Accepting Mediocrity

Pretty good article really. TBH, I've never really bought the 'expansion = diluted talent' argument for a couple of reasons. Firstly, if the talent pool is really stretched as thin as is claimed, it should be harder to find AFL level talent in the state leagues. Yet virtually every team has key members of their best 22 that were overlooked in multiple drafts, and toiled away in the lower leagues for a few years. Secondly, i think people get nostalgic about footy in days gone by, and forget about the lesser players. There have always been (relatively) bad footballers playing AFL. We've had more than our fair share!

It's a disgrace that we never managed a top 4 finish from 2002-2006, considering the list we had, and the way we predictably fell off a cliff at the end of each season. 2004 was probably our best shot. That said, we never really had a side capable of beating Brisbane/ Port/ St Kilda in a final. We were a team of honest tryers, with a handful of very good players - but I always felt we were 2-3 gun players short of the best teams. That was Hawthorn. We were belted by Port by 70 points the following week. We might have sat on top of the ladder, but we were a fair way off the pace.

Of course there are limitations to the case data, but you need to start somewhere. Scientists are well aware of the limitations, and build uncertainty into their models accordingly. Models will improve as the issues with the data are resolved, but that takes time - and time is the enemy. If we'd waited for the full picture before we reacted, we'd currently be making NY look like paradise. Regardless, of course their models account for deaths, cases admitted vs discharged, etc - but debating models that neither of us understand is a bit of a pointless exercise. As for the 'excuse to effect ideological change' line - who knows, perhaps a timely reminder that there are some potential downsides to complete globalization isn't such a bad thing. Anyway, my initial post came across harsher than I meant - sorry mate, didn't mean to launch a personal attack.

Foolishly, I'll bite. If analysing the number of cases through time isn't an informative way to model a health crisis, can you suggest what might be? Call me crazy, but I'd suggest that the world's leading medical scientists might actually be somewhat clever, and have a better grasp of their models than random posters on a footy forum. Also, you're truly delusional if you think the economic impacts were in any way avoidable. Governments don't tank economies for fun.

Needs a poll. Demonland chooses between Spargo, OMac or Goodwin. Loser gets burned at the stake, Princess Shireen style.

They're not though - every relevant health expert is saying "At this early stage, we don't really know. But based on x and y, our best guess is z." Huge difference. Of course ethics/ economics etc come into it, but we can't hit the big red button and send everyone back to work until we've got a bit of an idea as to what the likely health ramifications will be. Jumping back into a pandemic won't magically fix the economy, either. I don't think anyone's trying to hide it from the public. It's an encouraging sign, sure, but nothing has changed, really. The moment the public stop taking it seriously, we'll be back in exponential growth territory - with no guarantees we can get it under control again. It shouldn't be cause for celebration. I think most of us are in a state of shock as to how well all sides of Aus politics have handled this so far (aside from the cruise ship fiasco). Amazing, really, what can be achieved when politicians actually act in the interests of the people they're supposed to represent rather than the usual petty infighting and point-scoring. It'd be nice if we remember that when we come out the other side of this.

I absolutely agree with you - we can't live like this forever. At some point, in the absence of a vaccine, we might be faced with some brutal decisions about the death toll we are willing to tolerate in order to resume some sense of normality with our lives. There may come a time when those conversations need to be had. My problem with the article wasn't for suggesting those things. Those decisions have enormous ramifications - they need to be based on good science and not misguided ideology. My problem with the article was that it used extremely selective 'facts' to suit a predetermined ideological agenda. For example: - "It's just the flu" (simply not true - it's demonstrably far worse, and far more contagious) - On asymptomatic cases: "A disease that doesn't make you ill? Terrifying." (That's a major reason why it spreads so easily) - "We lost 20 people to the disease in March. We lost 13,000 to other ailments, but let's not worry about them." (The reason the death toll is currently so low is precisely because of the draconian social distancing measures) - "The data is fundamentally flawed... If we don't know how many have been infected, we don't know the mortality rate" (Literally no-one is pretending that we do know the exact mortality rate. The number of fatalities is also a gross underestimate, because in many places the official figures are limited to deaths in hospitals, and other countries are almost certainly deliberately under-reporting) - "If 1 in 1,200 dies, 99% of them already gravely ill, it's not so frightening" (OK, now you're just pulling numbers out of your [censored]) End rant

Like I said, all media is biased (some more than others), and I'm the same as everyone else - I tend to read things that reflect my existing opinions. But science should stand for itself - I think it's important to bypass opinions as much as possible and get facts from the source - either from researchers themselves, or from good science communicators. It's very easy for a journo with an agenda to misinterpret evidence, cherry-pick a few facts and reach an incorrect conclusion to get clicks - the Murdoch press has turned this into an art form. The context is food nutrition, but I think this article does a pretty good job at highlighting how easily 'facts' can be misinterpreted to suit any agenda: https://www.thinkingnutrition.com.au/broccoli-bad-for-you/. Sadly, I think the Betoota Advocate is about the most objective source of news going these days.

To be fair, Gonzo's summary of the article is more or less spot on. All media is biased to some degree, but the anti-science bile spewed out by the Murdoch press is, generally speaking, disturbingly predictable.

Yeah nah, that article is cherry picking at it's finest. Opinion is one thing, facts are another. Can we please stop comparing it to the flu? We don't know the case/ fatality rate, but no-one is pretending that we do. What we do know with absolute certainty is that allowing the virus to spread unchecked will result in a lot of preventable deaths. Yes the mortality rate is low for young, healthy people. But if you're talking about millions of potential infections, a low mortality rate is still a disturbingly high number of deaths. That's not hysteria, that's just maths. Right now, we've really got 2 choices. Option 1: stay in lockdown and hope for the best. Option 2: relax restrictions, watch the number of cases increase exponentially, then say "Oh [censored], we shouldn't have done that!", and then go back to lockdown, now with overflowing hospitals and morgues. If we get to choose between the New York and South Korea options, why on earth would you choose New York?

Blaming the media is a bit short sighted I think. Panic is pointless, but it's far, far less dangerous than indifference. The situation unfolding in Europe and the US is very real. Globally, millions will almost certainly die from this. You can't sugar-coat it. If the media downplay the situation, less people will take it seriously, and more people will die. It IS percentage based actually - pandemics increase exponentially by nature. An increase from 1 to 16 cases might not sound like a lot, but it means the cases have doubled 4 times. Which means that all else being equal, increasing from 1 to 16 cases takes the same number of days as going from 10,000 to 160,000 cases. That said, those stats are a bit misleading. The key indicator isn't the total number of cases, it's the number of local transmissions. The vast majority of cases two weeks were people returning from overseas, which is obviously slowing down. So, while the 'flattening of the curve' is encouraging, it may not mean much in the big picture.

It's left out of the conversation because it's peak stupidity. Yes people die from the flu every year. Yes it's sad, but largely unavoidable. If the current virus is allowed to spread unchecked throughout the country, best estimates are that there will be over 100,000 preventable deaths in Australia alone. Governments don't take the decision to shut down countries lightly. If you still can't get your head around that at this point, you must be actively avoiding listening to anyone who knows what they are talking about.

I get that isolation has been hard on all of us, but Christ, this will never happen in a million years. Imagine Freo trying to sell it to their members: "Look guys, we know Hogan cost us pick 6 and a shot at drafting Ben King, but he's served us extremely well for the 12 games he played and we are happy to respect his wishes to return to the Demons. Given that his trade value has plummeted, we think Spargo and a 3rd round pick is more than a fair return."

Currently, most evidence suggests you are unlikely to catch it twice. There are several cases where this is reported to have occurred, but it's far more likely that patients gave a 'false negative' test result between positive tests. Source: Professor Peter Doherty; https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-22/doubt-over-contracting-coronavirus-covid-19-twice/12075878

A bit of a read, but this is probably the best article I've come across so far. It provides an idiot's guide to the underlying maths of how the virus spreads, and why some countries are doing so much better than others. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-26/coronavirus-covid19-global-spread-data-explained/12089028 In short: there's still hope avoiding the worst, but only if we get absolutely everything right from this point onwards. If you're not extremely concerned, you are being naive - but mindless panic achieves nothing. Also, the USA is beyond screwed.

Bold call. No one knows how this plays out. If the virus can't be contained (which current evidence suggests is likely), there is absolutely no way there will be any AFL happening this year, no matter what 'the financials' demand. And we'll have bigger problems than a lack of footy.

Jesus. There is so much stupidity in this post it's difficult to know where to begin.

$1,000,000 says that didn't happen. I mean come on, you happened to run into the same 4 people at 3 separate supermarkets? Wouldn't it have taken them a while to empty the shelves, then make it through the checkouts (which as we all know takes forever), while you walked in and out empty handed? If you're going to make up a blatant lie, at least make it believable. Edit: sorry Deemania, that came across harsher than I meant - I have a special hatred for online disinformation, of which this reeks.

Say what you like about Chris Scott (and I always do), but that's great leadership. It would be great to see others follow suit.

When things have settled down and the money is flowing again in a few years time, hopefully the AFL re-introduce an 18th team in Tassie (as they should have done in the first place).

Given the uncertainty we`re all currently faced with, the biggest positive I took from watching the Dees get belted yesterday was a reassuring sense of normality

The Chinese response reportedly involved Government officials welding shut the front doors of people showing symptoms (as shown on 4 Corners). Such extreme measures can't and won't be applied here. All the available evidence seems to indicate that things will get exponentially worse before they get better here - most projections I've seen range from 10-50% of the Australian population becoming infected over the coming months, with the most likely scenario being a peak around August. I suspect we'll look back and laugh at ourselves for being foolish enough to hold hope for mid-year recommencement of the AFL season. Hopefully I'm wrong. Stay safe out there Demonlander's!

I think any reasonably-minded person accepts that having kids in schools right now is a major risk. But the best medical minds in the country have deemed that currently, it's slightly less of a major risk than the alternative - we don't really have a choice but to trust the experts on this one and hope like hell they get it right. Keep in mind that the situation is changing by the hour - I think there's little doubt that they will close all schools at some point.

I'm a cynical bastard, but I appreciate that the Government are screwed either way. It's easy to sit back and criticize, but looking at the situation objectively, the Government is forced to choose between very bad and catastrophic options. Wrong decisions at this point could cost thousands of lives. Shutting down schools, workplaces and public transport would create chaos in it's own right - and may not do much to slow the spread in any case. I don't envy the poor bastards making these decisions - I doubt they'd be sleeping very easily atm. Don't get me wrong - I love footy and it would be a great distraction - but realistically, the AFL won't be able to run a comp once a player or coach tests positive - which statistically speaking, is a virtual certainty in the very near future. There's a very good reason every major sporting code in the world is being suspended, and it isn't groupthink. Let's agree to disagree on this one!

You're choosing to ignore a few key facts. Obviously, closing schools would be ideal in one sense, but closing schools has significant ramifications. Who looks after the kids? Either grandparents, who are likely to be at risk from the virus, or parents, who then need to stay at home from work. There goes a significant number of Australia's medical staff at the time when they are needed most. The Government advice to keep schools open (for now) is not made lightly and takes into account the best available medical advice in terms of risk. Usually, when I go shopping or take public transport, I try my best to avoid tackling those around me which lowers the risk somewhat. The number of cases in Aus is currently doubling every 4 days or so. You don't need to be Einstein to work out that it's a matter of when, not if a player tests positive (almost certainly within the next couple of weeks). When that happens, the AFL will have no choice but to postpone/ cancel the season.