Voluntary Opt outs

[Chicken Boo]

2 hours ago, mannc said:

Sorry, anecdotal evidence like this proves nothing.  
 

In the entire state of California, not one person under 18-years old has died of CV19.  That a sample size of 9 million kids.  You can confirm this by going to the state’s Coronavirus dashboard.
 

The demographics of this disease have been wildly misrepresented in the media.  It poses very little risk to healthy people under 60 years old, and even less than that to NFL football players in their 20s.  Players who are opting out are either seriously misinformed, are making a business decision, or have some significant pre-existing medical condition that makes them more vulnerable.

 

The uncertainty is enough for me.  No one knows how it will effect them or their family members.  That should be enough of a scare for most.

 

How much is your life or the life of a loved one worth?  Not to mention the stories of asymptomatic athletes that haven't fully regained their ability.

 

Covid and its effects are real.  I can't fault anyone for taking their and their loved ones health seriously.

[co_springs_billsfan]

Anyone know when the last "opt out" date is?  I thought I read that the period was supposed to last a week but it seems we've been going longer than that at this point.

[DCbillsfan]

1 hour ago, SCBills said:

 

A doctor from Johns Hopkins recently stated that a widespread vaccine likely will be ready for distribution towards the end of 2021.  

 

What do you prescribe we do?  Close down most everything for almost 2 years, while living in fear of anecdotal evidence and what "might" happen to you?  What we do know is the current death rate is very low, and the American death rate would be much lower if not for the NY elder-care fiasco.  

 

I honestly don't understand those who hold these views.  I fully endorse adjusting to this via distancing and masks, but at some point, with a virus that has an incredibly low death rate, we can't keep being afraid of our own shadows due to anecdotal evidence and potential long term effects (all viruses have potential long term effects on certain people).  

 

NFL players have every right to op-out, but i'm not sure what you want, bigger picture speaking, when people with your line of thinking keep harping on what-ifs and examples that fit your fear-centric view of this.  I don't mean that as condescending, as a healthy dose of fear is a good thing, but you'd think we were fighting mass scale ebola by the way some people are acting.

 

I don't have the link to the article, but read it about one month ago.  It went beyond the death rate of the virus and it went into detail about permanent damage to various organs and blood clots, etc.  It essentially stated: of 100 people who test positive for Covid, roughly 20 end up in the hospital, 10 of the 20 hospitalized survive with no apparent lingering issues, the other 10 - 1 to 2 of them die and 8 to 9 have suffered permanent damage to their body.  Basically, 10% of people who test positive for Covid are some sort of casualty, either death or permanent damage.

 

BTW, I agree with you about trying to keep businesses open.  Just do it in a safe, reasonable manner.  I got nothing on the schools.  That's a tough nut to crack.

[Punching Bag]

9 minutes ago, DCbillsfan said:

BTW, I agree with you about trying to keep businesses open.  Just do it in a safe, reasonable manner.  I got nothing on the schools.  That's a tough nut to crack.

 

Issue with schools are teachers, who are politically powerful and frankly despite what they say they look out for their interests first, and parents with children in school many of which have no alternates if they are going to work.  Teaching remotely does not work for many families who do not have resources, have multiple kids, have kids who look at this as vacation, etc.  Most kids will not follow directions just like those who told they have to wear masks and do protests.

[nucci]

29 minutes ago, co_springs_billsfan said:

Anyone know when the last "opt out" date is?  I thought I read that the period was supposed to last a week but it seems we've been going longer than that at this point.

I read 7 days after the agreement is signed and I don't think it's signed yet

[co_springs_billsfan]

3 minutes ago, nucci said:

I read 7 days after the agreement is signed and I don't think it's signed yet

Thanks!

[Punching Bag]

4 minutes ago, nucci said:

I read 7 days after the agreement is signed and I don't think it's signed yet

 

I am sure NFLPA will delay as much as they can.

[mannc]

1 hour ago, Chicken Boo said:

 

The uncertainty is enough for me.  No one knows how it will effect them or their family members.  That should be enough of a scare for most.

 

How much is your life or the life of a loved one worth?  Not to mention the stories of asymptomatic athletes that haven't fully regained their ability.

 

Covid and its effects are real.  I can't fault anyone for taking their and their loved ones health seriously.

Life is uncertain; we voluntarily encounter all sorts of risks every day.  With regard to COVID 19, our society's ability to rationally assess and respond to risk has gone right out the window, largely because of dishonest and incompetent media coverage of the virus.  And BTW, i've never heard of these "asymptomatic athletes that haven't fully regained their ability."  Who are you talking about?  

[Warcodered]

2 minutes ago, mannc said:

Life is uncertain; we voluntarily encounter all sorts of risks every day.  With regard to COVID 19, our society's ability to rationally assess and respond to risk has gone right out the window, largely because of dishonest and incompetent media coverage of the virus.  And BTW, i've never heard of these "asymptomatic athletes that haven't fully regained their ability."  Who are you talking about?  

yep everything is completely normal.

nothing to see here move along.

[mannc]

1 minute ago, Warcodered said:

yep everything is completely normal.

nothing to see here move along.

LOL.  What on earth do you think that proves?  

[Chandler#81]

1 hour ago, mannc said:

LOL.  What on earth do you think that proves?  

That you’re completely clueless. I’m convinced, anyway.

[Jdragon2]

1 hour ago, mannc said:

LOL.  What on earth do you think that proves?  

 

That your me-first worldview on this disease is misguided? Everything you've said statistically is wrong:

 

1 in 5 people require hospitalization. Older and preexisting are included. This does not impact the data as healthy, asymptomatic carriers have a greater chance to spread.

 

Focusing on only the younger people, (18 and under, or athletes included) is an extremely short and near-sighted view and basically says that those outside this metric can just eff off and deal with it....

 

Focusing on a small % of deaths out of the total is extremely narrowminded, as pointed out above the percentage of people who are *permanently* damaged physically from this disease is way too high to be ignored.

 

I've seen far too many people who are anti-maskers, anti-vaxxers, people having CoVid parties; who then go on to infect their immediate family/friends and the result is in more then a few cases serious injuries or death. People think about themselves far too much. It's not just you in this situation.....it's everyone. That's why this country as a whole is doing so much worse then basically the rest of the planet.

 

Edit: Oh and one more thing you sure as heck would sing a completely different tone if you were impacted by it. It's easy to be "that guy" who wants to put on rainbow sunglasses and ignore everything about the reality of this disease..... but I assure you, you'd think much differently if it hit your family or friends. Oh and before you say, "well it hasn't hit us at all...." it's people with that mindset that cause everyone to suffer when they all of a sudden find themselves in a situation they scoffed at.

Edited July 30, 2020 by Jdragon2

[mannc]

26 minutes ago, Jdragon2 said:

 

That your me-first worldview on this disease is misguided? Everything you've said statistically is wrong:

 

1 in 5 people require hospitalization. Older and preexisting are included. This does not impact the data as healthy, asymptomatic carriers have a greater chance to spread.

 

Focusing on only the younger people, (18 and under, or athletes included) is an extremely short and near-sighted view and basically says that those outside this metric can just eff off and deal with it....

 

Focusing on a small % of deaths out of the total is extremely narrowminded, as pointed out above the percentage of people who are *permanently* damaged physically from this disease is way too high to be ignored.

 

I've seen far too many people who are anti-maskers, anti-vaxxers, people having CoVid parties; who then go on to infect their immediate family/friends and the result is in more then a few cases serious injuries or death. People think about themselves far too much. It's not just you in this situation.....it's everyone. That's why this country as a whole is doing so much worse then basically the rest of the planet.

 

Edit: Oh and one more thing you sure as heck would sing a completely different tone if you were impacted by it. It's easy to be "that guy" who wants to put on rainbow sunglasses and ignore everything about the reality of this disease..... but I assure you, you'd think much differently if it hit your family or friends. Oh and before you say, "well it hasn't hit us at all...." it's people with that mindset that cause everyone to suffer when they all of a sudden find themselves in a situation they scoffed at.

Nothing I said is statistically wrong, and you certainly don't point to anything  I said that might be.  The nonsense you posted, on the other hand...

 

1 in 5 "people" require hospitalization?  What utter nonsense.  In my state, with 4.2 million people, a grand total of 1500 people have been hospitalized since the beginning of the "pandemic".  That works out to .035 percent of the population, or about one in every 3000 people.  If you were only talking about the percentage of people who tested positive, which of course is only a small percentage of people who have actually contracted the virus, then it's 1500 out of 18,000, which works out to just over 8 percent, not 20 percent.

 

And of course, there is zero evidence at this point of long-term effects from the virus, much less people being "permanently damaged."  Any such talk is nothing more than panic-mongering speculation.  

 

Lastly, you have no idea whether I or anyone else in my family has been "impacted by it."  In fact, I have two members of my immediate family who have been severely impacted by the insane and scientifically unsupported forced school closures, business closures and travel restrictions.  Do they count too?  Are we even going to consider them?  I'm guessing there are many more people like me than there are people who have close friends or family members who have died from CV19.  

[HappyDays]

9 minutes ago, mannc said:

In fact, I have two members of my immediate family who have been severely impacted by the insane and scientifically unsupported forced school closures, business closures and travel restrictions.  Do they count too?  Are we even going to consider them?  I'm guessing there are many more people like me than there are people who have close friends or family members who have died from CV19.  

 

Regarding the bolded - the reason for that is that the travel restrictions and closures have limited the virus's spread. The alternate choice was leave everything open as normal and allow hundreds of thousands of people to die while overwhelming the healthcare system. It's unfortunate people are being affected, but I guarantee the resulting economic collapse of an uninhibited pandemic would have been many many times worse.

[Chicken Boo]

2 hours ago, mannc said:

"asymptomatic athletes that haven't fully regained their ability."  Who are you talking about?  

 

Maybe "regain their peak physical conditioning" is a better way to word it. 

 

And yes you have, unless you've completely ignored posts in this very thread.

[mannc]

13 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

Regarding the bolded - the reason for that is that the travel restrictions and closures have limited the virus's spread. The alternate choice was leave everything open as normal and allow hundreds of thousands of people to die while overwhelming the healthcare system. It's unfortunate people are being affected, but I guarantee the resulting economic collapse of an uninhibited pandemic would have been many many times worse.

That’s highly debatable and not scientifically proven.  Many states and countries that imposed fewer restrictions have “performed” as well or better than counties or states that locked down harder.  And at any rate, it’s not an argument between zero restrictions and full lockdown.  Certain restrictions made sense for some period of time, and few if any countries imposed none.

4 minutes ago, Chicken Boo said:

 

Maybe "regain their peak physical conditioning" is a better way to word it. 

 

And yes you have, unless you've completely ignored posts in this very thread.

I haven’t read every post in this thread and I don’t intend to, so enlighten me, if you will...

[HappyDays]

2 minutes ago, mannc said:

That’s highly debatable and not scientifically proven.

 

No, it is not. Many things are debatable. I like debating whether Josh Allen will be good or if the Bills will win the Super Bowl. Those are fun harmless debates. Epidemiology is not debatable. The effects of an uninhibited pandemic are proven science. No one can predict the exact numbers, but we know for a fact that it would be catastrophic.

 

5 minutes ago, mannc said:

Many states and countries that imposed fewer restrictions have “performed” as well or better than counties or states that locked down harder.

 

I would like to see your source for this claim.

 

8 minutes ago, mannc said:

And at any rate, it’s not an argument between zero restrictions and full lockdown.

 

I wish this were so. The easiest restriction, a national mask mandate, would likely be enough to re-open most of the country. Unfortunately a good portion of the country thinks that even that is too much of an infringement on their freedoms. I don't believe a full lockdown is necessary, but in the early stages when we were still learning about the virus it was an important step.

 

To illustrate some of this, here is a Twitter thread from the Governor of Mississippi a couple weeks ago. Make sure to read the whole thing:

 

 

His discussion of herd immunity is only somewhat related to what you're saying, but the deeper point of this thread is that if the virus spread uninhibited it would be a disaster for our healthcare system. He points out that even at the current levels, Mississippi's hospital system has been overwhelmed. That's with just 1.2% of their state population testing positive. Imagine if there were no restrictions at all. The case load would rise exponentially. In a matter of days or weeks the hospitals would be full. Extrapolate this to the rest of the country and you're looking at a national catastrophe.

[whatdrought]

10 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

No, it is not. Many things are debatable. I like debating whether Josh Allen will be good or if the Bills will win the Super Bowl. Those are fun harmless debates. Epidemiology is not debatable. The effects of an uninhibited pandemic are proven science. No one can predict the exact numbers, but we know for a fact that it would be catastrophic.

 

 

Let's make sure we're on the same page here...

 

Are you saying that the science on the novel coronavirus is proven? 

 

Furthermore, are you saying "catastrophic" deaths? Or "catastrophic" cases without the shutdown? 

 

Two different things and the distinction is important here as you can't say the science is proven on deaths when we still don't have a realistic picture of the death rate of this thing. If it had gone unchecked in society we would have seen it spread, obviously, but we don't know what the death picture would look like because even now we're seeing studies that show the death rate is substantially lower than what is being reported due to unreported cases. 

 

[mannc]

14 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

No, it is not. Many things are debatable. I like debating whether Josh Allen will be good or if the Bills will win the Super Bowl. Those are fun harmless debates. Epidemiology is not debatable. The effects of an uninhibited pandemic are proven science. No one can predict the exact numbers, but we know for a fact that it would be catastrophic.

 

 

I would like to see your source for this claim.

 

 

I wish this were so. The easiest restriction, a national mask mandate, would likely be enough to re-open most of the country. Unfortunately a good portion of the country thinks that even that is too much of an infringement on their freedoms. I don't believe a full lockdown is necessary, but in the early stages when we were still learning about the virus it was an important step.

 

To illustrate some of this, here is a Twitter thread from the Governor of Mississippi a couple weeks ago. Make sure to read the whole thing:

 

 

His discussion of herd immunity is only somewhat related to what you're saying, but the deeper point of this thread is that if the virus spread uninhibited it would be a disaster for our healthcare system. He points out that even at the current levels, Mississippi's hospital system has been overwhelmed. That's with just 1.2% of their state population testing positive. Imagine if there were no restrictions at all. The case load would rise exponentially. In a matter of days or weeks the hospitals would be full. Extrapolate this to the rest of the country and you're looking at a national catastrophe.

The governor’s discussion of herd immunity is way off.  Many experts believe effective herd immunity with this virus is 20% or below, not 40 or 80%.

 

And you are vastly overstating the extent to which lockdowns are a proven scientific technique for controlling viruses.  They had never been done before on anything close to this scale, and for good reason.  Prior to CV 19, the CDC had recommended against such measures as a method of combatting viruses like this one.

[Chicken Boo]

32 minutes ago, mannc said:

I haven’t read every post in this thread and I don’t intend to, so enlighten me, if you will...

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/covid-long-term-effects-sports-athletes-nba-bubble-11593161922

 

Here's a good read from the WSJ.

[HappyDays]

7 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

Are you saying that the science on the novel coronavirus is proven? 

 

Furthermore, are you saying "catastrophic" deaths? Or "catastrophic" cases without the shutdown? 

 

I am saying through epidemiology we know that letting the virus run naturally through the population would be catastrophic. That is not even up for debate. Catastrophe doesn't just mean deaths. It means the healthcare system gets overwhelmed like what happened in NYC at the peak. Obviously not every region would experience the same peak but many areas would become catastrophes.

8 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

we still don't have a realistic picture of the death rate of this thing. If it had gone unchecked in society we would have seen it spread, obviously, but we don't know what the death picture would look like because even now we're seeing studies that show the death rate is substantially lower than what is being reported due to unreported cases. 

 

Right, we don't know the exact death rate. That is an argument in my favor. We can't let a virus run rampant when we don't know exactly what it will do. As it stands there have been over 150,000 confirmed deaths and over 300,000 hospitalizations in the USA (obviously there is some overlap with those two figures). That is with the restrictions that we implemented before it really got out of control. We don't know the death rate but we know that what we've seen is the floor of what the virus could do.

10 minutes ago, mannc said:

The governor’s discussion of herd immunity is way off.  Many experts believe effective herd immunity with this virus is 20% or below, not 40 or 80%.

 

And you are vastly overstating the extent to which lockdowns are a proven scientific technique for controlling viruses.  They had never been done before on anything close to this scale, and for good reason.  Prior to CV 19, the CDC had recommended against such measures as a method of combatting viruses like this one.

 

Can you source either of those claims? How would 20% achieve herd immunity?

[Warcodered]

4 minutes ago, mannc said:

The governor’s discussion of herd immunity is way off.  Many experts believe effective herd immunity with this virus is 20% or below, not 40 or 80%.

Not sure where you're getting that number though I have a guess.

But sure let's give you that. That still means 1.5X the number of cases on their worst day for a year...that's not good.

[mannc]

50 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

I am saying through epidemiology we know that letting the virus run naturally through the population would be catastrophic. That is not even up for debate. Catastrophe doesn't just mean deaths. It means the healthcare system gets overwhelmed like what happened in NYC at the peak. Obviously not every region would experience the same peak but many areas would become catastrophes.

 

Right, we don't know the exact death rate. That is an argument in my favor. We can't let a virus run rampant when we don't know exactly what it will do. As it stands there have been over 150,000 confirmed deaths and over 300,000 hospitalizations in the USA (obviously there is some overlap with those two figures). That is with the restrictions that we implemented before it really got out of control. We don't know the death rate but we know that what we've seen is the floor of what the virus could do.

 

Can you source either of those claims? How would 20% achieve herd immunity?

There is a ton of stuff out there on herd immunity at 20% or lower.  This article cites one such study and explains why it may be lower than previously thought

 

.https://www.northsidesun.com/herd-immunity#sthash.WsvtUqBU.dpbs

[HappyDays]

25 minutes ago, mannc said:

There is a ton of stuff out there on herd immunity at 20% or lower.  This article cites one such study and explains why it may be lower than previously thought

 

.https://www.northsidesun.com/herd-immunity#sthash.WsvtUqBU.dpbs

 

The way that article describes the study is blatant misinformation.

 

The linked study is saying that to know what percentage would be needed for herd immunity, you would need to measure the variation of susceptibility in the population. As in different people have different probabilities of getting infected, and that variation in the probability would have to be factored in to the equation.

 

The study does not make the claim that herd immunity would be obtained at 10-20%. It says that assuming the best case scenario of susceptibility variation, herd immunity would be obtained at 10%. It does not claim that the best case scenario is reality. It says measures of individual variation are needed to find out for sure.

 

Here's an article on a more recent study that sought to do exactly that:

 

https://www.newsweek.com/herd-immunity-threshold-covid-19-could-just-43-percent-1512978

 

Their most optimistic prediction is 43%. We can't wait for anywhere near 43% of our population to catch the virus. That would destroy our health care system.

 

Here's something even more alarming:

 

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/studies-report-rapid-loss-of-covid-19-antibodies-67650

 

One of the studies found that 10 percent of nearly 1,500 COVID-positive patients registered undetectable antibody levels within weeks of first showing symptoms, while the other of 74 patients found they typically lost their antibodies two to three months after recovering from the infection, especially among those who tested positive but were asymptomatic.

 

researchers compared the immune responses of 37 asymptomatic but positive patients to an equal number with severe symptoms living in the Wanzhou District in China. They found that asymptomatic individuals reacted less strongly to infection, with 40 percent having undetectable levels of protective antibodies in the two to three months after the infection compared to 13 percent of the symptomatic patients.

 

So there is recent evidence that many carriers, especially asymptomatic ones, are losing their immunity in matter of weeks or months. That would ruin the potential for herd immunity to be reached at the requisite level.

 

The big takeaway here is we don't really know anything for sure. We're researching this thing fast as we can but it would be grossly irresponsible to reopen the entire country without mandates until we know it is safe to do so.

[Mr. K]

I'm lazy. Whats going to happen to the Covid holdout contracts?

[Chandler#81]

2 minutes ago, Mr. K said:

I'm lazy. Whats going to happen to the Covid holdout contracts?

Folks, there are pinned threads for in-depth discussion on Covid-19 Off The Wall. Mannc derailed this thread from its intent.

That ends now.

 

Covid Voluntary Opt Outs Only.

[Mr. K]

12 minutes ago, Chandler#81 said:

Folks, there are pinned threads for in-depth discussion on Covid-19 Off The Wall. Mannc derailed this thread from its intent.

That ends now.

 

Covid Voluntary Opt Outs Only.

Sorry for interrupting. I figured salary cap implications wouldn't fall under Off The Wall. I was specifically asking because I was curious about Stars' contract. Sorry Gibran didnt make it.

[DCofNC]

11 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I guess that must be highly reassuring to all the NFL players who are under the age of 18 right now.

 

We do know that dying is only part of the risk of the disease, Yes? 

Current estimate after adjusting for asymptomatic infections ~6% hospitalizations, and even patients who are not ill enough to require hospitalization may suffer prolonged effects:

 

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/07/research-reveals-heart-complications-covid-19-patients

-100 unselected coronavirus patients identified from the University Hospital Frankfurt COVID-19 Registry

-median age 49 (that means half were younger)

-Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging revealed heart involvement in 78 patients and active cardiac inflammation in 60

-independent of underlying conditions, disease severity, overall course of illness, and time from diagnosis to CMR

-67 of the patients studied had not required hospitalization for covid-19 disease
Actual study:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2768916

 

Then there's the US Olympic Rowing team, that collection of elderly couch potatoes:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/24/sports/olympics/coronavirus-us-rowing-olympics.html

"In late March, several days after New Jersey instituted a stay-at-home order as the coronavirus began to ravage parts of the state, Marc Nowak, the team’s physical therapist, tested positive for the virus after experiencing minor cold-like symptoms and promptly reporting them to U.S. Rowing.

In the previous two weeks, Nowak said, he had come into direct contact with “pretty much the whole team” of 33 women during 30-minute physical therapy sessions of hands-on stretching and muscle and joint manipulation. Out of caution — and fortunately for the team — Wenger used one of his office’s limited coronavirus tests to check on his colleague.

One by one, starting four or five days after exposure, rowers began to show symptoms of infection." (....)

Emily Regan, an Olympic gold medalist from Williamsville, N.Y., who was among those infected, wrote a post on Facebook this month highlighting how debilitating the disease could be, even for some of the world’s best athletes who have incredibly powerful and efficient lungs.   “The narrative that has been going around in some places is that you won’t get the virus if you’re young and strong, or if you get it, it won’t be bad, but we’re perfect examples of how that is totally not true,” Regan said. She added: “Look what the virus still did to us. It knocked us down pretty hard.”

The rowers infected ranged in age from 23 to 37, Regan said, and many battled symptoms for weeks. The cases were categorized as mild, though some athletes dealt with complications for as many as 40 days, according to Wenger. None of the rowers required hospitalization, he said.

Regan, 32, said it took her a month to feel back to normal after she fell ill. More than three months later, she is still trying to get back into competitive shape, she said. That level of fitness was extremely high: Regan is a four-time world champion in her ninth year on the national team.

“I’ve never struggled like that before,” she said.

Before we dismiss this as anecdote, the statistics:

-One physical therapist infected

-PT had contact with 33 elite athletes on the team through 30 minute daily PT sessions

-age 23-37 (highly relevant age to NFL football players)

-12 of 33 became infected (36%) with the PT as the most probable contact (elite athletes preparing for olympic trials, not out clubbing or partying)

-0 hospitalizations, 0 deaths, all mild disease

-a number of the athletes reported effects that lingered for weeks/months, returning them to "the level of an average high school girl"

 

Now maybe wearing masks would have prevented transmission - in March, masks weren't being recommended.  Or maybe they won't. 

 

The point is, between the JAMA Cardiology report and the US Rowing Team, it has to be acknowledged that "mild" covid disease that does not result in hospitalization or death can be debilitating to elite athletes. 

 

Maybe Joe Couch Potato and Cubicle Cary wouldn't notice, or would just experience a bit more fatigue carrying in the groceries.  But elite athletes, especially those who are on the bubble...I can see legit cause for concern.

 

 

Yeah, the flu sucks too, nobody shuts down the world for it.  There’s obviously no sense in talking to you about the facts, you have you mind made up that this is bad and that’s that.  

3 hours ago, HappyDays said:

 

The way that article describes the study is blatant misinformation.

 

The linked study is saying that to know what percentage would be needed for herd immunity, you would need to measure the variation of susceptibility in the population. As in different people have different probabilities of getting infected, and that variation in the probability would have to be factored in to the equation.

 

The study does not make the claim that herd immunity would be obtained at 10-20%. It says that assuming the best case scenario of susceptibility variation, herd immunity would be obtained at 10%. It does not claim that the best case scenario is reality. It says measures of individual variation are needed to find out for sure.

 

Here's an article on a more recent study that sought to do exactly that:

 

https://www.newsweek.com/herd-immunity-threshold-covid-19-could-just-43-percent-1512978

 

Their most optimistic prediction is 43%. We can't wait for anywhere near 43% of our population to catch the virus. That would destroy our health care system.

 

Here's something even more alarming:

 

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/studies-report-rapid-loss-of-covid-19-antibodies-67650

 

 

 

 

So there is recent evidence that many carriers, especially asymptomatic ones, are losing their immunity in matter of weeks or months. That would ruin the potential for herd immunity to be reached at the requisite level.

 

The big takeaway here is we don't really know anything for sure. We're researching this thing fast as we can but it would be grossly irresponsible to reopen the entire country without mandates until we know it is safe to do so.

There is no evidence of what you are claiming, just like all viruses, there has been a slight mutation and the antibodies aren’t the same.  Stop being paranoid.

[The Dean]

14 minutes ago, DCofNC said:

Yeah, the flu sucks too, nobody shuts down the world for it.  There’s obviously no sense in talking to you about the facts, you have you mind made up that this is bad and that’s that.  

 

 

 

You really are clueless, aren't you?

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

4 hours ago, HappyDays said:

Here's something even more alarming:

 

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/studies-report-rapid-loss-of-covid-19-antibodies-67650

 

So there is recent evidence that many carriers, especially asymptomatic ones, are losing their immunity in matter of weeks or months. That would ruin the potential for herd immunity to be reached at the requisite level.

 

Why people still think this is "just flu" after it's filled up the hospitals in city after city in a way flu hasn't done since 1918 is beyond me.  But so it is and no facts or information will change them. 

 

@Chandler#81 has a very valid point about this thread being intended for tracking opt-outs, so on the antibody point let me just re-direct to some information I put up on the covid-19 facts thread and if you have questions about it, be happy to take them on in the discussion thread:

 

[Mango]

1 hour ago, DCofNC said:

Yeah, the flu sucks too, nobody shuts down the world for it.  There’s obviously no sense in talking to you about the facts, you have you mind made up that this is bad and that’s that.  

There is no evidence of what you are claiming, just like all viruses, there has been a slight mutation and the antibodies aren’t the same.  Stop being paranoid.

I can tell you as a friend of Emily’s and a former resident at the Olympic Training Center, the flu does not set you 3 months back in your training. 

[Capco]

4 hours ago, DCofNC said:

Yeah, the flu sucks too, nobody shuts down the world for it.  There’s obviously no sense in talking to you about the facts, you have you mind made up that this is bad and that’s that.  

There is no evidence of what you are claiming, just like all viruses, there has been a slight mutation and the antibodies aren’t the same.  Stop being paranoid.

 

Does the NC in your name refer to North Carolina?

[K-9]

4 hours ago, Capco said:

 

Does the NC in your name refer to North Carolina?

I’m guessing “No Clue.” 

[YoloinOhio]

 

[Capco]

4 hours ago, K-9 said:

I’m guessing “No Clue.” 

Sometimes it’s the same thing.

[Passepartout]

North Carolina or No Clue, or No Cause! It could go either way or all ways.

[YoloinOhio]

 

[cd1]

I count 34 Opt-outs

 

Quote

https://www.nfl.com/news/list-of-nfl-players-to-opt-out-of-2020-season

Here are the NFL players to opt out of the 2020 season so far:

VOLUNTARY OPT-OUTS

 

Baltimore Ravens: KR De'Anthony Thomas, OL Andre Smith

Buffalo Bills: DT Star Lotulelei

Dallas Cowboys: CB Maurice Canady, WR Stephen Guidry

Green Bay Packers: WR Devin Funchess

Houston Texans: DT Eddie Vanderdoes

Kansas City Chiefs: OL Laurent Duvernay-Tardif

New England Patriots: LB Dont'a Hightower, FB Dan Vitale, RB Brandon Bolden, OL Najee Toran

Philadelphia Eagles: WR Marquise Goodwin

 

Seattle Seahawks: OL Chance Warmack

Tennessee Titans: OL Anthony McKinney

HIGHER RISK OPT-OUTS

Los Angeles Rams: OT Chandler Brewer

Minnesota Vikings: DT Michael Pierce

New England Patriots: OL Marcus Cannon

Washington Football Team: DE Caleb Brantley

UNSPECIFIED OPT-OUTS

 

Carolina Panthers: LB Jordan Mack

Chicago Bears: DT Eddie Goldman

Cincinnati Bengals: DT Josh Tupou, OT Isaiah Prince

Cleveland Browns: G Drew Forbes, T Drake Dorbeck

Denver Broncos: DT Kyle Peko

Detroit Lions: DT John Atkins

Jacksonville Jaguars: DT Al Woods

Kansas City Chiefs: RB Damien Williams

 

New England Patriots: S Patrick Chung

New Orleans Saints: TE Jason Vander Laan, TE Cole Wick

New York Giants: OL Nate Solder

New York Jets: OL Leo Koloamatangi

 

[YoloinOhio]

 

 

[plenzmd1]

15 hours ago, cd1 said:

I count 34 Opt-outs  

Denver Broncos: DT Kyle Peko

 

15 hours ago, cd1 said:

 

 

hmmm , Kyle Peko...did his wife have a high risk pregnancy or something last year? Seem to remember something when he was with the bills last year