Jump to content
NBC Sports Edge Forums

Backdoor Slider

Established Members
  • Content Count

    10,259
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    57

Posts posted by Backdoor Slider

  1. 4 minutes ago, meh2 said:

    If that’s the case then that’s a big part of what I don’t understand. I don’t care what political party you are, if you’re governor and your state has the highest deaths, isn’t that a reflection on your actions? I know this is probably a terrible analogy, but if I were a manager of a department that had poor performance measures, I wouldn’t be looking to make them look even worse to blame it on the CEO. It’s my department that I’m responsible for.

    You’d think. Not sure what state you’re from, but everything is political and you’re trying to influence the middle. Here in Michigan:

    We have idiots going to the capitol fully armed blaming Whitmer for everything. When in all actuality her decisions basically mirrored Ohio’s, who turned out ok. Likely it got her first and spread quicker. 🤷🏽‍♂️
     

    Despite that, she’s made some head-scratching decisions. And no matter what they are, some people will defend her to the death and “if you want to blame someone, blame the incompetent Cheeto!” You know the drill.

    So people still try to finesse each way in whatever way they believe, and there’s no changing their minds.

  2. 7 minutes ago, meh2 said:

    I’m going to show my political naïveté here, but why does the number of COVID deaths become a political debate? Someone enlighten me as to what pushing up or pushing down the number of actual deaths does for one political party.

    “Never waste a good crisis.”

    The standard thought is that Republican governors are downplaying number of deaths, in an attempt to make it seem as if Trump did ok. “Everything is fine.” All while Democrat governors would be pushing higher death numbers that they can use against Trump. “What a disaster his decisions were!”

    There’s many who apparently think just one of these things is happening, lol. Knowing politics and politicians, I think that it’s quite possible both of these things are taking place in an election year, unfortunately. 

  3. 1 hour ago, tonycpsu said:

    The seamless transition from "this is s overblown" to "okay, it's serious, but I still think the threat is exaggerated" to "both sides are juking the stats, who knows what to believe?" is something to behold.

    The projections that so many laughed for being doomsday scenarios were, if anything, on the conservative side, but a handful of anecdotes of possible misclassificaton is enough to outweigh volumes of evidence of confirmed cases and deaths. The scale of unexplained excess deaths dwarfs the evidence in the other direction, to the point that if some mystery cause were killing that many people, it'd be a bigger story than COVID itself.

    But one fishy story, and suddenly it's "both sides!@!" The divergence in standards of evidence shows a disregard for the truth that belies the guise of moderation and impartiality. 

    Or Tony, and hear me out here, different states are reporting differently, and many experts debate whether we are underreporting or overreporting. And often, there’s a political agenda behind it. That’s just the facts.

    Reporting deaths at home with no testing done as COVID deaths. Some say this is necessary to know the true impact. Others note that regular cardiac at-home deaths are down, so we shouldn’t count unknown as COVID deaths.

    I, personally, can see both sides of this argument. 

    https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/86127

    • Like 2
  4. 5 hours ago, Backdoor Slider said:

    The one reason to defend the billionaire (and there should be, we shouldn’t just blindly pick rooting against the person with more money, it should be about right and wrong) is that they bring in so much revenue because of the risk involved. Not everyone has billions and is willing to front load money into teams/players/stadiums what have you.

    Well now is that risk.

    I don’t want to see anyone losing money hand over fist. But if they lose a little money (relatively speaking) this season, they’ll make it back. That’s what they signed up for. That’s why they bring in hundreds of millions in other years.

    Snell, like many players, was completely tone deaf with HOW he said things, no doubt. But they shouldn’t take ANOTHER cut on top of what was agreed upon. Both sides are negotiating in the media right now. I think it gets done, because it would be absolutely disastrous PR for the entire league if they squabble over and end up not playing over money during this time.  

     

    8 minutes ago, shakestreet said:


    More like he wants the money that was agreed upon. That sounds reasonable in my eyes. 

    100%. And I said as much in another thread. But then say as much. That’s the issue. “I’m afraid for my life!” is completely disingenuous and hurts the players’ position in the eyes of the public more than it helps.

  5. 12 minutes ago, supac720 said:

    Tbh, I have no problem with Snell's comments. I think it is different for pitchers. There are only so many bullets in those arms. Guys who were straight beasts like Brandon Webb and Tim Lincecum can lose it very quickly due to injury. Injury can develop if players deviate from their established routines for any reason. It really sucks and sure most common fans are gonna roll their eyes hard when there are much bigger concerns going on in the world. 

    That’s all true. But Blake pulled the “we’re risking our lives!” If that’s the case, you don’t play, period. But he won’t risk his life for some money, but more money will make it ok? Come on. His motivation is super transparent.

    • Like 7
  6. 16 minutes ago, KCTD25 said:

    Everyone has an agenda. Unfortunately some people think just the “other side” does. It’s sad, but this link (or many other similar examples) won’t change anything.

    Imagine if you will that it leaks that Fauci presented the President with two options: Lock down or herd immunity. Both a lot of deaths, but lock down stretches them out. Trump says, “The numbers will look bad for me, I’d rather have some deaths come after the election!”

    Whst percentage of people in this thread and around the country would all of the sudden be saying he should’ve went that route? Lol

    • Like 1
  7. 8 hours ago, CooL said:

    I’m quite frankly shocked at how much these boards always side with entitled multimillionaires. Same point of view was discussed when Le’Veon Bell was holding out. Yes, I agree their battle is with the owners, and these billionaire owners should be responsible for making up the shortfall if there is any, not the players. 

    My point is: In times like these where people are losing their lives daily, families are going hungry because of lost jobs, and the world is more stressful than ever before, players should think before they speak. Not everyone is fortunate to play a kid’s game for $7M a year, let alone $3.5M, or gosh, maybe $2.5M. Don’t make it sound like walking out on the mound is a risky profession that is life and death. Being a baseball player is not anywhere close to being front line and a first responder. There’s lots of struggling people in this world right now- physically, emotionally, and financially. They don’t need to hear this entitled brat speak. 

    The one reason to defend the billionaire (and there should be, we shouldn’t just blindly pick rooting against the person with more money, it should be about right and wrong) is that they bring in so much revenue because of the risk involved. Not everyone has billions and is willing to front load money into teams/players/stadiums what have you.

    Well now is that risk.

    I don’t want to see anyone losing money hand over fist. But if they lose a little money (relatively speaking) this season, they’ll make it back. That’s what they signed up for. That’s why they bring in hundreds of millions in other years.

    Snell, like many players, was completely tone deaf with HOW he said things, no doubt. But they shouldn’t take ANOTHER cut on top of what was agreed upon. Both sides are negotiating in the media right now. I think it gets done, because it would be absolutely disastrous PR for the entire league if they squabble over and end up not playing over money during this time.  

  8. 1 hour ago, Ecofolux said:

    My league specifically keeps 6 players year to year, keep them as long as you want.

    If you had that great of a draft, don't you have an advantage going into '21 with better keeper options? If we have a 2020 "season" there is potential for someone I drafted to breakout and replace one of my 6 superstars. But if there isn't a 2020 season, I would keep the same 6 players but would lose the benefit of having the awesome draft, which is unfair.

    but wouldn't it be unfair to give you the advantage of being able to keep the players you drafted in '20 AND give you all those picks again in '21? If 2020 is not played, I never received an advantage. I deserve my advantage in 2021. If the 2020 "season" is played, I did receive an advantage and 2021 draft order will not be duplicated from 2020.

    Same thing happened to the Minnesota Twins. A real team who invests millions. Maybe they should follow your advice and tell everyone how it isn’t fair to them. 

     

    • Like 3
  9. 21 minutes ago, colepenhagen said:

    top tier/phenom prospects are crazy priced (acuna vlad franco)

    ill take the 2nd tier, reasonalble priced guys that can easily  double in price in a year or 2 (bregman, yelich for ex) hopefully my senzel investment hits this year.

     

    edit- didnt trust my gut last year ST on yordan alvarez. almost pulled the trigger on nice gem mint bc gold/50. so close

    For sure. And you can get some guys relatively inexpensive (Bryce, Arenado, Machado, Bryant, Votto) who could be HOFers. Now is the time. Play the slow game.

    I use a lot of the young phenom cards to flip. Don’t want to hold for too long. It’s allowed me to put together a nice collection just from the same funds.

    And if you’ve followed Topps Project 2020...it’s a whole nother animal. They’re on sale for two days, that’s it. Yet for some reason people decide they want them afterward. So the secondary market is crazy. 

  10. 13 minutes ago, colepenhagen said:

    still find it funny how the same wander franco rc auto card is going for more than the same arenado/lindor rc auto card.

    prospect collectors are crazy. i guess they are all swing for the fences trying to hit on the next trout.

    This is 100% true. Jasson Dominguez first card is already going for $120+ lol. And people are paying it. You gotta be patient. 

    • Like 1
  11. 8 minutes ago, tonycpsu said:

     

    No, he cited the very real concerns about mask wearing among those who don't do it regularly, like... the people in the country he was talking to, and the very real supply concerns.  He made both points in the exact interview you selectively quoted from.

    He said, “there is no reason...” None. Zero. That’s what that means. And yes, he also addressed the shortage concern. 

  12. 3 minutes ago, tonycpsu said:

    Oh, and re: the unsupported assertion that "Sweden is approaching herd immunization (sic)":

    1. The evidence that herd immunity can be reached anywhere near the infection rates being seen in Stockholm is scant.  Most epidemiologists still believe that herd immunity for COVID-19 will require well north of 50% infected before the R0 value goes below 1, and even that's not a sure thing, because we don't know how long an infection confers true immunity.

    2.  Here is a thread that makes a compelling case that the real infection rate in Stockholm is nowhere near the reported 25%, and much closer to 10% -- nowhere near even the lower threshold that a small number of epidemiologists speculate could possibly begin to drag numbers down.

    3. Sweden's one week average new cases number is actually on the way back up in the last week or so.

    “Sweden’s top epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell, says fighting Covid-19 is a long-term undertaking, meaning temporary lockdowns will ultimately backfire. He says once they’re lifted, infection rates will again rise.

    Instead, Tegnell says moderate restrictions that allow much of normal life to continue are more likely to help guide a society through a pandemic that has a protracted lifespan.”
     

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2020-05-12/covid-infection-rate-drops-in-denmark-after-lockdown-relaxed

    But there are apparent successes, too. In a Friday briefing with journalists, Anders Tegnell, Sweden’s state epidemiologist, said the country has been “very much alert and saw cases very early on,” enabling a degree of control over transmissions. Countries to Sweden’s south suffered, he said, “partly because they didn’t see the slow beginning of the epidemic” and started “testing too late.”

    Tegnell pointed to “the slow decline of cases in Stockholm,” the country’s capital, which he now attributes “to a level of immunity in the population.” Possibly a third of Stockholm’s residents may have already contracted the virus, according to Sweden’s public health agency — marking a process toward “herd immunity” that may make the country more resilient should a second wave strike.
     

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/05/12/swedens-coronavirus-strategy-is-not-what-it-seems/%3foutputType=amp
     

    I’m just listening to epidemiologists, Tony.

    • Like 1
  13. 3 minutes ago, tonycpsu said:

     

    They had a culture of wearing masks long before COVID-19 was a thing.  We didn't.  That means they had supply, and we didn't.

    Come on.

    But you just switched argument. We were talking about whether there was no need to wear them or not. Not about supply. Those are two separate arguments.

    He didn’t say, “they may help a little but we need to save them for those in need.” He said there’s “no reason.”

    Come on.

  14. 11 minutes ago, tonycpsu said:

     

    Who fibbed?  Nothing he said was wrong -- they don't offer the protection people think, and people who aren't used to using them can actually end up worse off by touching their face constantly.  In an environment where there's a constrained supply of masks, it's better for everyone if the people who need them get them, particularly healthcare workers.  Now that circumstances have changed, he's acknowledging that they do provide some protection, even if it's not as much as people might think.

    It went from “there’s no reason to be walking around with a mask” to mandatory in many places. So...there is a reason?

  15. 3 minutes ago, JE7HorseGod said:

    I'm certainly not regarding Dr. Fauci as infallible, perhaps others are, I can't speak to that.

    That said, although he may be wrong at times or had a motivation to protect resources for front line health workers when supplies were low or whatever the case may be, I'm still listening to him more closely on the matters of preventing the spread of infections disease moreso than people who don't have years of expertise studying infectious disease.

    Agree. My point is, some others are experts that pushed the Sweden plan. Again, they may AVOID a second wave (still in the air).

    I do not discount Fauci at all. I wear a mask any time I go in anywhere. And wear gloves. But there are many here that refuse to listen to anything else. I only am pointing out that he is not infallible. It’s so bizarre to me the way some here (I can quote them all if you’d like, it’s not you. I’m sure you can figure it out) refuse to listen to more than one avenue. Lots of experts with lots of different ways to attack a new virus. Then of course I somehow get lumped in as someone who listens to Trump because, you know, strawman and all. 

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  16. 3 minutes ago, osb_tensor said:

    this article/interview was over two months ago.

    what do you think should happen when additional information is learned through scientific studies? 

    are you suggesting that we shouldn't listen to doctors/scientists when they learn new information? or maybe you're suggesting they shouldn't put out updated recommendations?

    I’m suggesting:

    1) The people who DIDNT listen to the experts here were better off, clearly.

    2) They’ve been wearing masks in China for years when viruses are around, with much success. Our experts knew this.

    3) Most importantly, there are MANY experts, not just one. And some, not so surprisingly, have different opinions. 

    Sweden is approaching herd immunization. If because of this, they largely avoid a second wave and we don’t and get hit harder, there’s a very good chance our experts took the wrong path. And that’s an ok conversation to have, without “anyone who disagrees with Fauci is a mindless idiot who is an anti-vaxxer and thinks it’s a hoax MAGA2020!” 

    • Like 1
  17. 1 minute ago, AnonymousRob said:

    Did you listen to his entire quote, or are you simply running with this?

    Which part would you like to add that changes the meaning of this?

    But dude I’m with you! Anyone who was wearing a mask in March, I shook my head and laughed at the anti-intellectualism of the people who thought they knew more than the experts! 

  18. "There's no reason to be walking around with a mask," infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci told 60 Minutes.  While masks may block some droplets, Fauci said, they do not provide the level of protection people think they do. Wearing a mask may also have unintended consequences: People who wear masks tend to touch their face more often to adjust them, which can spread germs from their hands.


    Seriously guys, just listen to the experts.

×
×
  • Create New...