Axios Sports: No football would break college sports

[Deleted_User]

I was replying to your statement in post #61, “Second, no school is going to give their athletic departments loans, when financial survival of the school is in question.”

I’m sure the school employs a professional financial company or perhaps even a fund manager to grow the endowment. That has nothing to do with if the school has sports.

Before Covid, the U State budge allocation went from 43% of the budget to 22%. Next biennium, it will be a fraction of that. Strap that thought on while the state takes on a half a million or more unemployed. The endowment has restricted uses and the rules of the endowments require that they be used for legitimate academic purposes. Athletic scholarships may or may not fall under that rule. I don't know. But, non scholarships don't. Travel unrelated to academic purposes do not. TCF stadium does not. It is owned by the Alumni Association, I recall. Correct me if that is wrong.

There are some schools who will not weather the storm, and you know this. The Great Recession had many colleges closing permanently, endowments or not. If we had multiple billions in an endowment, so what! The U has a budget of 4.2 billion dollars. We have a financial crisis of lower tax revenue and the allocation to the U will be lowered in future bienniums to make up for the shortfall. We cannot all borrow our way out of this crisis. The U will not be in a position to just pay for everything it had before. This isn't like 2007. It is 10 times worse. The national debt is going to be in the range of half of the GDP for the remainder of this year. Let me repeat that. It will be $7 Trillion dollars. That was the authorization. The state revenue is already falling to levels past the amount held in reserve. Where do you think this is heading, exactly? Why does everyone believe things are OK? The only thing that you will dispute in this is my 7 Trillion in budget debt. Well, let's add it up. It was already planned to be at 1 trillion. We had an authorization of 600 billion in additional spending, then followed with a bill for the additional 2 trillion, with authorization for another 4 trillion, if needed. So, really it is closer to 8 Trillion dollars in debt spending.

The last recession was a cakewalk compared to this. This is disruption on a scale comparable to total war with casualties to boot.

As for professional managers growing the endowment, that made me laugh. Magical thinking. Wrap you heads around this folks, this is going to be a monumental task to reboot when this is all said and done. Football is the least of our priorities right now. I hope I am totally wrong. Some of you will crow away saying exactly that. I don't mind your criticism. Just wait for my next post. It will make all the doctors crazy. I guarantee it.

 

[Deleted_User]

We know they build an immunity, the question is how long it lasts.

Yes, we build immunity, but to which version of this ssRNA virus? This Sars-CoV-2 virus already has 8 variants. This is the same type of virus that gives us the common cold. It mutates so often, even with a developed immunity to one variant, we do not have immunity to the next variant. Having immunity does not guarantee we won't get reinfected.

And, with this disease, the older we get, the more over reactive our immune response and the more deadly it becomes. Having a well organized immune response is not necessarily a good thing. For some illnesses, for some people, it is a very bad outcome.

There have already been reinfections with variants. At first, reports suggested that this virus could reemerge to cause a secondary infection. It was not true. It was a variant. So, again, my point being -- do we know we develop immunity to this disease. And, my answer would be we don't know. There is a difference in having an acquired immune response to the virus variant and having an immune system to the disease.

 

[hello-world]

Calm down. Everything is going to be okay. Yes, this sucks, but it will pass.

The Gophers haven't missed a football season in 135 years. If they miss this year then they will come right on back next year.

 

[MplsGopher]

It has been clearly and repeatedly stated there is no clinical deference between the strains, there is little difference between them. They do not feel immunity is affected. There is a bunch that has been said including about dominant strains taking over because of this immunity preventing less prevalent strains re-infecting people. And these dominant strains may not be the same from region to region because of this.

The unknowns are still a problem don't get me wrong, in fact when thinking about sports there are too many of them to be confident there will be sports any time soon.

https://www.startribune.com/fda-approves-first-coronavirus-antibody-test-in-u-s/569325052/

“
The new test, made by Cellex, looks for two types of antibodies: immunoglobulin M, made by the body a few days into an infection; and immunoglobulin G, made later but created specifically to neutralize a particular invader.

The test delivers results in about 15 minutes. But just having antibodies does not guarantee immunity from the coronavirus.

The new test looks only for the presence of the antibodies and delivers a qualitative yes or no answer — it does not say how well any antibodies are working, said Dr. Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Columbia University in New York.

Some people who are infected produce powerful immune responses; others do not. And scientists do not know how long immunity to this virus may last.
“

 

[So_Money]

https://www.startribune.com/fda-approves-first-coronavirus-antibody-test-in-u-s/569325052/

“
The new test, made by Cellex, looks for two types of antibodies: immunoglobulin M, made by the body a few days into an infection; and immunoglobulin G, made later but created specifically to neutralize a particular invader.

The test delivers results in about 15 minutes. But just having antibodies does not guarantee immunity from the coronavirus.

The new test looks only for the presence of the antibodies and delivers a qualitative yes or no answer — it does not say how well any antibodies are working, said Dr. Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Columbia University in New York.

Some people who are infected produce powerful immune responses; others do not. And scientists do not know how long immunity to this virus may last.
“

Meanwhile they have used CPT and people have recovered, from being in critical condition no less. We have immunity, we don't know how long it lasts. This hasn't changed. Nothing is guaranteed, it never is, this is true with all viruses, but you cannot dwell on outliers, i.e. older people or people with weaker immune responses. In fact experts are "skeptical" that is the word at least one used, that re-infection is a possibility in the short-term. The proof is in the pudding or so it is said. The idea they don't know if we have immunity is false. It has been proven false. CPT wouldn't have worked, not that failure would indicate we don't have immunity, but success does indicate we do at least initially. .

I don't want to get things too off topic or de-rail conversation, forgive me.

 

[So_Money]

Yes, we build immunity, but to which version of this ssRNA virus? This Sars-CoV-2 virus already has 8 variants. This is the same type of virus that gives us the common cold. It mutates so often, even with a developed immunity to one variant, we do not have immunity to the next variant. Having immunity does not guarantee we won't get reinfected.

And, with this disease, the older we get, the more over reactive our immune response and the more deadly it becomes. Having a well organized immune response is not necessarily a good thing. For some illnesses, for some people, it is a very bad outcome.

There have already been reinfections with variants. At first, reports suggested that this virus could reemerge to cause a secondary infection. It was not true. It was a variant. So, again, my point being -- do we know we develop immunity to this disease. And, my answer would be we don't know. There is a difference in having an acquired immune response to the virus variant and having an immune system to the disease.

Again the variants are not clinically different, they do not feel immunity is affected between strains. Moreover, as I alluded to experts are skeptical there have been cases of re-infection. They feel there are ways to explain it away. Like the person did not fully recover in the first place, test sensitivity... false positives, false negatives, quality of specimen, residual RNA that lasts long after the virus has stopped, ect...

What is most telling is virologists are not even arguing if we have immunity they expected it all along, what they are now doing and have been doing is making guesses on how long it will last. 6mo to 3 years, at least a year, 2-3 years, everyone has a different answer.

 

[MplsGopher]

The idea they don't know if we have immunity is false. It has been proven false. CPT wouldn't have worked, not that failure would indicate we don't have immunity, but success does indicate we do at least initially.

I'm just curious, why are you so confident on this point?

CPT may not work for every single person. I think it's fine to say something like "some or most people will have immunity."

But you seem to be saying that it's guaranteed for every person, and anyone saying anything otherwise (including a virologist at Columbia) is wrong.

Do you mind me asking what you do, that gives you such credibility?

 

[So_Money]

I'm just curious, why are you so confident on this point?

CPT may not work for every single person. I think it's fine to say something like "some or most people will have immunity."

But you seem to be saying that it's guaranteed for every person, and anyone saying anything otherwise (including a virologist at Columbia) is wrong.

Do you mind me asking what you do, that gives you such credibility?

I am not guaranteeing anything, I am just saying we have developed immunity, this has been proven, was never really in doubt, just because some people (very few) for some reason don't develop immunity or develop one to a lesser degree (as with all viruses), doesn't negate we do in fact develop an immunity. It would be like saying we never develop immunity to anything if you use a test that needs things to be 100% across the board. Which would be silly.

As for CPT and how often it will work? Thus far it is 100% if you are looking for improvement, 60% if you are looking for recovery. When talking critically ill people that is fantastic for early results with a small sample size. They are now making a big push to implement it on a large scale. With that said nothing is a magic bullet, not even vaccines, but you are being intellectually dishonest if you basing your opinions on the minority and rarest of circumstances and not the most common and most likely ones.

Apparently UPMC has a promising vaccine using the antibodies...again they don't know how long it will last (this is the real issue), the mice have not been monitored long enough. This is the first of many I expect relatively shortly, as we have some infrastructure based on other coronaviruses. Then on to approval, trials ect... and we wait. And if it doesn't last very long, back to the drawing board, they will need to figure out how to artificially extend their replication.

 

[MplsGopher]

I am not guaranteeing anything, I am just saying we have developed immunity, this has been proven, was never really in doubt, just because some people (very few) for some reason don't develop immunity or develop one to a lesser degree (as with all viruses), doesn't negate we do in fact develop an immunity. It would be like saying we never develop immunity to anything if you use a test that needs things to be 100% across the board. Which would be silly.

As for CPT and how often it will work? Thus far it is 100% if you are looking for improvement, 60% if you are looking for recovery. When talking critically ill people that is fantastic for early results with a small sample size. They are now making a big push to implement it on a large scale. With that said nothing is a magic bullet, not even vaccines, but you are being intellectually dishonest if you basing your opinions on the minority and rarest of circumstances and not the most common and most likely ones.

Apparently UPMC has a promising vaccine using the antibodies...again they don't know how long it will last (this is the real issue), the mice have not been monitored long enough. This is the first of many I expect relatively shortly, as we have some infrastructure based on other coronaviruses. Then on to approval, trials ect... and we wait. And if it doesn't last very long, back to the drawing board, they will need to figure out how to artificially extend their replication.

I want you to be correct on everything. Believe me.

I just don't see anything wrong with questioning immunity, on a brand new virus. One that has multiple genomes active in the world. And one where experts are not fully in agreement (as I showed an example).

Human immunity to viruses is not a foregone conclusion. For example, HIV. Viruses have evolutionary pressure to survive, which include random mutations that, for reasons not understood to us, help it twart our natural immune response in one way or another.

 

[So_Money]

I want you to be correct on everything. Believe me.

I just don't see anything wrong with questioning immunity, on a brand new virus. One that has multiple genomes active in the world. And one where experts are not fully in agreement (as I showed an example).

Human immunity to viruses is not a foregone conclusion. For example, HIV. Viruses have evolutionary pressure to survive, which include random mutations that, for reasons not understood to us, help it twart our natural immune response in one way or another.

I don't think you showed an example of what you think, they were just touching on it not ever being 100%, and that the antibodies without being created with a specific memory in mind wouldn't recognize an infection that is unknown to them. In most basic of terms you might have acquired the antibodies via something else but they may not help you because there is no memory of the current virus.

AND I think there is agreement, I have not seen one expert state we don't develop immunity, they all think we do, expected it, and now they know it...they say as much, but they are honest in that they have no idea how long it will last. Why do I have to keep repeating myself? I don't get it. All of what I am saying is in nearly every article one would google on it, nearly verbatim across experts. These experts are aware of studies like one in China where monkeys with antibodies could not get infected a week after recovery. I mean why fight what is known?

The HIV example is also not relevant in that it is not something people naturally recover from, like this. With HIV people may years into the infection only then start to produce antibodies strong enough to fight it, but by that point it is too late. It is apples to forklifts.

 

[Deleted_User]

I don't think you showed an example of what you think, they were just touching on it not ever being 100%, and that the antibodies without being created with a specific memory in mind wouldn't recognize an infection that is unknown to them. In most basic of terms you might have acquired the antibodies via something else but they may not help you because there is no memory of the current virus.

AND I think there is agreement, I have not seen one expert state we don't develop immunity, they all think we do, expected it, and now they know it...they say as much, but they are honest in that they have no idea how long it will last. Why do I have to keep repeating myself? I don't get it. All of what I am saying is in nearly every article one would google on it, nearly verbatim across experts. These experts are aware of studies like one in China where monkeys with antibodies could not get infected a week after recovery. I mean why fight what is known?

The HIV example is also not relevant in that it is not something people naturally recover from, like this. With HIV people may years into the infection only then start to produce antibodies strong enough to fight it, but by that point it is too late. It is apples to forklifts.

Again, we are speaking of the virus and not the disease. From a disease standpoint, we do not get immunity. From a variant standpoint, we develop acquired immunity, but that does not mean it is effective at ridding us from future variants. Not only is your post above wrong, the experts do not agree with your take on their view. You really need to study this and review your serology and virology.

 

[So_Money]

Again, we are speaking of the virus and not the disease. From a disease standpoint, we do not get immunity. From a variant standpoint, we develop acquired immunity, but that does not mean it is effective at ridding us from future variants. Not only is your post above wrong, the experts do not agree with your take on their view. You really need to study this and review your serology and virology.

Sigh. Again, this is a slow mutating virus, there are no clinical differences, they do not foresee any in the near term, they do not expect immunity to be affected across variants, at current. I'll keep saying it, you seem to want to ignore it. I am just saying what experts are saying I have no idea if they are right, if "I" am wrong, they are wrong and it is you they don't agree with.

Then you insult my intelligence by trying to defend against an argument I never made, like this virus couldn't have future variants. Though it seems to be believed by some that many of these variants will die off and dominate ones will control regions, no,...obviously further mutation can/will happen, what that means long-term if anything (positive or negative) is unknown. Stop trying to fight to fight.

I have said my piece enough about this and repeating myself over and over isn't going to help some people. I am over it. Plus it is a bit off-topic.

 

[Deleted_User]

Sigh. Again, this is a slow mutating virus, there are no clinical differences, they do not foresee any in the near term, they do not expect immunity to be affected across variants, at current. I'll keep saying it, you seem to want to ignore it. I am just saying what experts are saying I have no idea if they are right, if "I" am wrong, they are wrong and it is you they don't agree with.

Then you insult my intelligence by trying to defend an argument I never made, like this virus couldn't have future variants, though it seems to be believed by some that many of these variants will die off and dominate ones will control regions, no, obvious further mutation can/will happen, what that means long-term if anything is unknown. Stop trying to fight to fight.

I have said my piece enough about this and repeating myself over and over isn't going to help some people. I am over it. Plus it is a bit off-topic.

Well, when I was discussing variants, you kept repeating that people have immunity to Covid-19, the disease state of Sars-CoV-2. And, as I pointed out, there are already variants and that no study has been shown that there is any immunity to those variants. It is possible, yes, but we don't know that as of right now. And, I clearly stated that just because a person has acquired immunity, it does not mean that it is automatically effective against the disease, and for that matter, the variant of Sars-CoV-2. Acquired immunity is not a guaranteed outcome of defense. That isn't what immunity implies. If you don't understand that concept, I can't help you either. So, I don't know what to tell you other than what you posted is not factual. It may be an implied truth, but it is not factual.

If you have studies that provide evidence that contradicts this post, and I hope I am wrong on this, you should link the study to this site. I want to be wrong on this. 100%.

Yoou

 

[Deleted_User]

Let's take a look at actual research on the mutation rate.

This article:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1567134820300915

Says right in the abstract that the mutation rate is fast.

"COVID-19 is a viral respiratory illness caused by a new coronavirus called SARS-CoV-2. The World Health Organization declared the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak a global public health emergency. We performed genetic analyses of eighty-six complete or near-complete genomes of SARS-CoV-2 and revealed many mutations and deletions on coding and non-coding regions. These observations provided evidence of the genetic diversity and rapid evolution of this novel coronavirus."

 

[So_Money]

Let's take a look at actual research on the mutation rate.

This article:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1567134820300915

Says right in the abstract that the mutation rate is fast.

"COVID-19 is a viral respiratory illness caused by a new coronavirus called SARS-CoV-2. The World Health Organization declared the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak a global public health emergency. We performed genetic analyses of eighty-six complete or near-complete genomes of SARS-CoV-2 and revealed many mutations and deletions on coding and non-coding regions. These observations provided evidence of the genetic diversity and rapid evolution of this novel coronavirus."

And I'll raise you.

https://www.businessinsider.com/new-coronavirus-mutates-slowly-vaccine-could-be-long-lasting-2020-3

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/202...mutations-mean-hope-for-a-single-vaccine.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...accine-mutation-covid-19-latest-a9423301.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...rack-coronavirus-strains-mutation/5080571002/

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsa...ting-but-that-may-not-be-a-problem-for-humans

https://www.washingtonpost.com/heal...6522d6-6dfd-11ea-b148-e4ce3fbd85b5_story.html

https://www.popsci.com/story/health/covid-19-coronavirus-mutates-changes/

 

[MplsGopher]

So we have two academic experts, who are stating exactly opposite findings.

Dean's link points to an expert at the University of Pittsburgh and UPMC that says:
"
We performed genetic analyses of eighty-six complete or near-complete genomes of SARS-CoV-2 and revealed many mutations and deletions on coding and non-coding regions. These observations provided evidence of the genetic diversity and rapid evolution of this novel coronavirus.
"

So_Money's link points to an expert at Johns Hopkins that says:
"
Peter Thielen, a molecular geneticist at Johns Hopkins University, told The Washington Post that an analysis of 1,000 samples of the new coronavirus revealed only four to 10 genetic differences between the strains that had infected people in the US and the original virus that spread in the Chinese city of Wuhan.
"


These can't both be correct at the same time, right?

 

[MplsGopher]

And I'll raise you.

https://www.businessinsider.com/new-coronavirus-mutates-slowly-vaccine-could-be-long-lasting-2020-3

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/202...mutations-mean-hope-for-a-single-vaccine.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...accine-mutation-covid-19-latest-a9423301.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...rack-coronavirus-strains-mutation/5080571002/

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsa...ting-but-that-may-not-be-a-problem-for-humans

https://www.washingtonpost.com/heal...6522d6-6dfd-11ea-b148-e4ce3fbd85b5_story.html

https://www.popsci.com/story/health/covid-19-coronavirus-mutates-changes/

So first of all: why did it take you all the way until now to post all these citations? This gives you a huge boost in credibility. Why should I just take your word for it? I tried to ask you what you do, but you ignored that question.

Secondly, so is Tung Phan, Division of Clinical Microbiology, University of Pittsburgh and University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, lying?

 

[So_Money]

So first of all: why did it take you all the way until now to post all these citations? This gives you a huge boost in credibility. Why should I just take your word for it? I tried to ask you what you do, but you ignored that question.

Secondly, so is Tung Phan, Division of Clinical Microbiology, University of Pittsburgh and University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, lying?

Because I am not a liar and I should not have to do work for people, when I say something these are things that can be fact checked. More so when it is something that is all over the place and easy to find. That said he was kind of being a little pompous, so...I did some work for him to prove my point.

I also don't think he (Tung Phan) was lying, I think it all has to do with what is the definition and context of rapid, when numbers first came out it was thought it changed a letter of DNA every 15 days or so, it is known to be a bit slower than that now. Is that rapid? Not comparatively even at that point. I am not sure why he used rapid? I doubt he thinks it is, especially with what we know now, because it isn't in a relative sense when compared to other viruses. That said when it comes to evolution viruses do rapidly mutate compared to plants and animals. so is that what he is comparing it to? Who knows...but if he is he would be correct, most viruses do evolve quickly because they replicate far more often.

It is also funny because UPMC just announced it has what it suspects is a working vaccine. Which kind of goes against the "rapid" narrative out of the same institution.

https://nypost.com/2020/04/02/scientists-believe-they-found-potential-coronavirus-vaccine/

https://www.pittwire.pitt.edu/news/...te-shows-promise-first-peer-reviewed-research

 

[MplsGopher]

Because I am not a liar

Lying has nothing to do with it. You could simply be mistaken, but not trying to misinform.

I should not have to do work for people

It is absolutely on you to back up your claims. That's how that works.

Unless of course, you are an expert. Are you? You keep avoiding that question, for some reason.

And I think it all has to do with what is the definition and context of rapid, when numbers first came out it was thought it changed a letter of DNA every 15 days or so, it is known to be a bit slower than that now. Is that rapid? Not comparatively even at that point. I am not sure why he used rapid?

His paper was received Feb 17. And in it he shows "ninety-three mutations over the entire genomes". I don't have the faintest idea if that qualifies for "rapid". But do you have enough credibility to definitively say that he was wrong to use that word? You won't answer that question. Yet you make many statements and claims, as if we were talking about polio or some other very well known and classified virus.

 

[MplsGopher]

It is also funny because UPMC just announced it has what it suspects is a working vaccine. Which kind of goes against the "rapid" narrative out of the same institution.

Who says that if a virus qualifies for "rapid" mutation, that a vaccine isn't possible?

I just want to know where that is set as the definition of that. I'm not suggestion it isn't true.

 

[So_Money]

Who says that if a virus qualifies for "rapid" mutation, that a vaccine isn't possible?

I just want to know where that is set as the definition of that. I'm not suggestion it isn't true.

The point is if it is rapidly mutating it might be a bit early in the game to have something you expect would work by the time it is released, that more mapping and tracking of mutations may be needed to know what angle to attack it from at a time in the future. That is all. People being able to come up with vaccines speaks to the viruses stability.

 

[So_Money]

Lying has nothing to do with it. You could simply be mistaken, but not trying to misinform.


It is absolutely on you to back up your claims. That's how that works.

Unless of course, you are an expert. Are you? You keep avoiding that question, for some reason.


His paper was received Feb 17. And in it he shows "ninety-three mutations over the entire genomes". I don't have the faintest idea if that qualifies for "rapid". But do you have enough credibility to definitively say that he was wrong to use that word? You won't answer that question. Yet you make many statements and claims, as if we were talking about polio or some other very well known and classified virus.

It is up to people to verify my statements on their own. Posts do not need to be cited, frankly if you read a lot and have a decent memory it is near impossible sometimes. Who knows what article you are thinking of that you read 2 weeks ago...

No, I am not an expert.

I am not sure why he used rapid.

For whatever reason he did; more current information disagrees...depending on context.

 

[MplsGopher]

The point is if it is rapidly mutating it might be a bit early in the game to have something you expect would work by the time it is released, that more mapping and tracking of mutations may be needed to know what angle to attack it from at a time in the future. That is all. People being able to come up with vaccines speaks to the viruses stability.

Was it difficult to come up with the first seasonal flu vaccine?

They did that well enough, but still have to make a new one every year.

 

[MplsGopher]

more current information disagrees...depending on context.

What ultimately matters is if we will need a new vaccine every year.

 

[So_Money]

Was it difficult to come up with the first seasonal flu vaccine?

They did that well enough, but still have to make a new one every year.

Flu vaccines are not a perfect science, in that they don't always work, sometimes the effectiveness is fairly poor or really poor...look it up if you want to be surprised. They also have to adjust them twice a year and only cover four of the what is seen as the likeliest strains to hit.

 

[So_Money]

What ultimately matters is if we will need a new vaccine every year.

Correct. The first thing that matters is how long immunity lasts, the second thing is can they make a vaccine that continues to produce antibodies for longer than that and the third part is what role antigenic drift play in the future, i.e. will we need to re-inoculate every year, every few years or for the most part has herd immunity been reached and the virus is uncommon and we don't need to do much of anything.

 

[MplsGopher]

Flu vaccines are not a perfect science, in that they don't always work, sometimes the effectiveness is fairly poor or really poor

All I'm proposing is that, until we try it out, we don't know that the Sars2 vaccine won't work the same way.

Just because it was "quick" and "easy", in some relative sense, to get the vaccine up and running, doesn't prove that it's a one and done eradication. I hope it is.

 

[So_Money]

All I'm proposing is that, until we try it out, we don't know that the Sars2 vaccine won't work the same way.

Just because it was "quick" and "easy", in some relative sense, to get the vaccine up and running, doesn't prove that it's a one and done eradication. I hope it is.

Who knows. All we have to go by is the experts and they seem to be optimistic as of now, things can change, things do change. Are they right now? Will that hold? The thing with scientists is they love to talk and make predictions, then when if it doesn't happen they will move the goal posts. I would call it likely some of that to some degree happens based on history, how bad will that be?... Are they down a FG in the first quarter? or 4 TDs? Because we are really in the first quarter here.

 

[MplsGopher]

We'll get it under some form of control, eventually.

Then it's on to the next novel virus that afflicts humans ....