Study Finds Inflammatory Heart Condition Myocarditis in 37 of 1,597 (2.3%) B1G Athletes After They Tested Positive for Covid

[The Deplorable Sleeping Dog]

What is it about the difference between Responsibility and irresponsibility is unclear to you? Life and death? The common good? Public health?

Like it or not, we are ALL in this together.

Libertarian philosophy and self-centered Ayn Randian B.S. pretzel logic doesn’t trump science. I’m not misreading Mill btw. It’s clear that my Liberty is infringed upon if others are being unsafe and exposing me to danger, illness, or death. That’s obvious. Be honest.

Do you understand risk assessment? You risk your life every time you step in a shower but we don't ban showers. You are a potential killer the minute you start driving a car but we don't ban automobiles. Policies cannot be created that produce no losers and complete safety.

You clearly lack a working knowledge of the science of Covid. For example, the 600,000 death claim is a preposterous conflation of T-19 and an average of 3 other morbidities. The actual number is about 16,000 that can be attributed solely to T-19. The difference is enormous, dying with a disease in literally any stage of that disease is completely different than dying from the end stage of a disease. Indeed, almost all CDC metrics mix pneumonia, influenza-like and Covid-like illnesses to inflate the "Covid" numbers. You can go to the CDC website and peruse the data for yourself.

Its not "pretzel logic" its actual logic. Premise + premise = conclusion. What statistical probability do you think you have of contracting T-19? That figure is produced by the purest science, math. On the other hand you are merely emoting about "self-centered" (by which you mean evil or morally inferior) people and we're all in it together virtue signals. Unless you have an unusual risk factor, in which case you need to protect yourself and not impose on me to protect you by destroying my family business. Or making someone with breathing difficulty undergo the labored breathing associated with any mask that's sufficient to block the T-19 virons.

During flu season should we similarly mask up, quarantine, close commerce etc... How about during late spring early summer when viral meningitis will endanger you and your family. Indeed is there any time when people living in a social manner are not exposing each other to contagious diseases? By any time I mean any time in human history. Even better, mammalian history. So you can choose from among tens of thousands of species over millions of years to find a time when mammals living communally, in herds or packs, did not exchange "germs".

Are you intending to claim that any behavior in which I engage that theoretically could injure others should be subject to prior restraint? If you understand the concept of magnitude of risk you understand we cannot evaluate every risk as certainly catastrophic. So, if you aren't saying that every risk requires prior restraint we have to make risk assessments. Where do you draw the line at which my behavior poses a sufficient risk to you such that I must be restrained through government force?

I rather find Mills and Rand provide better political guidance than Marx. It's that freedom thing.​

 

[The Deplorable Sleeping Dog]

David Hume claimed reason is the slave of the passions. I don't know if I'd go that far, but it's easy to find examples of emotions setting the goal and then reason finding justifications for it and the way(s) to achieve it.

While true that people repeatedly reach a conclusion and then search for an argument to confirm it it is not the same as actual application of relevant known facts to the rigors of fair and honest logical evaluation.

Like somehow the governors of New York and New Jersey forced C+ patients into nursing homes, where they could spread the disease among the very most vulnerable population much faster. Although loathsome to me, I don't think those two Dems are psychopaths that wanted to kill old people so someone came up with an argument in favor of something that was absolutely certain to kill more old people.

 

[DodgerHawki]

What is it about the difference between Responsibility and irresponsibility is unclear to you? Life and death? The common good? Public health?

Like it or not, we are ALL in this together.

Libertarian philosophy and self-centered Ayn Randian B.S. pretzel logic doesn’t trump science. I’m not misreading Mill btw. It’s clear that my Liberty is infringed upon if others are being unsafe and exposing me to danger, illness, or death. That’s obvious. Be honest.

We are not all in this together. What if your goals are different that mine? What if mine are different than yours? What gives me the right to restrict your freedoms "for the good of everyone." The beauty of our system of government is the individual is prioritized. There has to be overriding reason to take away a person's individual freedoms.

I'm willing to follow science. Not political theater. There is not one study of random controlled groups dealing with viruses that shows masks make any difference in stopping them. Beyond that, we have the real time data of COVID, which shows the states with mask mandates didn't do worse or better than those without, in terms of cases or deaths. We do need to follow the science when it comes to these things. What has happened over the last year + has not been science.

 

[MepoDawg#]

Geez - but if my neighbor and his kids aren’t vaccinated and it exposes me and my family and everyone else to C19 risk, AND greatly increases the risk for ever more dangerous mutations, that is irresponsible and unacceptable, as it doesn’t only infringe on our freedom, it can cause illness and in too many cases: death.

So you’re saying you don’t give a crap about my kids and my family and your neighbors? I don’t believe you’re that heartless.

Have we forgotten that almost SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND FELLOW AMERICANS have died from Covid? And about 500 die daily, over 95% of them unvaccinated.

What are you doing with your neighbors that is putting you at risk?

 

[Titanhawk2]

how many had the condition prior to a year ago? Will never know

 

[Hwk-I-St8]

Do you understand risk assessment? You risk your life every time you step in a shower but we don't ban showers. You are a potential killer the minute you start driving a car but we don't ban automobiles. Policies cannot be created that produce no losers and complete safety.

You clearly lack a working knowledge of the science of Covid. For example, the 600,000 death claim is a preposterous conflation of T-19 and an average of 3 other morbidities. The actual number is about 16,000 that can be attributed solely to T-19. The difference is enormous, dying with a disease in literally any stage of that disease is completely different than dying from the end stage of a disease. Indeed, almost all CDC metrics mix pneumonia, influenza-like and Covid-like illnesses to inflate the "Covid" numbers. You can go to the CDC website and peruse the data for yourself.

Its not "pretzel logic" its actual logic. Premise + premise = conclusion. What statistical probability do you think you have of contracting T-19? That figure is produced by the purest science, math. On the other hand you are merely emoting about "self-centered" (by which you mean evil or morally inferior) people and we're all in it together virtue signals. Unless you have an unusual risk factor, in which case you need to protect yourself and not impose on me to protect you by destroying my family business. Or making someone with breathing difficulty undergo the labored breathing associated with any mask that's sufficient to block the T-19 virons.

During flu season should we similarly mask up, quarantine, close commerce etc... How about during late spring early summer when viral meningitis will endanger you and your family. Indeed is there any time when people living in a social manner are not exposing each other to contagious diseases? By any time I mean any time in human history. Even better, mammalian history. So you can choose from among tens of thousands of species over millions of years to find a time when mammals living communally, in herds or packs, did not exchange "germs".

Are you intending to claim that any behavior in which I engage that theoretically could injure others should be subject to prior restraint? If you understand the concept of magnitude of risk you understand we cannot evaluate every risk as certainly catastrophic. So, if you aren't saying that every risk requires prior restraint we have to make risk assessments. Where do you draw the line at which my behavior poses a sufficient risk to you such that I must be restrained through government force?

I rather find Mills and Rand provide better political guidance than Marx. It's that freedom thing.​

So, did you miss all the hospitals being overrun with sick and dying people? Cities bringing in refrigerated trucks because the morgues were full? How oblivious are you?

 

[Franisdaman]

Do you simply misunderstand what I posted or are you actively trying to misrepresent it? Perhaps some combination of the two.

Honestly, not trying to misrepresent anything.

You said "nothing unusual here." Well, covid-19 is certainly not a "usual" virus. It caused a pandemic, which are not usual at all (the last pandemic was 100 years ago).

I am simply stating that this is not your ordinary, well known virus that ended up causing myocarditis in 37 athletes in this study. Covid is a virus we still don't know much about and are still learning.

I hope they continue to monitor these 1,597 athletes for the next several decades (at least) so that more is learned. For the 37, hopefully their heart issues go away. Bottom line, hopefully the entire 1,597 in the study live long, healthy lives with no long term covid related health issues.

 

[Franisdaman]

Myocarditis affects up to 10% of people with Influenza A. Better shut it all down again.

yeah, because covid is the same as the flu

and science and studies like these are bad!!!

dumb ass

 

[Franisdaman]

You have some very poor reading comprehension. I didn’t say this study was old news, I said it’s old news that COVID-19 can cause myocarditis. This was being discussed last summer when they were deciding to have football or not. Also, studies show other acute viral infections cause myocarditis in 1%-5% young, healthy individuals with this study’s findings well within that range. Should it be taken seriously, yes, but current studies show it is on par with other acute viral infections when it comes to causing myocarditis in young, healthy people.

You have some really poor spinning skills.

We all know what you said.

 

[Hawkeye Marching Band]

Under what circumstances should we, assuming you are using the wide generic "we" and aren't engaging in the royal plural, honor emotions, and what do you mean by honor them? Under what circumstances do we need to feel more?

Those are not merely academic questions. The answers go to the heart of determining when one person/group's emotions/feelings should direct the action of other persons who do not share the the first person's emotions/feelings.

By honoring them, I mean that there are times when our emotions should direct our beliefs, perspectives, responses, and actions. Emotions are a type of judgment. I'm not saying emotions should be blindly followed, but that they can reflect what matters most. Based on your posts, it is obvious that you are a conservative, so I will provide you with an example of a contemporary conservative who holds this view and a historical figure whom you most likely respect.

First, Leon Kass, who chaired GW Bush's President's Council on Bioethics and has been affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute for the past 20 years, has supported this view. He prominently did so regarding a particular emotion in setting out an argument against human cloning. "In some crucial cases ... repugnance is the emotional expression of deep wisdom, beyond reason's power completely to articulate it. Can anyone really give an argument fully adequate to the horror that is father-daughter incest (even with consent), or bestiality, or the mutilation of a corpse, or the eating of human flesh, or the rape or murder of another human being? Would anybody's failure to give full rational justification for his revulsion at those practices make that revulsion ethically suspect? ... In this age in which everything is held to be permissible so long as it is freely done, and in which our bodies are regarded as mere instruments of our autonomous rational will, repugnance may be the only voice left that speaks up to defend the central core of our humanity. Shallow are the souls that have forgotten how to shudder." While "the heart has its reasons that reason cannot entirely know," Kass goes on to provide reasons to support his view. Clearly, he argues this is a time when we should honor an emotion and what it is telling us. You don't have to agree with him regarding the particular instance of human cloning to accept the general point that there are times when emotions provide us with good judgment, or that people who shudder at nothing are emotionally shallow (or worse).

Second, Adam Smith, who was a moral philosopher and published six editions of a book entitled The Theory of Moral Sentiments. (In between he published a little treatise on political economy.) Smith thinks we learn morality through our emotions or sentiments, especially the one he calls sympathy (which most people today would call empathy), and our imagination. (As my mother would say, how would you feel if someone did that to you?) We use reason to help sort it all out. There are times when our emotional response is too strong, so it must be tempered, but there are also times when our emotional response is too weak. How do we know? Smith claims society provides a mirror for evaluating our own conduct and our emotional responses. Will others sympathize with us and the level of feeling that we have? If we feel little or nothing for a rape victim, or someone whose child has died, or someone who has just received a diagnosis of terminal illness, then we need to arouse the emotions.

What do you mean by directing? Legally direct? Socially?

 

[notlongago]

You said "nothing unusual here." Well, covid-19 is certainly not a "usual" virus. It caused a pandemic, which are not usual at all (the last pandemic was 100 years ago).

Umm, no - Asian Flu Pandemic in the '50s, Aids pandemic in the 80s (technically still an epidemic), Swine Flu in the late 2000s and then Zika and Ebola were both epidemics.

 

[notlongago]

So, did you miss all the hospitals being overrun with sick and dying people? Cities bringing in refrigerated trucks because the morgues were full? How oblivious are you?

Using your logic, we could flip it and say; did you see all the popup hospitals that got taken down w/o seeing a single patient? Pointing out the extreme examples on either end of the argument spectrum is disingenuous at best.

 

[ProgressiveIowaAlumnus]

Wow, just wow. I hope you feel comfortable in finally coming out of your bunker and getting some fresh air.

I got vaccinated. I wear a mask indoors in public: stores, wherever. So does my entire family. My wife is a front line worker at the UIHC btw. Outside while exercising - biking, running, open water swimming - I’m maskless. I try my level best to be responsible. We are doing our level best to stay healthy and help others stay healthy.

We are all in this together.

A global pandemic should never have been politicized by corporate profiteers (big pharma, big oil, the war industry) and a wannabe dictator and corporate scam artist with serious mental health degradation and shocking, chronic and dangerous cases of narcissistic personality disorder and sociopathy, or by his worshipful, self-deluded minions who are being used as willing pawns in the ongoing corporate-fascist coup d’etat.

So let’s get real. Finally.

 

[ProgressiveIowaAlumnus]

Again, my safety and exposure is 100% my responsibility. If im uncomfortable about the risks, im free to stay home, do outdoors activities away from people, have groceries delivered, shop online, etc.
I would never put the burden of my safety on someone else.

Spreading the virus and harming others by doing so is also your responsibility.

 

[Hawkeye Marching Band]

While true that people repeatedly reach a conclusion and then search for an argument to confirm it it is not the same as actual application of relevant known facts to the rigors of fair and honest logical evaluation.

Like somehow the governors of New York and New Jersey forced C+ patients into nursing homes, where they could spread the disease among the very most vulnerable population much faster. Although loathsome to me, I don't think those two Dems are psychopaths that wanted to kill old people so someone came up with an argument in favor of something that was absolutely certain to kill more old people.

As I said in my post, I wouldn't go so far as Hume, but typically emotions are what motivate people.

To use your example, sure, the NY and NJ govs may have simply engaged in a cold, rational utilitarian calculus in an attempt get the least harmful results and just made bad judgments. But, to take up Hume's view, the passions may have been the driving force and the calculations of reason followed. No, not a psychopathic desire to kill the elderly, but another passion - possibly a combination of them - and then poor reasoning brought the bad results. Possible passions include a genuine concern for others, panic, and vanity (most, if not all, politicians have plenty of that). I suspect that in the case of New York, the governor's vanity helped keep the policy in place after the bad results started to come in.

 

[notlongago]

Spreading the virus and harming others by doing so is also your responsibility.

Unless im doing it intentionally, no, its not.

 

[Hawkeye Marching Band]

We are not all in this together. What if your goals are different that mine? What if mine are different than yours? What gives me the right to restrict your freedoms "for the good of everyone." The beauty of our system of government is the individual is prioritized. There has to be overriding reason to take away a person's individual freedoms.

I'm willing to follow science. Not political theater. There is not one study of random controlled groups dealing with viruses that shows masks make any difference in stopping them. Beyond that, we have the real time data of COVID, which shows the states with mask mandates didn't do worse or better than those without, in terms of cases or deaths. We do need to follow the science when it comes to these things. What has happened over the last year + has not been science.

We've had this discussion before. There is strong evidence that masks help prevent the spread of viruses when people are close together and/or indoors. Mask mandates mean nothing if people don't follow them. If you want reliable data, you have compare places where people actually wear masks properly to places where many people are maskless.

Fortunately, with the vaccination rates rising, masks are getting phased out.

 

[Hwk-I-St8]

Using your logic, we could flip it and say; did you see all the popup hospitals that got taken down w/o seeing a single patient? Pointing out the extreme examples on either end of the argument spectrum is disingenuous at best.

Hmmmm....I wonder if taking the steps we took (masks, partial lock down, etc) had any part in us ultimately not needing some of those pop ups? It sure seems like the places that got hit early on, before we tried to mitigate the spread, were deep in the weeds. It's not a stretch to think that could have been happening nationwide without any attempt to control it.

 

[ProgressiveIowaAlumnus]

Do you understand risk assessment? You risk your life every time you step in a shower but we don't ban showers. You are a potential killer the minute you start driving a car but we don't ban automobiles. Policies cannot be created that produce no losers and complete safety.

You clearly lack a working knowledge of the science of Covid. For example, the 600,000 death claim is a preposterous conflation of T-19 and an average of 3 other morbidities. The actual number is about 16,000 that can be attributed solely to T-19. The difference is enormous, dying with a disease in literally any stage of that disease is completely different than dying from the end stage of a disease. Indeed, almost all CDC metrics mix pneumonia, influenza-like and Covid-like illnesses to inflate the "Covid" numbers. You can go to the CDC website and peruse the data for yourself.

Its not "pretzel logic" its actual logic. Premise + premise = conclusion. What statistical probability do you think you have of contracting T-19? That figure is produced by the purest science, math. On the other hand you are merely emoting about "self-centered" (by which you mean evil or morally inferior) people and we're all in it together virtue signals. Unless you have an unusual risk factor, in which case you need to protect yourself and not impose on me to protect you by destroying my family business. Or making someone with breathing difficulty undergo the labored breathing associated with any mask that's sufficient to block the T-19 virons.

During flu season should we similarly mask up, quarantine, close commerce etc... How about during late spring early summer when viral meningitis will endanger you and your family. Indeed is there any time when people living in a social manner are not exposing each other to contagious diseases? By any time I mean any time in human history. Even better, mammalian history. So you can choose from among tens of thousands of species over millions of years to find a time when mammals living communally, in herds or packs, did not exchange "germs".

Are you intending to claim that any behavior in which I engage that theoretically could injure others should be subject to prior restraint? If you understand the concept of magnitude of risk you understand we cannot evaluate every risk as certainly catastrophic. So, if you aren't saying that every risk requires prior restraint we have to make risk assessments. Where do you draw the line at which my behavior poses a sufficient risk to you such that I must be restrained through government force?

I rather find Mills and Rand provide better political guidance than Marx. It's that freedom thing.​

Math is not my area, but my business partners are all engineers, and my son does data science in physics at a lab at the Columbia Earth Institute, so I understand a little, enough at least to recognize self-delusion and confusion.

Many people these days with an internet connection consider themselves expert enough to copy-paste propaganda from Facebook or wherever, and think they’ve figured it all out, and that whatever they disagree with must be a conspiracy. Terrifying, actually.

Im no expert on epidemiology or math, nor am I putting my faith in Jesus to lead the Battle of Armageddon, and I doubt I’m getting Raptured soon or ever.

No matter what we believe, science is real, and so is C19. And because of the millions of so-called “patriots” and anti vaxxers and Trumpkins, we will be stuck with it for years here and globally, and mutations will arise and new pandemics will show up, and so it goes...

My wife is a front line health care worker, so I also understand what being exposed to risk is. Ive studied marx and mill and many others in grad school, but was spared the drivel and propaganda of Rand in the lecture halls and seminars. Though I did serious study of Von Mises and Hayek and Friedman and the Chicago School: an ideology that has proven to increase the wealth gap and that is antithetical to participative democracy. Our system is rigged to benefit inherited capital and create an aristocracy of the super wealthy. Rand is an ideologue and an inept writer, not a coherent thinker, which is why she wrote bad novels.

Selfishness is not just morally repugnant; it doesn’t work when made the basis of a society or economy. We are watching that ideology and its radical libertarian dog-eat-dog reality fall apart before our eyes. My father in law nearly died in Stalin’s Gulag as a teenager in the 1940s, so I’m no fan of communism, not at all, as you seem to imply. I lived, studied, researched in Eastern Europe for five years, spent over six months working in India and China over the years. I’ve seen some things over the decades, worked for several governments, in the corporate world and in academia.

It’s fairly clear what works and what is broken beyond repair. We are in this together. No ideology from me: only pure pragmatism.

Either a just, sustainable, social democracy can be built here, or we will fall apart and into civil war and all be sheeple under a corporate-fascist surveillance state.

We are half way there already.

Like what you see?

Let’s be honest.

The elites are laughing all the way to banks that own us, while the proles fight each other and spew ideologies that only make them ever more servile and in permanent debt peonage, and waste their time on bread and circuses.

We can do so much better than this if we are going to survive.

I triple dog dare you to read David Graeber’s “Debt: The First 5000 Years” and I’d love to buy you a Pseudo Sue so we can talk. Seriously.

 

[TonyTheTiger.1865]

Math is not my area, but my business partners are all engineers, and my son does data science in physics at a lab at the Columbia Earth Institute, so I understand a little, enough at least to recognize self-delusion and confusion.

Many people these days with an internet connection consider themselves expert enough to copy-paste propaganda from Facebook or wherever, and think they’ve figured it all out, and that whatever they disagree with must be a conspiracy. Terrifying, actually.

Im no expert on epidemiology or math, nor am I putting my faith in Jesus to lead the Battle of Armageddon, and I doubt I’m getting Raptured soon or ever.

No matter what we believe, science is real, and so is C19. And because of the millions of so-called “patriots” and anti vaxxers and Trumpkins, we will be stuck with it for years here and globally, and mutations will arise and new pandemics will show up, and so it goes...

My wife is a front line health care worker, so I also understand what being exposed to risk is. Ive studied marx and mill and many others in grad school, but was spared the drivel and propaganda of Rand in the lecture halls and seminars. Though I did serious study of Von Mises and Hayek and Friedman and the Chicago School: an ideology that has proven to increase the wealth gap and that is antithetical to participative democracy. Our system is rigged to benefit inherited capital and create an aristocracy of the super wealthy. Rand is an ideologue and an inept writer, not a coherent thinker, which is why she wrote bad novels.

Selfishness is not just morally repugnant; it doesn’t work when made the basis of a society or economy. We are watching that ideology and its radical libertarian dog-eat-dog reality fall apart before our eyes. My father in law nearly died in Stalin’s Gulag as a teenager in the 1940s, so I’m no fan of communism, not at all, as you seem to imply. I lived, studied, researched in Eastern Europe for five years, spent over six months working in India and China over the years. I’ve seen some things over the decades, worked for several governments, in the corporate world and in academia.

It’s fairly clear what works and what is broken beyond repair. We are in this together. No ideology from me: only pure pragmatism.

Either a just, sustainable, social democracy can be built here, or we will fall apart and into civil war and all be sheeple under a corporate-fascist surveillance state.

We are half way there already.

Like what you see?

Let’s be honest.

The elites are laughing all the way to banks that own us, while the proles fight each other and spew ideologies that only make them ever more servile and in permanent debt peonage, and waste their time on bread and circuses.

We can do so much better than this if we are going to survive.

I triple dog dare you to read David Graeber’s “Debt: The First 5000 Years” and I’d love to buy you a Pseudo Sue so we can talk. Seriously.

View embedded media

"Math is not my area" describes every socialist ever. Also, the fact that you know some smart people doesn't mean you are. When people like progressive start to say things like the " collective good" and the " needs of society ", it should scare the shit out of every freedom loving American. The old saying is" You can vote your way into socialism but you will have to shoot your way out"!

 

[notlongago]

Math is not my area, but my business partners are all engineers, and my son does data science in physics at a lab at the Columbia Earth Institute, so I understand a little, enough at least to recognize self-delusion and confusion.

Many people these days with an internet connection consider themselves expert enough to copy-paste propaganda from Facebook or wherever, and think they’ve figured it all out, and that whatever they disagree with must be a conspiracy. Terrifying, actually.

Im no expert on epidemiology or math, nor am I putting my faith in Jesus to lead the Battle of Armageddon, and I doubt I’m getting Raptured soon or ever.

No matter what we believe, science is real, and so is C19. And because of the millions of so-called “patriots” and anti vaxxers and Trumpkins, we will be stuck with it for years here and globally, and mutations will arise and new pandemics will show up, and so it goes...

My wife is a front line health care worker, so I also understand what being exposed to risk is. Ive studied marx and mill and many others in grad school, but was spared the drivel and propaganda of Rand in the lecture halls and seminars. Though I did serious study of Von Mises and Hayek and Friedman and the Chicago School: an ideology that has proven to increase the wealth gap and that is antithetical to participative democracy. Our system is rigged to benefit inherited capital and create an aristocracy of the super wealthy. Rand is an ideologue and an inept writer, not a coherent thinker, which is why she wrote bad novels.

Selfishness is not just morally repugnant; it doesn’t work when made the basis of a society or economy. We are watching that ideology and its radical libertarian dog-eat-dog reality fall apart before our eyes. My father in law nearly died in Stalin’s Gulag as a teenager in the 1940s, so I’m no fan of communism, not at all, as you seem to imply. I lived, studied, researched in Eastern Europe for five years, spent over six months working in India and China over the years. I’ve seen some things over the decades, worked for several governments, in the corporate world and in academia.

It’s fairly clear what works and what is broken beyond repair. We are in this together. No ideology from me: only pure pragmatism.

Either a just, sustainable, social democracy can be built here, or we will fall apart and into civil war and all be sheeple under a corporate-fascist surveillance state.

We are half way there already.

Like what you see?

Let’s be honest.

The elites are laughing all the way to banks that own us, while the proles fight each other and spew ideologies that only make them ever more servile and in permanent debt peonage, and waste their time on bread and circuses.

We can do so much better than this if we are going to survive.

I triple dog dare you to read David Graeber’s “Debt: The First 5000 Years” and I’d love to buy you a Pseudo Sue so we can talk. Seriously.

View embedded media

That was a lot of academia speak, but I cant get past this paragraph, "And because of the millions of so-called “patriots” and anti vaxxers and Trumpkins, we will be stuck with it for years here and globally..."
Are you being hyperbolic, or do you truly believe ~25M-50M Americans propagated the virus across the globe?

 

[DodgerHawki]

We've had this discussion before. There is strong evidence that masks help prevent the spread of viruses when people are close together and/or indoors. Mask mandates mean nothing if people don't follow them. If you want reliable data, you have compare places where people actually wear masks properly to places where many people are maskless.

Fortunately, with the vaccination rates rising, masks are getting phased out.

Now we're changing the goal posts. We literally have the data where mask compliance was extremely high and where it wasn't. It made no difference. I'm not saying that Iowa or Texas or whoever "got it right." The NPI just had little to no difference on the spread of COVID. The most important factor has appeared to be seasonality based on climate. All the geographies with similar climates had similar curves over the fall/winter.

The argument of "masks would work except that people aren't wearing them well enough" is one of those un-falsifiable claims. Fauci was literally emailing people last year saying that the virus transmits via aerosol, which the surgical/cloth masks just don't do anything for. Every study done prior to 2020 and posted on the CDC site said this about respiratory viruses. It just didn't matter. What changed?

I would agree that with vaccinations and the size of the population that has had COVID, the % of people who are largely immune to COVID is fantastic news. I would imagine there will be another spike in the fall/winter in the Midwest, just like last year. But with vaccinations and people who have had COVID, hopefully the number of infections and serious cases is magnitudes less than last year.

 

[grayhair81]

yeah, because covid is the same as the flu

and science and studies like these are bad!!!

dumb ass

Hey, stupid f*ck-you are the one that linked another of your endless streams of BS about a miniscule % of athletes that had COVID developing myocarditis. I simply pointed out myocarditis is a common side effect of respiratory infections. And COVID isn't the flu? You mean like the Spanish Flu? Or the 1957 and 1968 Asian Flus? How the hell can anyone be as stupid as you? Why don't you take Legend's advice and stop consuming oxygen that could be better used by some other living organism?

 

[blhawk]

There's no way OP could have thought this wasn't going to get political😂. This board kinda sucks anymore

 

[The Deplorable Sleeping Dog]

Let's take this gibberish one paragraph at a time.

Math is not my area, but my business partners are all engineers, and my son does data science in physics at a lab at the Columbia Earth Institute, so I understand a little, enough at least to recognize self-delusion and confusion.

If you do not have a fundamental understanding of magnitude of risk concepts you simply are unqualified to understand any part of my argument. You throw in the first of many snarky insults, which just accentuates your fundamental lack of inform to understand what I said. You further amplify that ignorance below.

Many people these days with an internet connection consider themselves expert enough to copy-paste propaganda from Facebook or wherever, and think they’ve figured it all out, and that whatever they disagree with must be a conspiracy. Terrifying, actually.

You talk about grad school below and list some well known theorists. You then iterate the intellectual inferiority of those with whom you think disagree as incapable of formulating different political, economic and social beliefs absent internet conspiracy theorists. That's not the real world, although I'm sure your sense of intellectual superiority makes you feel good. Not to boast but take me for example. I'm pretty well educated. Double major history/philosophy, MA in econ (macro focus) JD and then, as an empty nester another MA, MFA actually, in military history. So my arguments don't come from FB gossip (I only even go on FB to look in Boston Terrier groups for available brindle puppies). My odd OCD personality has sent me into deep educational dives since childhood. Became a debater and a very good coach. That requires deep educational drives into a myriad of topics but the most common were economic, political philosophy, health and environmental risks. Do you really think someone like me is getting arguments from conspiracy theorists, FB commentary or random internet unqualified authors? More than almost anything you've said attributing only Facebook as a source of disagreement identifies you with the totalitarian end state of your Marxist world view. "If only they understood..." Your terror that people may say things online with which you disagree just further illustrates your intolerance of disagreement. That's the bedrock upon which the "fascist" state is built.

Im no expert on epidemiology or math, nor am I putting my faith in Jesus to lead the Battle of Armageddon, and I doubt I’m getting Raptured soon or ever.​

Since you have no concept of magnitude of risk its pretty obvious you won't understand epidemiology or mathematics presented in a statistical format. The condescending snark about religion again shows your sense of absolute intellectual superiority. Well, wrong again about me. Other than a few political or PAC functions, weddings and funerals I've never even been in a church. I even got married in a casino. I know a lot of really smart people who are religious so your condescension is again stupidly misplaced.

No matter what we believe, science is real, and so is C19. And because of the millions of so-called “patriots” and anti vaxxers and Trumpkins, we will be stuck with it for years here and globally, and mutations will arise and new pandemics will show up, and so it goes...

Here's where your almost complete ignorance of Covid is placed on front window display. I did not say T-19 was not real, nor did I say that it represented no risk to anyone. The risk of T-19 was greatly exaggerated, as the CDC numbers actually show. The response was grossly excessive to the actual risk T-19 presented the population in general. The over reaction caused more damage to more people than it helped through reducing the risk of a dangerous does of the 'vid. That's the opposite of basing policy on the greatest good for the greatest number. If you do not understand risk evaluation you simply should not opine on this subject because you, admittedly, have no idea of what I was even saying. All the name calling of opponents again presents you as a typically condescending leftist, feeling so morally superior that just calling names is sufficient to disprove an argument that you cannot logically disprove or even dispute.​

My wife is a front line health care worker, so I also understand what being exposed to risk is.

This is in the "no shit" category. Of course your wife had a greater exposure and hence a higher risk of contracting T-19 than the general population. Moreover, she'd see the dangerous T-19 cases but that doesn't disprove the national and state complete statistics that describe the aggregate extent and effect of T-19.​

Ive studied marx and mill and many others in grad school, but was spared the drivel and propaganda of Rand in the lecture halls and seminars. Though I did serious study of Von Mises and Hayek and Friedman and the Chicago School: an ideology that has proven to increase the wealth gap and that is antithetical to participative democracy. Our system is rigged to benefit inherited capital and create an aristocracy of the super wealthy. Rand is an ideologue and an inept writer, not a coherent thinker, which is why she wrote bad novels.

You should have paid more attention to Mills and Friedman and less to Hayek.

Selfishness is not just morally repugnant; it doesn’t work when made the basis of a society or economy. We are watching that ideology and its radical libertarian dog-eat-dog reality fall apart before our eyes. My father in law nearly died in Stalin’s Gulag as a teenager in the 1940s, so I’m no fan of communism, not at all, as you seem to imply. I lived, studied, researched in Eastern Europe for five years, spent over six months working in India and China over the years. I’ve seen some things over the decades, worked for several governments, in the corporate world and in academia.

You've learned all the wrong lessons from whatever exposure you've had to economics and government. I agree that the globalization of trade and economics, and the development of trans or multi-national "governing bodies" has greatly distorted the natural function of markets. Like Bill Gates building his computers with Chinese slave labor so he can avoid the American wage markets. The American economy needs much less government distortion of natural markets, to be sure. As for selfishness, it explains almost every human decision about almost every thing upon which humans are called to decide. Your post reeks of selfishness, a denigration of those who disagree, ad hominem attacks and implicit demands that others sacrifice to produce the "just and sustainable" society you want. Which is more greedy and selfish, the man who wants to keep what he earns or creates or the person that demands a share of someone else's productivity, income and intellectual creation? My God, you don't even grasp the irony of your world view.

It’s fairly clear what works and what is broken beyond repair. We are in this together. No ideology from me: only pure pragmatism.​

You have demonstrated not a single hint at what actual policies would be pragmatic. That's simply an emotive declaratory statement of belief. Not logically distinguished from "I believe in Santa Claus."

Either a just, sustainable, social democracy can be built here, or we will fall apart and into civil war and all be sheeple under a corporate-fascist surveillance state.

We are half way there already.

Yes we are. Bolshevik communists running a government that works neatly with mega corporations to suppress incomes and innovation, and mega tech and media corps presenting an entirely propagandized depiction of reality while suppressing competitive thought. What do you think a "just" and "sustainable" society looks like? I'm guessing it looks a lot like Soviet or Chinese communism. I'm sure that you're no fan of Orwell as the line "all animals are equal just some are more equal than others" lands a little to close to home.

Like what you see?

Let’s be honest.

The elites are laughing all the way to banks that own us, while the proles fight each other and spew ideologies that only make them ever more servile and in permanent debt peonage, and waste their time on bread and circuses.

There are ways to fix these problems, but they all involve more liberty, freer markets and a much lower governmental presence in our daily lives. I suspect you prefer a much heavier government hand picking the winners and losers.

We can do so much better than this if we are going to survive.

I triple dog dare you to read David Graeber’s “Debt: The First 5000 Years” and I’d love to buy you a Pseudo Sue so we can talk. Seriously. ​

I'm familiar with Graeber's work, although basically through book reviews and critiques. The fact that the world has always been divided into creditors/debtors and consumers/producers is not an indictment of mankind its merely an observation of what is a natural function of human economies. I'm not going to condemn it entirely because I have not personally read it.

 

[MepoDawg#]

You have some really poor spinning skills.

We all know what you said.

What am I spinning? Read what I posted, no spin there just facts. I’m sorry this post hasn’t worked out for the OP like they thought it would.

 

[The Deplorable Sleeping Dog]

So, did you miss all the hospitals being overrun with sick and dying people? Cities bringing in refrigerated trucks because the morgues were full? How oblivious are you?

No I did not miss those occurrences. But the actual numbers show how isolated situations exaggerated the actual risk and your statement confirms that it worked.

Like a hospital having excess patients for a day or two can be huge news, minute by minute coverage in the propaganda media but, in reality, does not translate into a national crises of health care capacity. The reefer trucks story sounds untrue on its face.

Yes, some people died from T-19, but it was a tiny percentage of those who got it. Even then most of the deaths related to Covid were merely collateral to Covid e.g. early stage Covid but end stage influenza or emphysema would be included in the daily Covid death count. So the 1.8% mortality rate is falsely elevated and still low and mostly confined to already either already very old or very sick or both.At the end of the the last 17 months we know that 90% of those that tested positive either had no symptoms or insufficient symptoms to seek medical care. The remaining 10% were predominantly outpatient treatment. Hospitalization rates may have never exceeded 5% and, of course even the falsely exaggerated death rate was only 1.8%. The actual deaths that are known to have been caused by was about 16,000, a pretty small number in a nation of 335 million people.

Did you miss that? How oblivious are you?

 

[Hwk-I-St8]

No I did not miss those occurrences. But the actual numbers show how isolated situations exaggerated the actual risk and your statement confirms that it worked.

Like a hospital having excess patients for a day or two can be huge news, minute by minute coverage in the propaganda media but, in reality, does not translate into a national crises of health care capacity. The reefer trucks story sounds untrue on its face.

Yes, some people died from T-19, but it was a tiny percentage of those who got it. Even then most of the deaths related to Covid were merely collateral to Covid e.g. early stage Covid but end stage influenza or emphysema would be included in the daily Covid death count. So the 1.8% mortality rate is falsely elevated and still low and mostly confined to already either already very old or very sick or both.At the end of the the last 17 months we know that 90% of those that tested positive either had no symptoms or insufficient symptoms to seek medical care. The remaining 10% were predominantly outpatient treatment. Hospitalization rates may have never exceeded 5% and, of course even the falsely exaggerated death rate was only 1.8%. The actual deaths that are known to have been caused by was about 16,000, a pretty small number in a nation of 335 million people.

Did you miss that? How oblivious are you?

Ah...you're part of the conspiracy theory crowd. Duly noted.

 

[Hans81]

I got vaccinated. I wear a mask indoors in public: stores, wherever. So does my entire family. My wife is a front line worker at the UIHC btw. Outside while exercising - biking, running, open water swimming - I’m maskless. I try my level best to be responsible. We are doing our level best to stay healthy and help others stay healthy.

We are all in this together.

A global pandemic should never have been politicized by corporate profiteers (big pharma, big oil, the war industry) and a wannabe dictator and corporate scam artist with serious mental health degradation and shocking, chronic and dangerous cases of narcissistic personality disorder and sociopathy, or by his worshipful, self-deluded minions who are being used as willing pawns in the ongoing corporate-fascist coup d’etat.

So let’s get real. Finally.

My wife & I also got fully vaccinated then after the prescribed 2-week timeframe after the second shot we went mask-less, both inside & out. Why would you need to wear a mask indoors if you are fully vaccinated?

 

[The Deplorable Sleeping Dog]

Ah...you're part of the conspiracy theory crowd. Duly noted.

Ah...you're part of the name calling crowd, which means insufficiently intelligent to make an argument. Duly noted.

 

[The Deplorable Sleeping Dog]

My wife & I also got fully vaccinated then after the prescribed 2-week timeframe after the second shot we went mask-less, both inside & out. Why would you need to wear a mask indoors if you are fully vaccinated?

I can answer that for him. 1. He's completely bought into the Covid hysteria and is terrified. 2. It makes him feel morally superior....he just cares more for people than do you.

Its a simple stereotype, abundantly demonstrated in their own words.

 

[notlongago]

Ah...you're part of the conspiracy theory crowd. Duly noted.

That's not a conspiracy theory. It's the very reason states started making the distinction b/w "contributing factor" vs. "underlying cause" (or whatever terminology they choose).
Why do you want the virus to appear as severe as possible? That's an odd outlook - would be very interesting to hear professional opinions on why some are that way.

 

[The Deplorable Sleeping Dog]

That's not a conspiracy theory. It's the very reason states started making the distinction b/w "contributing factor" vs. "underlying cause" (or whatever terminology they choose).
Why do you want the virus to appear as severe as possible? That's an odd outlook - would be very interesting to hear professional opinions on why some are that way.

1. They're actually terrified, not of just T-19 but many imaginary dangers. 2. Fear suits their politics. Its easier to justify massive intrusions on liberty if people think they're facing some terrible danger. 3. Fear further suits their politics because they can denigrate their opponents as anti human without actually responding to critiques of the fear they are peddling. Its the process through which they assume a degree of moral authority that justifies the brainless name calling.

Again, stereotype proven through their own words..

 

[hawkeyebob62]

OK, we ALL get that COVID is real, that some folks are more prone or in higher-risk categories than others, and that it was both overblown AND a threat. But seriously--and I'm as guilty as anyone--let's try and stop the personal attacks. Let's just stay with the original post/story.

We know that there are, to this point, a certain number of players that contracted it. We know that a percentage of those have shown to develop myocarditis, and some of those showed no cardiac symptoms. So, let's stick with that.

The question(s) become(s), how long will it last? When, if ever, can they return to the playing field? And lastly, what will be done to maintain follow-up, and what determines "safe"? Seriously, let's not allow personal beliefs, opinions, experiences, etc., blow into making this all a fight. We're all, every one of us, better than that. The concern is those people, including these players, that have had it, and what lasting effects may be.

I know, from email correspondence, that some parents were actually NOT upset with postponing, or even cancelling, this past football season. Much as I wanted a season, I get it. No parent wants their kids taking that risk, even if those kids wanted to play, desperately wanted to play. Some players opted out. We can question whether or not it was safety concerns, or preserving their future chances of on-field success. All of those questions are valid.

There are still questions going into the 2021 season. Is it safe to have fans, and to what level will fans be comfortable? HIPAA and privacy being what it is, we may never know exactly how many players on a given team had it, or which players. I would guess some had more severe cases, while some wouldn't have known they had it if not for mandatory testing.

In the end, we want players, staffs, students, and fans to be safe. We want the game to be enjoyable for everyone who loves it. Given NIL, transfers/portal, the possibility of player unions or revenue-sharing, et. al., that the game may well become far less enjoyable than previously. Let's not have a simple study be the thing that creates all this animosity. We have a second- and third-string QB that should be starting to give us our "real" arguments and dissension. I fear we'll all burn ourselves out by the time we need to get into our annual in-season Festivus for "the airing of the grievances"

 

[TC_Hawk]

Nine of those athletes with myocarditis reported cardiac symptoms, but 28 reported no cardiac symptoms.

Lets not make this political. This just goes to show there is a lot we still don't know about covid 19. Originally we just assumed the virus attacked the lungs. But now we know it goes after the heart & it can cause blood clotting.

And what about 5 years from now? 10 years? Etc? We simply don't know.

Yes, the percentage is low but would you want your son or daughter to be one of the 37?


The story:

Study: Athletes see higher post-COVID heart risk

A study of nearly 1,600 Big Ten athletes suggests COVID-19 symptoms are not the best indicator for possible heart problems and advocates continued high-level cardiac monitoring and possible testing of athletes post-COVID-19.

www.espn.com

Both my children had COVID, as did my wife and myself. There was never a time that I worried about myself, or them. I think it’s time to move on and stop with the panic porn. Also. Disagreement isn’t political. I just disagree.

 

[DodgerHawki]

OK, we ALL get that COVID is real, that some folks are more prone or in higher-risk categories than others, and that it was both overblown AND a threat. But seriously--and I'm as guilty as anyone--let's try and stop the personal attacks. Let's just stay with the original post/story.

We know that there are, to this point, a certain number of players that contracted it. We know that a percentage of those have shown to develop myocarditis, and some of those showed no cardiac symptoms. So, let's stick with that.

The question(s) become(s), how long will it last? When, if ever, can they return to the playing field? And lastly, what will be done to maintain follow-up, and what determines "safe"? Seriously, let's not allow personal beliefs, opinions, experiences, etc., blow into making this all a fight. We're all, every one of us, better than that. The concern is those people, including these players, that have had it, and what lasting effects may be.

I know, from email correspondence, that some parents were actually NOT upset with postponing, or even cancelling, this past football season. Much as I wanted a season, I get it. No parent wants their kids taking that risk, even if those kids wanted to play, desperately wanted to play. Some players opted out. We can question whether or not it was safety concerns, or preserving their future chances of on-field success. All of those questions are valid.

There are still questions going into the 2021 season. Is it safe to have fans, and to what level will fans be comfortable? HIPAA and privacy being what it is, we may never know exactly how many players on a given team had it, or which players. I would guess some had more severe cases, while some wouldn't have known they had it if not for mandatory testing.

In the end, we want players, staffs, students, and fans to be safe. We want the game to be enjoyable for everyone who loves it. Given NIL, transfers/portal, the possibility of player unions or revenue-sharing, et. al., that the game may well become far less enjoyable than previously. Let's not have a simple study be the thing that creates all this animosity. We have a second- and third-string QB that should be starting to give us our "real" arguments and dissension. I fear we'll all burn ourselves out by the time we need to get into our annual in-season Festivus for "the airing of the grievances"

I largely agree with you. And I think most here probably would. How about this approach: let families and players make the decision that is best for them, based on their level of comfort with risk. If I were the parent of a college football player (I'm not) I would be much more concerned with the long-term risks to their health due to concussions or other injuries than due to COVID. Because the data shows me that. It doesn't mean that the risk is zero. We have somehow come to believe that we are able to remove all risk in life. I don't know where this came from, but it needs to stop.

If my son loved playing college football and had the ability to do so, I would tell him to find a school he liked, where the staff was good, and go for it.

 

[Hwk-I-St8]

That's not a conspiracy theory. It's the very reason states started making the distinction b/w "contributing factor" vs. "underlying cause" (or whatever terminology they choose).
Why do you want the virus to appear as severe as possible? That's an odd outlook - would be very interesting to hear professional opinions on why some are that way.

My criteria is this: in the absence of the virus, would they have died at that time?

My mom has COPD. It's not an imminent death sentence, but covid would have been very bad for her. Had she gotten it and died, that's a death caused by covid. Most of the deaths fall into that category and people want to dismiss those.

In addition, death isn't the only issue. I have a good friend who is 60, excellent shape and health that spent weeks on a vent and narrowly escaped death. His experience was quite literally a living nightmare and he's still, 10 months later, not fully recovered.

 

[notlongago]

My criteria is this: in the absence of the virus, would they have died at that time?

My mom has COPD. It's not an imminent death sentence, but covid would have been very bad for her. Had she gotten it and died, that's a death caused by covid. Most of the deaths fall into that category and people want to dismiss those.

In addition, death isn't the only issue. I have a good friend who is 60, excellent shape and health that spent weeks on a vent and narrowly escaped death. His experience was quite literally a living nightmare and he's still, 10 months later, not fully recovered.

So youre using your own definition rather than definitions set by health depts, CDC, etc. Which begs the question again; why are self defining it to be more severe than the agencies tasked with guidance? There's a very good reason for the distinction; so we (as a local community) can make concessions and protect the actual at risk. Not turn lives upside for a population that has essentially zero risk.
As to your last point; anecdotal examples don't make any points. How about the dozens of people I know that had it and it was on par with a mild cold...or didn't even know they had it? Doesn't matter does it? Stats matter.

 

[ChiDoc]

because of the millions of so-called “patriots” and anti vaxxers and Trumpkins, we will be stuck with it for years here and globally, and mutations will arise and new pandemics will show up, and so it goes...

It’s hard to fathom how off the charts ignorant you have to be to actually believe the above and feel the need to shout views like this to the world. There are just mountains of evidence that clearly show this to be just patently absurd and hilariously false to any reasonable intellectually honest person on any part of the political spectrum. It really illustrates that the vast majority of the time you find someone on one extreme end of that spectrum or the other they either lack basic intelligence, are brainwashed, or are just looking to blame someone or something for aspects of their life that are unfair and out of their control. It’s no surprise you think everyone else is working against their own interests when you can do the mental gymnastics to hilariously suspend all evidence and reason to hold views like the above. The first rule is not to fool yourself, because you are the easiest one to fool, and when you spout brainwashed nonsense like the above it’s obvious that train left the station a long time ago and is never coming back because emotion rules over logic and reason.

 

[Franisdaman]

Hey, stupid f*ck-you are the one that linked another of your endless streams of BS about a miniscule % of athletes that had COVID developing myocarditis. I simply pointed out myocarditis is a common side effect of respiratory infections. And COVID isn't the flu? You mean like the Spanish Flu? Or the 1957 and 1968 Asian Flus? How the hell can anyone be as stupid as you? Why don't you take Legend's advice and stop consuming oxygen that could be better used by some other living organism?

LOL at YOU calling anyone stupid.

You're a complete dumb ass. Anyone who has ever read ONE post from you knows it.