases, mortality rates, and exponential spread for a virus there is no vaccine for all make it completely different than what has been seen before, so the same old same old approach may well not work. Italy’s crisis seemed to back that up. THAT is why many see Sweden’s approach as misguided. And I cannot speak to your personal circumstance, but could you elaborate on how our economy has been “trashed” and “destroyed”? Those words to me speak of something that cannot be recovered from. Do I mis-interpret your words, or do you exaggerate the extent of the damage, or are we somewhere in the middle? 2) Using words like “instill fear”, “panic”, “over react”, “big brother” and “hype machine” is pretty hyperbolic without establishing a basis for it beyond your own personal feeling, but that aside, saying sarcastically how “refreshing” it is that people get to make their own choices with their lives is quite disingenuous. Every democratic government allows for reasonable infringements on individual rights to keep peace, order, and good government for the betterment of society as a whole. You may feel is it your “right” to drive as fast as you want, but posted speed limits are not just suggestions, and penal sanctions are put in place for those who violate them. Is this the oppressive government restricting your rights, or is it putting safeguards in place because everyone’s right to public safety outweighs one person’s right to do what they want, how they want, when they want, not caring that their personal choice puts many others at risk on the road, even those who abide by the rules of government by not speeding? The risk those beach goers on spring break at Daytona, or those pastors and churchgoers across the southern US, or those protesters blocking hospitals demanding to open up restrictions is not just a risk for them, they potentially endanger every person they encounter. If I need to go shopping and have obeyed all the rules and stayed home and wear a mask, I don’t find it refreshing that someone is putting me at greater risk because the rules didn’t apply to them and they got infected because they didn’t social distance and are now increasing my risk when they enter the supermarket. And those armed protesters in Michigan were hardly refreshing to the legislators who now have to strap on bullet proof vests in fear for their lives simply by showing up at work.

One issue I would take with this article is when it was written. It was March 30 and the number of cases then was comparable to other Nordic countries. So the driving data from health authorities may well be outdated and inaccurate now given what has happened in the last month in Sweden compared to other countries.

I know it’s easy to be dismissive of J5V if you don’t agree with his position, but we shouldn’t be dismissive of these reports without actually listening to them. At the same time, one shouldn’t just read the headline and cherry-pick a single response and pretend that the article is supportive of their alternate viewpoint without engaging in the same critical examination of the information provided. This won’t be a short post, so if a quick sound bite that reinforces your side’s position is what you want, just stop reading now and don’t bother sending me a “TLDR” post. But understand my from my viewpoint that this just highlights the problems we have right now in engaging in this discussion, that we don’t bother digging into our arguments and just spout one-off comments. From listening to the full recorded interview, in my opinion the radio host seems to have a veiled bias towards supporting the Swedish approach to non-lockdown, saying the Dr.’s comments point out Sweden’s “positive approach”. I don’t think the comments go that far. What I hear the doctor saying is that in the future, countries may have to decide that a lockdown is no longer feasible to combat the virus, and if they want to live in a world without lockdown they could look at the Swedish model as a way to coexist with the virus, allowing schools and businesses to be open but being extra mindful of social distancing precautions, which is what the Swedish government says it has been advocating. The Dr. doesn’t take a position one way or another on the Swedish approach as positive or negative, but says lessons can be learned from it by other countries going forward. He does not, to my mind, advocate that this was the right strategy from the outset, or the wrong one, for that matter. It is also important to note that the original question asked was whether the “herd immunity” concept Sweden was going for means that this was the better approach, and in answering he cautioned that very few who had contracted COVID 19 had developed the antibodies to combat the virus as a result of exposure, meaning they were still very susceptible to the virus in the future. Herd immunity may well not result from Sweden’s approach. Hindsight will be 20/20 as to which approach will be better in the long run. If Sweden does not have a second wave, survives this wave without overwhelming its healthcare system, develops herd immunity, and kept its economy humming the whole time, then we can say they chose wisely. That’s a lot of “if’s”, mind you. Those same “if’s” could apply to Canada if the lockdown doesn’t reduce the number of overall deaths or cases in the end, still overwhelms the health care system and resources, and drags down the economy irrevocably in the process with no real net benefit. But if Sweden’s approach means unnecessary deaths to save an economy that would have rebounded anyway, and Canada’s approach saves a health care system from collapse and its economy does rebound with no lingering effects long term, then you could say Sweden chose poorly. No one can say what the best approach long term will be because we are nowhere near long term yet. What I can say confidently is that short-term, New Zealand and South Korea both took strong measures to lock down their countries quickly and have virtually eliminated cases in their countries for the time being. Italy was late in responding with devastating results for their population. Canada has taken strict measures but the numbers of new cases and deaths does not seem to be waning just yet (although there are some stark regional differences at play). Sweden has put its trust in its citizens to govern themselves accordingly without over-regulation. Their numbers of cases are lower than Canada’s, and although their total deaths are close with one third of the population, their numbers in terms of new cases and daily deaths seem to be going down now, while Canada’s hold level. And I’m not sure all Canadians would show the same self-restraint if merely “encouraged” to stay at home and avoid public gatherings which put them at risk. We’ve seen plenty of examples of lack of self-restraint south of the border, which puts everyone at risk, the reckless and the careful alike. Finally, what I see as telling are the results of the closed cases in select countries. All numbers courtesy of worldometers.com. Worldwide there are 3.5 million cases, and one third of them are now closed (meaning ended in recovery or death). 18% of those closed cases worldwide resulted in death. In South Korea, 85% of their cases are closed, and only 2.7% of those closed cases were deaths. In New Zealand, likewise 85% of their cases are closed with a 1.5% death rate. In Canada, just under 50% of our cases are closed, and 13% of those closed cases resulted in death. In the US, only 20.7% of cases are closed, with a death result of 28%. And in Sweden, only 16.5% of their cases are closed, and of those closed cases a staggering 73% have resulted in death. Interpret those numbers as you wish, but for me it’s hard to argue that Sweden’s approach has not put many more lives in jeopardy unnecessarily in the short term given that very high fatality rate.

You don’t know what the legal definition of entrapment is, do you?