Will the 2020 season be canceled? (2 Viewers)

Will the 2020 season be cancelled?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Delayed


Results are only viewable after voting.
Try not to be hard on yourself about it. Sometimes when we are younger and our priorities are very different, we let sporting events get the best of our emotions.

When I was in my 20s , I would break things in fits of anger and just be miserable if the Saints lost (and from 1996-2006 they lost a lot of games).

It took a while for me to realize how crappy I was to myself and those around me - but once you have that revelation, it changes everything about how you consume sports involving the teams you love and how you treat those whom you love.

I can still be miserable (inside) when the Saints lose (or get hosed) but it’s remarkable how quickly it all passes now.

Here’s to good times ahead when all this other drama is behind us.

Wonderful post.
I was young indeed but I’m still ashamed of that. I was absolutely miserable to be around if the Saints lost. My time for being a moron (lol) 92-09. The Super Bowl changed me. Sad that it took that.

It’s funny, I’ve created 3 lifelong die hard Saints fans, an Ex fiancé an ex wife and a daughter. My relationship with 2 of those three has been nil for a long time, but their love of the Saints endures. ?

Losses only sting for a moment now, and they do not impact how I feel or interact with those I love, at all. Only wish I could go back and change how I acted back then.

Thanks for the well wishes, same to you my friend.
Who Dat.
 
Enjoyed much of your post, however ‘reality denialism’ is very subjective. And that’s not even debatable.
Reality is not subjective, our perceptions, however, are.

That’s why adhering to the sources, expertise, and information vectors that best demonstrate repeatability, competency and capacity to understand actual reality is important.

It’s why you go to a renowned epidemiologist and not a televangelist to understand Coronavirus, why you should avoid demonstratively poor news sources even though it flows with your perceptions.

Why the idea that if you just take two random opinions and fail to vet them properly, just assume you should meet in the middle, you are almost always going to be wrong.
 
Unfortunately this season is over before it started. We haven't even hit the peak of this virus yet. It will be many months before we start to flatten the curve and any sense of normalcy is far off. Many teams and players don't want to continue with the draft and are concerned about training camp and games starting as scheduled.
But ultimately this decision will be made by the government and not Roger Goodell. Saving millions of lives is more important than losing millions of dollars.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately this season is over before it started. We haven't even hit the peak of this virus yet. It will be many months before we start to flatten the curve and any sense of normalcy is far off. Many teams and players don't want to continue with the draft and are concerned about training camp and games starting as scheduled.
But ultimately this decision will be made by the government and not Roger Goodell. Saving millions of lives is more important than losing millions of dollars.
idk Redjem. If you look at the way its run its course in China and Italy, there's a point of max saturation before the number of active confirmed cases stars going down drastically. We are about 7 days away from maximum saturation here in the US, and I could see this run its course in 2-3 months.
 
idk Redjem. If you look at the way its run its course in China and Italy, there's a point of max saturation before the number of active confirmed cases stars going down drastically. We are about 7 days away from maximum saturation here in the US, and I could see this run its course in 2-3 months.
That's a valid point but the country is experiencing it unevenly. The east coast may be the hot spot now but other parts of the country like the mid-west may not peak for another month or so. Plus, with without a vaccine or, natural immunity due to exposure, will not be available for the bulk of the population for months ,making the probability of thousands of people being able to safely gather in a large shared space unlikely.
 


As our resident doom-shoveler, I expected nothing less. Using a Politico article to "back up" what you say? Did you even read that article? A $10M VSL, are you kidding me? Are we just flat-out ignoring the actual danger of this virus and the demographics that it truly impacts?

It's kind of touching that you think that this is really about saving human lives, but you're giving our society as a whole wayyy too much credit. The sequence of events and the manner and order in which they took place that led to this shutdown clearly and obviously illuminate that liability was the driving factor. If you can't see that, you don't want to see it. And that's ok - it's a cold world we live in and a part of me really admires the tint on your spectacles.

Look, I am not even trying to take position on what is right or wrong, I am just being honest with myself about what is most important to our population, the lack of resolve we have, and our collective threshold for tolerance of crap we don't like. I interact with around 40-50 people every day of all ages, from all walks of life. It's the nature of my day-to-day while operating an "essential" business in the most liberal state in the US. For one thing, the number of people I see every day should tell you something: people aren't staying home, and further, they're really not all that scared of anything except how much money they're losing from the situation. Every other day or so I see someone with gloves and/or a mask on, and 95% of them or more are over the age of 60. Further, they're overwhelmingly flat-out tired of being home - already - and feel that those who believe they are at risk should stay home while everyone else makes choices that are best for them. I can't even imagine what I'll be hearing 3-4 weeks from now.

The people of this country call the shots, and as time goes along and money starts running out and more and more videos of empty hospitals keep making the rounds on social media, people will start doing the math and realize that 240,000 really isn't that big of a number in a nation of 329 million. Especially when more than 9 million per year die of cancer, 1.6 million per year die of diabetes, 630,000 die of heart disease, and 50,000-60,000 will likely die from influenza. We're not banning pesticides on food, the injection of everything we eat and drink with ten spoonfuls of sugar, or fast-food restaurants - what makes you think that the government is going to be able to electively force half the country into poverty over coronavirus?

Just watch and see what happens.


Hey brother, I have come around to understanding your way of thinking on this topic, from the standpoint of knowing that this way of life is not sustainable long term. At some point here in the not too distant future, we will have to make a very tough decision as a nation on if this is something we will have to just live with in order to preserve most people's way of life. Though I am not completely for or against either direction, I have come to appreciate the pros and cons of both options. I don't agree with most of what the person that uttered these words says, however I do agree with him that the solution cannot be worse than the problem as it relates to this pandemic.

For us to accomplish what these quarantining measures are looking to accomplish, we'd literally have to stay in this mode for another year-plus until a vaccine comes out. I mean, think about it - what's going to magically happen in four weeks when the current advisory order expires on 04/30? Even if the curve has flattened or turned southward, we still can't just re-open things up, because the cycle will just re-start. So, as I indicated, we are just spinning our wheels here to an inevitable situation where we are going to have to just live with this thing for some time unless we want to go into a 1930's level depression. Essentially, what we are doing right now will be rendered moot unless we decide to go all-in and commit to this way of life until the vaccine comes out, and there is no way I can see that happening. It is just not realistic.

Though I see it as an inevitability, I am a bit on the fence on if it is right or wrong, and I am certainly glad that it isn't a call I have to make.

Now, with all that said, one thing that stands out from your point here is the math, and I think that's what is skewing your judgment a bit, or at a minimal, making you a bit more dug-in on the subject than perhaps you would be otherwise.

In this scenario that I believe you want, where we re-open everyday, normal life and more or less just sacrifice a portion of our population, the death toll figure would be significantly worse than the 240,000 number you're citing. The 240,000 number here, according to the model used by the White House to derive at this figure you're using, is a worst case scenario number WITH the present social distancing measures in place. In the event we did not do any social distancing, that figure would explode to a number that I can't even imagine, but I will give it a shot just based on some current figures:

Right now, the global death rate is at about 5.4%. Because our nation's resources are relatively plentiful, our death rate has stayed well under that number, and is currently at 2.8%, though rising, even with social distancing measures in place.

Let's say we remove all restrictions today and open things back up and let most of the nation get the virus. Though it is probably too low of a figure, lets say only 100 million out of the 329 million citizens get the virus here over the next few months in this scenario where everything is open and back to normal. If those 100 million people got the virus and our death rate of 2.8% held firm, that would be 2.8 million deaths. The problem is, that current death rate would most certainly not hold firm, because hospital load would become pretty much unmanageable, so let's go higher.

Let's say we opened things back up, and the death rate rises to the level of a 5.4% death rate, which is the current global death rate and is a nice base cumulative average mix of countries currently struggling with hospital capacity versus countries not struggling. That would be 5.4 million deaths out of the 100 million citizens.

More realistically, lets say we open things back up, "only" 100 million people get it, all within a short time span, overwhelming our nation's hospitals to the point where they have to pick and choose who lives on a daily basis. In this scenario, we should probably use Italy as a good indicator of what that would look like - Italy currently is overwhelmed and has a 12.3% death rate, but lets round it down to 10% just for argument's sake, even though we should probably go much higher since our population is higher. That would be 10 million people dead.

Clearly, there is a big difference between 2.8 million, 5.4 million, or 10 million people dying versus "only" 240,000, and those are all low estimates IMO.

Lastly, I'll leave you with this to consider. Even with our current social distancing measures in place, COVID-19 has become the third leading cause of daily death in the nation, and the number is steadily rising and will be significantly worse this week, according to the White House briefing this week. This video really illustrates well how the numbers have evolved over the past 3 to 4 weeks, and it won't be before long that COVID-19 is the single highest leading cause of daily death in our nation, even with our social distancing measures in place: https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/1712761/

In the end, I do get where you're coming from and totally feel the same as you do as far as the lack of sustainability with these quarantining measures, but I think you're weighing the pros and cons against a severely understated death impact number, a number that if viewed accurately, could give you a bit of pause and potentially put you a little more on the fence about things than you currently are.
 
Hey brother, I have come around to understanding your way of thinking on this topic, from the standpoint of knowing that this way of life is not sustainable long term. At some point here in the not too distant future, we will have to make a very tough decision as a nation on if this is something we will have to just live with in order to preserve most people's way of life. Though I am not completely for or against either direction, I have come to appreciate the pros and cons of both options. I don't agree with most of what the person that uttered these words says, however I do agree with him that the solution cannot be worse than the problem as it relates to this pandemic.

For us to accomplish what these quarantining measures are looking to accomplish, we'd literally have to stay in this mode for another year-plus until a vaccine comes out. I mean, think about it - what's going to magically happen in four weeks when the current advisory order expires on 04/30? Even if the curve has flattened or turned southward, we still can't just re-open things up, because the cycle will just re-start. So, as I indicated, we are just spinning our wheels here to an inevitable situation where we are going to have to just live with this thing for some time unless we want to go into a 1930's level depression. Essentially, what we are doing right now will be rendered moot unless we decide to go all-in and commit to this way of life until the vaccine comes out, and there is no way I can see that happening. It is just not realistic.

Though I see it as an inevitability, I am a bit on the fence on if it is right or wrong, and I am certainly glad that it isn't a call I have to make.

Now, with all that said, one thing that stands out from your point here is the math, and I think that's what is skewing your judgment a bit, or at a minimal, making you a bit more dug-in on the subject than perhaps you would be otherwise.

In this scenario that I believe you want, where we re-open everyday, normal life and more or less just sacrifice a portion of our population, the death toll figure would be significantly worse than the 240,000 number you're citing. The 240,000 number here, according to the model used by the White House to derive at this figure you're using, is a worst case scenario number WITH the present social distancing measures in place. In the event we did not do any social distancing, that figure would explode to a number that I can't even imagine, but I will give it a shot just based on some current figures:

Right now, the global death rate is at about 5.4%. Because our nation's resources are relatively plentiful, our death rate has stayed well under that number, and is currently at 2.8%, though rising, even with social distancing measures in place.

Let's say we remove all restrictions today and open things back up and let most of the nation get the virus. Though it is probably too low of a figure, lets say only 100 million out of the 329 million citizens get the virus here over the next few months in this scenario where everything is open and back to normal. If those 100 million people got the virus and our death rate of 2.8% held firm, that would be 2.8 million deaths. The problem is, that current death rate would most certainly not hold firm, because hospital load would become pretty much unmanageable, so let's go higher.

Let's say we opened things back up, and the death rate rises to the level of a 5.4% death rate, which is the current global death rate and is a nice base cumulative average mix of countries currently struggling with hospital capacity versus countries not struggling. That would be 5.4 million deaths out of the 100 million citizens.

More realistically, lets say we open things back up, "only" 100 million people get it, all within a short time span, overwhelming our nation's hospitals to the point where they have to pick and choose who lives on a daily basis. In this scenario, we should probably use Italy as a good indicator of what that would look like - Italy currently is overwhelmed and has a 12.3% death rate, but lets round it down to 10% just for argument's sake, even though we should probably go much higher since our population is higher. That would be 10 million people dead.

Clearly, there is a big difference between 2.8 million, 5.4 million, or 10 million people dying versus "only" 240,000, and those are all low estimates IMO.

Lastly, I'll leave you with this to consider. Even with our current social distancing measures in place, COVID-19 has become the third leading cause of daily death in the nation, and the number is steadily rising and will be significantly worse this week, according to the White House briefing this week. This video really illustrates well how the numbers have evolved over the past 3 to 4 weeks, and it won't be before long that COVID-19 is the single highest leading cause of daily death in our nation, even with our social distancing measures in place: https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/1712761/

In the end, I do get where you're coming from and totally feel the same as you do as far as the lack of sustainability with these quarantining measures, but I think you're weighing the pros and cons against a severely understated death impact number, a number that if viewed accurately, could give you a bit of pause and potentially put you a little more on the fence about things than you currently are.
Excellent post. I really don't have much more to say about this except to emphasize that:

1) I do not personally know what the "right" or "best" thing to do is, and wholeheartedly agree that there is no good outcome.

2) I do not expect that social distancing and the closing of "non-essential" businesses will end immediately nor do I want it to; but I also don't believe for a moment that it will last through the summer nationally.

3) I ultimately expect that our path, which will be driven by what our collective society wants no matter what anyone says, will NOT go down the road of "whatever saves the most lives", especially because we'll never get everyone to agree on what that road actually is. It's relatively easy to say we'll do whatever it takes to save the most lives at this juncture, but it's going to be another thing entirely (even for the most ardent of virtue signalers amongst us) once the press gets bored with covering coronavirus deaths and shifts their focus to the financial, mental, and physical health outcomes of continuing to remain shut down. When it starts to cut to the bone amongst the mass of population not physically impacted by coronavirus, the country will start to open back up - controlled as it may be - no matter how many people die. We don't have the resolve to see this state of existence through for another year.

That's my opinion, and if I am wrong, I will own it.

In the meantime, I am finished commenting on this thread and will wait to see what happens like everyone else. I wish each and every person the best of luck and health. And of course, Go Saints!
 
Wonderful post.
I was young indeed but I’m still ashamed of that. I was absolutely miserable to be around if the Saints lost. My time for being a moron (lol) 92-09. The Super Bowl changed me. Sad that it took that.

It’s funny, I’ve created 3 lifelong die hard Saints fans, an Ex fiancé an ex wife and a daughter. My relationship with 2 of those three has been nil for a long time, but their love of the Saints endures. ?

Losses only sting for a moment now, and they do not impact how I feel or interact with those I love, at all. Only wish I could go back and change how I acted back then.

Thanks for the well wishes, same to you my friend.
Who Dat.
I hear you on that. I've created quite a few Saints fans too including an ex-wife, my daughter and my current wife of 23 years. Glad to say we all get along well and have all attended games together. It works. As for my actions, I wish my daughter would not have seen me getting so upset. She's now 27 and she takes it as rough as I do. My outburst have been greatly dialed back. I know get over most losses by Tuesday instead of lasting the entire week:) WhoDat! Be safe my friends.
 
Hey brother, I have come around to understanding your way of thinking on this topic, from the standpoint of knowing that this way of life is not sustainable long term. At some point here in the not too distant future, we will have to make a very tough decision as a nation on if this is something we will have to just live with in order to preserve most people's way of life. Though I am not completely for or against either direction, I have come to appreciate the pros and cons of both options. I don't agree with most of what the person that uttered these words says, however I do agree with him that the solution cannot be worse than the problem as it relates to this pandemic.

For us to accomplish what these quarantining measures are looking to accomplish, we'd literally have to stay in this mode for another year-plus until a vaccine comes out. I mean, think about it - what's going to magically happen in four weeks when the current advisory order expires on 04/30? Even if the curve has flattened or turned southward, we still can't just re-open things up, because the cycle will just re-start. So, as I indicated, we are just spinning our wheels here to an inevitable situation where we are going to have to just live with this thing for some time unless we want to go into a 1930's level depression. Essentially, what we are doing right now will be rendered moot unless we decide to go all-in and commit to this way of life until the vaccine comes out, and there is no way I can see that happening. It is just not realistic.

Though I see it as an inevitability, I am a bit on the fence on if it is right or wrong, and I am certainly glad that it isn't a call I have to make.

Now, with all that said, one thing that stands out from your point here is the math, and I think that's what is skewing your judgment a bit, or at a minimal, making you a bit more dug-in on the subject than perhaps you would be otherwise.

In this scenario that I believe you want, where we re-open everyday, normal life and more or less just sacrifice a portion of our population, the death toll figure would be significantly worse than the 240,000 number you're citing. The 240,000 number here, according to the model used by the White House to derive at this figure you're using, is a worst case scenario number WITH the present social distancing measures in place. In the event we did not do any social distancing, that figure would explode to a number that I can't even imagine, but I will give it a shot just based on some current figures:

Right now, the global death rate is at about 5.4%. Because our nation's resources are relatively plentiful, our death rate has stayed well under that number, and is currently at 2.8%, though rising, even with social distancing measures in place.

Let's say we remove all restrictions today and open things back up and let most of the nation get the virus. Though it is probably too low of a figure, lets say only 100 million out of the 329 million citizens get the virus here over the next few months in this scenario where everything is open and back to normal. If those 100 million people got the virus and our death rate of 2.8% held firm, that would be 2.8 million deaths. The problem is, that current death rate would most certainly not hold firm, because hospital load would become pretty much unmanageable, so let's go higher.

Let's say we opened things back up, and the death rate rises to the level of a 5.4% death rate, which is the current global death rate and is a nice base cumulative average mix of countries currently struggling with hospital capacity versus countries not struggling. That would be 5.4 million deaths out of the 100 million citizens.

More realistically, lets say we open things back up, "only" 100 million people get it, all within a short time span, overwhelming our nation's hospitals to the point where they have to pick and choose who lives on a daily basis. In this scenario, we should probably use Italy as a good indicator of what that would look like - Italy currently is overwhelmed and has a 12.3% death rate, but lets round it down to 10% just for argument's sake, even though we should probably go much higher since our population is higher. That would be 10 million people dead.

Clearly, there is a big difference between 2.8 million, 5.4 million, or 10 million people dying versus "only" 240,000, and those are all low estimates IMO.

Lastly, I'll leave you with this to consider. Even with our current social distancing measures in place, COVID-19 has become the third leading cause of daily death in the nation, and the number is steadily rising and will be significantly worse this week, according to the White House briefing this week. This video really illustrates well how the numbers have evolved over the past 3 to 4 weeks, and it won't be before long that COVID-19 is the single highest leading cause of daily death in our nation, even with our social distancing measures in place: https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/1712761/

In the end, I do get where you're coming from and totally feel the same as you do as far as the lack of sustainability with these quarantining measures, but I think you're weighing the pros and cons against a severely understated death impact number, a number that if viewed accurately, could give you a bit of pause and potentially put you a little more on the fence about things than you currently are.

You could have snuck a few expletives in there and gotten away with it.
 
I hear you on that. I've created quite a few Saints fans too including an ex-wife, my daughter and my current wife of 23 years. Glad to say we all get along well and have all attended games together. It works. As for my actions, I wish my daughter would not have seen me getting so upset. She's now 27 and she takes it as rough as I do. My outburst have been greatly dialed back. I know get over most losses by Tuesday instead of lasting the entire week:) WhoDat! Be safe my friends.

Glad you’re able to compartmentalize it now my friend. It takes me a night usually now. But I don’t get even close to the level of upset I used to.
Stay well, Who Dat.
 
Glad you’re able to compartmentalize it now my friend. It takes me a night usually now. But I don’t get even close to the level of upset I used to.
Stay well, Who Dat.
for me it was having kids whose nap times were usually during noon games
lots of yelling/screaming into pillows, but then the outbursts just kind of toned down
 
Reality is not subjective, our perceptions, however, are.

That’s why adhering to the sources, expertise, and information vectors that best demonstrate repeatability, competency and capacity to understand actual reality is important.

It’s why you go to a renowned epidemiologist and not a televangelist to understand Coronavirus, why you should avoid demonstratively poor news sources even though it flows with your perceptions.

Why the idea that if you just take two random opinions and fail to vet them properly, just assume you should meet in the middle, you are almost always going to be wrong.
Agree with you until your last.
As I fully respect your views even if I don’t agree with all of them that’s as far as I’ll go on this, as neither of us will change the way the other thinks.

Who Dat and stay well my friend.
 
Unfortunately this season is over before it started. We haven't even hit the peak of this virus yet. It will be many months before we start to flatten the curve and any sense of normalcy is far off. Many teams and players don't want to continue with the draft and are concerned about training camp and games starting as scheduled.
But ultimately this decision will be made by the government and not Roger Goodell. Saving millions of lives is more important than losing millions of dollars.

I'm also worried we'll relapse this fall/winter in flu season.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom