Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ethan in Portland

Who will be first Bill to test positive for COVID-19?

Recommended Posts

I’ll take Linemen for $500 Alex.  In all seriousness, this is a dumb thread and can’t believe I wasted a few minutes of my life reading it.  Shame on me.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hauschka had it but kicked it pretty easily.

 

 

Edited by Irv
  • Haha (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

I'm more interested to know who tests positive for antibodies since a large percentage of the population has been infected and isn't even aware of it because they never felt sick. 

 

Interesting.  You have evidence of this, or are you just spouting off “facts” that fit your narrative?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately this thing spreads so fast and is so contagious that if one or two people have it before a game 6 to 10 will probably have it after the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Johnny Hammersticks said:

 

Interesting.  You have evidence of this, or are you just spouting off “facts” that fit your narrative?

 

Really? You haven't seen any of the studies indicating that a sizable portion of the population contracted COVID-19, but went undiagnosed until antibody testing started? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

Really? You haven't seen any of the studies indicating that a sizable portion of the population contracted COVID-19, but went undiagnosed until antibody testing started? 

 

I’ve heard speculation, but never any science behind it.  Can you link any of these “studies?”  Educate me brotha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Johnny Hammersticks said:

 

I’ve heard speculation, but never any science behind it.  Can you link any of these “studies?”  Educate me brotha.

 

The LA study was the first one, I think.  I know there have been others that concluded similarly. 

 

https://news.usc.edu/170565/covid-19-antibody-study-coronavirus-infections-los-angeles-county/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

The LA study was the first one, I think.  I know there have been others that concluded similarly. 

 

https://news.usc.edu/170565/covid-19-antibody-study-coronavirus-infections-los-angeles-county/

 

So you’re showing me a study that was conducted in LA County.  A county with one of the highest infection rates in the country.  And by this I am to assume that this “sample” is representative of the populace?

 

Do better to support your claim.

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Haha (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Von Miller was talking about what he went through when he had it. He said that he had a few days where he had trouble breathing to the point where he almost went to the emergency room. He said his breathing still isn’t normal yet but it’s slowly getting better each week. This is also a guy in top physical shape and has access to some of the best Doctors on the planet. 
 

They are going to try to get a season in because of greed but if just one player dies the NFL should be sued in the 100,000,000 mil $ range.

Edited by Call_Of_Ktulu
  • Like (+1) 1
  • Skeptical 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Johnny Hammersticks said:

 

So you’re showing me a study that was conducted in LA County.  A county with one of the highest infection rates in the country.  And by this I am to assume that this “sample” is representative of the populace?

 

Do better to support your claim.


So what the study demonstrates is that the true infection rate is several orders higher, as a percentage of the population, than the confirmed infection rate.  In other words, although they only had X confirmed infections in LA County, the actual number of infections in LA County was 10X.  This comports with what we know about COVID-19, which is that a substantial portion of infected patients either never develop symptoms or have very minor symptoms, prompting them to never go get tested. 

 

As to the point about the study not applying outside of LA County. Well, that is just stupid. That is how all science works; every study; every theory. Studies are considered reliable when they are based on principles that are applicable to the entire population, such as this study.  Sure, the exact figures may vary, but the conclusion does not: a substantial percentage of the population contracted COVID-19 but were never officially diagnosed.  

Edited by JoshAllenHasBigHands
  • Like (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ethan in Portland said:

I will guess Ed Oliver. He lives in Texas which is blowing up with new cases. 

You are stupid

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Irv said:

Hauschka had it but kicked it pretty easily.

 

 

Stop trying to be punny...🤨

*
😁

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Irv said:

Hauschka had it but kicked it pretty easily.

 

 

 

Ok.....Irv is redeeming himself. I like it. 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:


So what the study demonstrates is that the true infection rate is several orders higher, as a percentage of the population, than the confirmed infection rate.  In other words, although they only had X confirmed infections in LA County, the action number of infections in LA County was 10X.  This comports with what we know about COVID-19, which is that a substantial portion of infected patients either never develop symptoms or have very minor symptoms, prompting them to never go get tested. 

 

As to the point about the study not applying outside of LA County. Well, that is just stupid. That is how all science works; every study; every theory. Studies are considered reliable when they are based on principles that are applicable to the entire population, such as this study.  Sure, the exact figures may vary, but the conclusion does not: a substantial percentage of the population contracted COVID-19 but were never officially diagnosed.  

 

Look man.  You’re wrong but you’re not completely wrong.  I have no doubt that more people have been infected than have tested positive.  I don’t need a study to reach that conclusion.  Your contention that “a large percentage of the population has been infected” is going to require a bit more evidence than one study conducted in LA County.  That’s not how science works.

 

How about this as a comparison?  I assume that most people in the country have an IQ greater than 135 because I administered 5,000 IQ tests to Harvard University students and the findings support this.  

 

See how this works?

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Haha (+1) 1
  • Awesome! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Johnny Hammersticks said:

 

Look man.  You’re wrong but you’re not completely wrong.  I have no doubt that more people have been infected than have tested positive.  I don’t need a study to reach that conclusion.  Your contention that “a large percentage of the population has been infected” is going to require a bit more evidence than one study conducted in LA County.  That’s not how science works.

 

How about this as a comparison?  I assume that most people in the country have an IQ greater than 135 because I administered 5,000 IQ tests to Harvard University students and the findings support this.  

 

See how this works?

 

Your point only makes sense if you are quibbling with the conclusion that between 2% and 7% of the population has/had COVID-19.  That is to say that because there was an above average number of confirmed COVID-19 cases in LA County, then it follows that areas where the diagnosed cases is lower the actual infection rate is also lower.  I don't disagree with that, but it also isn't what I am saying, nor, I think, what the original poster was saying.  

 

The supported claim is that if x=diagnosed cases, than 10x=the actual infected rate (I don't know if its 10x, 11x, etc. I'm just picking a random number).  Thus, if the confirmed infection rate in Houston is .1%, then the actual infection rate is 1%; if the confirmed infected rate in Chicago is .2%, then the actual infection rate is 2%; etc.  That conclusion holds, regardless of the geographical region.  It also means that we can safely assume that substantially more people, all over the country, contracted COVID-19 than we currently know about.  THAT is how science works.  

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[This is an automated response]

 

This topic is no longer contributing positively to the community and therefore the discussion has been closed.

 

Thank you.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thanks! (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/24/2020 at 11:46 AM, Johnny Hammersticks said:

I’ve heard speculation, but never any science behind it.  Can you link any of these “studies?”  Educate me brotha.

 

Thread's locked but if you care to mosey over the the OTW covid threads and search 'em, there's a bunch of stuff on this.

 

Some 2M people in the US have tested positive for covid-19.  That's 0.8% of the population.

 

Serology (antibody) testing of samples in different areas show ~3-4% have antibodies - about 4x the diagnostic test rate!

In Chelsea, MA where 32% of those tested were positive (it would be an area of Boston that was similar to NY in the scope of the epidemic), those tested were questioned about symptoms.  Half said they had not had symptoms. 

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...