97and03

So much for that Cinderella story: Included in the vacation of wins are conference championships in men's basketball in 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2017-18, as well as the program's First Round win in the 2016 NCAA Tournament. The banners recognizing those achievements will be removed from William R. Johnson Coliseum.

Good to Rivals putting in the hard work...

Thanks, will amend.

Is he 6’7” and unable to dunk?

This name will make certain posters a little uncomfortable... 😝

Megathread?

https://collegefootballnews.com/2020/05/2020-ncaa-academic-progress-rate-football-apr-rankings-by-conference/3 Not as strong as they used to be.

NHL, indoor areas and a cold weather sport.

Rick, we have argued on this topic so I will preface my question by saying upfront that it isn’t meant to challenge you or get any specific response out of you. I am honestly curious. Has the risk of infection changed how you respond to emergencies? Did the department institute new safety measures to protect your or victims? My assumption would be yes in some way but also seems like it would be difficult in some cases. Thanks in advance for your response.

I am no expert on virology, biodefense, or public health, although I did grad coursework in all at George Mason. I studied under Ken Alibek, who ran the USSR's offense bioweapons program, and many other brilliant scientist and policy experts. The program has moved from the Biology department to under the school of public policy, so the structure has changed to more of a policy focus, but that was my concentration anyway so my grad certificate looked more like the current version than the programs of my colleagues that were in the biology track. (https://schar.gmu.edu/prospective-students/programs/graduate-certificates/biodefense) I took courses on viruses, bacteria, toxins, and public health policy. But to date I have not directly used this educational background in my work, although it has come in handy recently. So therefore, I am not an expert. I just know quite a bit more than the average bear and have much better sources of information because of my work. And I learned excellent critical thinking and analytical skills during my time at UNT, so I try to research my sources and question motives behind language. I apologize for making a personal attack on you. I was frustrated and I do believe that some of the ideas behind put forward here by you and others is unhelpful and perhaps even counterproductive in overcoming the COVID-19 crisis. But making it personal also does not do anything to move us forward, so I am sorry for that.

Good to see the legacy being carried on!

Glad to see that you are using a website founded less than a month ago to drive your thinking. You are using an article that has no author, framing things in a way to deliberately mislead the reader. For example, Dr. Ferrer is NOT a social worker. The author took the name of one of her degrees and used it to tell a narrative that fit his/her (again we don't know who it is) point of view. In fact, her PhD is in public health policy from a top-ten grad school in social policy, including US News recognition as a top school for public health policy and public policy analysis. As many have pointed out here and elsewhere, these measure are a policy decision and not purely a scientific one. Appropriately, she is the policy head of a huge public health department, with 100s of medical and policy experts advising her. So not only is she not a social worker but she also isn't dictating policy. This article is a pure opinion piece (at least it says op-ed instead of claiming to be a news piece) and was written solely to criticize the individual heading LA Country health policy. As the article below (from a known news sources with the authors clearly identified) indicates, the hit piece you linked is mostly just echoing Ben Shapiro talking points. And if you think that a woman with tons of public health experience and a PhD in public policy isn't qualified to coordinate the public health response in LA but Ben Shapiro is, then I don't know what to tell you. The fact that a public health policy expert has to give interviews to justify her position is a little silly. https://ktla.com/news/local-news/i-dont-make-decisions-by-myself-l-a-county-health-director-barbara-ferrer-responds-to-criticism-of-her-credentials/ In response to critics who have questioned her credentials as director of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, Barbara Ferrer cited the collaborative process involved in leading the agency during the COVID-19 crisis. In an interview with KTLA on Saturday, Ferrer explained that the department employs more than 100 physicians, dozens of them infectious disease doctors. For weeks, Ferrer has led daily coronavirus briefings as the county’s top health officer. She has become a familiar face to many Angelenos. She has brought sobering news, including the outbreak’s toll on the community, which remains under strict measures as the epicenter of the pandemic in California. “I appreciate the concerns,” Ferrer said of detractors such as conservative podcaster Ben Shapiro, who recently questioned her scientific background. Ferrer has served more than three decades in the public health field, including as Boston health commissioner. She holds a doctorate in social welfare and masters degrees in public health and education.

You are correct that people can test negative one day and then positive a day or two later based on their contacts and precautions. The White House is one example. I know we can’t go back in time and do this right the first time, but that is why we have to be more cautious now. The countries that have more open rules now acted earlier, like Sweden and Singapore. But they have also faced challenges including a second wave. Vietnam isn’t the best parallel since it is smaller, less developed, and authoritarian. But this is an example of contact tracing and preventative measures that could have been taken. We can replicate some of that now. We can’t test everyone every day, but we should seek to test those that contacted others found infected, and then test those that they met as well. Authorities also widely and meticulously documented anyone who potentially came in contact with the virus. Western countries like Germany only documented those infected and their direct contacts. Vietnam also kept track of second, third and fourth levels of contact to infected persons. All of these people were then placed under successively stringent levels of movement and contact restrictions. And from very early on, anyone arriving in Vietnam from a high-risk area would be quarantined for 14 days.

I have tried to use the same source for evaluation so here is a sampling. They aren’t my ratings. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com I don’t know it well enough to vouch for it 100 percent but it tracks with most other evaluations I have seen. Overall, we rate Forbes Right-Center biased based on story selection that tends to favor the right and the political affiliation of its ownership. We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting, rather than High due to some misleading or false stories related to climate science. Overall, we rate the New York Times Left-Center biased based on word and story selection that moderately favors the left, but highly factual and considered one of the most reliable sources for news information due to proper sourcing and well respected journalists/editors. The failed fact checks that occurred were on Op-Ed’s and not straight news reporting. Overall, we rate CNN left biased based on editorial positions that consistently favors the left, while straight news reporting falls left-center through bias by omission. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to several failed fact checks by TV hosts. However, news reporting on the website tends to be be properly sourced with minimal failed fact checks. Overall, we rate the BBC Left-Center biased based on story selection that slightly favors the left and High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing of information. Overall, we rate The Economist Least Biased based on balanced reporting and High for factual reporting due to a clean fact check record. Overall, we rate Vox Left Biased due to wording and story selection that routinely favors the left. We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting, rather than High, due to two failed fact checks, with only one offering a correction.

If you were paying attention this was part of a conversation about the challenges of restarting college athletics in these times. When you bring people out of the houses and start interacting with people who may or may not have practiced safety then the risk of infection increases. I completely understand we can’t go on forever like this, but the countries that have had more open policies did a better job of containment early. We didn’t unfortunately. We have to increase tests and more importantly contact tracing.

Your posting of the LA official makes mine, conspiracy theorist. You and your ilk are dangerous. Overall, we rate True Pundit not only Questionable, but also a far right conspiracy site that rarely publishes credible news. This is a far right conspiracy source that cannot be trusted for accurate news reporting. Overall, we rate Breitbart Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, publication of conspiracy theories and propaganda as well as numerous false claims.

Are you ignorant or just callous? Btw pneumonia isn’t a specific virus or bacteria. I would have thought a medical expert like yourself would know that. I guess your rehab gym did not cover infectious diseases. Well they did in my graduate Biodefense program. There is a reason that college kids require vaccines before being allowed to enroll. And those requirements have expanded over the years. For example colleges are getting kids vaccinated for meningitis because it is such a problem on campuses.

Excellent rebuttal to independent evaluations. There were much more mature discussions of media bias in this thread. Just stick to the Q forums.

And what that have to do with spreading the virus? Do you really not understand that these are separate issues? They can easily transmit it to their less resistant family members or friends without ever developing any symptoms.

There are a couple of useful charts out there that are pretty accurate

See my other comments on news content versus editorial content. Also both papers you mentioned are a liberal lean but do allow conservatives columns in their editorial section. Their overall editorial policy is left of center.

I prefer an upgraded conference move. The economic realities may push schools to regional alignment. I could live with that I guess. If we did go with a SBC/CUSA west merger I would miss WKY and ODU in basketball and would love to find a way to play Marshall periodically.

Well most major city papers have credible news stories. Some do have editorial biases, and that ok. For example in the US papers take editorial decisions and endorse political candidates. As long as one reads knowing the editorial stance then there isn’t much problem in that as long as the news articles are factual. In the specific case of the Examiner, it was specifically founded to promote a political perspective, although in the analysis I read it said that the paper does generally good local news. In general for pure news I use multiple sources when possible. I use NPR, BBC, CNN, the major papers and networks, Al Jazeera, and some other international sources. Obviously for international news I have better sources than just the media. 😉

College dorms are like cruise ships and are excellent disease spreaders. As are college kids. The reinfection stats are still such an unknown and China would be our best source of info but it just isn’t reliable. I do think it is telling that Wuhan has a new (small) outbreak cluster after not having any cases for a month. Points to possible reinfection or that the virus has been making the rounds through asymptomatic people. I have not had a chance to fully read up on that yet. I will disagree slightly with one thing you mention about the purpose of lockdowns is to spread out inevitable deaths. I think that is true when you have already lost control like in northern Italy or some parts of the US. On the other hand, Vietnam acted early and still doesn’t have a death and only a few hundred cases despite sharing a border with China and having early cases because they acted decisively before it was a crisis. Singapore has early success with this also.