Hapless Bills Fan

Yeah, I think that's the key, he catches a lot of passes on those jet sweeps and reverses that are passes only because a dropped handoff would be a fumble That said, he's become IMO a better route runner and general WR each year and I'm not sure he's plateaued

Isn't that a bit of an oxymoron? I mean, for most people, if they're fathers, the f'ing happened?

The new variant popularly called "Delta" (officially B.1.617.2, first noted in India) is now >90% of the cases tested in UK. Here's gouge on vaccine effectiveness from Public Health Scotland and Public Health England. Conclusion: After 2 doses of either vaccine there were only modest differences in vaccine effectiveness with the B.1.617.2 variant. Absolute differences in vaccine effectiveness were more marked with dose 1. This would support maximising vaccine uptake with two doses among vulnerable groups. (click to enlarge) References: Preprint (Public Health England) Lancet (Public Health Scotland) Popular Article based on these data Note on vaccination programs in UK: vaccines used are Astrazeneca/Oxford (most common) or Pfizer. In order to vaccinate more people quickly, it has been public health policy to administer only one dose to as many people as possible, then circle back to get most vulnerable first. Based upon their similarity in many other studies, it would be predicted that 2 doses of Moderna vaccine would provide similar protection to 2 doses of Pfizer vaccine; it would likewise be predicted that 1 dose of J&J vaccine would provide similar protection to 1 dose of Astrazeneca vaccine. No hard data I could find yet with regard to protection against Delta compared to infection with original virus. There are data showing a previous infection with Covid-19 provided protection against the variants circulating in US through February, 2021

I roll my eyes at PFF "interceptable balls", but, yards per carry or yards per catch seem sensible to me in attempting to sort out how effective a player is in the chances he gets. So if it's something like sacks per passing snap the DL is on the field for, that could add value IMO.

Can someone familiar with this gentleman and his "True Sack Rate" and HQ Sack statistics kindly explain how they are determined and what they mean relative to the sack numbers we're all familiar with? Speak slowly and use small words. That was my thought initially, but then I thought, well DLmen are on the field for different # of snaps. And they face a different # of snaps where a sack is possible (because sack = QB so if the ball handed off, can't sack) So it seems possible it could be legit.

It officially Jumped the Shark for me just now.

Jesus ***** Christ. "unhealthy life-forms dying from a disease". I would like to introduce you to St Louis Firefighter Rodney L. Heard. Oh, I can't. He died June 16th. https://www.facebook.com/StLouisFireDepartment/posts/1970176336481381 When I look at that picture, I see a veteran firefighter in overall good health, a man who served his community for 20 years and left a family - wife and children - to grieve. I also see a death that didn't have to happen. Covid vaccine was available to this man back in February and even if he got sick, would have most likely prevented serious disease. Who knows what information or misinformation prompted him to decline it? Will his family say at his funeral: "we're so glad he maintained his bodily autonomy and exercised his personal choice to avoid the vaccine" When you look at that picture, I guess you see an "unhealthy life form". Pardon me, but I think that makes you..... ....rather than saying, I'm just gonna tell a little story. One of the biggest chills I ever got was at a high school graduation, the year before my daughter graduated. A teammate on her varsity volleyball team was the orphan of a firefighter killed in the line of duty. Just before the graduation started, this long line of firefighters started to file in. They all stood against the wall at attention, waiting for her to receive her diploma, the daughter of their 12 year dead Brother who couldn't be there. Beasley says if you're vaccinated what I do doesn't affect you. Whether you can't understand it or choose not to, that's just Bull. The vaccine isn't 100%, so the more people are vaccinated the fewer breakthrough infections of vaccinated and the lower the spread overall. I care about my fellow man. I don't want to see that firefighter's family left grieving because he didn't get vaccinated and came into contact with someone infected. I don't want to see that long line of firefighters filing in when his orphaned child graduates. I'm done here. When I lose my temper and find myself cussing and wanting to call someone ill names, it's time to be done. "Unhealthy life form." Jesus.

And yet, we have this: How is this happening, if the ball game is over and the Fat Lady is singing?

I can not be a worry-wort, and STILL understand people who won't get vaxxed affect the odds of me and mine getting ill (because Math, 85-88% is less than 100%). Those things can co-exist. I can not want to impose mandatory covid-19 vaccination, yet still believe that people who choose not to get vaxxed are Shirkers who aren't doing their part. Those viewpoints can also co-exist. LOLOLOLOL how is Cole Beasley relinquishing his damned right to the "pursuit of happiness" if he has to follow some NFL protocols for 1/3 of a year so he can play the game he loves and go home to the wife and kids that he loves? NFL player after NFL player (including Cole) has talked about how busy they are during the season and how little free time they have. It's not as though following the protocols is going to keep him from exercising his in-season right for a midweek jaunt to Cabo or Punta AmIRite? OOOOH, Math! Survival rate of 98% Check me here: US population: 332 million Covid infections: 33.3M (assume 55% unvaccinated to mirror population-level decisions) Covid deaths: 0.6M 45% total population vaccinated: 149M. 98% survival means 3.63 MILLION more Americans will die! Nothing to see here, Move Along! How many people died in 9/11 and yet it was a big deal? 3,000? You have a right to not be vaccinated and to not be concerned about the impact of that decision on other humans Add gratuitously name calling someone who is, frankly, I think that's a bad look. In my day, we lined up and got injected with a vaccine for a disease with like 100% survival rate, all to save a mere 33,000 babies. What fools!

Care about his availability for games.

Yes. Really? Honest people who disagree with their employer's protocols call them out on social media? I call "Baloney". I don't think it has to do with "good" or "honest". Note: I'm not saying Cole Beasley isn't a good and honest man, I'm just saying that calling someone out on social media has nothing to do with "good: or "honest" Me, when I want to change something at my job or in my neighborhood, I've kinda found it more effective to go and talk to people man-to-man as it were, try to gain an understanding of where they're coming from, hear their concerns, lay out my concerns, and see if we can find some common ground. Sometimes it takes several discussions over time and a ***** ton of patience. But I usually get there. Sometimes I don't. I find that if I call people out publicly, they tend to get defensive and hunker down. Maybe that's just me, and you've had success with Cole's strategy? Tell us about it....I'm listening! Fair question. Straight up: as long as the NFL and NFLPA take the position that players who test positive for covid-19 can't play, they're protecting The Shield. The goal is to protect player availability to the team, and preserve the quality of the game while avoiding reschedules. Correct. But if they get infected with covid-19 and test positive or develop symptoms, they become unavailable to the team. If they infect other players, those players become unavailable to the team. Thus close contacts who are ~7x more susceptible to infection (Unvaccinated) are required to quarantine to prevent spread, and quarantined players become unavailable to the team. The Team is paying players to be available, not to be on Sick Call or cause a team outbreak. The same "church dance level" restrictions were in place last year for unvaccinated players, ie, Everyone. What's different now? How can I help you understand that 80-88% is less than 100%? Good Gracious, I'm Very Tenacious, but at this point I think you're just not trying. so..... ......Why do you care what I do? Edit: TIL if you don't put a space between s*** and ton, the bad word filter don't twinge. Shhh. Don't tell @SDS

I agree, there's always a concern for checks and balances on all government powers. Straight question: has mandatory vaccination (yes, with exemptions allowed) for smallpox, polio, measles, mumps, rubella, diptheria, and tetanus been a clear overall societal benefit, or not? Yes or no?

But other people's choice DOES make my "medicine" (my vaccination) work! That's the Point of the herd immunity concept: if a certain number of people are immune, the odds of an infected person meeting a person who can get infection drop low. Until then, infected people still have good odds to meet someone they can infect. You can still infect me, even if I'm vaccinated! If you're vaccinated, you can't. That's the Point. Your actions affect me. Your actions DO make "my medicine" work better or worse. You kinda skated on the point that, here in rural Missouri, "Let's Get Back To Normal" with low vaccination rates mean a bunch of people getting sick. I kind of care about sick people, because, you know, "Oh the Humanity", brother's keeper, etc etc. You?

Illogical. Because one policy is bad or mistaken does not mean others are, ie, any problem with compulsory military draft doesn't make seatbelt laws bad. Mandatory vaccination laws have been around in the US since the early 19th century. Have there been side effects and some other early problems, yes. Do we still have smallpox, polio, congenital rubella syndrome in infants, measles-induced immune amnesia (increases all-cause death in infected kids), measles-induced blindness, mumps-induced encephalitis, meningitis, and orchitis, diptheria, and tetanus. I think it's gonna be pretty tough sledding for you to craft a reasonable argument that mandatory vaccine laws aka "the government feeling they have the power to dictate people's lives" haven't been an overwhelming net societal benefit, but I'll Hang Up and Listen.

Similar here. Bit longer duration on the sore arm. My kid felt pretty tired and napped most of the next day, but as she said "that could have been a week of late nights studying for the previous day's prelim". She also probably had covid-19 (antibodies to it) last spring before testing was widespread. My niece had a similar day of feeling like her butt had been kicked. But that's about it. 15,000 vaxxed Cornell students all on social media and gossip travels like wind, a few breakthru infections but no serious reactions. My mom's 300 person Senior residence, no problems.

If the vaccines were perfect, 100% protective, and if everyone could be vaccinated, why indeed? You'd be Right On. But they're not. ~80-88% against the new variant Delta. So there's an equation - you plug in fraction immune, fractional vaccine effectiveness, Ro, and calculate how many immune people are needed before disease transmission chains are more likely to break than propegate. Vaccinated people are infection chain-breakers. Unvaccinated, unimmune people are transmitters. You impact me and mine. Maybe not directly. Maybe you attend church with my mom's hairdresser or the unvaccinated nurse's aide who works at my FIL nursing home. You're infected asymptomatically, you infect them. Then my vaccinated mom or FIL have 12-20% chance of getting infected. Since they have underlying conditions and maybe their vaccination didn't "take", they might still get very sick. We hear "let's get back to normal - but I'm not getting vaccinated, if you're afraid, YOU stay home!". That's seen as shirking your Individual Part to End a Societal Problem. It's talking about YOU getting back to normal, avoiding inconvenience, and not caring about the transmission chains you might start. That's why some feel resentment towards people who won't get vaccinated. Me, It Is What It Is. No one is strapping people down and injecting them unwillingly. The guy you're responding to said "The factual best way to end this pandemic is for unvaccinated people to get vaccinated. Period. Look at the history of viral diseases that no longer threaten the population." He's correct, from epidemiology. That doesn't mean we think it will happen in large numbers. We understand at this point that many people won't get vaccinated. I'd like you at least understand in return why people who see vaccination as the best and fastest way to return to normal for EVERYONE, might resent people who choose to not get vaccinated. It's because we see them as impacting our lives.

Well, that could be true. I could be selling a lot of people short. I think I'm probably assessing accurately. I am being influenced by a book I've been reading called "Sway" by Ori Brafman which I recommend. https://www.amazon.com/Sway-Irresistible-Pull-Irrational-Behavior/dp/0385530609 I probably should clarify that I intend no disparagement of anyone's intelligence or INTENT to rationally weigh all data. But Brafman makes a compelling case for very smart, very well educated and trained people - physicians, PhDs, chief airline pilots, CFOs etc - being subject to all kinds of "sways" if they aren't looking out for and actively countering them. So I'm looking for sways that may be influencing people's vaccine decisions, and IMHO one big obvious Sway is "recency bias". There has been a lot of recent media coverage about vaccine side effects and their incidence. It's all over and very easy to find. In contrast, to find info on side effects from asymptomatic or mild covid-19 disease in relevant age groups, I had to pretty much know the data existed, and know where to look. So I think that "recency bias" is going to be very real here. Another sway Brafman describes is "decision bias": this is where someone has reached a conclusion, they may feel that they are rational and deciding based on logic and data, but they tend to filter new inputs based upon the decision they've already made. His example is a physician in the ER who has decided that the mother of an ill child is dramatic and exaggerating her child's symptoms and who disregards the mounting evidence on repeated visits that the child is, in fact, ill. Anyway, you could very well be right that I'm selling people short, but I would say that if people aren't working from full information, they can't way the pros and cons and relative risks. And if people aren't actively looking for and countering "sways", that will also factor in. And IMHO, it's been pretty conclusively shown (outside of "Sway") that most people actually aren't good at assessing relative risks. I like the Sway book because I think it does a good job of explaining why.

Oh, wow. Good question. I would really like to believe this. I guess I don't. The reason I don't is that when I hear people say "they're not even approved", it usually seems to be accompanied by "they're just experimental" (not true) and "they were developed in a big rush" and "I'm not antivaccine, we get the other vaccines have all been approved for decades". So I feel as though if you remove the "just experimental" and add "approved", the bar will shift for questioning the validity and quality of the approval package and the concerns about "they were developed in a big rush" (without, of course, any research into why that was possible) and "not approved for decades" will remain. In other words, I think "not approved" is usually kind of a stalking-horse for other concerns. I hope I'm wrong.

Hi. Would you mind commenting on this observation with regard to getting back to normal without vaccine, please? Specifically on this part: Counties here in MO that had almost no Covid infections and were colored pale yellow or green a month ago now look like this (map below), spreading out from an initial cluster of 2 counties in the North and 1 in the South. They test wastewater streams here in MO and finding Delta (the variant originally from India). BTW, these are the counties where 70-80% of the population has made a rational and logical decision (I kid! I kid! It can be true, but these people are my rellies and friends and it usually isn't. THE FERRETS!) to not be vaccinated, despite early and high vaccine availability to them. Since almost no place in MO has had mask mandates or any kind of restrictions, ever, when you see change like this charted, there is probably an explanation other than "fear mongering" and again, if the media went away and there was no sensational coverage, the hospitals would still be re-opening their covid wards and the doctors would still be reporting that the patients they hospitalize are 1) unvaccinated 2) younger. By the way, we have a MO Covid guy on Facebook, just a private citizen, who collects publicly available Covid data independent of media or State or Federal gov't, and his data show the same thing, so it's not somehow media created.

I really can't quite agree with this. There's been a lot of recent airplay in the media and on social media about blood clots and heart issues after vaccination. The problem is it's covered in a sensational alarmist way, and fails to put the information in context - How does the frequency of these side effects (in a relevant population) compare to frequency of side effects from getting the covid-19 virus? And the data coming in is consistently that the side effects are less common from the vaccine than from the disease including in people <30 or young athletes. I think some people believe they are making a rational and logical decision based upon facts, but are working from an incomplete or one-sided data set.

What Took You So Long?

Thank you. Yes. It's a question I ask frequently: "What evidence would you accept to change your mind on this?" Because if the answer is "None, really", then it's not science.

There are some people here who have serious scientific chops. I would probably be considered one of them by most. I think it's pretty clear who the others are. And if you can't tell, well, that kind of highlights the first problem with "do your own research": deciding what sources and data are credible.

There is no State or local mandate at present to take a Covid-19 vaccine, nor is his employer requiring it. Therefore, this isn't a Constitutional issue at present. Second, if there were a State or local mandate, the 10th amendment to the constitution has been held to apply: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The constitution does not generally delegate public health authority to the Federal gov't, therefore it is held to lie with State and local governments. Third, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of State and local vaccine requirements multiple times. This highlights some key cases. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/where-does-the-governments-right-to-require-vaccinations-come-from/

Here's my thing with this. Maybe it will make sense to you, maybe it doesn't. Expertise matters! It really does. I'm an amateur football fan. I've probably put more time and effort than I want to admit into understanding football: educating myself about different offensive and defensive formations, watching film, watching film breakdowns, reading about football. Hundreds of hours. But the harsh bottom line is, it doesn't matter how much research I do, I will never be on the same level of football understanding and football expertise as someone who has devoted years and years of their life to football - who has played it since Peewee, who has literally spent years doing the same stuff I've spent tens or even hundreds of hours doing. I will never have the level of football understanding as an expert, a Jordan Poyer, a Josh Allen, a Cole Beasley, a Brian Daboll, an Orlando Pace. I don't have their ability to quickly sift the gold from the dross when I look at an overwhelming pile of options for a defensive scheme against a given route combination. I can be "taken in" or fooled by something I read that looks credible maybe but isn't really solid. I have to work extra-hard to see stuff that a trained coach can spot instantly. By the same token, people who lack a background of years studying science and carrying out research and assessing research study design and data are simply not going to be on the same footing as a trained scientist when it comes to evaluating scientific and medical data. It's too easy to be taken in by the latest guy in a Youtube video without being instantly slammed in the face by the fallacies, because you don't have the background to twinge your bull#### detector - too easy to get lost in the weeds of recency bias from the media at "oh noes the vaccine side effects!" without remembering to ask "wait, how does this compare to the disease side effects for people my age?" It's great to ask for proof and challenge claims, but if you don't have the background to assess whether or not something is actually a real issue (like the chap on here claiming that the vaccines were never tested in animals, which is total bull oney to people who understand the process of getting a clinical trial approved not to mention who know how to find the published preclinical studies), you can spend a lot of low-quality driving time spinning your wheels in the mud without really getting to "proof" and "challenge" in a meaningful way. You can come up with a meaningful assessment that shows it, but the time and effort you need to is perhaps way greater than you think. It's sort of the equivalent of Joe Sofa Spud on here opining that Player X is "worthless" or "sucks". Well he's still on a professional football team coached by professional football coaches, maybe they know something you don't.