All Things COVID-19 College Football Impact
- Thread starter MennoSota
- Start date
BC2211, because that is how the CDC is reporting it. Per the CDC: "Flu activity most commonly peaks in the United States between December and February" (https://www.cdc.gov/flu/season/faq-flu-season-2019-2020.htm). You can get the flu anytime, but flu season is typically defined in that period. Make sense? If you want me to comment on the numbers I will do so, I am simply furnishing them for you all to interpret. People should look at actual data.
BC2211, if you want to live in fear, follow the news. If you want to live informed, follow the data.
Mulligan
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2009
- Messages
- 4,037
- Reaction score
- 2,054
- Points
- 113
I imagine it's too much to hope for that Putin's biggest American fan will go for it. Still, the guy did wonder if we should injest disinfectants.
Ive heard MPLS likes government mandated vaccines, guessing he will be first in line for this one.
Already got it. I hope there are no side effects. On an unrelated note, I went riding shirtless on a horse yesterday.
You first. Let us know how it goes.
If you click the link in my previous post, you will find that CDC defined the 2019-2020 flu season as extending through April 4th - so the “typical” flu season is irrelevant when comparing to the CDC described 2019-2020 season. Present the appropriate comparison if you are going to look at the data and preach.
I’m looking at the data and asking objective questions. Read my post again. Nothing was value-based, rather I’m questioning your interpretation of the data based on CDC definitions of the 2019-2020 flu season (and not the typical). Head your own advice.
MplsGopher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2017
- Messages
- 36,668
- Reaction score
- 10,149
- Points
- 113
What you mean: manipulate the data to make it say what you want it to say.
MplsGopher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2017
- Messages
- 36,668
- Reaction score
- 10,149
- Points
- 113
He researches genetic heart disease/defects.
Covid19 is not a genetic heart disease and doesn’t cause a person to develop a genetic heart disease.
He’s absolutely as unqualified as any other MD or scientist to make bold declarations. No one knows for sure. Hence, erring on the side of caution is smart.
GoldenRodents
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2010
- Messages
- 2,020
- Reaction score
- 591
- Points
- 113
If we erred on the side of caution CTE would be enough to ban college football.
If you keep scrolling into the link I provided, you’ll see a chart that shows flu hospitalizations rose steadily into mid March, which coincided with the rise of covid testing. Your comparison is okay at a cursory glance, but it’s actually quite bad when you breaK it down.
Ha. Very true.
Why don’t you go on Twitter and tell him that. Maybe a little debate. That would be fun.
Do you think Fauci is an expert and we should listen to him? You continue to make little to no sense and contradict yourself. It is very clear you are going to follow the program and continue to defend something that doesn't have the data to back it. In addition the more data that comes out, the less your arguments make any sense.
MplsGopher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2017
- Messages
- 36,668
- Reaction score
- 10,149
- Points
- 113
That would be a waste of time. People don’t change their opinions. It’s religion.
@PitinoFan you can reason with someone who is unwilling to think logically or have an adult debate where you consider something other than your tunneled thoughts.
Power 5 to play football this fall....headline coming soon me boy!
Power 5 to play football this fall....headline coming soon me boy!
Taji34
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2015
- Messages
- 3,911
- Reaction score
- 2,782
- Points
- 113
Oof, usually I agree with you, but I'm going to disagree on this point. He is commenting that the findings specifically relating to the potential heart damage is not enough alone to cancel the season. He is a heart doctor, while he focuses on genetic heart diseases, he likely needed to study other heart conditions, such as Myocarditis, to get his degree. He is a heart specialist commenting on a heart related side effect of COVID. This is not your local general practice doctor claiming they know more about a virus than an epidemiologist, it's not the same.
I would say he is qualified enough to comment on this.
Mulligan
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2009
- Messages
- 4,037
- Reaction score
- 2,054
- Points
- 113
Good grief stop embarrassing yourself. More of an expert than the folks you're relying on as gospel. But you keep "thinking for yourself." LOL
"Through the years, Dr. Fauci has served as Visiting Professor at major medical centers throughout the country. He has delivered many major lectureships all over the world and is the recipient of numerous prestigious awards for his scientific accomplishments, including 28 honorary doctorate degrees from universities in the United States and abroad.
Dr. Fauci is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Philosophical Society, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences (Council Member), the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the Royal Danish Academy of Science and Letters, as well as a number of other professional societies including the American College of Physicians, the American Society for Clinical Investigation, the Association of American Physicians, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the American Association of Immunologists, and the American Academy of Allergy Asthma and Immunology. He serves on the editorial boards of many scientific journals; as an editor of Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine; and as author, coauthor, or editor of more than 1,000 scientific publications,"
You missed my point, MPLSGopher said that medical experts can no be trusted. So he, and others like yourself potentially, are talking out both sides of your mouth. Please, lets try to be critical thinkers here. That is what we would teach our children right? to think critaically?
Mulligan
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2009
- Messages
- 4,037
- Reaction score
- 2,054
- Points
- 113
Sorry, yes I did. But I also think your "critical thinking" sort of has blinders on because you want to see Gopher football this fall.
short ornery norwegian
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2011
- Messages
- 21,606
- Reaction score
- 15,499
- Points
- 113
This is covid. that means that each side gets to choose its own medical experts from the available menu.
and there are so many different and conflicting opinions out there that, if you look hard enough, you can find a medical expert who says what you want them to say to support your point of view.
personally, I believe covid was sent from outer space to soften up the human race for the coming invasion of the saucer men. or maybe that was last week's movie on Svengoolie. I'm not sure.
and there are so many different and conflicting opinions out there that, if you look hard enough, you can find a medical expert who says what you want them to say to support your point of view.
personally, I believe covid was sent from outer space to soften up the human race for the coming invasion of the saucer men. or maybe that was last week's movie on Svengoolie. I'm not sure.
MplsGopher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2017
- Messages
- 36,668
- Reaction score
- 10,149
- Points
- 113
Mayo is a research institution, first and foremost. He may consult with regular health care providers, but he likely isn't a primary cardiologist for patients in a traditional sense. More like, the patients he sees would be part of research/trials, and he provides some level of care to them as part of research/trials. And these patients would all have genetic heart defects, as that is his research.
Getting a PhD doesn't mean crap. Sorry, but that is true. All it means is: you were motivated to study a very, very narrow/specific area of some topic, did so for a few years, wrote some papers that got published, and then presented your work to a committee of professors, most of which simply don't have the time to get into the weeds on what you do, and so are likely to approve your defense.
It means you're an expert on your one specific problem/topic that you studied for years. Your knowledge might generalize to adjacent areas, sure.
Obviously he is also an MD and probably did a (medical) fellowship to specialize in cardiology. To me, that means you basically memorize a giant table of medicines/doses and procedures that are recommended for various diagnoses. Actually performing diagnosis, is an art.
Anyone, even a schmuck like me, can Google Myocarditis. In fact, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myocarditis
I don't see how anyone, lay person or otherwise, can boldly declare that it isn't concerning. Now, to be sure, he didn't say that. But he did boldly declare that it doesn't justify canceling the season. Which is complete BS. No one can possibly declare such a thing, without studying the issue more. Which would take time. In the meantime, do we risk player deaths? Obvious, correct answer: hell no.
I'm guessing we'll have to agree to disagree on this, which is just fine. I like and respect your opinions on GH, and am glad when you comment on threads. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this one.
BC2211, why do you think the CDC is reporting the data this way? I am supplying it unadulterated from the CDC. It is a rough apples to apples comparison. The way the data is collected, it is impossible to get an exact match. You can focus on the nuance of the data, but that does not move the needle on the facts. To establish relative risk, you need to have some understanding of equivalency. This data from the CDC is a pretty good measure.
I think the CDC is reporting the data this way because it's the week before the first COVID death (ie: a baseline), not because it was the end of a typical flu season like you said. And actually, you are precisely supplying adulterated content by contextualizing the CDC report with a narrative (end of flu season, good comparison, yada yada yada) that does not exist on the CDC report itself. No where does CDC describe the reason for the timeframe or it's merits as a point of comparison. It's simply a query of data.
You are right this comparison is a rough apples to apples and does serve a purpose, but this is a snapshot and not the best way to compare the true impact of any of these diseases, in my opinion. If you take the time to adjust for when COVID actually started killing people (late March), your original argument that pneumonia has been worse is not correct. There are about 30k deaths reported due to pnemonia in feb-march in these reports before COVID makes a splash... I'm on a small paternity break, so lucky for you I spent a bit of time on CDC's website this afternoon and pulled some graphics together. Take a look.
The good about the comparison:
1. It shows how many cumulative deaths from covid, pneumonia, influenza since February.
2. It shows that there was a bump in deaths marked as due to pneumonia around the rise of COVID, presumably because more folks were hospitalized or more attention was paid to the cause.
The bad about the comparison:
1. The cumulative numbers include about 30 thousand pneumonia deaths that were racking up for two months before COVID started making an impact. (see top figure of attached). This timeframe (feb-aug) is an incomplete snapshot for all diseases - and therefore cumulative deaths from this period, quite frankly, are not a great comparison of relative risk.
2. Not all states have been hit equally yet (see bottom figure of increase over death rates from 2017-2019). NY State was hit in March-April. Other large states were hit later in the summer. Covid maybe not everywhere yet. (see bottom figure of attached). You want to talk about relative risk - I suggest you look at the percent increases in weekly deaths for some of these areas that are hit hard.
3. Reported deaths are widely recognized to be under estimates. Excess death studies suggest covid death totals closer to 200k.
4. In your original post, you wanted to look at only covid-caused or only pneumonia/flu-caused deaths. This viewpoint critically under values the true impact on peoples health.
I'll stop here since I'm not an epidemiologist, but again, if you want to throw data around and preach that people look at it, perhaps you should do the same since in this instance, you've wielded the CDC report (one of many generic reports I may add) incorrectly to fit your narrative.
PS i'm not living in fear, i'm not suggesting everyone run to their bunkers - i'm not even suggesting that college sports be postponed or canceled. I'm just objectively looking at the information you provided and disagreeing with your conclusions.
Attachments
Last edited:
BC2211, is there a corresponding reduction in risk for having young people "
Obviously you have not "broke it down". My background is in this area.
It is broken down in the post above. Spread among the young is a risk to all ages.
A_Slab_of_Bacon
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2015
- Messages
- 24,484
- Reaction score
- 15,009
- Points
- 113
This is a little worrisome...