The ACC will delay the start of competition for all fall sports until at least Sept. 1

WreckinGT

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,159
bwelbo said:
Because I’m a scientist at heart and go by the data. It’s also comforting to know that multiple other conferences disagree with them, their players and athletic departments in the Big10 disagree with the Presidents, and the reasoning they’ve given publicly isn’t based on sound science either. (Remember a big part of their reasoning they said was a tiny study of a couple dozen 45 year olds in Germany.). We’ve also discussed this reasoning for many weeks now. I appreciate that they’re “worried about the risks”, but the risks haven’t been defined, despite having tons of data in front of us, and the risks certainly aren’t in the same zip code as many others like CTE. You know all this - we’ve been discussing it at length, but happy to document it again here. And with each passing day, seeing the situation on college campuses and the numbers and outcomes in sports teams, our reasoning is further and further justified.
Click to expand...
I think claiming that the Presidents at schools like Northwestern, Stanford, Michigan, etc, made the decision to lose hundreds of millions of dollars without looking at any data or the science behind the problem is a bit of a stretch.
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
WreckinGT said:
I think claiming that the Presidents at schools like Northwestern, Stanford, Michigan, etc, made the decision to lose hundreds of millions of dollars without looking at any data or the science behind the problem is a bit of a stretch.
Click to expand...

That’s not at all what I said. You’re a real piece of work.

My opinion is based on their reasoning as publicly stated.
 
Augusta_Jacket

Augusta_Jacket

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
8,095
Location
Augusta, Georgia

Deleted member 2897

Guest
Augusta_Jacket said:
It sure SOUNDED like that's what you were saying.
Click to expand...

Where did I say that the University Presidents never looked at the data or the science? All I said is they were influenced by fear of the unknown, lawsuits, and bad counsel...and were not guided by the data and the science.

You’ll note they didn’t publish any information about hospitalization rate or deaths in younger people, or anything related to the risks of transmission while playing football or other sports. They also didn’t publish anything about how the risks of COVID compare to other risks like broken bones, CTE, etc. And, we know they eagerly let students back on campus, which we all said here was infinitely more dangerous and we’ve been proven correct several times over.
 
Augusta_Jacket

Augusta_Jacket

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
8,095
Location
Augusta, Georgia
bwelbo said:
Where did I say that the University Presidents never looked at the data or the science? All I said is they were influenced by fear of the unknown, lawsuits, and bad counsel...and were not guided by the data and the science.

You’ll note they didn’t publish any information about hospitalization rate or deaths in younger people, or anything related to the risks of transmission while playing football or other sports. They also didn’t publish anything about how the risks of COVID compare to other risks like broken bones, CTE, etc. And, we know they eagerly let students back on campus, which we all said here was infinitely more dangerous and we’ve been proven correct several times over.
Click to expand...

You're playing semantics. When asked the direct question "Why are you more informed than the college presidents who made the decision?" your reply started with "Because I’m a scientist at heart and go by the data." Now, to anyone other than you, that answer implies that the university presidents didn't use data in their decision. That's exactly why I stated it sure sounded like you said that.

You also added this nugget: "the reasoning they’ve given publicly isn’t based on sound science either."

So, you either don't believe the university presidents made their decision based of real data or you're writing skills are suspect.
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
Augusta_Jacket said:
You're playing semantics. When asked the direct question "Why are you more informed than the college presidents who made the decision?" your reply started with "Because I’m a scientist at heart and go by the data." Now, to anyone other than you, that answer implies that the university presidents didn't use data in their decision. That's exactly why I stated it sure sounded like you said that.

You also added this nugget: "the reasoning they’ve given publicly isn’t based on sound science either."

So, you either don't believe the university presidents made their decision based of real data or you're writing skills are suspect.
Click to expand...

Ah, here come the personal attacks. Typical. You’re just trying to make up reasons for picking a fight. What I said was perfectly clear. I’ve been very clear for a long time how I feel about those university presidents. There is no data or science that says young super fit people are at risk of transmitting COVID through playing football, and indeed the risk is significantly higher just being a regular student. Moreover, the risk of COVID is less than regular football injuries like broken bones, torn ligaments, or CTE. What I just re-said is what I mean - I don’t believe they’re basing their decisions on science. His accusation (and one that youve glommed onto) is common - you disagree with my premise, so you levy wild accusations. I never said they refused to look at the data or never looked at it. That’s just silly. It’s changing the subject, making the argument about me instead of their decisions and their decision making criteria.
 
Augusta_Jacket

Augusta_Jacket

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
8,095
Location
Augusta, Georgia
bwelbo said:
Ah, here come the personal attacks. Typical. You’re just trying to make up reasons for picking a fight. What I said was perfectly clear. I’ve been very clear for a long time how I feel about those university presidents. There is no data or science that says young super fit people are at risk of transmitting COVID through playing football, and indeed the risk is significantly higher just being a regular student. Moreover, the risk of COVID is less than regular football injuries like broken bones, torn ligaments, or CTE. What I just re-said is what I mean - I don’t believe they’re basing their decisions on science. His accusation (and one that youve glommed onto) is common - you disagree with my premise, so you levy wild accusations. I never said they refused to look at the data or never looked at it. That’s just silly. It’s changing the subject, making the argument about me instead of their decisions and their decision making criteria.
Click to expand...

There is no personal attack. You just need to pick a stance and stick with it. You change your mind and play semantics a LOT on this issue.
 
Augusta_Jacket

Augusta_Jacket

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
8,095
Location
Augusta, Georgia
bwelbo said:
Ah, here come the personal attacks. Typical. You’re just trying to make up reasons for picking a fight. What I said was perfectly clear. I’ve been very clear for a long time how I feel about those university presidents. There is no data or science that says young super fit people are at risk of transmitting COVID through playing football, and indeed the risk is significantly higher just being a regular student. Moreover, the risk of COVID is less than regular football injuries like broken bones, torn ligaments, or CTE. What I just re-said is what I mean - I don’t believe they’re basing their decisions on science. His accusation (and one that youve glommed onto) is common - you disagree with my premise, so you levy wild accusations. I never said they refused to look at the data or never looked at it. That’s just silly. It’s changing the subject, making the argument about me instead of their decisions and their decision making criteria.
Click to expand...

You're also obfuscating.

And this sentence is plain wrong: There is no data or science that says young super fit people are at risk of transmitting COVID through playing football, and indeed the risk is significantly higher just being a regular student.

There is data saying that young super fit people can transmit via football. You just choose to ignore it.
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
Augusta_Jacket said:
There is no personal attack. You just need to pick a stance and stick with it. You change your mind and play semantics a LOT on this issue.
Click to expand...

False. Let it go. Why can’t we just discuss and debate the university presidents’ decisions and decision making criteria? Why do some of you guys get obsessed demanding to know why I’m smarter, how do I know things they don’t know, and out other words in my mouth? I don’t say those things, you all say them. I’ve stuck to the issues. Let’s move on and debate those.
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
Augusta_Jacket said:
You're also obfuscating.

And this sentence is plain wrong: There is no data or science that says young super fit people are at risk of transmitting COVID through playing football, and indeed the risk is significantly higher just being a regular student.

There is data saying that young super fit people can transmit via football. You just choose to ignore it.
Click to expand...

Again, you’re making things up. I never said the risk of transmitting COVID while playing football was zero. It is significantly less than being in the regular student population. Teams have been together for several months and have a minuscule transmission rate compared to regular students who have only been together for 2 weeks. Stop.
 
GT_EE78

GT_EE78

Banned
Messages
3,605
>football/basketball continue looking more and more likely
CDC tells states: Be ready to distribute coronavirus vaccines on Nov. 1
In a letter to governors dated Aug. 27, Robert Redfield, director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said states “in the near future” will receive permit applications from McKesson Corp. MCK, -0.67%, which has contracted with CDC to distribute vaccines to places including state and local health departments and hospitals.“CDC urgently requests your assistance in expediting applications for these distribution facilities and, if necessary, asks that you consider waiving requirements that would prevent these facilities from becoming fully operational by November 1, 2020,” Redfield wrote.
www.marketwatch.com

CDC tells states: Be ready to distribute coronavirus vaccines on Nov. 1

The timeline raised concern among public health experts about an “October surprise” — a vaccine approval driven by political considerations ahead of a...
www.marketwatch.com www.marketwatch.com
 

MWBATL

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,529
GT_EE78 said:
>football/basketball continue looking more and more likely
CDC tells states: Be ready to distribute coronavirus vaccines on Nov. 1
In a letter to governors dated Aug. 27, Robert Redfield, director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said states “in the near future” will receive permit applications from McKesson Corp. MCK, -0.67%, which has contracted with CDC to distribute vaccines to places including state and local health departments and hospitals.“CDC urgently requests your assistance in expediting applications for these distribution facilities and, if necessary, asks that you consider waiving requirements that would prevent these facilities from becoming fully operational by November 1, 2020,” Redfield wrote.
www.marketwatch.com

CDC tells states: Be ready to distribute coronavirus vaccines on Nov. 1

The timeline raised concern among public health experts about an “October surprise” — a vaccine approval driven by political considerations ahead of a...
www.marketwatch.com www.marketwatch.com
Click to expand...
Changes day by day, as fauci says today "not so fast, my friend..."
 

WreckinGT

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,159
A little bit more information on some of the data the Big 10 was seeing:

When we looked at our COVID-positive athletes, whether they were symptomatic or not, 30 to roughly 35 percent of their heart muscles (were) inflamed,” Sebastianelli said. “And we really just don’t know what to do with it right now. It’s still very early in the infection. Some of that has led to the Pac-12 and the Big Ten’s decision to sort of put a hiatus on what’s happening.
Click to expand...
You could have a very high-level athlete who’s got a very superior VO2 max and cardiac output who gets infected with COVID and can drop his or her VO2 max and cardiac output just by 10 percent, and that could make them go from elite status to average status,” Sebastianelli said. “We don’t know that. We don’t know how long that’s going to last. What we have seen when people have been studied with cardiac MRI scans — symptomatic and asymptomatic COVID infections — is a level of inflammation in cardiac muscle that just is alarming.
Click to expand...
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
WreckinGT said:
A little bit more information on some of the data the Big 10 was seeing:
Click to expand...

Directed at them and not you:
1) Not playing football but being only a student if anything will increase their risk. That’s where the highest risk Of transmission is, not in playing football.
2) So if you get it, per standard protocol (in other conferences), you must show a normal heart again before being cleared to play. Not playing because the season is canceled lowers the risk no further than not playing because you are held out.
3) 65%-70% show no heart issues.
4) They are a little unsure about how real it is, partly because they don’t have baseline readings for the players. So they don’t really know what they are seeing.
5) Even worst case scenarios don’t match up against other risks like broken bones, torn ligaments, and CTE.
6) It’s a shame they can’t let the people doing the thing make their own decision about whether they keep doing the thing.
 
Top