IseWolf22 said:
I appreciate the civil debate Wayland and PackPA
Literally this debate has given me hope that humanity is not totally fooked. Close but not totally.
Coronavirus
2,017,993 Views |
19855 Replies |
Last: 3 days ago by Werewolf
Literally this debate has given me hope that humanity is not totally fooked. Close but not totally.
Forget it Wayland... he ain't budging no matter what.Wayland said:
nm. Not even worth debate at this point.
Those are some pretty damn compelling graphs that you posted in my personal opinion... but hey! look over there! Indiana dropped initially right after their mandate started! (oh wait, that was actually Missouri that dropped when Indiana's mandate started).
Listen though. I've worn - and I continue to wear - a mask everywhere that I am required to wear one (probably just like everybody that has participated in this thread)... and I can actually think of one known benefit that I feel the general public received from it if nothing else... psychologically maybe it was our "cloak of invisibility"... it allowed some of us to actually continue to go about our lives - without even thinking twice about it - just because we had that "magic" mask on... kind of silly to type, but I really think it's true.
In the big picture I think it's pretty obvious that masks didn't really do a whole lot to stem the virus (akin to stopping the storm surge from a hurricane)... that should be pretty evident by now.
I actually listened to Up First this morning and they clarified that this was a batch that was not currently expected to contribute to the current projections J&J is giving. This is a facility that was still in a testing / approval phase so it's actually good that the issue was caught. They'll work with the FDA and regulators to ensure the facility gets up to standards before the product would be distributed.kmb717 said:statefan91 said:
I would assume this is a big deal, but exactly how big of a deal?
Unfortunately I feel a bit for the clickbait. Thankfully not as serious of a deal as I assumed.
If I could post the graphs, I would. Look up NC and TN covid cases and deaths since these states are similar demographically. Normalize the graphs by population size to "per 100K" and you will find evidence there to show that mask mandates work. TN has no mask mandate and cases and deaths were significantly higher than in NC where we do have a mask mandate. You see we can all pick a random 2 states and find a way to prove our side of the argument.TheStorm said:Forget it Wayland... he ain't budging no matter what.Wayland said:
nm. Not even worth debate at this point.
Those are some pretty damn compelling graphs that you posted in my personal opinion... but hey! look over there! Indiana dropped initially right after their mandate started! (oh wait, that was actually Missouri that dropped when Indiana's mandate started).
Listen though. I've worn - and I continue to wear - a mask everywhere that I am required to wear one (probably just like everybody that has participated in this thread)... and I can actually think of one known benefit that I feel the general public received from it if nothing else... psychologically maybe it was our "cloak of invisibility"... it allowed some of us to actually continue to go about our lives - without even thinking twice about it - just because we had that "magic" mask on... kind of silly to type, but I really think it's true.
In the big picture I think it's pretty obvious that masks didn't really do a whole lot to stem the virus (akin to stopping the storm surge from a hurricane)... that should be pretty evident by now.
I really, really do not get why people continue to insist that masks do not lower transmission of COVID. We have so much evidence that they do. This should be very evident by now. The only denial is of political origin and you have the right to that opinion, but you cannot deny that they work.
I suspect there is not one single person here who, if forced to visit a family member with covid, wouldn't wear a mask except under very specific circumstances (ie, recent infection). And I'm not convinced vaccination status would change the ultimate decision.
Why would you wear a mask visiting family with Covid if you've been vaccinated? Maybe the vaccines aren't the mark of the devil. The masks are.
packgrad said:
Why would you wear a mask visiting family with Covid if you've been vaccinated? Maybe the vaccines aren't the mark of the devil. The masks are.
Why wouldn't you?
Mormad said:
I suspect there is not one single person here who, if forced to visit a family member with covid, wouldn't wear a mask except under very specific circumstances (ie, recent infection). And I'm not convinced vaccination status would change the ultimate decision.
To again play devil's advocate to your scenario, I wouldn't knowingly visit anyone with covid any more than I would someone with the flu, strep, or even a cold, mask or not. The only scenario in which I would, would be someone very close to me being on their death bed. In that case as a vaccinated (even partially at this point), otherwise healthy, low risk person, I would be willing to do so mask less, because in this very specific scenario, I would want that person who I care for deeply to see that love in my face as one of their last moments, and I would hope to be able to see their face. In that specific scenario, whatever small risk I would have at acquiring the virus despite being vaccinated would in my mind and heart be worth it.
Just a guy on the sunshine squad.
Yep. A very, very specific scenario in which you admit risk, weigh that risk vs the benefit you describe, and choose to take that risk. Very different explanation than "masks don't work so I'd get all in their face without a mask because there'd be no difference in risk. " I can fully respect your scenario and would potentially choose similarly, and then just avoid higher risk people in a self imposed pseudo quarantine for a while.
Mormad said:packgrad said:
Why would you wear a mask visiting family with Covid if you've been vaccinated? Maybe the vaccines aren't the mark of the devil. The masks are.
Why wouldn't you?
Because you're vaccinated.
True, and that's exactly how we both want it to be. But the vaccines aren't 100% effective in trials in which the standard was how many vaccinated peeps got infected or disease vs how many unvaccinated peeps got the same, but only in real world, everyday life. Nobody studied vaccinated people exposed to known positives without ppe. The closest thing to my scenario, which I'm using as a litmus test for those who want to say masks make no difference, is the one looking at hospital staff who i assume are exposed more often than the average bear in the other studies. We don't even know how many people in the studies were actually exposed to virus, much less unmasked. And the hospital staff studied wear full PPE (N95, face shield, gown, shoe covers, gloves) when with known positives. Fully vaccinated ID docs wear the same full PPE when visiting known positives. Are they wrong? Do they not understand the disease? Do they not understand the vaccine? Has Monica Ghandi stopped wearing PPE when managing covid pts? Of course she hasn't. So the litmus test remains, is there anybody so convinced that masks don't lower risk of transmission that they'll expose themselves to known positives without a mask? And then go home and play with their kids lol.
And don't get me wrong. I don't think 2 vaccinated people who aren't suspected to be infected need to mask anymore. But that's again very different than saying we're fully at a point in this thing that you shouldn't protect yourself against known positives until we know for sure the vaccine is like a brick wall.
And don't get me wrong. I don't think 2 vaccinated people who aren't suspected to be infected need to mask anymore. But that's again very different than saying we're fully at a point in this thing that you shouldn't protect yourself against known positives until we know for sure the vaccine is like a brick wall.
Mormad, I appreciate your contribution but I am a little lost on what you are saying. Why, all of the sudden, do you think people will want to visit people who are not well. Will we not just go back to the norm of not being around people that are sick? I get a flu shot each year, I still avoid going to visit others with the flu. To me this is common sense and what I would expect most would feel is getting back to normal.Mormad said:
True, and that's exactly how we both want it to be. But the vaccines aren't 100% effective in trials in which the standard was how many vaccinated peeps got infected or disease vs how many unvaccinated peeps got the same, but only in real world, everyday life. Nobody studied vaccinated people exposed to known positives without ppe. The closest thing to my scenario, which I'm using as a litmus test for those who want to say masks make no difference, is the one looking at hospital staff who i assume are exposed more often than the average bear in the other studies. We don't even know how many people in the studies were actually exposed to virus, much less unmasked. And the hospital staff studied wear full PPE (N95, face shield, gown, shoe covers, gloves) when with known positives. Fully vaccinated ID docs wear the same full PPE when visiting known positives. Are they wrong? Do they not understand the disease? Do they not understand the vaccine? Has Monica Ghandi stopped wearing PPE when managing covid pts? Of course she hasn't. So the litmus test remains, is there anybody so convinced that masks don't lower risk of transmission that they'll expose themselves to known positives without a mask? And then go home and play with their kids lol.
And don't get me wrong. I don't think 2 vaccinated people who aren't suspected to be infected need to mask anymore. But that's again very different than saying we're fully at a point in this thing that you shouldn't protect yourself against known positives until we know for sure the vaccine is like a brick wall.
Mormad said:
True, and that's exactly how we both want it to be. But the vaccines aren't 100% effective in trials in which the standard was how many vaccinated peeps got infected or disease vs how many unvaccinated peeps got the same, but only in real world, everyday life. Nobody studied vaccinated people exposed to known positives without ppe. The closest thing to my scenario, which I'm using as a litmus test for those who want to say masks make no difference, is the one looking at hospital staff who i assume are exposed more often than the average bear in the other studies. We don't even know how many people in the studies were actually exposed to virus, much less unmasked. And the hospital staff studied wear full PPE (N95, face shield, gown, shoe covers, gloves) when with known positives. Fully vaccinated ID docs wear the same full PPE when visiting known positives. Are they wrong? Do they not understand the disease? Do they not understand the vaccine? Has Monica Ghandi stopped wearing PPE when managing covid pts? Of course she hasn't. So the litmus test remains, is there anybody so convinced that masks don't lower risk of transmission that they'll expose themselves to known positives without a mask? And then go home and play with their kids lol.
And don't get me wrong. I don't think 2 vaccinated people who aren't suspected to be infected need to mask anymore. But that's again very different than saying we're fully at a point in this thing that you shouldn't protect yourself against known positives until we know for sure the vaccine is like a brick wall.
The vaccines are effective enough for a virus that hasn't affected me after working with the public and in public places for over a year now. But your scenario isn't something most people do anyway with any virus, without underlying reasons ie imminent death.
Davie posted the link I saw recently, maybe not the same source, that accentuates why it wouldn't be a difficult decision for me.
This is a scenario though where it's not good enough that everybody here is wearing masks and getting vaccinated. Now we have to believe we should be wearing masks after being vaccinated while visiting sick family. Doing it now is not enough. We have to create extreme scenarios where we can cast stones about wearing masks.
I'm glad hospital workers continue to wear PPE, as they should. I don't work in a hospital where I am visiting multiple sick people and possibly passing this virus and other illnesses to multiple sick people.
Oh yes, brother, don't misunderstand. I think vaccines are the way back to normal and i think we're getting there.
But to argue FOR masks i had to create a scenario in which those arguing AGAINST masks had to expose themselves to a known positive without a mask to see just how strongly they are convinced they're correct. My argument for masks doesn't work if the one against masks simply gets to choose to avoid exposure by distancing, which is the only 100% way of avoiding infection. Hope that makes sense.
But to argue FOR masks i had to create a scenario in which those arguing AGAINST masks had to expose themselves to a known positive without a mask to see just how strongly they are convinced they're correct. My argument for masks doesn't work if the one against masks simply gets to choose to avoid exposure by distancing, which is the only 100% way of avoiding infection. Hope that makes sense.
Yes. Life is about weighing risks. With early reports showing vaccines being 90+ percent effective in the real world, and a virus that isn't deadly to somewhere around 97-99% of the people it infects, I would think that at some point in the near future, most people would see that level of risk as acceptable and feel comfortable living their lives closer to what was previously normal. Surely medical professionals, people working around those known to be sick, people who suspect they may have been exposed, people who may be exhibiting symptoms should all continue to exercise caution. But if the message is "everyone needs to be vaccinated, but you're still going to have to wear a mask all the time", I'm afraid there are many people who are going to push back on that, and I don't blame them. Having received one shot, I continue to wear a mask in the homes I go in every day (or wherever else it is required), and will probably continue to do so for the foreseeable future after I get the second shot in a few weeks, but that is only for the piece of mind of the people inside, not because I feel the risk isn't at an acceptable level.
Just a guy on the sunshine squad.
I think what Mormad is saying is if you don't think masks work to lower transmission of COVID, would you be willing to go maskless around a known positive? Meaning how confident are you in that position to risk your own health/safety if you are wrong.
Mormad can correct me if I'm wrong.
Mormad can correct me if I'm wrong.
That's where I'm at. I'm doing a bathroom remodel for an older couple. They've been vaccinated. I've been vaccinated. All of my in house guys that go inside the house have been vaccinated. All of us have gone beyond the 2 weeks from second vaccination. We still wear masks when we go inside the house. Not for us. Not for them. They don't wear them and they've told us we don't have to. It's for the people walking down the street not knowing our situations that might see us enter or exit without masks, and try to destroy our business as a result. As soon as I let them not wear them inside they will forget to put them back on when walking outside, and maskers will react. Masks are a religion.
Certainly you realize that wasn't my argument at all, right?
I totally agree with everything you just said. But that's simply not my argument.
I created a litmus for all who argue "masks don't work." If a terrorist puts you in a 5x5 room with a coughing covid positive for 16 minutes, and all you have is your own immunity and a folded up mask the terrorist didn't find in your pocket, are you gonna wear the mask as whatever protection it may provide, or are you so convinced the mask is bs that doesn't work that you just say, screw the mask i ain't wearing it? I suspect even the staunchest anti masker would don the thing, and that's what i was saying to poor packPA in support of his dismay that there are those who still love to say "masks don't work." And I'm not supporting mask mandates.
I totally agree with everything you just said. But that's simply not my argument.
I created a litmus for all who argue "masks don't work." If a terrorist puts you in a 5x5 room with a coughing covid positive for 16 minutes, and all you have is your own immunity and a folded up mask the terrorist didn't find in your pocket, are you gonna wear the mask as whatever protection it may provide, or are you so convinced the mask is bs that doesn't work that you just say, screw the mask i ain't wearing it? I suspect even the staunchest anti masker would don the thing, and that's what i was saying to poor packPA in support of his dismay that there are those who still love to say "masks don't work." And I'm not supporting mask mandates.
I'm in Hilton head in crowds and restaurants, I'm vaccinated, and I've barely touched my mask. So i have a feeling y'all are missing my point.
In your scenario, are we assigning scarlet letters to "known positives"? Is this someone I know, or am I able to tell they are a "known positive" by some other way? What is my relationship to the "known positive" and why am I visiting?PackPA2015 said:
I think what Mormad is saying is if you don't think masks work to lower transmission of COVID, would you be willing to go maskless around a known positive? Meaning how confident are you in that position to risk your own health/safety if you are wrong.
Mormad can correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm very confident in my own health/safety not to contract the coronavirus and, if I do, not to get seriously ill. Simply based on the cdc data. Not on the religion of masks.
No, I get it, but you did include vaccination status as a potential variable in your scenario, so that was the basis of my response. I think a person who doesn't think masks work, and who has been vaccinated, is probably going to roll with that in your scenario. I don't think they are guaranteed to get religion on masks is placed in your terrorist box. But that's really just a guess. I don't personally know anyone who doesn't wear a mask, regardless of what their feelings may be on their effectiveness. I'm sure there are hard liners out there, and if they are that convinced that they don't work, IMO that wouldn't change in your scenario.
Just a guy on the sunshine squad.
packgrad said:In your scenario, are we assigning scarlet letters to "known positives"? Is this someone I know, or am I able to tell they are a "known positive" by some other way? What is my relationship to the "known positive" and why am I visiting?PackPA2015 said:
I think what Mormad is saying is if you don't think masks work to lower transmission of COVID, would you be willing to go maskless around a known positive? Meaning how confident are you in that position to risk your own health/safety if you are wrong.
Mormad can correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm very confident in my own health/safety not to contract the coronavirus and, if I do, not to get seriously ill. Simply based on the cdc data. Not on the religion of masks.
Say a hospitalized covid patient in an ICU. Not on the verge of death, but very ill. They are a friend of yours, not family. Assuming you could waltz in without a mask, do you feel confident in the fact that masks are cult items and worthless enough to risk severe illness or death in that situation? Said another way, do you guarantee 100% that without a mask around a known positive that you would not contract the virus?
Not sure why these details are needed, but I will play along.
Also, I am honestly very glad that none of your family or friends or acquaintances have had severe moderate-to-severe COVID, but ask a medical provider who has treated these patients. You know them when you step in the door. There is no doubt it is COVID. You need no scarlet letter.
PackPA2015 said:packgrad said:In your scenario, are we assigning scarlet letters to "known positives"? Is this someone I know, or am I able to tell they are a "known positive" by some other way? What is my relationship to the "known positive" and why am I visiting?PackPA2015 said:
I think what Mormad is saying is if you don't think masks work to lower transmission of COVID, would you be willing to go maskless around a known positive? Meaning how confident are you in that position to risk your own health/safety if you are wrong.
Mormad can correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm very confident in my own health/safety not to contract the coronavirus and, if I do, not to get seriously ill. Simply based on the cdc data. Not on the religion of masks.
Say a hospitalized covid patient in an ICU. Not on the verge of death, but very ill. They are a friend of yours, not family. Assuming you could waltz in without a mask, do you feel confident in the fact that masks are cult items and worthless enough to risk severe illness or death in that situation? That is the question.
Not sure why these details are needed, but I will play along.
Also, I am honestly very glad that none of your family or friends or acquaintances have had severe moderate-to-severe COVID, but ask a medical provider who has treated these patients. You know them when you step in the door. There is no doubt it is COVID. You need no scarlet letter.
Yes I would go see a hospitalized friend in an ICU without a mask if it was allowed, and it wouldn't hurt them. But it isn't, so its another ridiculous scenario that would never happen to try to convert the "non believers".
I appreciate that you're glad that none of my family or friends have had severe Covid. Interesting that medical providers can tell when someone has Covid as soon as they walk in the door. I thought they were flu like symptoms. You would think coughing, headache, fever, vomiting, and other symptoms could be multiple things someone would go to the hospital for. Kind of fuels the conspiracy theories that its so easy for medical professionals to diagnose.
***major assumption below with the slightest anecdotal example below***
I have seen many examples of income class being associated with masking or not masking. Either way below is what I have seen first hand in the last year.
I am a car guy. I have a few and am always adding and deleting from my stable every 6 months or so. I have been to all kinds of dealerships and I can say over the last year no one in the Porsche, Mclaren, or Ferrari dealers has been masked up. Not even the shop I use for aftermarket work has been masked up. In fact I was there this morning dropping one off cars for turbo upgrades and no masks for employees or others coming in to drop off.
But when I have been at an Audi, BMW, or Chevy dealer everyone is masked.
So I am making the assumption affluence reduces the amount of masking. This is totally generalized but has anyone else seen something similar to this?
I have seen many examples of income class being associated with masking or not masking. Either way below is what I have seen first hand in the last year.
I am a car guy. I have a few and am always adding and deleting from my stable every 6 months or so. I have been to all kinds of dealerships and I can say over the last year no one in the Porsche, Mclaren, or Ferrari dealers has been masked up. Not even the shop I use for aftermarket work has been masked up. In fact I was there this morning dropping one off cars for turbo upgrades and no masks for employees or others coming in to drop off.
But when I have been at an Audi, BMW, or Chevy dealer everyone is masked.
So I am making the assumption affluence reduces the amount of masking. This is totally generalized but has anyone else seen something similar to this?
I really knew I shouldn't have jumped in this conversation. It's not the fever and cough that do it. It's part of a physical exam, their general appearance. I have mentioned this so many times before that moderate-to-severe COVID patients are the sickest patients I have ever seen in my medical career. Yes, mild covid can seem like many other illnesses, but that is not what I said in my post. I said moderate-to-severe.
As far as masks go, I can and have shared a million studies on this thread that show evidence of them lowering transmission of COVID. You will squirm and change an argument until the rest of us get tired of arguing. Kudos, I guess?
P.S. I still haven't gotten a response on the NC, TN comparison.
As far as masks go, I can and have shared a million studies on this thread that show evidence of them lowering transmission of COVID. You will squirm and change an argument until the rest of us get tired of arguing. Kudos, I guess?
P.S. I still haven't gotten a response on the NC, TN comparison.
PackPA2015 said:
I really knew I shouldn't have jumped in this conversation. It's not the fever and cough that do it. It's part of a physical exam, their general appearance. I have mentioned this so many times before that moderate-to-severe COVID patients are the sickest patients I have ever seen in my medical career. Yes, mild covid can seem like many other illnesses, but that is not what I said in my post. I said moderate-to-severe.
As far as masks go, I can and have shared a million studies on this thread that show evidence of them lowering transmission of COVID. You will squirm and change an argument until the rest of us get tired of arguing. Kudos, I guess?
P.S. I still haven't gotten a response on the NC, TN comparison.
You started the conversation. Lol. I'm not squirming and changing any argument. I'm sorry you can't handle someone disagreeing with you. I've answered your ridiculous scenarios. Are you upset I didn't give the answer you wanted?
PS. Post a link to whatever you're wanting me to look at. I'm not going to make your argument for you.
wilmwolf80 said:
No, I get it, but you did include vaccination status as a potential variable in your scenario, so that was the basis of my response. I think a person who doesn't think masks work, and who has been vaccinated, is probably going to roll with that in your scenario. I don't think they are guaranteed to get religion on masks is placed in your terrorist box. But that's really just a guess. I don't personally know anyone who doesn't wear a mask, regardless of what their feelings may be on their effectiveness. I'm sure there are hard liners out there, and if they are that convinced that they don't work, IMO that wouldn't change in your scenario.
That's exactly what I'm trying to figure out. When push comes to shove, do the anti maskers really truly believe masks make absolutely no difference in your risk if you are actually exposed to an infectious individual? Way to much was actually made of the scenario, which was made unrealistic for the majority, but had to be to get the question answered. No scarlet letters. No shaming.
Hey! Does this mean that we are actually going to acknowledge my "Cloak of Invisibility" analogy regarding masks?Mormad said:wilmwolf80 said:
No, I get it, but you did include vaccination status as a potential variable in your scenario, so that was the basis of my response. I think a person who doesn't think masks work, and who has been vaccinated, is probably going to roll with that in your scenario. I don't think they are guaranteed to get religion on masks is placed in your terrorist box. But that's really just a guess. I don't personally know anyone who doesn't wear a mask, regardless of what their feelings may be on their effectiveness. I'm sure there are hard liners out there, and if they are that convinced that they don't work, IMO that wouldn't change in your scenario.
That's exactly what I'm trying to figure out. When push comes to shove, do the anti maskers really truly believe masks make absolutely no difference in your risk if you are actually exposed to an infectious individual? Way to much was actually made of the scenario, which was made unrealistic for the majority, but had to be to get the question answered. No scarlet letters. No shaming.
I don't handle people disagreeing for kicks and giggles well. You provide no evidence or data, you just argue. I had a day long debate with Wayland yesterday without issue. He provides his data and makes logical decisions about it. That is a debate.
I can't post it since I am no longer premium as I said earlier. Go to the CDC website or any covid cases and deaths tracking site. Compare NC and TN cases and deaths controlled for population size differences. Come back with the graph to support your conclusion.
And this is my last post on the subject. Everyone here knows what I believe and everyone knows how you believe. I won't junk up this thread with more and more posts.
I can't post it since I am no longer premium as I said earlier. Go to the CDC website or any covid cases and deaths tracking site. Compare NC and TN cases and deaths controlled for population size differences. Come back with the graph to support your conclusion.
And this is my last post on the subject. Everyone here knows what I believe and everyone knows how you believe. I won't junk up this thread with more and more posts.
Sure am glad I didn't make the April fools mask joke I started to this morning.
That demographics and geography have more to do with case rates than mandates, still? Even without TN/NC correlation. It makes sense since the population centers of the states are not closely located.PackPA2015 said:
I really knew I shouldn't have jumped in this conversation. It's not the fever and cough that do it. It's part of a physical exam, their general appearance. I have mentioned this so many times before that moderate-to-severe COVID patients are the sickest patients I have ever seen in my medical career. Yes, mild covid can seem like many other illnesses, but that is not what I said in my post. I said moderate-to-severe.
As far as masks go, I can and have shared a million studies on this thread that show evidence of them lowering transmission of COVID. You will squirm and change an argument until the rest of us get tired of arguing. Kudos, I guess?
P.S. I still haven't gotten a response on the NC, TN comparison.
Did you know that Raleigh is the same distance from Memphis, TN as it is from Toronto, Canada?
I would group TN more in with states which lean a little more deep south.
Now, I don't know enough about TN to know what that spike is... but deaths were similar to nearby states biased west of the Appalachians.
Why did Utah do so well with deaths compared to NC? I was there in October and I can tell you it wasn't because people there were following all the rules and strictly behaving. Demographics and geography.
Why did Meck have 40% more deaths and 25% more cases than Wake with roughly the same population? Was it the mandates?
I guess. The short answer to your question is that despite the shared border and longitude, there is still a significant enough difference in the geographic location of the population centers and the demographics that their trajectories are slightly different. TN leans more with the states that border the Western portion than the state that borders it in desolate Appalachia. TN tracks Arkansas well.
NC through luck of location and demographics fared better than TN.... but much worse than Utah or the PNW.
Closest partner for demographics and geography for NC would probably be Virginia, if I had to pick.
I missed that one! Damn. That is actually a pretty interesting analogy!
Featured Stories
See All
COMMIT ALERT: Caitlin Weimar picks NC State
by Ethan Barry
14:50
6h ago
338
TOP PLAYS: Payton Wilson
by Bryant Carson
IPS IN 5: Paint-Touch Guard Marcus Hill Fills A Need
by James Henderson
RECRUIT ZOOM CALL: Marcus Hill Announces NC State Commitment
by James Henderson
COMMIT ALERT: All-MAC Guard Marcus Hill Picks NC State
by James Henderson