Alabama football: At least five players have reportedly tested positive for the coronavirus

Status
Not open for further replies.
#381
#381
200.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 615vols, RDU VOL#14, 0nelilreb and 2 others
#382
#382
Anybody see all the people in Philly?

Thousands and thousands bunched together.

CRICKETS

BIG FAT CRICKETS

Can't have a football game though. Nope.

Grocery stores? Massive protests with millions all over the country?

A Big YES!

#cancelcovid
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smellvin and TrumpedUpVol
#383
#383
PlanetVolunteer said:
Anybody see all the people in Philly?

Thousands and thousands bunched together.

CRICKETS

BIG FAT CRICKETS

Can't have a football game though. Nope.

Grocery stores? Massive protests with millions all over the country?

A Big YES!

#cancelcovid
Click to expand...

I keep seeing people saying this and it doesn’t make any sense to me. You can’t stop people from protesting. It’s a constitutional right. It may not be safe right now, but we will have to live with those consequences. I fully expect to see increased infection rates in a few weeks. Having football games just isn’t remotely the same thing apart from the numbers of people. What do these things have to do with each other?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ohhbother and Dumbledorange
#384
#384
Col_Cathcart said:
From what I can tell, the op is posting links. Very little commentary. One of the things I come here for is up to date information (although not usually on public health matters). I don’t know why you would construe posting information that’s potentially relevant to whether we get to have football or not this year to be “cheering on the virus”. What does that even mean??

Stop demonizing people just because you don’t like what they have to say. It’s toxic.
Click to expand...
I would encourage you to go back and look at some of his previous post, especially from early on in the virus
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smellvin and TrumpedUpVol
#385
#385
Col_Cathcart said:
I keep seeing people saying this and it doesn’t make any sense to me. You can’t stop people from protesting. It’s a constitutional right. It may not be safe right now, but we will have to live with those consequences. I fully expect to see increased infection rates in a few weeks. Having football games just isn’t remotely the same thing apart from the numbers of people. What do these things have to do with each other?
Click to expand...
Whether people are protesting, having a banquet, or a gathering of a lot of people your running a risk. The last time I checked you can protest without gathering together. Its called social media. But people protesting are doing what they want to do and living with the risk. Same as us wanting to go to a sporting event. We accept the risk to do what we want to do. The media says its too dangerous to go to a sporting event yet they support protests of 1000s of people gathering together. We are trying to figure out the double standard. If can't understand after that explanation my condolences because there is not a cure for what you have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RDU VOL#14, Smellvin, 84Volfan and 2 others
#386
#386
Volsfaninva917 said:
I would encourage you to go back and look at some of his previous post, especially from early on in the virus
Click to expand...
Dude posts way too much for me to try and find something from months ago and I’m not trying to defend everything he’s ever said. I don’t know him from Adam. But I do object to the way many posters paint with a broad brush.

Like I said, I’ve been accused of that same thing on here when it’s obviously quite the opposite. People are tending to be very harsh and not very aware of the fact that this entire situation is new to everyone. We can disagree about how best to handle things (that should be expected), but let’s refrain from demonizing each other. None of us wants anyone to die and none of us can wait to watch our vols again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ohhbother, njvols and Dumbledorange
#387
#387
chieftn15 said:
Whether people are protesting, having a banquet, or a gathering of a lot of people your running a risk. The last time I checked you can protest without gathering together. Its called social media. But people protesting are doing what they want to do and living with the risk. Same as us wanting to go to a sporting event. We accept the risk to do what we want to do. The media says its too dangerous to go to a sporting event yet they support protests of 1000s of people gathering together. We are trying to figure out the double standard. If can't understand after that explanation my condolences because there is not a cure for what you have.
Click to expand...

The difference is that the thing they want to do is constitutionally protected. That makes them different activities so treating them differently isn’t really a double standard. I’ve seen some handwringing about post-protest spikes, but there’s nothing to be done about it. What’s the point? Plus there’s way “sexier” stories to report on, so you just see less of it making the front page. What drives more clicks? Is a pretty good indicator of what will get covered heavily and another “tut tut social distance” article isn’t going to get nearly as many clicks as “protesters clash with police”. Capitalism drives these decisions, not some media cabal.

Edit: just read a story In the Washington Post about a protester in Kansas who tested positive after not wearing a mask. They’re being written, they’re just not the top story of the day because it’s not a slow news day.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ohhbother
#388
#388
Col_Cathcart said:
I keep seeing people saying this and it doesn’t make any sense to me. You can’t stop people from protesting. It’s a constitutional right. It may not be safe right now, but we will have to live with those consequences. I fully expect to see increased infection rates in a few weeks. Having football games just isn’t remotely the same thing apart from the numbers of people. What do these things have to do with each other?
Click to expand...

A few thousand people respectfully protesting was viewed by many as blasphemous due to its "callous disregard" for "medical science," but now you want to just "live with those consequences" because a significantly greater number of people are participating in protests that descend into riotous violence?

Make no mistake, COVID-19 is an overblown issue and the "increase" due to what we've seen in the streets over the past two weeks will be meaningless. And, since concern over COVID-19 has conveniently subsided throughout these uprisings, I fully expect to see no pushback over the next few months when Americans refuse to comply with a re-institution of heavy-handed restrictions on our way of life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 615vols, Smellvin and 84Volfan
#389
#389
Col_Cathcart said:
The difference is that the thing they want to do is constitutionally protected. That makes them different activities so treating them differently isn’t really a double standard. I’ve seen some handwringing about post-protest spikes, but there’s nothing to be done about it. What’s the point? Plus there’s way “sexier” stories to report on, so you just see less of it making the front page. What drives more clicks? Is a pretty good indicator of what will get covered heavily and another “tut tut social distance” article isn’t going to get nearly as many clicks as “protesters clash with police”. Capitalism drives these decisions, not some media cabal.
Click to expand...
I thought going to Church was protected too but the SCOTUS said otherwise.... said it’s the same as going to a movie, why is in person protesting not considered the same? Since you can protest on line too?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smellvin, 0nelilreb, 84Volfan and 1 other person
#390
#390
Wireless1 said:
I thought going to Church was protected too but the SCOTUS said otherwise.... said it’s the same as going to a movie, why is in person protesting not considered the same? Since you can protest on line too?
Click to expand...

The freedom of religion clause doesn’t allow anything someone wants to do for religion. The government restricts religious practices all the time. We don’t allow polygamy or ritual abuse or a whole host of other things. Besides that, and probably more relevant though, the government isn’t allowed to treat different religions differently which they didn’t do in that case. The logic is also undercut by the many many churches that have moved online without complaint. The plaintiffs in that case tried to say that church was like going to the grocery store when it’s a lot more like going to the theater (which have tighter restrictions than churches) so their argument was very weak. For the protests, on the other hand, they can say that they’ve been protesting online for years and that it doesn’t work which is hard to argue with. They would have a much stronger case if it went to court. But even then, the government is able to make rules. They’ve imposed curfews and arrested lots of people.
 
#391
#391
TrumpedUpVol said:
A few thousand people respectfully protesting was viewed by many as blasphemous due to its "callous disregard" for "medical science," but now you want to just "live with those consequences" because a significantly greater number of people are participating in protests that descend into riotous violence?

Make no mistake, COVID-19 is an overblown issue and the "increase" due to what we've seen in the streets over the past two weeks will be meaningless. And, since concern over COVID-19 has conveniently subsided throughout these uprisings, I fully expect to see no pushback over the next few months when Americans refuse to comply with a re-institution of heavy-handed restrictions on our way of life.
Click to expand...

You’re perfectly free to disagree with these protests just like other people disagreed with those protests. Personally, I was frustrated by the “open up” protests because in my mind the only thing they had a chance of accomplishing was to slow down reopening which seemed both risky and counter productive. I feel the same way about people refusing to wear masks. If we all did it, things could get back to normal faster but people refuse to do the easy things and so it all takes longer.
 
#392
#392
Huge corona virus questions, huge possible ramifications and no one has answers yet

"What happens?

Do the schools leave the sick players behind in quarantine and play the game with the “Next man up” mentality?

Because these players have all been practicing together all week and the chance for cross contamination be so high, do these schools fearing that there could be more positive cases that simply haven’t shown symptoms yet and pull all the players from the contest and forfeit? Would the school make that decision? Would the conference? Would the NCAA?

Would the game be rescheduled? Would it count as a forfeit. Would they then perhaps have to cancel the next game as well to institute a 14 day lock down period?

And what would happen if say LSU decided not to report their players as positive since they were asymptomatic and not showing any signs of it outward? Could they be penalized? Would they have to forfeit a win if they played?

Or lets say a team has five wins and had to cancel two games with the virus, are they going to be left out of a bowl game?"
 
#393
#393
#394
#394
Col_Cathcart said:
I keep seeing people saying this and it doesn’t make any sense to me. You can’t stop people from protesting. It’s a constitutional right. It may not be safe right now, but we will have to live with those consequences. I fully expect to see increased infection rates in a few weeks. Having football games just isn’t remotely the same thing apart from the numbers of people. What do these things have to do with each other?
Click to expand...
Apparently it's not a constitutional right. Last month multiple arrests for violation of social distancing order were made in Raleigh NC at the state capital during a protest.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Smellvin and PlanetVolunteer
#395
#395
Col_Cathcart said:
You’re perfectly free to disagree with these protests just like other people disagreed with those protests. Personally, I was frustrated by the “open up” protests because in my mind the only thing they had a chance of accomplishing was to slow down reopening which seemed both risky and counter productive. I feel the same way about people refusing to wear masks. If we all did it, things could get back to normal faster but people refuse to do the easy things and so it all takes longer.
Click to expand...
Read the CDC and WHO recommendations on masks. Both only recommend for when it's not possible to keep 6' away from others or if you're infected.
 
#396
#396
Col_Cathcart said:
The freedom of religion clause doesn’t allow anything someone wants to do for religion. The government restricts religious practices all the time. We don’t allow polygamy or ritual abuse or a whole host of other things. Besides that, and probably more relevant though, the government isn’t allowed to treat different religions differently which they didn’t do in that case. The logic is also undercut by the many many churches that have moved online without complaint. The plaintiffs in that case tried to say that church was like going to the grocery store when it’s a lot more like going to the theater (which have tighter restrictions than churches) so their argument was very weak. For the protests, on the other hand, they can say that they’ve been protesting online for years and that it doesn’t work which is hard to argue with. They would have a much stronger case if it went to court. But even then, the government is able to make rules. They’ve imposed curfews and arrested lots of people.
Click to expand...
Ask the NC governor Cooper about his ban on church services and how it fared in a federal lawsuit. He lost and churches were finally allowed to reopen.
 
#397
#397
Col_Cathcart said:
The difference is that the thing they want to do is constitutionally protected. That makes them different activities so treating them differently isn’t really a double standard. I’ve seen some handwringing about post-protest spikes, but there’s nothing to be done about it. What’s the point? Plus there’s way “sexier” stories to report on, so you just see less of it making the front page. What drives more clicks? Is a pretty good indicator of what will get covered heavily and another “tut tut social distance” article isn’t going to get nearly as many clicks as “protesters clash with police”. Capitalism drives these decisions, not some media cabal.

Edit: just read a story In the Washington Post about a protester in Kansas who tested positive after not wearing a mask. They’re being written, they’re just not the top story of the day because it’s not a slow news day.
Click to expand...
Has it been confirmed the infected protester contracted the virus at the protest? Or that he infected anyone else at the protests?
 
#398
#398
About these bama guys. They will feel bad for a few days, and by the time practice starts, be 100% plus have the antibodies. It may end up being fortunate for them they caught it at this time, well before the season starts.
 
Last edited:
#399
#399
chieftn15 said:
Are they testing people at the protests? If more than 5 tests positive do they end the protest? Just trying to compare to a sporting event
Click to expand...
They've already stated that the protest doesn't go against the normal social distancing guidelines. Totally acceptable. Its basically.....well, all other gatherings that are prohibited.
 
#400
#400
If its okay for thousands of people to gather together and protest (and I am totally fine with peaceful protesting) its also fine for people to make up their own mind about whether they feel comfortable attending a football game in the fall and being allowed to attend. Those that aren't comfortable can stay home. Those that want to attend, can show up and show out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wireless1, PlanetVolunteer, VolDave53 and 1 other person
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.

VN Store



Back
Top