Thurman#1

Well, you might indeed have thought him mad, but that's because you apparently haven't understood the system. He is an expert on the medicine. The crass Jordan kept pressing him for a political opinion. He's not a politician or an expert on politics. And giving the full range of legitimate medical opinion is NOT throwing the hot potato back, in the sense of abdicating his responsibility. When your job is fully advising on your area of expertise, and you do it, and then point out that the politics is up to the politicians, that's not avoiding your responsibilities. It is perfectly fulfilling them. The only thing he did "wrong" is apparently not to give your opinion rather than what the science tells him to say.

Um, I didn't. You both misquoted me and totally misunderstood my point. What I said was, "there is zero evidence that 300-pound 25 year old NFL linemen, as opposed to 45-year old 300 pound couch potatoes, are at elevated risk." See the difference there? I'm sure I could have said it much better, but I certainly in no way meant what you apparently thought I did. Try reading my post again. If you'd like to disagree again, please feel free.

It is indeed a free society, as free as is reasonable. But true freedom doesn't exist, nor should it. You can't murder me without being penalized with jail time. That's taking away your freedom, but most would call it a reasonable regulation. And COVID regs are the same thing. By going to a sporting event and picking up COVID, you could be responsible for the death of my grandmother. Society has a perfect, reasonable right to regulate this. The question is how much.

Three TDs out of 15 snaps? We were clearly very successful in that grouping. That says the opposite that there's a problem. They did really well from an unusual setup. That's good coaching.

When you say 'horse pucky," was that a threat to import some? Because you did a fine job of that. And nice job of packing that post with all sorts of completely irrelevant resume/CV material. One might even call it horse pucky. The shoe fits. And again, Fauci's job here is NOT to lead. It's to provide medical expertise. You know who should lead? The country's leadership. Yeah, Fauci is an expert, as you go on and on about. But not an expert on politics. You go on about his qualifications. Does he have advanced degrees that you or I missed about what things should be illegal? I'll be glad to hear it if you can find that he does, but in the meantime all the stuff you go on with up there shows he had medical expertise, not political. He was asked whether the government should make something illegal. That is a political question, not a medical one. The science guy isn't charged with "preventing the spread." That's the government, even though they're showing themselves incompetent to do so. The science guy is charged with providing the government, and the public, with the information that the science shows to be true. Which is what Fauci did. You keep pretending he didn't answer the question. But pretending doesn't make it true. He did answer the medical part of the question. He said, "Crowding together, particularly when you’re not wearing a mask, contributes to the spread of the virus." And you're right that "the decision of thousands of people to congregate on city streets is surely and definitely contributing to the explosion of cases across the country." I agree with you 100%, and therefore it's clear that re-opening is causing a massive .... oh, wait, that's not what you meant? You wanted the guy to be forced to make a statement in line with your political beliefs. You want that, go hire someone. He'll do it. But supporting your beliefs isn't Fauci's job. Your mass datadump of his credentials only shows he's willing to speak to his expertise and not beyond. What's medically clear is exactly what Fauci said ... that ""Crowding together, particularly when you’re not wearing a mask, contributes to the spread of the virus." Which does indeed show that that kind of dangerous behavior ... dangerous behavior which includes both the demonstrations and the things that you and Jordan happen to support and therefore don't want mentioned in this context ... are indeed raising the odds of a continuing increase. And yeah, this absolutely was scurrilous behavior on Jordan's part. He isn't trying to make a point about health. If he were he could still talk about the protests but would also include the reopenings. He doesn't because he's a political hatchet man, not someone looking for medical expertise. And pretending that Jordan isn't involved in this discussion is nonsense. He was asking the questions Fauci was answering, he was trying to get Fauci to say things that were far too specific for medicine to speak to. Trying to force Fauci to give Jordan a baseball bat and a way to twist Fauci's words. Too bad that Fauci only gave him the medical info he requested, the stuff that the studies show is true. The one single thing that makes sense from your post is that Wilford Brimley was indeed a class act. One of the great moustaches of all time. As much gravitas as Morgan Freeman and apparently a lot more class.

You're right that there is zero evidence that 300-pound 25 year old NFL linemen, as opposed to 45-year old 300 pound couch potatoes, are at elevated risk. Thing is, there's also zero risk that they are not. You're assuming because they're titanically strong that that proves the coronavirus won't get them despite many of them being very fat. You've heard the stories of some of these guys having to eat 5000 and 6000 calorie daily diets to maintain a weight where they're carrying a ton of fat. These guys are incredible athletes, but many are forced to maintain bizarre and stressful regimens to maintain their effectiveness. They don't do so because they figure they're maximizing their health. They do it because it maximized their football abilities and their incomes. And while some guys like Eric Wood are able to revert to healthy habits and physiques after their playing days, many more of them do not. There's no particular reason to think your assumption here is correct. I agree with your guess that guys like that will likely have complications at lower rates than guys of the same weight who don't work out like demons. But my guess is that despite their workouts, they will have more complications than guys who don't force themselves to overeat consistently and maintain large amounts of body fat. I don't have any more evidence than you do. But I don't have any less either. As I said before, guys with those lifestyles should and most likely are considering these things with great seriousness. And as for Rodriguez, he may or may not at this point be expected to make a full recovery. But he was also expected to recover and be ready in a couple of weeks. Instead his symptoms have hung around. They don't know what will happen. You certainly do have one guess there. It could happen that way. I hope it does. But we don't know. And neither do they, which is the point.

You'd have liked to see Fauci lead? Well, that's the problem. It's the politicians who're supposed to lead. Fauci's role isn't leading. It's answering science questions. Which he did. The leaders are supposed to take that science knowledge and lead more effectively. I'll certainly grant that so far they're mostly not doing that, with Jordan doing an excellent job of avoiding leadership to instead attempt to score cheap political points that might lead to a headline he'd like better than just the science makes. I'm not blaming Jordan for being a politician. I'm blaming him for being a crappy one. If anyone in that conversation should have been leading, it should have been the high-level politician, but instead he's strictly interested in scoring points even if that means getting things out there which don't represent what the science says. Jordan's a politician less interested in doing what politicians should do based on the best medical knowledge and more interested in hectoring a medical expert with questions on political issues, and when that didn't work, trying for what he considered the second-best outcome of trying to get Fauci to say a 30-word sentence that would contain a 5-word hot-button headline that by eliminating context would have completely misrepresented what Fauci said. He's a politician, alright. And I don't know the rest of what he's done over his career, nor much care. But what he was doing there was scurrilous. There's scurrilous behavior on both sides, but that doesn't mean it's OK, not for either side.

Rodriguez is NOT expected to play again this year. It's not overblown at all. https://mlb.nbcsports.com/2020/08/01/eduardo-rodriguez-out-for-the-year-due-to-an-inflamed-heart/ And yeah, it's ONE player ... out of how many who have been infected so far in baseball? What percentage of the infected major leaguers is Rodriguez? And he's no 330 pound offensive lineman who has to stuff 6000 calories down his gullet every day to keep his weight up. We just don't know. This stuff is unpredictable, particularly as these athletes are out of the ordinary in so many ways. Will an OL who's terrifically strong and in good football shape but still has 40 or 50 pounds of fat on him still suffer as many health problems from COVID-19 percentage-wise than an average guy his age who has 40 or 50 extra pounds on him? I'd guess probably not, but there's just not a significant amount of data on guys like this. A player would be irresponsible to his own interests not to think about this extremely seriously.

Yeah, no, he didn't say that. He says they don't get paid or have a union. But he did not say or imply what you apparently think he did. His concern with them not having a union is that because of that they have nobody whose interest is in advocating for their safety. And their not getting paid makes it even more questionable whether they (not to mention their families, friends and relations) should then be put in harm's way. Both pretty reasonable concerns.

Yeah, he had the chance to say that large gatherings result in increased transmissions. And instead he said, "Crowding together, particularly when you’re not wearing a mask, contributes to the spread of the virus." Oh, wait. That's exactly the same thing. Jordan wanted to make a political point, to focus attention on the groups he doesn't like and away from the groups he does. Do you think for an instant that if Fauci had said, "Yes, the protests will increase transmissions," that Jordan's next question would have been, "And how about re-opening businesses, churches, football leagues, bars and restaurants? Would those also contribute?" Hell, no. For Jordan this issue was purely pollitical. Fauci said exactly what the science told him to say, that "crowding together, particularly when you're not wearing a mask, contributes to the spread of the virus." It is indeed a health and safety issue, and that's why a scientist should say precisely what the science tells him to say, and no more. Which is what Fauci did.

I see. So, this is your idea of ... speculation, you say? That's your whole post. No offense, but you are setting the bar way too low. That doesn't come anywhere near speculation. It's pure insult with not an ounce of substance. Not a gram. I'm not going to go back through and trace the argument. Perhaps you had some other posts that were thoughtful and measured, and if so, terrific. But this was offensive and substanceless. The post you were replying to, on the other hand, wasn't particularly nice in tone but at least put forward some legitimate points. Yours did nothing of the kind. EDIT: Going back to look at other things, I see that many of your other posts have plenty of substance and thought. My comments are only about this particular post.

Great argument. Street bums like Freddy Jackson and Kurt Warner never help teams. Great idea to have a specific opinion about a guy you've never heard of only because you've never heard of him.

https://clutchpoints.com/bengals-news-niles-scott-goes-to-injury-reserve-is-in-a-walking-boot/ 6' 3" 280. You wouldn't expect Scott to slide in at 1-tech. Cincy was running a 3-4 last year, though, so if he played DT there he wasn't a 3-tech. https://www.bengals.com/video/scott-it-s-a-really-exciting-feeling-to-get-out-there-with-the-pads-on He talks like a process guy. "Better version of myself every day ... iron sharpens iron."

Nice move! The minute you get a post like yours that responds to actual arguments through a post without any, and then you throw in calling a probable male a female name, and throwing insults besides ... well, you know you're going to see an argument with some intellectual heft, a real thought leader. Your post, nothing but insults, is literally pointless.

Fair enough. I was just blowing off some steam. EDIT: See below. Oops, here I go again.

The sense that they have it under control right now, with cases and deaths way way down. We, you may have noted, do not.

I'm honestly not sure at all about whether the protests should be limited. It doesn't affect me over here in Japan. But having seen this thread and gone back to look at the Jordan-Fauci exhange, I don't think Fauci is doing anything unreasonable here. The guy kept asking him for his judgments on political issues. Fauci refused to answer, saying he is only an expert on medical issues not political ones. He answered clearly that he would avoid all crowds at this point. The questions he refused to answer were only the ones where the answer was political not medical. Here's the transcript of the whole thing: --------------- Representative Jordan: (00:00) Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Fauci, do protests increase the spread of the virus? Dr. Fauci: (00:06) Do protest increase the spread of the virus? I think I can make a general statement. Representative Jordan: (00:11) Half a million protestors on June 6th alone. I’m just asking that number of people, does it increase the spread of the virus? Dr. Fauci: (00:16) Crowding together, particularly when you’re not wearing a mask, contributes to the spread of the virus. Representative Jordan: (00:23) Should we limit the protesting? Dr. Fauci: (00:25) I’m not sure what you mean. How do we say limit the protesting? Representative Jordan: (00:29) Should government limit the protesting? Dr. Fauci: (00:33) I don’t think that’s relevant to- Representative Jordan: (00:36) Well, you just said, if it increases the spread of the virus, I’m just asking, should we limit it? Dr. Fauci: (00:40) Well, I’m not in a position to determine what the government can do in a forceful way. Representative Jordan: (00:44) Well, you make all kinds of recommendations. You made comments on dating, on baseball and everything you can imagine. I’m just asking you. You just said protest increased the spread. I’m just asking you should we try to limit the protests? Dr. Fauci: (00:53) No, I think I would leave that to people who have more of an position to do that. I can tell you that- Representative Jordan: (00:59) Government’s stopping people from going to church, Dr. Fauci. Dr. Fauci: (01:02) Yeah. Representative Jordan: (01:03) Last week in the Calvary Chapel case, five liberals on the Supreme Court said it was okay for Nevada to limit church services. Justice Gorsuch said it best. He said there’s no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesar’s Palace over Calvary chapel. I’m just asking, is there a world where the Constitution says you can favor one First Amendment liberty, protesting, over another, practicing your faith? Dr. Fauci: (01:27) I’m not favoring anybody over anybody. I’m just making a statement that’s a broad statement, that avoid crowds of any type no matter where you are because that leads to the acquisition and transmission. And I don’t judge one crowd versus another crowd. When you’re in a crowd, particularly if you’re not wearing a mask, that induces the spread. Representative Jordan: (01:49) It’s a simple question, Doctor. Should we limit the protests? Government is obviously limiting people going to church. And look, there’s been no violence that I can see at church. I haven’t seen people during a church service go out and harm police officers or burn buildings. But we know that, I mean, for 63 days, nine weeks, it’s been happening in Portland. One night in Chicago, 49 officers were injured, but no limit to protests, but boy, you can’t go to church on Sunday. Dr. Fauci: (02:18) I don’t know how many times I can answer that. I’m not going to opine on limiting anything. I’m just going to tell you- Representative Jordan: (02:23) You’ve opined on a lot of things, Dr. Fauci. Dr. Fauci: (02:25) Yeah, but I’ve never said to limit anything. Representative Jordan: (02:26) This is something that directly impacts the spread of the virus, and I’m asking your position on the protest. Dr. Fauci: (02:31) Well, I’m not going to opine on limiting anything. I’m telling you what it is, the danger, and you can make your own conclusion about that. You should stay away from crowds no matter where the crowds are. Representative Jordan: (02:44) Government has stopped people from going to work. In fact, just in New Jersey four days ago, Ian Smith, Frank Trumbetti were arrested for opening up from trying to operate their business, their gym. They were arrested. But my bet is if these two individuals who owned this gym were outside just in front of their gym and all the people who are working out in their gym were outside protesting, they’d been just fine, but because they were in the gym working out, actually running their business, they got arrested. You think that’s okay? Dr. Fauci: (03:16) I’m not going to opine it on who gets arrested and who does not. I mean, you get where I’m going? I’m telling you as a public health official. I say crowds- Representative Jordan: (03:25) Do you see the inconsistency, though, Dr. Fauci? Dr. Fauci: (03:27) There’s no inconsistency, Congressman. Representative Jordan: (03:30) So you’re allowed to protest millions of people on one day in crowds, yelling, screaming, but you try to run your business, you get arrested. And if you stood right outside of that same business and protested, you wouldn’t get arrested. You don’t see an inconsistency there? Dr. Fauci: (03:42) I don’t understand what you’re asking me as a public health official to opine on who should get arrested or not. That’s not my position. You could ask me as much as you want and I’m not going to answer it. Representative Jordan: (03:52) You’ve advocated for certain businesses. You’ve advocated for certain businesses to be shut down. I’m just asking you on your position on the protest. I haven’t seen one. We’ve heard a lot about hair salons. I haven’t seen one hairstylist who between haircuts goes out and attacks police or sets something on fire, but we’ve seen all kinds of that stuff during protests. And we know the protest actually increase the spread of the virus. You’ve said that. Dr. Fauci: (04:16) I said crowds. I didn’t say specifically, I didn’t say protests do anything. Representative Jordan: (04:21) So the protests don’t increase the spread of the virus? Dr. Fauci: (04:23) I didn’t say that. You’re putting words in my mouth. Representative Jordan: (04:26) I just want an answer to the question. Do the protests increase the spread of the virus? Dr. Fauci: (04:30) I don’t have any scientific evidence that anything I can tell you that crowds are known, particularly when you don’t have a mask, to increase the acquisition and transmission, no matter what the crowd is. Representative Jordan: (04:41) So you don’t have a position on whether the protests increased the spread of the virus or don’t increase the spread of the virus? Dr. Fauci: (04:48) I’m saying that crowds, wherever the crowds are, can give you an increased probability that is going to be acquisition and transmission. Representative Jordan: (04:57) But do you understand American’s concern? Protesting, particularly according to the Democrats is just fine, but you can’t go to work. You can’t go to school. You can’t go to church. There’s limits placed on all three of those fundamental activities, First Amendment activities, but protesting is just fine. Mr. Clyburn: (05:17) The gentleman’s time has expired. ---------------------- So, yeah, Fauci's opined on lots of things. Medical things. Which he is willing to do, and still doing. Not political things, which he isn't and won't. Which is reasonable. He's not an expert on politics. This is clearly a Senatory trying to spin things to make a political point. Fauci made his medical opinion very clear. Jordan wanted to force him to say what Jordan wanted to hear. He was perfectly willing to put words in Fauci's mouth. For instance, he says, "So the protests don't increase the spread of the virus?" That's a political question. Fauci had already said that crowds increase the probability of it being spread. In other words, yeah, the protests increase the probability of it being spread. But Jordan wanted more than that, because he wanted a politically useful answer. Fauci clearly said that crowds are dangerous in that they increase the probability of spread. Jordan isn't interested in that it's not a politically useful answer for him. He wants Fauci to separate the protests, to get Fauci to answer a question about the protests, while not including the crowds Jordan himself politically supports - business, churches, etc. - in the answer. But Fauci is right that medically speaking a crowd is a crowd is a crowd. He can't speak to the differences. Seems a case of someone trying to force a political opinion out of a medical expert to me. Did Fauci ever say that going to church should be illegal? I sure don't remember that. It's outside his scope, as is what Jordan is trying to get him to say. Jordan isn't asking questions that would increase public awareness of medical dimensions of the problem. He's trying to force Fauci to say something that is politically useful to Jordan and his side, even though it's a political issue and not a medical one. To me, it looked totally reasonable of Fauci, who's been as much of a voice of reason as there's been in this whole disaster.

Do you have any studies on how well extremely strong and well-conditioned but obese guys do with COVID as opposed to guys who are obese but not extremely strong? I don't believe there's anything like that to point to. This is something that I would absolutely think very hard about assuming I was a healthy, conditioned NFL lineman facing the issues these guys are facing.

Yeah, this was what stood out for me. Due to body weight issues about 70% of NFL players would fit into the "pre-existing conditions" group. Holy cow, I never considered that for an instant. I think of these guys as uber-healthy.

Haven't read your post. Let me guess. You have an opinion and won't even read opinions that might possibly change your mind. Gotta admit, this whole mindset cracks me up. Someone starts a thread with something new as a reference, an article, a video, whatever. And people come in and boast that they don't watch and then give an opinion anyway. It's like someone commenting on a movie they haven't seen. Why should anyone care? More, why would anyone want to comment if they don't want to look at what's being talked about? I don't get it, but it is amusing.

It's not the way of the world. It's the way of the people who don't have a contract in place that provides for that. Everyone's contract is different. I bet that the average NFL player makes a lot more than you do too, just based on the fact that they make far more than the average Joes of the world. Well, if they can get those salaries, more power to 'em. Same with the benefits. If their union got that for them, good for them. It's how capitalism works.

I don't see anything about them at the link. Oh, well.

No. Use the money for the long-term good of the team and re-sign the guys who we need to re-sign.

Wow.

Bill, what you've got there is an opinion. And knowing you, a very educated one. And I don't think you'll find anyone, certainly not me, saying that he's been "dominant." But well above average at one portion of his job? Yeah. It's a reasonable opinion, held by many. Including, apparently, the Bills. I don't have the slightest doubt you understand his job, Bill. But the Bills, among others, seem to have wanted and continue to want him here, at the terms they agreed on in his contract and his re-negotiation, which was not a major cut and had a major carrot in it for Lotulelei in the guaranteed money. Do you really think it would be all that difficult to find a "bang-solid, league average" guy at that role, a role that is not needed by all that many teams, for less than Lotulelei gets? And yet the Bills two separate times have declared their satisfaction with the guy, first by signing him to the original contract and then by cutting $2 mill out of a $40 mill contract which had $20 mill remaining on it. And yet they were willing to guarantee the first remaining year and a chunk of the second remaining year. The reason they were willing to make those guarantees almost has to be that they like the guy at the price. When you hire a desirable FA on a second contract you're going to have to overpay a bit. Nature of the beast. But if they thought he was easily replaced for much cheaper, they had every chance to do so. How many space eaters are above him on the average salary lists? They could have gotten one cheaper this offseason in particular ... if they'd wanted to. He does what they want. At a price they consider worth it. On an extremely good defense built by a very canny defensive coach, with a contract approved by a very canny GM who appears to communicate extremely well with the head coach. And if you really feel that he really hasn't "lived up to the contract that it is not a bad contract" to the point that it's a fact, then among the people whose opinions you apparently disagree with are McDermott and Beane, who are far more important in this than many others who disagree with you, including me.