Neither the Giants nor Dodgers were in the original National League, founded 1876. Only two of those teams - Chicago White Stockings (later Cubs) & Boston Red Stockings (later Braves) still exist. The Cincinnati Reds, Philadelphia Athletics & STL Browns disbanded and reappeared.
The New York Giants began as the New York Gothams in 1883, changing their name to Giants in 1885.
The Dodgers began as the Brooklyn Atlantics in the American Association in 1883. Interestingly, the Cincinnati Reds, Pittsburgh Alleghenies (later Pirates) and St. Louis Browns (now Cardinals) from the American Association also still exist today in their NL form.
The first time the Dodgers and Giants played each other was on May 3, 1890. The Brooklyn Bridegrooms (as the Dodgers were called) won 7 to 3 at home in front of 3,774 fans.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Have watched with curious interest the ongoing debate over the American Revolution and Dunmore and one thing has struck me: There were likely a lot of people who supported ending slavery (thru gradual PA/1780-style laws) AND vehemently opposed the Dunmore proclamation.
My lens into this is the debate during the Civil War, so I want to be cautious about reading similar debates backward to the 1770s. But the *means* of emancipation mattered enormously to whites generally in favor of emancipation.
If emancipation were viewed as a product of "treachery" or "insurrection" of some kind (as Dunmore surely was perceived), support for emancipation among moderately anti-slavery elites would dissipate...but not necessarily disappear.
I've been clear all along that I support @EggerDC in this debate: previous infection-induced immunity should count as immune in a mandate. Antibody or T-cell tests are imperfect, but they could suffice. That said, the replies to BOTH threads here reflect a bigger problem.
@EggerDC That bigger problem is an unwillingness to take at face value the thing being discussed. Those who want to accept infection-induced immunity are deemed anti-vax enablers. Those who oppose an exemption are authoritarians who just want to control people.
In fact, this follows a common pattern that is not just a "very online" phenomenon: a tendency to push the debate into extreme directions. It's unhealthy because this should be a nuanced policy debate over ever-involving science and not a comic book good v. evil fight.
Also, we need to be clear about WHY boosters are justified. It's not to cut down on all infections. It's to cut down on severity and hospitalizations. And 65+ are more vulnerable to severity and hospitalization, both initially after dose 2 and over time.
Another possibility is to have boosters for 65+ and then expand the range of co-morbidities to justify boosters for those under 65.
Didn't realize NYC was tracking cases and hospitalization by vaccination status. So here are the data for the week ending August 28. Unvaccinated are 5X likely to be infected (PCR+) than fully vaccinated. And unvaccinated are 11.4X likely to be hospitalized than fully vaccinated.
Here is the link below. Note that the cases (and hospitalizations to a lesser extent) of vaccinated rise when the unvaxxed cases rise. But for unvaxxed, cases rose from 6/27 from 36 per 100k to 381 per 100k, while vaxxed rose from 6 to 76. www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid…
Breakthrough cases are more apparent because of the increase in raw numbers of them. But the rate of case increase under Delta between vaxxed and unvaxxed was pretty similar. Vaxxed cases jumped 12.6X with Delta while unvaxxed cases jumped 10.5X with Delta.