Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
JD Coffey III | 4* 2021 S | Kennedale, TX (HS) | (Offered)
Comments
-
Reading back through this you obviously missed the "This isn't being done to protect children" portion of my poast.1to392831weretaken said:
You list two bullet points that are absolutely supported by the science and then say that the school closures aren't supported by the science. Confused...dnc said:
The schools aren't closing to protect the kids. They're closing toEmoterman said:
If only these worldwide school closures were aware; likely victims of fake news.dnc said:
This sounds scary and obviously we don't want to spread the virus to more carriers when it can be avoided but kids are largely unaffected. The teachers would be the real concern here, as well as anyone with compromised immune systems.Emoterman said:
What is this based on? I don't think healthy young people are any less likely to contract the virus and become infectious than unhealthy old people. Probably the scariest vector was the kid in Everett who was tested and returned to school before his test came back positive.dnc said:
But it's not the same as anybody else's. As a healthy 17 year old he's not going to spend much time around unhealthy 70 year olds. By nature of the population he's a part of he's less likely to be exposed to someone who has the virus and if he is exposed that individual is less likely to do a lot of coughing and sneezing that make it more likely that they spread the virus.insinceredawg said:
The chances of a healthy 17 year old experiencing severe symptoms are low but I think the chances of him contracting the virus is the same as anybody's. My concern isn't necessarily about him getting seriously ill, it's more because the optics of the headline "UW recruit contracts coronavirus on campus visit" could seriously fuck us over.dnc said:
The chances of a healthy 17 year old getting coronavirus are pretty damn low.insinceredawg said:
Going to be special when the first recruit gets coronavirus and everyone negative recruits the hell out of usGrundleStiltzkin said:
Coming to UW on a recruiting trip is a lot different for your chances of infection than visiting grandma in Kirkland.
There's plenty to worry about with Coronavirus. Schools are not especially high on the list.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/10/coronavirus-is-mysteriously-sparing-kids-killing-elderly-understanding-why-may-help-defeat-virus/
1. Maintain optics for those who want them to #DoSomething. Reelections are a bitch.
2. Protect teachers, administrators and other staff.
3. Protect the families of those kids who could potentially get infected.
The kids are going to be fine. In fact closing the schools cuts off a lot of kids from lunches and other services. It's almost assuredly worse for the kids to not have school right now.
This isn't being done to protect children. Not by anyone who cares about the science anyway. -
The takeaway from that study is that closing schools isn't an effective strategy in a low-prevalence setting.dnc said:
This was probably a part of the reasoning early on but it seems to be that this isn't actually true. Kids don't spread the disease.theknowledge said:
I'm thinking the schools are closed due to the fact that kids are the cute and lovable Typhoid Maries of the virus. They are less sanitary than adults and the "at risk" grandparents of the little carriers just can't keep their hands off their infected progeny. If the kids aren't at school giving it to each other, then maybe the community can stem the tide of the young and strong infecting the old and sick.dnc said:
I hope you are correct.1to392831weretaken said:
That's pretty cynical, but maybe you're right. I like to think that--especially at the local level, where school superintendents are members of the community and actually care--those second reasons are major drivers.dnc said:
Fair enough, but the first bullet point is the primary reason they are closing. It's the primary reason everything is closing. Everyone is in CYA mode.1to392831weretaken said:
You list two bullet points that are absolutely supported by the science and then say that the school closures aren't supported by the science. Confused...dnc said:
The schools aren't closing to protect the kids. They're closing toEmoterman said:
If only these worldwide school closures were aware; likely victims of fake news.dnc said:
This sounds scary and obviously we don't want to spread the virus to more carriers when it can be avoided but kids are largely unaffected. The teachers would be the real concern here, as well as anyone with compromised immune systems.Emoterman said:
What is this based on? I don't think healthy young people are any less likely to contract the virus and become infectious than unhealthy old people. Probably the scariest vector was the kid in Everett who was tested and returned to school before his test came back positive.dnc said:
But it's not the same as anybody else's. As a healthy 17 year old he's not going to spend much time around unhealthy 70 year olds. By nature of the population he's a part of he's less likely to be exposed to someone who has the virus and if he is exposed that individual is less likely to do a lot of coughing and sneezing that make it more likely that they spread the virus.insinceredawg said:
The chances of a healthy 17 year old experiencing severe symptoms are low but I think the chances of him contracting the virus is the same as anybody's. My concern isn't necessarily about him getting seriously ill, it's more because the optics of the headline "UW recruit contracts coronavirus on campus visit" could seriously fuck us over.dnc said:
The chances of a healthy 17 year old getting coronavirus are pretty damn low.insinceredawg said:
Going to be special when the first recruit gets coronavirus and everyone negative recruits the hell out of usGrundleStiltzkin said:
Coming to UW on a recruiting trip is a lot different for your chances of infection than visiting grandma in Kirkland.
There's plenty to worry about with Coronavirus. Schools are not especially high on the list.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/10/coronavirus-is-mysteriously-sparing-kids-killing-elderly-understanding-why-may-help-defeat-virus/
1. Maintain optics for those who want them to #DoSomething. Reelections are a bitch.
2. Protect teachers, administrators and other staff.
3. Protect the families of those kids who could potentially get infected.
The kids are going to be fine. In fact closing the schools cuts off a lot of kids from lunches and other services. It's almost assuredly worse for the kids to not have school right now.
This isn't being done to protect children. Not by anyone who cares about the science anyway.
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2020-07-13/german-study-shows-low-coronavirus-infection-rate-in-schools
@LoneStarDawg's chinfo on T-Cells seems like a pretty good explanation for this phenomenon.
Seroprevalence amongst the students was .6% but another study in Saxony showed a seroprevalence of only 1% amongst blood donors. It was not a hard hit region. Also this was 14-18 year olds not young children. I am also not clear on whether these students were attending school during this period, and if so, what precautions were in place.
It is interesting that 23/24 students with household history of COVID-19 were negative considering the role that household transmission appears to play in the US. Makes me wonder about the cultural differences in Germany that may have led to them being relatively spared compared to other European countries.
However, considering how strong our priors are (99%?) that children (especially young children) are vectors for an unknown disease based on all other known diseases one study of adolescents in a different country doesn't lead me to conclude the opposite.
Then we have the new study of the Georgia camp showing a 44% attack rate (260/597) which is a likely underestimate since only 344 were tested (76% positive.) Campers were not wearing masks but staff did wear masks.
So now I am back to at least 99% that children are a vector for COVID-19 transmission.
Study: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6931e1.htm?s_cid=mm6931e1_x -
He's going to need to learn how to secure the football a bit better...
On reread (I can't believe I'm this big of a loser that I scanned through four pages to find it while drunk as fuck on my couch), I stand corrected. Your point was that it's not to protect the children, specifically, and I also believe this was also the case. I think it was always about protecting at-risk staff, rare at-risk students, at-risk parents, etc. I think I just detected a cynical vibe from your post, in the "it's all just CYA" sense, and extrapolated. My bad.dnc said:
Reading back through this you obviously missed the "This isn't being done to protect children" portion of my poast.1to392831weretaken said:
You list two bullet points that are absolutely supported by the science and then say that the school closures aren't supported by the science. Confused...dnc said:
The schools aren't closing to protect the kids. They're closing toEmoterman said:
If only these worldwide school closures were aware; likely victims of fake news.dnc said:
This sounds scary and obviously we don't want to spread the virus to more carriers when it can be avoided but kids are largely unaffected. The teachers would be the real concern here, as well as anyone with compromised immune systems.Emoterman said:
What is this based on? I don't think healthy young people are any less likely to contract the virus and become infectious than unhealthy old people. Probably the scariest vector was the kid in Everett who was tested and returned to school before his test came back positive.dnc said:
But it's not the same as anybody else's. As a healthy 17 year old he's not going to spend much time around unhealthy 70 year olds. By nature of the population he's a part of he's less likely to be exposed to someone who has the virus and if he is exposed that individual is less likely to do a lot of coughing and sneezing that make it more likely that they spread the virus.insinceredawg said:
The chances of a healthy 17 year old experiencing severe symptoms are low but I think the chances of him contracting the virus is the same as anybody's. My concern isn't necessarily about him getting seriously ill, it's more because the optics of the headline "UW recruit contracts coronavirus on campus visit" could seriously fuck us over.dnc said:
The chances of a healthy 17 year old getting coronavirus are pretty damn low.insinceredawg said:
Going to be special when the first recruit gets coronavirus and everyone negative recruits the hell out of usGrundleStiltzkin said:
Coming to UW on a recruiting trip is a lot different for your chances of infection than visiting grandma in Kirkland.
There's plenty to worry about with Coronavirus. Schools are not especially high on the list.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/10/coronavirus-is-mysteriously-sparing-kids-killing-elderly-understanding-why-may-help-defeat-virus/
1. Maintain optics for those who want them to #DoSomething. Reelections are a bitch.
2. Protect teachers, administrators and other staff.
3. Protect the families of those kids who could potentially get infected.
The kids are going to be fine. In fact closing the schools cuts off a lot of kids from lunches and other services. It's almost assuredly worse for the kids to not have school right now.
This isn't being done to protect children. Not by anyone who cares about the science anyway.
That being said, I'm done having anything to say about this virus. I'm tired of one day reading some study that says one thing then a week later reading another study that says the exact opposite. I'm almost at Thunderdome levels of just wanting to let it play out and get it over with. At some point, the damage we're doing to, say, 50 million school age kids by parking their brain for 18 months has a price that can be quantified in terms of a pretty sizeable number of deaths. If one were to look at it dispassionately and objectively. -
That’s how science works?1to392831weretaken said:He's going to need to learn how to secure the football a bit better...
On reread (I can't believe I'm this big of a loser that I scanned through four pages to find it while drunk as fuck on my couch), I stand corrected. Your point was that it's not to protect the children, specifically, and I also believe this was also the case. I think it was always about protecting at-risk staff, rare at-risk students, at-risk parents, etc. I think I just detected a cynical vibe from your post, in the "it's all just CYA" sense, and extrapolated. My bad.dnc said:
Reading back through this you obviously missed the "This isn't being done to protect children" portion of my poast.1to392831weretaken said:
You list two bullet points that are absolutely supported by the science and then say that the school closures aren't supported by the science. Confused...dnc said:
The schools aren't closing to protect the kids. They're closing toEmoterman said:
If only these worldwide school closures were aware; likely victims of fake news.dnc said:
This sounds scary and obviously we don't want to spread the virus to more carriers when it can be avoided but kids are largely unaffected. The teachers would be the real concern here, as well as anyone with compromised immune systems.Emoterman said:
What is this based on? I don't think healthy young people are any less likely to contract the virus and become infectious than unhealthy old people. Probably the scariest vector was the kid in Everett who was tested and returned to school before his test came back positive.dnc said:
But it's not the same as anybody else's. As a healthy 17 year old he's not going to spend much time around unhealthy 70 year olds. By nature of the population he's a part of he's less likely to be exposed to someone who has the virus and if he is exposed that individual is less likely to do a lot of coughing and sneezing that make it more likely that they spread the virus.insinceredawg said:
The chances of a healthy 17 year old experiencing severe symptoms are low but I think the chances of him contracting the virus is the same as anybody's. My concern isn't necessarily about him getting seriously ill, it's more because the optics of the headline "UW recruit contracts coronavirus on campus visit" could seriously fuck us over.dnc said:
The chances of a healthy 17 year old getting coronavirus are pretty damn low.insinceredawg said:
Going to be special when the first recruit gets coronavirus and everyone negative recruits the hell out of usGrundleStiltzkin said:
Coming to UW on a recruiting trip is a lot different for your chances of infection than visiting grandma in Kirkland.
There's plenty to worry about with Coronavirus. Schools are not especially high on the list.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/10/coronavirus-is-mysteriously-sparing-kids-killing-elderly-understanding-why-may-help-defeat-virus/
1. Maintain optics for those who want them to #DoSomething. Reelections are a bitch.
2. Protect teachers, administrators and other staff.
3. Protect the families of those kids who could potentially get infected.
The kids are going to be fine. In fact closing the schools cuts off a lot of kids from lunches and other services. It's almost assuredly worse for the kids to not have school right now.
This isn't being done to protect children. Not by anyone who cares about the science anyway.
That being said, I'm done having anything to say about this virus. I'm tired of one day reading some study that says one thing then a week later reading another study that says the exact opposite. I'm almost at Thunderdome levels of just wanting to let it play out and get it over with. At some point, the damage we're doing to, say, 50 million school age kids by parking their brain for 18 months has a price that can be quantified in terms of a pretty sizeable number of deaths. If one were to look at it dispassionately and objectively. -
Science journals aren't meant to be consumed by no-brain mutants via it being blasted at them at 130db by every news media outlet with the implication that, finally, THIS is the final word on X (Corona-Dome).FremontTroll said:
That’s how science works?1to392831weretaken said:He's going to need to learn how to secure the football a bit better...
On reread (I can't believe I'm this big of a loser that I scanned through four pages to find it while drunk as fuck on my couch), I stand corrected. Your point was that it's not to protect the children, specifically, and I also believe this was also the case. I think it was always about protecting at-risk staff, rare at-risk students, at-risk parents, etc. I think I just detected a cynical vibe from your post, in the "it's all just CYA" sense, and extrapolated. My bad.dnc said:
Reading back through this you obviously missed the "This isn't being done to protect children" portion of my poast.1to392831weretaken said:
You list two bullet points that are absolutely supported by the science and then say that the school closures aren't supported by the science. Confused...dnc said:
The schools aren't closing to protect the kids. They're closing toEmoterman said:
If only these worldwide school closures were aware; likely victims of fake news.dnc said:
This sounds scary and obviously we don't want to spread the virus to more carriers when it can be avoided but kids are largely unaffected. The teachers would be the real concern here, as well as anyone with compromised immune systems.Emoterman said:
What is this based on? I don't think healthy young people are any less likely to contract the virus and become infectious than unhealthy old people. Probably the scariest vector was the kid in Everett who was tested and returned to school before his test came back positive.dnc said:
But it's not the same as anybody else's. As a healthy 17 year old he's not going to spend much time around unhealthy 70 year olds. By nature of the population he's a part of he's less likely to be exposed to someone who has the virus and if he is exposed that individual is less likely to do a lot of coughing and sneezing that make it more likely that they spread the virus.insinceredawg said:
The chances of a healthy 17 year old experiencing severe symptoms are low but I think the chances of him contracting the virus is the same as anybody's. My concern isn't necessarily about him getting seriously ill, it's more because the optics of the headline "UW recruit contracts coronavirus on campus visit" could seriously fuck us over.dnc said:
The chances of a healthy 17 year old getting coronavirus are pretty damn low.insinceredawg said:
Going to be special when the first recruit gets coronavirus and everyone negative recruits the hell out of usGrundleStiltzkin said:
Coming to UW on a recruiting trip is a lot different for your chances of infection than visiting grandma in Kirkland.
There's plenty to worry about with Coronavirus. Schools are not especially high on the list.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/10/coronavirus-is-mysteriously-sparing-kids-killing-elderly-understanding-why-may-help-defeat-virus/
1. Maintain optics for those who want them to #DoSomething. Reelections are a bitch.
2. Protect teachers, administrators and other staff.
3. Protect the families of those kids who could potentially get infected.
The kids are going to be fine. In fact closing the schools cuts off a lot of kids from lunches and other services. It's almost assuredly worse for the kids to not have school right now.
This isn't being done to protect children. Not by anyone who cares about the science anyway.
That being said, I'm done having anything to say about this virus. I'm tired of one day reading some study that says one thing then a week later reading another study that says the exact opposite. I'm almost at Thunderdome levels of just wanting to let it play out and get it over with. At some point, the damage we're doing to, say, 50 million school age kids by parking their brain for 18 months has a price that can be quantified in terms of a pretty sizeable number of deaths. If one were to look at it dispassionately and objectively.
The need to fill the 24 hour news cycle with its standard 3 day attention span leads to editorial decisions about as antithetical to robust science coverage as it gets. -
Then turn off the TV.
In science, there’s never a final word. -
-
It’s never settledTTJ said:Then turn off the TV.
In science, there’s never a final word. -
Agreed, or at the very least, turn off the cable news. I don't watch any of it, but I get the sense there seems to be a lot less sensationalism in the pseudo-accountable broadcast news. I think it's doing the public a disservice, but if I were running a cable news network, I'm sure I'd hype every development as the most important yet.TTJ said:Then turn off the TV.
In science, there’s never a final word. -
Die.
-
Jesus Christ take this shit to the tug so you can have an intelligent debate with @SFGbob
-
It was reported that JD got on the phone with Texas’ athletic director as well as Herman and DC Chris Ash before early signing day and needed to be reassured by all of them that Herman and company were not going to be fired and would be back next season before he signed with Texas. He was shaky leading up to signing day because of the rumors about Herman potentially getting fired. Now he feels like he was lied to by Texas. Definitely a guy to keep an eye on if he asks for his release from Texas. - Husky Insider Ballz
-
BDTW posters say we need to inundate his Twitter feed with pro-Washington tweets.KrunkJuice said:It was reported that JD got on the phone with Texas’ athletic director as well as Herman and DC Chris Ash before early signing day and needed to be reassured by all of them that Herman and company were not going to be fired and would be back next season before he signed with Texas. He was shaky leading up to signing day because of the rumors about Herman potentially getting fired. Now he feels like he was lied to by Texas. Definitely a guy to keep an eye on if he asks for his release from Texas. - Husky Insider Ballz
To work, men -
I just donated a can in his honor.bananasnblondes said:
BDTW posters say we need to inundate his Twitter feed with pro-Washington tweets.KrunkJuice said:It was reported that JD got on the phone with Texas’ athletic director as well as Herman and DC Chris Ash before early signing day and needed to be reassured by all of them that Herman and company were not going to be fired and would be back next season before he signed with Texas. He was shaky leading up to signing day because of the rumors about Herman potentially getting fired. Now he feels like he was lied to by Texas. Definitely a guy to keep an eye on if he asks for his release from Texas. - Husky Insider Ballz
To work, men
ITB -
-
Would be huge to get a flip if possible
-
Just wait until the NC game. All that FREE PUB for Texas will secure his commitment to Sark, no question.
-
Never too late for sub to whip up a video of him unboxing a Coffey jersey
-
You can’t buy pub that’s as good as FREE PUB. Look how well it worked for Sark when UW hired him.dnc said:Just wait until the NC game. All that FREE PUB for Texas will secure his commitment to Sark, no question.
-
Go get heemKrunkJuice said:It was reported that JD got on the phone with Texas’ athletic director as well as Herman and DC Chris Ash before early signing day and needed to be reassured by all of them that Herman and company were not going to be fired and would be back next season before he signed with Texas. He was shaky leading up to signing day because of the rumors about Herman potentially getting fired. Now he feels like he was lied to by Texas. Definitely a guy to keep an eye on if he asks for his release from Texas. - Husky Insider Ballz
