Bob Costas Brings Up A Good Point about NFL Players

[Thurman#1]

11 hours ago, Fan boy '92 said:

Lol, he says playing college football is "unconscionable". Says they don't get paid or have a union so it's extra not safe. Brilliant analysis really.

 

 

Yeah, no, he didn't say that.

 

He says they don't get paid or have a union. But he did not say or imply what you apparently think he did.

 

His concern with them not having a union is that because of that they have nobody whose interest is in advocating for their safety. And their not getting paid makes it even more questionable whether they (not to mention their families, friends and relations) should then be put in harm's way.

 

Both pretty reasonable concerns.

[cage]

11 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

70%?  Yikes!

I wonder, though, if that's an effect of considering anyone who meets the height and weight BMI criteria vs. the more accurate metric of body fat percentage?
That seems high.  But probably the guys on both sides of the lines qualify (9 or 10 out of 22 on the field or 45%).  Would linebackers and TE qualify?

Maybe by the time diabetes, hypertension and so forth are considered?

 

I don't know, still seems high to me.

 

 

The other part of it that he mentions, but doesn't discuss is the affect of that heart inflammation (also I've seen articles on reduced lung capacity) on not just linemen who are over 300 lbs, but what about RB, WR, CB?  While yeah, they're likely to recover and not be killed, these kinds of after affects could take a guy who runs 4.3 forty and turn him into a 4.6 guy.  At those positions, that can be the difference between being elite and out of the league... with the reaction of fans, being "see ya, he needs to be replaced"

[Thurman#1]

20 hours ago, mannc said:

Oh FFS.  The Eduardo Rodriguez thing has been WAY overblown.  The so called “complications” are very mild and he’s expected to play again this year.  And it’s ONE player.

 

 

Rodriguez is NOT expected to play again this year. It's not overblown at all.

 

https://mlb.nbcsports.com/2020/08/01/eduardo-rodriguez-out-for-the-year-due-to-an-inflamed-heart/

 

And yeah, it's ONE player ... out of how many who have been infected so far in baseball? What percentage of the infected major leaguers is Rodriguez? And he's no 330 pound offensive lineman who has to stuff 6000 calories down his gullet every day to keep his weight up.

 

We just don't know. This stuff is unpredictable, particularly as these athletes are out of the ordinary in so many ways. Will an OL who's terrifically strong and in good football shape but still has 40 or 50 pounds of fat on him still suffer as many health problems from COVID-19 percentage-wise than an average guy his age who has 40 or 50 extra pounds on him? I'd guess probably not, but there's just not a significant amount of data on guys like this.

 

A player would be irresponsible to his own interests not to think about this extremely seriously.

Edited August 2, 2020 by Thurman#1

[Keukasmallies]

The comments above are  much more interesting than Bob Costa's actual comments.  When the range of points of view are examined it's no wonder there are so many sports arguments.  I particularly like the comments prefaced by, "I didn't watch the video, but...." 

[BarleyNY]

1 hour ago, Keukasmallies said:

The comments above are  much more interesting than Bob Costa's actual comments.  When the range of points of view are examined it's no wonder there are so many sports arguments.  I particularly like the comments prefaced by, "I didn't watch the video, but...." 

Totally agree.  Most people aren’t interested in informed debate or even determining what’s really right, they just want to argue their uninformed, preconceived opinion.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

5 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Yeah, he had the chance to say that large gatherings result in increased transmissions. And instead he said, "Crowding together, particularly when you’re not wearing a mask, contributes to the spread of the virus."

 

Oh, wait. That's exactly the same thing.

 

Jordan wanted to make a political point, to focus attention on the groups he doesn't like and away from the groups he does. Do you think for an instant that if Fauci had said, "Yes, the protests will increase transmissions," that Jordan's next question would have been, "And how about re-opening businesses, churches, football leagues, bars and restaurants? Would those also contribute?" Hell, no. For Jordan this issue was purely pollitical. Fauci said exactly what the science told him to say, that "crowding together, particularly when you're not wearing a mask, contributes to the spread of the virus."

 

It is indeed a health and safety issue, and that's why a scientist should say precisely what the science tells him to say, and no more. Which is what Fauci did.

Oh wait, you missed the point. 
 

Thanks for clarifying that a political forum, with questions being asked by politicians of a scientists who serves in a role to advise politicians, has a political bent to it.  Let’s put aside for a second the obvious point that hearings like these are designed for experts to share thoughts with policy makers that theoretically leads to better policy.  It was Jordan this time, next time it’s someone else.  So? 
 

Hap made the point that the actions of the individual in the time of the virus have potentially adverse consequences for Hap and those she loves.  
 

We dance around this issue of mass gatherings where people don’t socially distance, while individual policy makers make individual policy decisions that groups of 12 sitting together without potato chips are a menace. On the other hand, we’re told that gatherings with 22,000 people from across the fruited plain is not.  We have a President who exhibits no mask discipline, held a large gathering indoors with one high profile death in the weeks that followed.  And, as citizens we try to make sense of it all from one extreme to another.
 

Enter the science guy. 
 

Dr. Faucci, good, bad or other is the face of the world as it relates to COVID. To suggest he is suddenly but a humble scientist set upon by a rogue politician seems weak to me.

 

Personally, I would have liked to see him lead.  From what I can see, his response was tepid and impotent at a time when he could have been strong and decisive.  It seems common sense that people out in massive groups contribute to the transmission and death count, likely significantly, and I’m not sure why a scientist would hesitate to state that emphatically with statistics to back up his statement.   When 25,000 people gather, what might that look like two weeks hence?  How many infections?  Hospitalizations?  Deaths?   Or, if the science supported the notion that there is little impact of tens of thousands of people gathered closely together on city streets, he might expound on that.  He’s the science guy. 

The politics in play here is that there is a massive disconnect between what is being said, the laws and regulation implemented to target certain activity while no rules or regulations apply to other activity.  The end result is the same as it always is:  people see politics in play, see the hypocrisy in implementation of regulation, and call BS on the regulation because it’s viewed as politics as usual.  
 

But sure, you can blame Jim Jordan for being a politician if you like.  
 

 

 

 

Edited August 2, 2020 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[plenzmd1]

12 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Fair enough, but that doesn't mean there aren't long term effects which could concern them.  And football is a different issue, with the contact and the required weight of many participants.

 

 

I'll put it out there that I don't see how any reasonable human can contend that we know the long term effects of LASIK.  The first LASIK procedures were performed in 1989, 30 years ago.  That means that if a patient of 60 years had surgery when it was first introduced, they're only just now getting to a point where the effect of LASIK on aging vision may be assessed.  For a patient <60 in 1989 (per one study, mean age for the procedure is 25 +/- 7 years), we aren't there yet and won't be for another 30 years or so.  The FDA did a study on outcomes which concluded "Given the large number of patients undergoing LASIK annually, dissatisfaction and disabling symptoms may occur in a significant number of patients"

 

and thats kinda my point Hap. I had Lasik performed in 1999,,so a little over 20 years ago. Not one little problem with it. You are saying scientifically we will not know long term affects until 30 years now, when i am long dead and buried.All the while, from what i could tell then and i assume is still true, the number of people who have issues with Lasik has been so infinity small that i was then, and would be today, willing to take the risk based on all available data to have the last twenty years of awesomeness. ( to be clear, most of those issues listed are to be expected after the surgery) I think the vast majority of athletes would say based an all known facts i am willing to play/train/compete right now...and yep understand there may be, stress,  maybe , long term effects not known yet. Lord, we dont know the long term effects cell phones might  have on brains yet...should we make everyone stop using them for the next 40 years till that has been dutifully studied?

 

I mean even Fauci said this thing never going away, so when do we propose we get back to normal life...5 years? 10 years ? When will it be safe knowing  the overwhelming vast majority of people who get this thing, especially athletes, and are either asympotomatic or have flu like symptoms? Seems to me we would never have a path forward. 

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/22/dr-anthony-fauci-warns-the-coronavirus-wont-ever-be-totally-eradicated.html

 

Edited August 2, 2020 by plenzmd1

[Penfield45]

He makes a very valid point. 

 

Unfortunately there are some out there who still think this virus is a hoax and is just "another flu", yes these people are on this forum posting as well. Just go look at the Covid thread in the other section. 

 

its not looking good for the league right now. I say just void the season, void contracts and plan for 2021

 

[Thurman#1]

22 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Oh wait, you missed the point. 
 

Thanks for clarifying that a political forum, with questions being asked by politicians of a scientists who serves in a role to advise politicians, has a political bent to it.  Let’s put aside for a second the obvious point that hearings like these are designed for experts to share thoughts with policy makers that theoretically leads to better policy.  It was Jordan this time, next time it’s someone else.  So? 
 

Hap made the point that the actions of the individual in the time of the virus have potentially adverse consequences for Hap and those she loves.  
 

We dance around this issue of mass gatherings where people don’t socially distance, while individual policy makers make individual policy decisions that groups of 12 sitting together without potato chips are a menace. On the other hand, we’re told that gatherings with 22,000 people from across the fruited plain is not.  We have a President who exhibits no mask discipline, held a large gathering indoors with one high profile death in the weeks that followed.  And, as citizens we try to make sense of it all from one extreme to another.
 

Enter the science guy. 
 

Dr. Faucci, good, bad or other is the face of the world as it relates to COVID. To suggest he is suddenly but a humble scientist set upon by a rogue politician seems weak to me.

 

Personally, I would have liked to see him lead.  From what I can see, his response was tepid and impotent at a time when he could have been strong and decisive.  It seems common sense that people out in massive groups contribute to the transmission and death count, likely significantly, and I’m not sure why a scientist would hesitate to state that emphatically with statistics to back up his statement.   When 25,000 people gather, what might that look like two weeks hence?  How many infections?  Hospitalizations?  Deaths?   Or, if the science supported the notion that there is little impact of tens of thousands of people gathered closely together on city streets, he might expound on that.  He’s the science guy. 

The politics in play here is that there is a massive disconnect between what is being said, the laws and regulation implemented to target certain activity while no rules or regulations apply to other activity.  The end result is the same as it always is:  people see politics in play, see the hypocrisy in implementation of regulation, and call BS on the regulation because it’s viewed as politics as usual.  
 

But sure, you can blame Jim Jordan for being a politician if you like. 

 

 

 

You'd have liked to see Fauci lead? Well, that's the problem. It's the politicians who're supposed to lead. Fauci's role isn't leading. It's answering science questions.

 

Which he did.

 

The leaders are supposed to take that science knowledge and lead more effectively. I'll certainly grant that so far they're mostly not doing that, with Jordan doing an excellent job of avoiding leadership to instead attempt to score cheap political points that might lead to a headline he'd like better than just the science makes.

 

I'm not blaming Jordan for being a  politician. I'm blaming him for being a crappy one. If anyone in that conversation should have been leading, it should have been the high-level politician, but instead he's strictly interested in scoring points even if that means getting things out there which don't represent what the science says.

 

Jordan's a politician less interested in doing what politicians should do based on the best medical knowledge and more interested in hectoring a medical expert with questions on political issues, and when that didn't work, trying for what he considered the second-best outcome of trying to get Fauci to say a 30-word sentence that would contain a 5-word hot-button headline that by eliminating context would have completely misrepresented what Fauci said.

 

He's a politician, alright. And I don't know the rest of what he's done over his career, nor much care. But what he was doing there was scurrilous. There's scurrilous behavior on both sides, but that doesn't mean it's OK, not for either side.

 

 

Edited August 3, 2020 by Thurman#1

[Matt_In_NH]

BMI is not a good metric, it is known to have issues when people have a lot of muscle mass.   Using it on the the NFL population has next to no meaning.

[mannc]

On 8/1/2020 at 5:33 PM, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Thanks.  So your original statement was " A recent poll showed that the average American believes that 9 percent of the population has died from COVID 19–that would be 30 million people."

 

The "average American" I would interpret as being at least half of the people surveyed.  did you mean something else?

The study was of 1000 Americans.  That would be 0.0003% of the population.  One would need good information about how they chose their sample to conclude this is representative.  I'm also having trouble interpreting this slide, which I take to be the relevant one.  Presumably they had a number of choices, of which their 1000 respondents selected one response.  I'm having trouble understanding how the concept of "mean" corresponds to this survey strategy, without seeing the actual question and data.  It's also well-studied that choice selection in a survey can be influenced by a number of things.

 

So I'm not sure I buy the interpretation "the average American believes...." But, I'll take it that the most frequent response selected does indicate that people overestimate the death rate.  Thanks for following up!

 

PS I don't feel their mask data is representative at all.  75% of Americans always wear a mask indoors or in shops?  Not representative of what I see - including a trip to NYS where masks are required.

 

Ok, my language was a little sloppy.  It’s the mean, not the average, but I’m not sure it makes much difference here.  
 

It does not appear that the survey was multiple choice, but it’s a little hard to tell.  

The overall point is that the general public VASTLY overestimates the danger from this virus, and the blame for that lies squarely with the mainstream media, and some disgraceful politicians, which have inundated us with stories meant terrify, while downplaying, ignoring or downright censoring stories that suggest it might not be so bad after all.  
 

The clearest example of that is the media’s refusal to honestly explain the demographics of the disease and the fact that the overwhelming number of the seriously ill and dead are very old and very sick, and that the virus is significantly LESS dangerous to the young and healthy than the seasonal flu.  How many media outlets have reported the fact—easily ascertainable from the state’s Coronavirus website—that not a single one of the 9 MILLION kids under 18 in California has died of CV 19?  Instead, they endlessly report dubious stories about extreme outlier cases and “outbreaks” of “infection” in which few if any “victims” actually came down with anything worse than a cold.
 

Lastly, the media and politicians have seriously underplayed the economic and other costs of the shutdowns that have been forced on us.  Most have never even attempted to weigh the costs vs the benefits of the draconian approach taken by most Western countries.  IMO, these costs are profound, difficult to measure and quite possibly irreversible.  People are quick to point out the possible (although entirely unproven) “long term effects” of the virus, but no one wants to talk about the incalculable long term effects on society from, for example, keeping young people out of school, discontinuing organized sports, and convincing a generation of kids that their fellow citizens should be regarded as biohazards.

[mannc]

On 8/2/2020 at 4:02 AM, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Rodriguez is NOT expected to play again this year. It's not overblown at all.

 

https://mlb.nbcsports.com/2020/08/01/eduardo-rodriguez-out-for-the-year-due-to-an-inflamed-heart/

 

And yeah, it's ONE player ... out of how many who have been infected so far in baseball? What percentage of the infected major leaguers is Rodriguez? And he's no 330 pound offensive lineman who has to stuff 6000 calories down his gullet every day to keep his weight up.

 

We just don't know. This stuff is unpredictable, particularly as these athletes are out of the ordinary in so many ways. Will an OL who's terrifically strong and in good football shape but still has 40 or 50 pounds of fat on him still suffer as many health problems from COVID-19 percentage-wise than an average guy his age who has 40 or 50 extra pounds on him? I'd guess probably not, but there's just not a significant amount of data on guys like this.

 

A player would be irresponsible to his own interests not to think about this extremely seriously.

Rodriguez is expected to make a full recovery and his symptoms were described as “mild”.  I’m not sure how the decision was made to shut him down for the season, but yep, while we’re at it, let’s shut down MLB based on some “cases”.
 

And there is zero evidence that 300-pound 25-year old NFL linemen, as opposed to 45-year old 300 pound couch potatoes, are at elevated risk.  I’d be shocked if that were the case, regardless what the ridiculous BMI “formula” says.

[Locomark]

On 7/31/2020 at 6:52 PM, jkeerie said:

For those of you who want to assume what Costas is advocating without listening to his comments, he doesn't advocate anything one way or the other.  Rather he offers serious consideration for whether the NFL has a shot at succeeding with a full season, just by the nature of the sport, the size of rosters and trying to play in 32 venues.  He further mentions that at least NFL players have a union to protect them as opposed to college players.  All valid points.  

 

I love and miss football as much as anyone but I'll be shocked if this season isn't curtailed in length or marred by some tragedy.

These are all reasonable points. I also think he is right when he says college football has no right to have these kids playing when they aren’t being compensated and without a union to protect them. He is spot on there. I know it’s fun to watch on TV but they are still kids and they are being abused for profit. They get all the risk and none of the reward. It’s not just the short term Covid for those kids  it’s also the long term heart damage and various other organ issues that these kids will have later in life.

 

I 100% doubt we get a full season in too. I would like to see a poll on what the TBD community thinks  the season length will be. I think expecting a 16 game season with the cases skyrocketing is a pipe dream but one can hope. I figure even getting in 12-14 games would be an achievement for the NFL. 

Edited August 3, 2020 by Locomark

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

4 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

You'd have liked to see Fauci lead? Well, that's the problem. It's the politicians who're supposed to lead. Fauci's role isn't leading. It's answering science questions.

 

Which he did.

 

The leaders are supposed to take that science knowledge and lead more effectively. I'll certainly grant that so far they're mostly not doing that, with Jordan doing an excellent job of avoiding leadership to instead attempt to score cheap political points that might lead to a headline he'd like better than just the science makes.

 

I'm not blaming Jordan for being a  politician. I'm blaming him for being a crappy one. If anyone in that conversation should have been leading, it should have been the high-level politician, but instead he's strictly interested in scoring points even if that means getting things out there which don't represent what the science says.

 

Jordan's a politician less interested in doing what politicians should do based on the best medical knowledge and more interested in hectoring a medical expert with questions on political issues, and when that didn't work, trying for what he considered the second-best outcome of trying to get Fauci to say a 30-word sentence that would contain a 5-word hot-button headline that by eliminating context would have completely misrepresented what Fauci said.

 

He's a politician, alright. And I don't know the rest of what he's done over his career, nor much care. But what he was doing there was scurrilous. There's scurrilous behavior on both sides, but that doesn't mean it's OK, not for either side.

 

 

In honor of the later great Wilford Brimley---Horsepucky!

 

You can bag on Jim Jordan and his scurrilous behavior all you like--and apparently you like, but it's irrelevant to me in a post about Dr. Fauci's testimony.  The man is the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and from his bio, an individual widely touted as having served 6 presidents since 1984.  He's been a key player on the COVID Task Force, has spoken eloquently on the obligation (my word, not his) of ordinary citizens to help flatten the curve, to drastically modify our daily behavior and create new habits to reduce the impact of the virus.  

 

From his bio:

 

Dr. Fauci was appointed Director of NIAID in 1984. He oversees an extensive research portfolio of basic and applied research to prevent, diagnose, and treat established infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS, respiratory infections, diarrheal diseases, tuberculosis and malaria as well as emerging diseases such as Ebola and Zika.

 

He had the opportunity to scream what should be incredibly obvious to anyone watching:  The decision of tens of thousands of people to congregate on city streets is surely, and definitively contributing to the explosion of cases across the country.  From the perspective of the science guy charged with "preventing" the spread, the fact that medicine intersects with politics should be irrelevant.   In fact, I'd say his decision to soft-step around the issue was, in and of itself, political and egregious.  

 

Then again, maybe we just have different views on what constitutes effective leadership.  I consider not just what is said, how it is said, and the behavior that those saying it follow themselves. 

 

 

 

 

[Thurman#1]

5 hours ago, mannc said:

Rodriguez is expected to make a full recovery and his symptoms were described as “mild”.  I’m not sure how the decision was made to shut him down for the season, but yep, while we’re at it, let’s shut down MLB based on some “cases”.
 

And there is zero evidence that 300-pound 25-year old NFL linemen, as opposed to 45-year old 300 pound couch potatoes, are at elevated risk.  I’d be shocked if that were the case, regardless what the ridiculous BMI “formula” says.

 

 

You're right that there is zero evidence that 300-pound 25 year old NFL linemen, as opposed to 45-year old 300 pound couch potatoes, are at elevated risk.

 

Thing is, there's also zero risk that they are not.

 

You're assuming because they're titanically strong that that proves the coronavirus won't get them despite many of them being very fat. You've heard the stories of some of these guys having to eat 5000 and 6000 calorie daily diets to maintain a weight where they're carrying a ton of fat. These guys are incredible athletes, but many are forced to maintain bizarre and stressful regimens to maintain their effectiveness. They don't do so because they figure they're maximizing their health. They do it because it maximized their football abilities and their incomes. And while some guys like Eric Wood are able to revert to healthy habits and physiques after their playing days, many more of them do not.

 

There's no particular reason to think your assumption here is correct. I agree with your guess that guys like that will likely have complications at lower rates than guys of the same weight who don't work out like demons. But my guess is that despite their workouts, they will have more complications than guys who don't force themselves to overeat consistently and maintain large amounts of body fat. I don't have any more evidence than you do. But I don't have any less either.

 

As I said before, guys with those lifestyles should and most likely are considering these things with great seriousness.

 

And as for Rodriguez, he may or may not at this point be expected to make a full recovery. But he was also expected to recover and be ready in a couple of weeks. Instead his symptoms have hung around. They don't know what will happen. You certainly do have one guess there. It could happen that way. I hope it does. But we don't know. And neither do they, which is the point.

[Thurman#1]

2 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

In honor of the later great Wilford Brimley---Horsepucky!

 

You can bag on Jim Jordan and his scurrilous behavior all you like--and apparently you like, but it's irrelevant to me in a post about Dr. Fauci's testimony.  The man is the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and from his bio, an individual widely touted as having served 6 presidents since 1984.  He's been a key player on the COVID Task Force, has spoken eloquently on the obligation (my word, not his) of ordinary citizens to help flatten the curve, to drastically modify our daily behavior and create new habits to reduce the impact of the virus.  

 

From his bio:

 

Dr. Fauci was appointed Director of NIAID in 1984. He oversees an extensive research portfolio of basic and applied research to prevent, diagnose, and treat established infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS, respiratory infections, diarrheal diseases, tuberculosis and malaria as well as emerging diseases such as Ebola and Zika.

 

He had the opportunity to scream what should be incredibly obvious to anyone watching:  The decision of tens of thousands of people to congregate on city streets is surely, and definitively contributing to the explosion of cases across the country.  From the perspective of the science guy charged with "preventing" the spread, the fact that medicine intersects with politics should be irrelevant.   In fact, I'd say his decision to soft-step around the issue was, in and of itself, political and egregious.  

 

Then again, maybe we just have different views on what constitutes effective leadership.  I consider not just what is said, how it is said, and the behavior that those saying it follow themselves. 

 

 

 

 

When you say 'horse pucky," was that a threat to import some? Because you did a fine job of that. And nice job of packing that post with all sorts of completely irrelevant resume/CV material. One might even call it horse pucky. The shoe fits. And again, Fauci's job here is NOT to lead. It's to provide medical expertise. You know who should lead? The country's leadership.

 

Yeah, Fauci is an expert, as you go on and on about. But not an expert on politics. You go on about his qualifications. Does he have advanced degrees that you or I missed about what things should be illegal? I'll be glad to hear it if you can find that he does, but in the meantime all the stuff you go on with up there shows he had medical expertise, not political. He was asked whether the government should make something illegal. That is a political question, not a medical one. The science guy isn't charged with "preventing the spread." That's the government, even though they're showing themselves incompetent to do so. The science guy is charged with providing the government, and the public, with the information that the science shows to be true. Which is what Fauci did.

 

You keep pretending he didn't answer the question. But pretending doesn't make it true. He did answer the medical part of the question. He said, "Crowding together, particularly when you’re not wearing a mask, contributes to the spread of the virus."

 

And you're right that "the decision of thousands of people to congregate on city streets is surely and definitely contributing to the explosion of cases across the country." I agree with you 100%, and therefore it's clear that re-opening is causing a massive .... oh, wait, that's not what you meant?

 

You wanted the guy to be forced to make a statement in line with your political beliefs. You want that, go hire someone. He'll do it. But supporting your beliefs isn't Fauci's job. Your mass datadump of his credentials only shows he's willing to speak to his expertise and not beyond. What's medically clear is exactly what Fauci said ... that ""Crowding together, particularly when you’re not wearing a mask, contributes to the spread of the virus." Which does indeed show that that kind of dangerous behavior ... dangerous behavior which includes both the demonstrations and the things that you and Jordan happen to support and therefore don't want mentioned in this context ...  are indeed raising the odds of a continuing increase.

 

And yeah, this absolutely was scurrilous behavior on Jordan's part. He isn't trying to make a point about health. If he were he could still talk about the protests but would also include the reopenings. He doesn't because he's a political hatchet man, not someone looking for medical expertise.  And pretending that Jordan isn't involved in this discussion is nonsense. He was asking the questions Fauci was answering, he was trying to get Fauci to say things that were far too specific for medicine to speak to. Trying to force Fauci to give Jordan a baseball bat and a way to twist Fauci's words.

 

Too bad that Fauci only gave him the medical info he requested, the stuff that the studies show is true.

 

The one single thing that makes sense from your post is that Wilford Brimley was indeed a class act. One of the great moustaches of all time. As much gravitas as Morgan Freeman and apparently a lot more class.

Edited August 3, 2020 by Thurman#1

[Locomark]

4 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

You're right that there is zero evidence that 300-pound 25 year old NFL linemen, as opposed to 45-year old 300 pound couch potatoes, are at elevated risk.

 

Thing is, there's also zero risk that they are not.

 

You're assuming because they're titanically strong that that proves the coronavirus won't get them despite many of them being very fat. You've heard the stories of some of these guys having to eat 5000 and 6000 calorie daily diets to maintain a weight where they're carrying a ton of fat. These guys are incredible athletes, but many are forced to maintain bizarre and stressful regimens to maintain their effectiveness. They don't do so because they figure they're maximizing their health. They do it because it maximized their football abilities and their incomes. And while some guys like Eric Wood are able to revert to healthy habits and physiques after their playing days, many more of them do not.

 

There's no particular reason to think your assumption here is correct. I agree with your guess that guys like that will likely have complications at lower rates than guys of the same weight who don't work out like demons. But my guess is that despite their workouts, they will have more complications than guys who don't force themselves to overeat consistently and maintain large amounts of body fat. I don't have any more evidence than you do. But I don't have any less either.

 

As I said before, guys with those lifestyles should and most likely are considering these things with great seriousness.

 

And as for Rodriguez, he may or may not at this point be expected to make a full recovery. But he was also expected to recover and be ready in a couple of weeks. Instead his symptoms have hung around. They don't know what will happen. You certainly do have one guess there. It could happen that way. I hope it does. But we don't know. And neither do they, which is the point.

Ok just curious where you determined your info saying there is “zero evidence about healthy young 300lb guys being susceptible? I trust that guys that are wealthy and have millions at risk have access to some really great medical opinions regarding risk to their health that are better than the anecdotal stuff you find on the internet. I also know that the NFL mega corporation would want to discourage the players from opting out in general because less players hurt the game’s quality. So these opinions are coming from private doctors who aren’t influenced by the NFL steering these guys toward a decision.

So these doctors are telling them there is a risk. Just because some kid is young and in shape doesn’t mean a disease can’t get them really sick and jeopardize their future. They also have to consider they may pass that disease to their spouse or children who may not be as healthy as they are. 

 

These players are people. They are not indestructible video game avatars. 

Edited August 3, 2020 by Locomark

[stuvian]

Bob's had work done. Those cheeks are unnaturally shiny

[2ForMacAdoo]

6 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

First, your obsession with Jim Jordan is remarkable, but it's also tedious and boring in a conversation about Anthony Fauci.  

 

Second, your characterization of Dr. Fauci's role in pandemic management reflects an overly simplistic view of what he does.  He's been talking about the picture--big and small--for nearly six months.  He's done it at task force meetings, in interviews and published papers about it.  You criticized me for including a copy of his biography, and then go on to suggest he's not involved in prevention?  Like it or not, he offers his opinions regularly about how to slow the spread of the virus. 

 

The point you made--the one good one--about politicians not leading, that's true.  Dr. Fauci had the opportunity to step into that void and speak to science.  You think that's too much to ask.  I don't.  Honestly, your comments painted a slightly more vivid picture of the potential for disaster than did Fauci's when you stated: Which does indeed show that that kind of dangerous behavior ... dangerous behavior which includes both the demonstrations and the things that you and Jordan happen to support and therefore don't want mentioned in this context ...  are indeed raising the odds of a continuing increase.  Again, the way this virus spreads, I'd think you could eliminate "raising the odds" and replace it with "are certain ti result in a spike in infections and deaths.".  

 

In closing, I'm not sure what you're implying when you're talking about 'my political beliefs' and 'the things that you and Jordan happen to support'.  I'd normally ask what you think you know, but we're going around in circles so I'll tell you what my actions are relative to COVID:

 

I distance, I avoid large crowds, I wash my hands frequently, I kept my team employed when asked, I donated to COVID relief efforts, I believe the virus is very dangerous for some and quiet a bit less so for most, I cancelled trips, I avoid those most vulnerable when I know of their situation.  I think political leaders are all over the page, I think it creates mass confusion and when our leaders say one thing and do another, or assign one set of values to the compliant and support the non-compliant, it's 100% natural that people begin to think something funny is afoot.  They question leadership, begin to feel there's something politically wonky afoot, and let their guard down.  

 

I support the right to peaceful protest, I understand some of the concerns the peaceful protestors are expressing, but I'm absolutely convinced that there is a gaping chasm between what we are being told and in most cases forced to do v. what our political leaders are saying about both the largely peaceful demonstrations and the violent rioting occurring at the same time.  I can't square that, especially from a guy like Fauci, who plays a major role in pandemic management. 

 

But, on the bright side, we'll always have Brimley. 

 

 

It's not Dr. Fauci's role to "lead"; he is charged with advising, with making recommendations based on the science. What is a public health issue has become politicized and the entire nation is suffering because of this. We are far from being the world model to be emulated when it comes to controlling the spread of the virus and Anthony Fauci is hardly the problem. Politicians failing to lead are the problem. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

9 hours ago, 2ForMacAdoo said:

It's not Dr. Fauci's role to "lead"; he is charged with advising, with making recommendations based on the science. What is a public health issue has become politicized and the entire nation is suffering because of this. We are far from being the world model to be emulated when it comes to controlling the spread of the virus and Anthony Fauci is hardly the problem. Politicians failing to lead are the problem. 

If you had told me prior to the pandemic, that more than one person would argue that the nation's preeminent infectious disease specialist, a man who serves as an advisor to multiple presidents and other world leaders overly 40 years, who would become the face of 'flattening the curve' to millions of Americans, who has been interviewed, quoted or mentioned by every major media outlet over a 6 month period, who speaks daily about personal accountability and shared responsibility---anyway, if you told me that there were people who didn't think he held a major leadership position in the fight against the pandemic, I'd have thought you mad.  

 

We agree on the politicians, 100% across the board.  All the more reason for him to step up instead of throwing the hot potato back to those failing us. 

 

In closing, Bob Costas, what's up with that guy?