OT 100% NOT the Official Off-Topic/Politics/Corona Thread
- Thread starter portlandhog
- Start date
Sweet....see ya in South Bend on 9/12!
Find me...just sniff the skunk in the air and I’ll be around
This is getting absurd. You've contradicted like 10 things you've posted.
Do you agree with this projection for the college football season?
- 370/100,000 20-29 YO Males get disease. 73,700 NCAA athletes so assumed 273 get the disease.
- 3.7% of infected require hospitilization. Assume 10 people hospitilized
- 0.149% of infected die from disease. So you're looking at 0.4 expected persons.
Everything in that is accurate as of right now. What I posted in the latest comment was prognostications by January of 2021. The top bullet is based upon only known positive tests.
Not sure what you’re struggling with.
Actually, you keep saying all these things I’m saying wrong. Tell me Nostradamus, how many people do you think this will impact? Rationale? Supporting data for these thoughts or just more divine wisdom?
Clearly your projection that 273 athletes will get the disease is wrong. How you can stand by that is beside me.
As for my projections, I've said it a number times. I bet over 50% of college football players will get it. While we don't know what the actual infection rate is over the past 4 months (we both agree its likely higher than the 0.0037 rate you used ITT), I don't think its anywhere close to 50%.
Therefore, if the infection rate for college football players this season is much higher than the infection rate from Feb-May, the death rate per 100,000 for college football players will be much higher as well.
Haha bookmarked. Death totals? And just so we’re clear, you’re anticipating an infection number per 100k 135 times the current known number, correct?
Bookmark it. I absolutely believe that (50%+) will be attained. Clemson** is already at like 40% and school hasn't even started and the players aren't in the locker room and banging up against each other on a daily basis. Just wait until school is back in session, everyone is going out, living in dorms, hooking up and the players are being tested on a weekly basis.
As for deaths, I posted this earlier:
My bottom line on this is there are going to be deaths. Probably not 100. Probably not 50. Maybe not even 10.
If I'm an AD or school president or chancellor, you just have to know that going in. And you have to be prepared to answer the question....Was the millions of dollars in TV revenue worth the deaths of these kids?
Like I've said in this thread, I think this will happen if campuses are open whether football is played or not. But he NCAA isn't a group that has a ton of of wiggle room when it comes to PR and any deaths on its watch are going to be treated harshly.
And we still haven't addressed the issue of coaches, support staff, trainers, administrative, etc at every school and their increased risk.
EDIT: Clemson is at 20% already, or 60 times the current known number. After two weeks....
If 50% of football players have covid, universities will cease to exist because every university would have 50%. Then the general population would probably be upwards of 40%.
You’re not expecting a second wave, you anticipating an apocalyptic event. Got it.
This post puts to shame all the 2.2 million numbers that were previously stated. @mikedamone is anticipating 10s of millions will die. Due to 150 million being infected.
23 of Clemson's 105 players (over 20%) have tested positive in 2 weeks. Before school has even started. Why do you think its crazy to get to 50% over 4-5 months?
Do you think college kids are going to be isolated and staying in with masks on?
They are going to be hanging out in crowded bars indoors, with their inhibitions down, no ventilation, screaming at each, singing to music, hooking up. Everyone telling each other there's nothing to worry about. And for the most part, they are correct.
I'm all for school being back in session(especially my kids!), but its going to spread like wildfire on a college campus football or not.
Sounds good. You should probably close out all your bank accounts and invest in some quality seeds for bartering in the near future. The increase from 2.5 million positive cases to north of 100 MM probably won’t be good for the economy.
Most of the public won’t have the interaction that college students, especially football players, will. Which is kind of the point of this discussion. They will be disproportionately infected compared to other age group and those their age not living on a college campus.
Wait until teams start to lose and the players begin to really not GAF.
So you think 100s of people getting together will produce more infections than the 100s of thousands who were in close contact a week ago?
Yes. First, despite saying 100s vs 100s of thousands, there are more college kids going out on any given night than at those protests. Second, they will be doing it night after night after night. For months. Third, unlike the protesters, there will be no precautions taken.
Honestly, don’t know why I’m arguing with you anymore. You’re predicting the insane and referencing nothing but your gut and 20 cases from 0.01% of college football.
What does data compilation, months of critical analysis by every governing agency, and all the Universities who decided to open back up have in comparison to your gut?
You win.
If it makes you feel better, apparently the "expert" Fauci is claiming that african american community is getting hit so hard from covid because of systemic racism. Cant make this shit up, and to think we actually accepted this doofus as an expert is hilarious
They data compilation and months of critical analysis lead to you projecting 273 total NCAA athletes getting this.
We’ve surpassed that in two weeks before school is even on session. That should tell you the quality of that data in projecting college kids.
As for the Universities, all they’ve decided so far is to put their toe in the water.
He was asked if he thought it played a part and he said yes, followed by examples like the fact that African Americans perform more essential jobs which means they aren't working from home and can't afford to even if they're worried they're sick or others around them are sick. Do you think higher rates of poverty stem from systematic racism or nah?
No i dont, to answer your last question. I know a lot of whities that cant work from home. They are poor as well. They are not victims, either
The most expensive Christmas gift my father ever received was a bag of apples and he is white. Poor knows no color Yoko. And when you're poor you can either decide to make yourself not poor or you can stay that way and suck off of the government for the rest of your life. That's an individual choice that knows no color. Spend some time in the Appalachians and you'll see a lot of poor white folks that are poor because they are fine with being poor. Course you wouldn't know that since you went to a private school in high school and a private school in college. You were raised in a bubble. You should get out in the real world some instead of learning all you know from Twitter.
Last edited:
Again, critical analysis is not your friend. 273 is based upon the data right now. Meaning, if you were to analyze every single individual right now, not January 1, 2021 like I’ve stated in other instances, statistically, 273 of 73,700 should test positive based upon a denominator (assumed positive given total population stratified by age) that we know, and as stated multiple times, is undoubtedly inaccurate.
You’re pointing to the one metric that everyone and their dog can only claim as accurate given the data we know and going, “nuh uh,” to prove the whole argument inaccurate. Have a good one and enjoy having the last word.
FWIW, baseball players that test positive for Covid will be on the IL until they get 2 negative tests. This means not all testing is antibody tests. They will test for antibodies atleast 1 time per month, but will be tested for Covid every other day.
Maybe @mcbmd can answer this. Do people produce antibodies when they are still contagious, or after the virus has run its course
Curious about the part in bold. I donated blood two weeks ago and received a call this past Friday that I tested positive for the antibodies. Went yesterday to donate plasma to help with research. They told me I wasn't contagious and that it just meant that I likely have had it at some point.
My assumption is they do a virology test to see if any possibility remains to continue the spread. But I’m speaking out my ass right now because it’s gone beyond metrics and moved into prognosis.
Whats the real number? Its been well documented that the number continues to be butchered by states to increase funding.
If you're scared stay home. Let the adults live our lives.
The IgM antibodies will show up during the actual course of the illness, though IgG antibodies would not likely show up until the tail end of someone's contagious period, if not after (if at all). Most of the antibody tests are looking for IgG because IgM goes away pretty quickly.
- May 11, 2002
- 34,222
- 33,814
- 113
We were in a prime location and now y'all got us on some off brand strip.
This forum is the Great Value version of The Trough.
But hey, if you get bored, you can quote/reply old board members like Biddy and make fun of them and they'll never know!
Similar threads
