Texsox

And if they renegotiated based on expecting one thing like playing all the games in one place and that isn't possible, don't renegotiate, just cancel the season.

I agree. It's a tough decision to make and I do not envy anyone who has to make it.

They run independent of each other, not as a ticket. It's possible to have a governor from one party and the lieutenant governor from another party. You could be quoting our Railroad Commissioner for all the impact it has on the governor and state policy.

So you are also listening to what elected officials have to say? BTW, I haven't seen that quote from our governor. This is more in line with what he has been doing

Agreed. Especially when we have an accurate test.

We have our elected leaders who have these experts at their disposal. If you can listen and have an opinion, I assume that others can as well. So I'm not going to dismiss immediately those plans to reopen some businesses. I do not believe we can keep businesses closed permanently and I doubt you do either. Therefor, eventually there will be a reopening. I'm not paying ettention to crazy lady hanging out a car window, but I will listen to people in positions of authority. BTW, I have cancer and hypertension so I am in a very high risk category so I don't take this position lightly.

I believe the owners have an obligation to their sport to safeguard the long term success of their league. Most owners are associated with the teams for a much longer time frame than players and their vision should match that tenure. In context the sacrifices that were made during the war years didn't destroy the sport and any sacrifices made during the Quarantimes won't either. I believe it could be argued that playing would provide a psychological boost to the nation. I believe it could also send a message that other restrictions are unnecessary and increase pressure to return to "normal".

I'm clicking pause at this point. We now have intelligent, educated, probably not blinded by partisanship people calling for easing back the restrictions. I'm at least going to listen.

I agree with that and I'm that way also. So it wouldn't matter to us if it was the players or the owners to blame.

For that it doesn't matter. But we all know that the same datum is used for a lot of different applications. Which is why the goal of "just give me one number" doesn't seem important to me.

I'm 98% with you. One potential counter is the argument that they get to shop without masks in that state, why not us? Lots of people have a notion that everyone needs to be treated the exact same. Which is different than everyone needs to be treated fairly. But yeah, killers gotta kill. I think that guy would have no matter what.

It will depend on how you are using the data. If you are studying the cancer rate you would want to know the person had cancer. If you are studying traffic fatalities, you would want to know about the accident. With technology today, it seems like we could have both. Why work a 2020 problem with 1960s methods and tools?

I'm more interested that each death is accounted for, even if that takes two columns instead of one. Reporting that 3,000 people are confirmed dead (via tests) and 1,500 are presumed dead is better than one state reporting a number one way and a different state making up their own rules. I think your concern is more how the data is being used than how it is calculated. Why the fuss over wanting one number when it is an estimate that will only be confirmed years down the road. The under-reporting is a bigger issue IMHO. Your assertion that the world is all doing it the same way isn't accurate. There still differences in how some states report the deaths compared to others. If each state is doing it differently here in the US is it really accurate to say that every country does it the same way? https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200417/how-accurate-are-coronavirus-death-counts It seems like having the same procedure for each state and even each country just makes sense. I'm not really hung up on which method they use. Use the one we've assumed everyone was using, use the one the WH recommends, I don't care. Just have every death noted and every state reporting using the same guidelines.

I disagree. People go to games to watch the players not the owners. Players are on the field and who the fans are watching. But here to you for going to games because you like the owners.

I just don't see how the owners win by smearing the players. What's the difference between I'm staying away because of the owner and I'm staying away because of the players?

But if the fans blame the players they will go to games? To cheer on the owners and boo the players?

I posted a link about three hours ago to just that. A desire to get ahead of the pending mental health crisis. Good morning there on the west coast.

I'm not convinced the media would do that. In fact I'm certain they would not. And as you point out we're already working with estimates right now, we won't know the actual total for years. So how official is the official count? I believe we can learn from past pandemics and improve our responses and reporting down the road. I believe a "that's the way we've always done it" attitude can be dangerous. Technology has gotten a bit better since the Spanish Flu and other pandemics. But I've never been accused of being a conservative and wanting to keep things like they have always been.

What would the difference be if there wasn't a season and the fans blamed the players versus the owners?

There are always unseen consequences. Not everything the White House desires works out like they want it to.

Fear, isolation, loneliness, depression, social distancing, stress all may contribute to deaths. You don't have to be infected to be affected.

This isn't a normal situation. I believe it requires a more detailed analysis. I've seen stats reported as "X related deaths" where X stands for the item being discussed (poverty, alcohol, flu, smoking, etc). It could also lead to more deaths being counted because it would allow doctors to place those deaths on the fence as "related" instead of presuming they should not count it as a Covid death.

They also had an agreement in January but were willing to renegotiate. As things change I can see further changes.

One aspect is currently they are "presuming". Immediately we have a chance of inaccurate data being used. Those should, at a minimum, be split off. If you have the virus, but would have survived, but died from an unrelated event, is that really a virus death? So now we have a possible third column, virus influenced death. That could be from the obviously not a factor like dying from car accident while infected or probably influenced like dying of pneumonia while infected. I think we can do better than having thousands of doctors all presuming.