@RochNyFan posted:I've never heard Fauci mention washing your ass. I am not doing it until he tells me to.
Just keep it covered.
@Pikes Peak posted:The only way to truly protect yourself is to stay a way from people. Add in masks and sanitizing for good measure.
The last I checked football players are around dozens of folks each day, do not wear masks when near others and do not wash their hands after contact with others.
Toss in a little spit, sweat and blood and it's a wonder that we have games to watch.
I can’t believe nobody has died. It’s crazy. I’m like, so shocked.
I thought for sure 10 percent of the NFL would be dead.
Are 10% of the NFL players or coaches over 65? Do many players or coaches have comorbidities?
Those individuals are at high risk of serious complications including hospitalizations and death.
It’s a goddamn mess including in NE Wisconsin where the Packers reside.
I assume you're joking about 10 percent being dead? The virus is bad, but not THAT bad.
The guys that really would have the greatest chance of some sort of really bad outcome would be the big guys in the Offensive and Defensive Lines, and the older coaching/administrative staff members. But honestly, I don't think the virus is going to have a huge impact on the health of most NFL players, but they can become carriers and spread it to loved ones that are not as physically fit and able to fight off the disease. To me that is the greater concern, that they become spreaders to others outside the NFL.
It's stupid to be arguing about this, I've been told by good authority that we have turned the corner and this will soon be behind us.
@fightphoe93 posted:But honestly, I don't think the virus is going to have a huge impact on the health of most NFL players, but they can become carriers and spread it to loved ones that are not as physically fit and able to fight off the disease.
That's the biggest thing with this virus. You can have it & not even know it, then go visit Mom & kill her. Asymptomatic - tell em @MichiganPacker2 tell 'em!! (He's in R&D)
Agreed Boris. I visit my 77 and 78 year old parents weekly and I always fear that I could be an asymptomatic carrier. I figure at age 51 I'd probably feel some symptoms if I ever got Covid, but you just never know with this tricky disease.
I dodged a bullet as one of my best friends got Covid in late March from his kids, but I hadn't seen him since earlier in March so he didn't spread it to me. If it hadn't been for the shutdowns I probably would have gotten it from him when we'd meet up at the gym to workout.
I see what you did there.😀
All of these false positives are crazy.. I feel like this should be talked about more.
— Adrian Amos (@_SmashAmos31) October 17, 2020
@Boris posted:That's the biggest thing with this virus. You can have it & not even know it, then go visit Mom & kill her. Asymptomatic - tell em @MichiganPacker2 tell 'em!! (He's in R&D)
This is older data, but the trend has stayed the same. The elderly are much more likely to die if they get it (about 10X more likely than if they get the flu). Of course, there is a yearly vaccine for the flu that usually provides at least partial protection, so they are probably less likely to get the flu than COVID to begin with. I personally know two people in their 80s that have died from this. There are also two work colleagues who are younger that had this and they are still having some issues months later. These issues aren't life-threatening, but it's not fun to lose your sense of taste or smell for an extended period of time.
Also, 1 out of every 250 people between the ages of 50-59 that gets this dies. The argument from some people is that those people have some underlying condition that predisposes them to a poorer outcome like diabetes, hypertension, or obesity. That's true, but those are people that are likely to live another 15-20 years, not 1 month.
Just wear a mask.
@BrainDed posted:I thought for sure 10 percent of the NFL would be dead.
As dead as your brain?
@ammo posted:Actually Boss I think he just doesn't give a shit about others, only himself.
Everyone who criticizes measures to control the virus feels exactly that way, but they can’t be honest enough to just say that and move on. Idiotic liars.
@Boris posted:All of these false positives are crazy.. I feel like this should be talked about more.
— Adrian Amos (@_SmashAmos31) October 17, 2020
I think it is an issue with the instant tests. The other tests have almost no false positives.
@Goalline posted:Everyone who criticizes measures to control the virus feels exactly that way, but they can’t be honest enough to just say that and move on. Idiotic liars.
Every time I walk into a store where 95% of the people have put masks on for the greater good, just in case, I figure the other 5% are basically saying “Fuck you” in their heads.
@Goalline posted:I think it is an issue with the instant tests. The other tests have almost no false positives.
It's also that if you have a screening test like the fast test, you want to skew more towards having more false positives than false negatives. A false positive creates some anxiety, but all the positives are followed up by the more accurate (slower) tests and you end up with the correct answer in the end.
If you have false negatives, you risk having a superspreader event.
@Blair Kiel posted:Every time I walk into a store where 95% of the people have put masks on for the greater good, just in case, I figure the other 5% are basically saying “Fuck you” in their heads.
They are saying fuck you with their lack of masks as loudly as if they were yelling it in the store.
@Blair Kiel posted:Every time I walk into a store where 95% of the people have put masks on for the greater good, just in case, I figure the other 5% are basically saying “Fuck you” in their heads.
A lot of that 5% of the population that won't wear masks skews towards outdoorsy, gun-toting types. So, to stay consistent I guess they won't be wearing anything over their mouth and nose when they go deer hunting when it's freezing and windy outside?
I at least see where people are coming from with the opposition to the mandates to shut down some businesses that create high-risk transmission situations (bars, packed restaurants, movie theaters, etc.). It is hurting the economy. The scientific data overwhelmingly has shown that was the correct move, but even that data would have looked a lot better for the "open it all up" crowd if people had just worn the masks from the beginning. The "open it all up" crowd should have been the loudest voices in urging people to wear the masks. If you are arguing that we can open things up and still protect the vulnerable, then wear the damn masks - that's the best way to protect the vulnerable and it hardly costs anything.
I know I'm sounding like a broken record, but the whole "I don't want to wear a mask to protect your more vulnerable neighbors because it's infringing on my freedoms" argument is one of the sorriest episodes in recent American history.
@MichiganPacker2 posted:It's also that if you have a screening test like the fast test, you want to skew more towards having more false positives than false negatives. A false positive creates some anxiety, but all the positives are followed up by the more accurate (slower) tests and you end up with the correct answer in the end.
If you have false negatives, you risk having a superspreader event.
Did not know that. Makes a lot of sense.
@Goalline posted:Did not know that. Makes a lot of sense.
I don't work directly on biomarkers, but I work with a lot of people who are trying to develop them for blood-based cancer detection. The one that's best known to most people is PSA for prostate cancer, but that's been shown to not be as accurate as one would have hoped (although if you see a big change in the rate of PSA increase from your last test it's still a pretty good sign you need some careful followup).
The scientific terms in these fields are sensitivity and specificity. In the graph blow, there is a bit of overlap between the yellow curve (patients without disease) and the blue (patients with disease). To make sure you don't miss any of the blue curve, you're going to have to just accept the fact you are going to call some of the yellows incorrectly. They skew towards increasing the sensitivity on the rapid test.
Fascinating! I’ve become really interested in the biological sciences over the last few years.
YGBSM
@AdamSchefter: All the QBs on the Broncos' roster are ineligible to play Sunday against the Saints after being deemed high-risk, close contacts, sources tell ESPN.
None were wearing masks at the time of exposure, per source.
Run the wishbone or the wildcat! hahahah
Pull Favre out of retirement
Oh my
@Eric_Branch: Breaking: #49ers cannot play at Levi's Stadium under Santa Clara County's new coronavirus restrictions.
They have their next home game scheduled on Dec 7th.
NFL is handing the Saints a win. https://t.co/ZKItaW3AH9
— Michael Rodney (@PackersNotes) November 29, 2020
@Boris posted:NFL is handing the Saints a win. https://t.co/ZKItaW3AH9
— Michael Rodney (@PackersNotes) November 29, 2020
Yup, no way they could have beaten a Lock led team.
The Saints could do them a solid and loan them Jameis Winston.
@Pikes Peak posted:Paging John Elway
Er, Von Elway😂
To sum up this Saturday:
— Adam Schefter (@AdamSchefter) November 28, 2020
Ravens' Reserve/COVID list grew to 18 players.
Lions did a housecleaning.
The 49ers have no place to play.
And the Broncos have no quarterbacks.
Players out Sunday include Christian McCaffrey, Larry Fitzgerald, Rex Burkhead, Jonathan Taylor, Irv Smith, D.J. Chark, Chris Conley, Denzel Ward, Todd Gurley, John Brown, Salvon Ahmed, Myles Gaskin, Drew Lock, Jeff Driskell, Brett Rypien, Tevin Coleman and Brandon Aiyuk.
— Adam Schefter (@AdamSchefter) November 29, 2020