The Coronavirus and the NFL Thread - P&R Light

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

It's a backlash to what they see as overreaction. I don't believe the majority of them believe it's truly a hoax (although there are some). They simply believe it's a "hoax" in relation to what they see as a disproportionate over reaction. Do you recall back in at the end of June social media picked up on the CDC planning scenarios that estimate the Infection fatality rate?

IFR is clearly the percentage of people that catch Covid who die.

The social media huha at the time said "CDC says the IFR is 0.2". And in the usual fashion you can see the media wheeling out it's "experts" to sow confusion and doubt about what the CDC says in articles like this one.

They point out that there are 5 scenarios with 0.26 being the best case and 1% being the worst. With their "best guess" being 0.4%. And they find some professor guy who says that the USA is underestimating deaths (even though the CDC is using international data).

The CDC updates this data all the time.

Their latest figures from July say the IFR is 0.5% to 0.8% with their best guess being 0.65%. As you can see they have narrowed the window as they feel more confident on the number.

If you are under 50 without comorbidity it's 0.3%. If you are under 50 and morbidly obese it's 0.5%. The vast, vast, vast majority of global deaths are 75+ and already ill with other diseases. They make up 50% of all deaths. If you take out the 75+ age group the overall IFR obviously halves.

The IFR for the 57-59 Flu pandemic was 0.67%. But it killed everyone in all age groups. It was much worse than Covid. It killed kids of all ages. It killed pregnant women. The largest increases in mortality were children and young adults.

The IFR of the 68-69 flu pandemic was lower at 0.4% estimated, but thats largely because there was a lot of immunity from 10 years before. Again, it killed all age ranges, including many more kids and young adults than Covid.

99.35% of people that have Covid survive. 95% of them never even see a hospital. 40% never even know they have it. 50% of deaths are people already near to death.

And for this the world have created trillions of dollars of debt to burden onto our children. For every 80 year old saved we are putting 300 working age adults out of work (it will likely be much higher). Every person out of work is a home lost. A child put into poverty. More deaths across all age ranges from heart disease, stress, suicide. Every tax dollar lost is starving services of the money to survive. Deaths from cancer and other serious illnesses will obliterate Covid deaths. But as long as nobody is counting too seriously right?

Give me Covid and I'll take my 99.35% odds so that my kids aren't saddled with the huge debt. So that hundreds of millions worldwide can keep their jobs and homes. So that millions don't die of cancer and other illnesses going undetected. So millions of kids don't fall below the poverty line. So that services that help those most in need can remain funded.

And if my grandparent were alive they would say the same thing. Like their parents in '68 and their grandparents in '57. Neither of which shot themselves in the foot over a very similar pandemic.

Death cult member


Football

 

[BritCard]

@BritCard, you make a lot of good points - but at this point, anyone shunning masks and social distancing because of a "backlash" is condemning more people to die. And everyone who wants the restrictions to be eased (which at this point are a far cry from crippling the whole economy, rather hurting specific segments which require people to gather in clise proximity) should be fully bought in to and supportive of wearing masks and social distancing. Instead, a big segment of the population is making things worse, not better, because they believe in nonsensical conspiracy theories.

...dave

I've never, ever advocated for shunning masks or social distancing. I've said several times all reasonable precautions should be taken. I'm simply saying that there should be much more balance and facts in the media coverage and as a result, more balance in the response and public perception. If there was more balanced fact based reporting you would see much less backlash. Some people just refuse to be scared.

Being fed a constant barrage of the most negative aspects of the situation, often based on speculation and exaggeration, causes large sections of society to rail against it. You are far more likely to see a story with the headline "Your pet cat can give you Covid" than "The CDC say 99.35% of covid sufferers survive".

If there was more "It's not as bad as we first thought. Nearly all infected, especially under 65, will survive. But we all have parent and grant parents and they are most at risk so lets take some precautions for them" and less "Covid is the plague. We are all going to die. Here's some kids and athletes that died, that could be you or yours. Now wear a mask dipshits" you would probably see less resistance.

But the correct balance should be that everyone goes about business as usual with mask, social distancing and no mass gatherings (where achievable) while those that are most vulnerable make their own decisions on what risks they are willing to take.

I can't stress this enough. Overreacting, instilling fear in everyone and trying to shut everything down is killing more people than Covid. UK released figures today that show that 40% more people have died of heart attacks since March than normal. That's happening everywhere. There was a recent survey done across Europe that showed people think Covid is 10x more deadly than it is.

In a year or two all the headlines are going to be "3x more people died of other causes than died of covid" because of the disproportionate fear being instilled by inaccurate coverage.

This includes football (just to make it NFL related). I wonder if before Damien Williams, who is 28, was told that his chance of catching Covid outdoors was much lower and that if he did catch it his odds of being just fine were around 99.8%. Or that his odds of passing it to someone in his family under 50 (that he lives with) was only 15%. It's if his kids did get it from him they had a 99.9999% chance of surviving and most likely wouldn't even know they had it.

I wonder if he knew that and would still turn down $2m at 28 for a journeyman RB.

Now, I only mentioned this Chris because I was tagged, and I won't say any more on the subject unless asked.

 

[BritCard]

Death cult member


Football

Sheep

Football

 

[Chris_Sanders]

Ouchie and Britcard 1 week off

 

[Chris_Sanders]

Now, I only mentioned this Chris because I was tagged, and I won't say any more on the subject unless asked.

Completely fair. It's the response to Ouchie that got you your break.

Everyone else...quit talking about the virus. This is not a damn virus debate thread.

That is P&R. Go there and pretend your expertise there.

This is solely about how COVID - 19 is impacting the NFL.

 

[cardpa]

So to get this thread back on topic, now that Gilbert has decided to forgo the 2020 season and has opened that door on the team, how many other Cardinal players do you think will now opt to take the season off? I personally think Peterson will due to his diabetes. I think a couple who have kids may take a break especially if their children have a medical condition which puts them more at risk.

The other question no one has asked yet as far as I know is, would it be an advantage or disadvantage to take the season off if a player is going to be a free agent next season? Would it have a negative or positive affect of their upcoming status as a 2021 FA?

 

[Cardsfan77]

So to get this thread back on topic, now that Gilbert has decided to forgo the 2020 season and has opened that door on the team, how many other Cardinal players do you think will now opt to take the season off? I personally think Peterson will due to his diabetes. I think a couple who have kids may take a break especially if their children have a medical condition which puts them more at risk.

The other question no one has asked yet as far as I know is, would it be an advantage or disadvantage to take the season off if a player is going to be a free agent next season? Would it have a negative or positive affect of their upcoming status as a 2021 FA?

I feel like most if not all would’ve opted out by now or at least be holding out from training camp while making a decision. I could be wrong, but why report at all if that’s your plan? Now, if things take a turn for the worst with team outbreaks that will change.

 

[Ronin]

Tom Pelissero
@TomPelissero
·
39m

The NFLPA says 56 players have tested positive for COVID-19 since players began reporting to training camp. That's about 2% of the ~2,600 players on active rosters, and well under a 1% positivity rate in terms of total tests administered. Still very early, but good signs.

 

[JeffGollin]

What the heck man? This is the coronavirus thread. 95% of it isn't football related.

Yet you are posting 10 tmes the non-FB amount on the "other" thread. We readers are "treated" to two threads worth of content

I don't question your intention to stick to the facts, but I bet you'll review what we actually know 10 years from now and cringe (One expert compares this to looking back to review the use of leeches to cure the flu). I find the give & take entertaining and informative, but there are times when I wish you'd give it a rest. No one has a monopoly on knowledge about Covid-19.

Pick on one thread and stick with it. Pleez!

 

[Ronin]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[Ronin]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[Ronin]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[Ronin]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[Ronin]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[daves]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

So, nothing new this year?
...dave

 

[Chris_Sanders]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

Dan Snyder blames name change.

 

[Ronin]

NFLPA
@NFLPA
·
1h

We have reached an agreement with the @NFL
to continue daily testing through September 5th. We will continue to monitor positivity rates within each club and relevant information from each team community to inform our assessment of testing frequency ahead of the regular season.

 

[Ronin]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[TJ]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

This is encouraging, but I expect it to be higher once they start hitting eachother.

 

[Solar7]

I just saw there's going to be fans at Cowboys games. I can't say I feel good about that with us visiting Jerry World in week 6.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

I just saw there's going to be fans at Cowboys games. I can't say I feel good about that with us visiting Jerry World in week 6.

Still could be fans at the Cardinals games. I just decided to take back the 20k

 

[Solar7]

Still could be fans at the Cardinals games. I just decided to take back the 20k

He was talking 50% capacity. Whenever the Cardinals make their decision, I'll judge, but oof. 52,500 people for 8 weeks sounds like a recipe for disaster.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

He was talking 50% capacity. Whenever the Cardinals make their decision, I'll judge, but oof. 52,500 people for 8 weeks sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Wow

 

[Solar7]

Wow

I want to walk it back just a little - I heard this from NBC Nightly News. They reported he said they would follow state guidelines of 50%, but looking at some other reporting, it looks like they might still be working out what the number actually looks like.

Still, it's wild to think that our stadium, at full capacity, is close to a 50% mark for the Cowboys. While technically following rules, it's still alarming.

 

[Cheesebeef]

He was talking 50% capacity. Whenever the Cardinals make their decision, I'll judge, but oof. 52,500 people for 8 weeks sounds like a recipe for disaster.

well, I’m guessing the only people that can prob afford those tickets and show up would be GOP folks. If Jerry want to cull some of the herd right before everyone votes, putting Texas in play, great.