JJZFL

I agree also. Of course since there’s no basketball for the foreseeable future, the implication is that this board will be pretty quiet.

We shall see

Ours are as empty as ML6’s

Risk stratify. Keep elderly and those with severe chronic medical conditions sequestered. Let others return to work with the same social distancing that’s already been put in place. Start widespread testing using point of service serology kits as soon as possible. Isolate the sick and contacts. But don’t kill the economy.

No one is advocating doing nothing. It’s not a binary choice between doing nothing vs shutting down the entire economy. See David Katz’s article in the NYTimes from the past few day’s for a different approach. In S Korea, they kept the virus from infecting a large proportion of the population without shutting everything down. Even in Italy, where the argument is that things were done too late, we’re still only talking about 0.1% of the total population being infected.

I don't agree this is the only feasible answer. And when you look at younger people who become very ill, you have to look at the denominator also. No one would argue that it never happens, but severe illness is a much more prevalent in the elderly. Mortality rates are unknown at this time because of a lack of data. See Ioannidis who estimates mortality at between 0.05% to 1%. Note that the people who've been tested so far are disproportionately those with the most severe symptoms. Again, I'm not saying that no younger people will have serious illness, although the mortality rate under 60 has been exceedingly low. But you have to balance efforts to prevent that with the damage current measures are doing to almost everybody. That's the discussion that's ramping up right now.

GordonMVP Concern is developing that the “cure” here may be worse than the disease. One always has to balance costs and benefits. An economic depression leads to excess deaths also and might make Coronavirus look like a walk in the park by comparison. See recent articles by David Katz at Yale and John Ionannidis at Stanford regarding the tradeoffs here. Both are distinguished academics in this field. The virus is mostly pretty harmless in people under 60. The idea is to focus on isolating the high risk population while allowing life to go on for everyone else. Otherwise, keep this up for a few more weeks and the economic effects will be so dire that people won’t even notice when the virus recedes. There is no country in which this virus has infected a significant percentage of the population. Even in Italy with 30k known cases, or whatever the current number is, the population is 60 million. I don’t see any reason to believe the projections that half our population will become infected (although it would help greatly to have herd immunity in the younger population).

Some questionable assertions in the above post. I’ll pick out three. I’m not sure how drinking hot liquids would have any effect once you’re infected. Gargling won’t help unless you’re doing it about every 15 minutes all day long. Something about by the time you go to the hospital, it’s too late. There is no specific treatment for the virus at this time. Getting to the hospital before severe symptoms set in doesn’t accomplish anything. There is nothing they can do to prevent progression. There are a number of other assertions above of questionable accuracy. Please be careful to take unsourced assertions with a large grain of salt.

Yep. This was a big one.

We need to stop them here. ? Foul so they can’t shoot a three?

I complain when he tries to play hero ball but when he’s shooting off a pass or screen he’s our best three point shooter and the only consistent one of the starters. We clearly were missing that.

I’m afraid so

For the season he’s really our only starter shooting threes with any consistency. The onus is on those who say we’re better off without him after two games.

With the above stat line? We might be lucky he only played 11 minutes.

Gordon 0-4 with 0 points in the half and a -21 for the half.