Jump to content
DefenseWins

Bob Costas Brings Up A Good Point about NFL Players

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, inaugural balls said:

 

Are you ok?

 

You sound all in a panic.

 

I do take it seriously. I think the league and players do as well.  

I have now moved to he is  being sarcastic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

I have now moved to he is  being sarcastic. 

 

He does a good job of .......masking......it. :D

  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HappyDays said:

 

I'm going to guess there either was no such study or the source you got it from is misrepresenting the result.

Thanks.  There was no “misinterpretation”, but as I acknowledged, it was a small sample size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, DefenseWins said:

 

see Bob Costas question about NFL players Corona risk factors at about the 4:05 mark...

 

 

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mattynh said:


You take it seriously but this guy takes it more serious so he is better than you and and his opinion is better than yours.  He knows.... “ask any physician”.  96% of deaths from Covid are over 45 years old.  

 

 

Why do people fixate and focus on deaths as the major metric of concern? 

I'm asking you because you're here, so let me rephrase:  I'm not clear it's true,  I assume you're getting it from Worldometer which says "In the meantime, below we show the data provided by New York City Health as of May 13, 2020:" ie they have very incomplete data so far).  But let's assume it is.

 

Why is this an appropriate metric of the risks or harm from covid-19?  If you were an elite athlete, wouldn't you want to look at long-term complications (eg career at risk) or absent data on that, at least hospitalizations as a proportional marker for  severe disease?

13 minutes ago, mannc said:

Thanks.  There was no “misinterpretation”, but as I acknowledged, it was a small sample size.

 

Did you actually provide this source or study?  I didn't see a post from you on this, but I may have missed it.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Why do people fixate and focus on deaths as the major metric of concern? 

I'm asking you because you're here, so let me rephrase:  I'm not clear it's true,  I assume you're getting it from Worldometer which says "In the meantime, below we show the data provided by New York City Health as of May 13, 2020:" ie they have very incomplete data so far).  But let's assume it is.

 

Why is this an appropriate metric of the risks or harm from covid-19?  If you were an elite athlete, wouldn't you want to look at long-term complications (eg career at risk) or absent data on that, at least hospitalizations as a proportional marker for  severe disease?

 

Did you actually provide this source or study?  I didn't see a post from you on this, but I may have missed it.

Here you go:  https://www.kekstcnc.com/media/2793/kekstcnc_research_covid-19_opinion_tracker_wave-4.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Why do people fixate and focus on deaths as the major metric of concern? 

I'm asking you because you're here, so let me rephrase:  I'm not clear it's true,  I assume you're getting it from Worldometer which says "In the meantime, below we show the data provided by New York City Health as of May 13, 2020:" ie they have very incomplete data so far).  But let's assume it is.

 

Why is this an appropriate metric of the risks or harm from covid-19?  If you were an elite athlete, wouldn't you want to look at long-term complications (eg career at risk) or absent data on that, at least hospitalizations as a proportional marker for  severe disease?

 

Did you actually provide this source or study?  I didn't see a post from you on this, but I may have missed it.

I know several elite swimmers. Not a one worried about long term effects of Covid, except how it affects training for Summer 21 Olympics. That’s it,,  hard stop. 

 

The  owner of this site I think, and I may be wrong  is convinced we don not know the long term effects on LASIK I do not want to put words in his mouth, so hopefully @SDS can weigh in here. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HappyDays said:

 

I'm going to guess there either was no such study or the source you got it from is misrepresenting the result.

See above

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Why do people fixate and focus on deaths as the major metric of concern? 

I'm asking you because you're here, so let me rephrase:  I'm not clear it's true,  I assume you're getting it from Worldometer which says "In the meantime, below we show the data provided by New York City Health as of May 13, 2020:" ie they have very incomplete data so far).  But let's assume it is.

 

Why is this an appropriate metric of the risks or harm from covid-19?  If you were an elite athlete, wouldn't you want to look at long-term complications (eg career at risk) or absent data on that, at least hospitalizations as a proportional marker for  severe disease?

 

Did you actually provide this source or study?  I didn't see a post from you on this, but I may have missed it.

Not infatuated at all.    Not sure why you are saying that.    There are a lot of ways to look at the impact/data and depending on what your point of view is you can find data /articles to support it.  Deaths is one number that is probably fairly accurate.  The data is not complete. We live our lives with risk all the time but we do t say it.  No one says there is a x% chance I will die lornget seriously injured in a car accident on the way to work or y% chance I will die or suffer a major health event of a cold or flu.    But there is a chance we all know that we live with the risk of it is small enough.   With this new virus we all have choices of how much risk to take.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any topic that begins with ‘Bob Costas right’ is a conversation I don’t want to be a part of. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

24 minutes ago, mattynh said:

Not infatuated at all.    Not sure why you are saying that.  

 

Because deaths and the statistic off Worldometer that "96% of deaths from Covid are over 45 years old" were what you chose to cite as a risk assessment.

 

Not hospitalizations, not any assessment of the risk of cardiac complications, deaths in the <45 yo age group.  That might lead one to conclude deaths are what you feel football playing decisions or perhaps public health decisions should be based on, no?

 

I apologize if that wasn't your intended meaning, it is the intended meaning of many who bring it up so perhaps I am jaded.

 

24 minutes ago, mattynh said:

With this new virus we all have choices of how much risk to take.  

 

Actually, no, part of my "beef" with covid-19 is that other people are busy making decisions that affect MY risk and the risk of people I love

One can not effectively handle a public health situation by allowing everyone to make their own individual risk assessment and choices.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mannc 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!
image.thumb.png.e08d052c6945476e1e112547a3c3ef7a.png

 

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, plenzmd1 said:

I know several elite swimmers. Not a one worried about long term effects of Covid, except how it affects training for Summer 21 Olympics. That’s it,,  hard stop. 

 

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.

 

Quote

The  owner of this site I think, and I may be wrong  is convinced we don not know the long term effects on LASIK I do not want to put words in his mouth, so hopefully @SDS can weigh in here.

 

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"

 

image.thumb.png.062e6d0490ff112dffa698d13cb2aca1.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

 

 

Actually, no, part of my "beef" with covid-19 is that other people are busy making decisions that affect MY risk and the risk of people I love

One can not effectively handle a public health situation by allowing everyone to make their own individual risk assessment and choices.

This last part resonates with me, especially as it relates to Dr. Faucci’s testimony.  This was a prime opportunity to send the message loud and clear:  large gatherings result in increased transmissions and are exceptionally dangerous to us all.  He treated it as a political issue, and it’s ultimately a health and safety issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Limeaid said:

 

Not all were confirmed as infected.  Siran Neal failed test but passed next test.  They are using three successful tests in a row (I under NE players can cheat on test) so it is likely they will get some false positives.

 

False positives should be really concerning. 

Here's something from UK PHS on the reason for false positives:

image.thumb.png.99940f37f46eaef7d6ee372b7d2bcdae.png

The primers here were very carefully chosen to not cross-react and multiple primers are being used, so that rate should be very low indeed.

Note that all the other reasons for false positive can be summarized as "careless laboratory procedures or sampling technique"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/31/2020 at 8:18 PM, jkeerie said:

In the video they quoted that by the current definition of obesity medically, 70 percent of NFL players would qualify.  Their athleticism, while being a plus, could also be compromised.  A nonathlete losing 5 to 10% of their lung capacity as an ongoing effect of Covid would not be impacted as negatively as an athlete.


The medical definition of obesity is directly linked to BMI, which is an absolutely useless metric when it comes to athletes. Especially football players. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, mattynh said:


I asked a question and speculated.     What do you think an Internet forum for a sports team is about? Jump down my throat I will fire back.  Want to have a calm “thoughtful” conversation?   Let’s do it.   

 

 

I see. So, this is your idea of ... speculation, you say?

 

23 hours ago, mattynh said:

What are your qualifications?   Calm down Karen!   Where are your high blood pressure numbers?   What a clown...

 

That's your whole post. No offense, but you are setting the bar way too low. That doesn't come anywhere near speculation. It's pure insult with not an ounce of substance. Not a gram.

 

I'm not going to go back through and trace the argument. Perhaps you had some other posts that were thoughtful and measured, and if so, terrific. But this was offensive and substanceless. The post you were replying to, on the other hand, wasn't particularly nice in tone but at least put forward some legitimate points. Yours did nothing of the kind.

 

EDIT: Going back to look at other things, I see that many of your other posts have plenty of substance and thought. My comments are only about this particular post.

Edited by Thurman#1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

This last part resonates with me, especially as it relates to Dr. Faucci’s testimony.  This was a prime opportunity to send the message loud and clear:  large gatherings result in increased transmissions and are exceptionally dangerous to us all.  He treated it as a political issue, and it’s ultimately a health and safety issue. 

 

 

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.

Edited by Thurman#1
  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...