16 out of 302 NBA players test positive for Covid 19

[Mr. WEO]

16 hours ago, dwight in philly said:

You mean like in nursing homes? Is that where they pass it on? 

 

Just be thankful yours has WiFi.

 

And stay out of the day room...

[dwight in philly]

25 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Just be thankful yours has WiFi.

 

And stay out of the day room...

"Funny stuff"

[HamSandwhich]

14 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I mean like in birthday parties & stuff
https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/texas/article/Birthday-party-leaves-18-in-Texas-family-with-15367621.php

A nice family get-together - surprise party for 25.  18 people infected including 80 yr old parents and cancer patient.  The elderly mom stopped by briefly to drop something off, the elderly father didn't attend, neither did 10 others of the 18 family members who became infected. 

 

Not dead, so must not count that 3 were hospitalized, very ill, and the father is still in ICU?

 

That's how it works.  Young healthy people get the virus asymptomatically or with mild symptoms they attribute to something else - seasonal allergies, say.  They infect people they have contact with, who infect people they have contact with.  Some clusters die out without anyone particularly susceptible being infected, like the Great Clips cluster in Springfield MO.  Other clusters spread to include someone susceptible, or someone who works with vulnerable people. Let's hypothetically say Josh Allen gets covid-19 and never knows it.  He was sick worse with a cold last fall.  He unintentionally infects his housekeeper who cleans for 5 other families.  One of those families includes a physician who sees patients residing in an assisted living facility.  And we're off.

And of course, some percentage (subject to debate) of the younger people do become seriously or critically ill and require hospitalization

So no personal responsibility is needed? We just need to cancel everything for something that has an average age of death over the average life expectancy. Another political fight. 

[FireChans]

6 hours ago, machine gun kelly said:

Chans, I’m not going to banter, but some perspective From you’re examples.  Working with doctors, nurses, surgeons in particular as I work in biotechnology and in the past medical device sales, these medical professionals even before this virus wash their hands before and after every patient interactions, and wear gloves, are trained not to touch their faces, and since February even in offices are wearing masks.  You’re points about medical professionals infecting others is not accurate at all.  Hapless’s example on the other hand is much much more likely.  Young people do get sick although proportionately people with comorbid conditions, and elderly along with pregnant women are more susceptible.  That’s the problem.  Someone unknowingly is positive and is not taking distancing seriously and can infect a ton of other people.

I know exactly what they do. What I’m arguing is what else they should do.

 

I would consider it irresponsible for a doctor to go on a vacation for 4 days, fly on a plane in Florida, then go back to work the next day at an ALF. I wouldn’t consider it irresponsible for Josh Allen to go fly to Florida and then go do something else. 

 

Do you see? 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

20 hours ago, 1ManRaid said:

I was more just critiquing the weird narrative some have that the virus isn't more dangerous for the elderly.  Not really trying to make specific claims.

 

I don’t think anyone debates that COVID-19 is most deadly to the most elderly.  

I though the point (but I could be wrong) was that people underestimate that it can also produce a severe illness in the not so elderly.

[RaoulDuke79]

On 6/26/2020 at 5:42 PM, dwight in philly said:

OK  guess the sky is falling .. i can quote other studies to dispute . but wont bother.. ill get banished .. 

Yep. I agree and that's where I'll leave it.

[Putin]

I used to be a huge NBA fan especially during the 90’s I miss those Bulls vs Knicks games , 

The way I feel about NBA now I could care less if there’s is EVER a season 

[ProcessTruster]

that's not much.  lets get on with it.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

9 hours ago, HamSandwhich said:

So no personal responsibility is needed? We just need to cancel everything for something that has an average age of death over the average life expectancy. Another political fight. 

 

I really don’t think that’s a reasonable interpretation anything  I wrote.  

So I’ll leave it at that, because this has all the signs of someone closed to discussion.

[HamSandwhich]

7 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I really don’t think that’s a reasonable interpretation anything  I wrote.  

So I’ll leave it at that, because this has all the signs of someone closed to discussion.

You've made a miscalculation. I am always open to thoughtful discussion that does not wreak of political bias.  It's clear as day where the divide is.  I happen to believe it has to do with the left's need to get Trump out of office and inability to acknowledge that the virus is not as bad as it was originally feared.  I am open to your interpretation, even though the average life expectancy in America is 78.5 years old and the majority of those who died from COVID is over that age.

 

What is your take on the spike of COVID cases, is it due to more testing or is it due to there being a bigger prevalance?  I'll give you that it can be a mix, but there is invariably one more than the other.  So where do you lean?  Keep in mind, as I'm sure you know, this is cases that are COVID positive, and most recover.  We're not talking about deaths.  

 

Again, I'm open to being persuaded and always am because I have a mentality that aligns most with Stoicism which teaches that if something is verifiable and is correct, then I should change my opinion on that fact.  So persuade away.  

[plenzmd1]

2 minutes ago, HamSandwhich said:

You've made a miscalculation. I am always open to thoughtful discussion that does not wreak of political bias.  It's clear as day where the divide is.  I happen to believe it has to do with the left's need to get Trump out of office and inability to acknowledge that the virus is not as bad as it was originally feared.  I am open to your interpretation, even though the average life expectancy in America is 78.5 years old and the majority of those who died from COVID is over that age.

 

What is your take on the spike of COVID cases, is it due to more testing or is it due to there being a bigger prevalance?  I'll give you that it can be a mix, but there is invariably one more than the other.  So where do you lean?  Keep in mind, as I'm sure you know, this is cases that are COVID positive, and most recover.  We're not talking about deaths.  

 

Again, I'm open to being persuaded and always am because I have a mentality that aligns most with Stoicism which teaches that if something is verifiable and is correct, then I should change my opinion on that fact.  So persuade away.  

I will weigh in..i don't think there is any doubt positive cases have spiked in hot spot areas. To argue against that would be not following the numbers. If you claim to want to be numbers based , the numbers say there is a massive increase in positive cases in the hotspot states.

 

Having said that, according  to this newspapers website, a least in Florida, hospitalizations have not tracked with that surge. Deaths is a huge lagging indicator, so i dont think that is a good barometer for at least another 7-10 days. 

 

https://tallahasseereports.com/2020/06/24/two-charts-show-positive-trends-for-florida-in-coronavirus-battle/

 

But i have also seen a graph, which i could not find, where hospitalizations in Texas have corresponded directly with the huge increase in positive cases. It is something that bears watching, and to dismiss is just folly in my mind.

 

And if you know my bent, it is this a virus that affects the elderly..but damn these case increases and positivity rate are worrisome numbers

[HamSandwhich]

2 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

I will weigh in..i don't think there is any doubt positive cases have spiked in hot spot areas. To argue against that would be not following the numbers. If you claim to want to be numbers based , the numbers say there is a massive increase in positive cases in the hotspot states.

 

Having said that, according  to this newspapers website, a least in Florida, hospitalizations have not tracked with that surge. Deaths is a huge lagging indicator, so i dont think that is a good barometer for at least another 7-10 days. 

 

https://tallahasseereports.com/2020/06/24/two-charts-show-positive-trends-for-florida-in-coronavirus-battle/

 

But i have also seen a graph, which i could not find, where hospitalizations in Texas have corresponded directly with the huge increase in positive cases. It is something that bears watching, and to dismiss is just folly in my mind.

 

And if you know my bent, it is this a virus that affects the elderly..but damn these case increases and positivity rate are worrisome numbers

I would like to see said graph.  It's only worrisome if you think it's deadly than it is.  So far it's proving to be not deadly really at all.  I'm saying to take personal responsibility for your family.  Do not go to those you know are compromised, take all precautions.  Don't shut down the world because of the small number that actually die.  

 

I am no fan of people dying, absolutely not, I don't know anyone who is, but I am also starkly against taking a bazooka to a bothersome fly buzzing around your household.  It seems the liberals are all-or-nothing with no nuance...unless of course what they're protesting is something they agree with.  Remember when those protesting the shut down were not smart but now all of a sudden protesting is smart?

[Mikie2times]

14 minutes ago, HamSandwhich said:

You've made a miscalculation. I am always open to thoughtful discussion that does not wreak of political bias.  It's clear as day where the divide is.  I happen to believe it has to do with the left's need to get Trump out of office and inability to acknowledge that the virus is not as bad as it was originally feared.  I am open to your interpretation, even though the average life expectancy in America is 78.5 years old and the majority of those who died from COVID is over that age.

 

What is your take on the spike of COVID cases, is it due to more testing or is it due to there being a bigger prevalance?  I'll give you that it can be a mix, but there is invariably one more than the other.  So where do you lean?  Keep in mind, as I'm sure you know, this is cases that are COVID positive, and most recover.  We're not talking about deaths.  

 

Again, I'm open to being persuaded and always am because I have a mentality that aligns most with Stoicism which teaches that if something is verifiable and is correct, then I should change my opinion on that fact.  So persuade away.  

Last time the US saw a 7 day moving average positive test % at 6.4% (current) was late May and we averaged about 400,000 daily tests at that time. Now we are averaging over 600,000. You don't need a Harvard degree in statistics to do the math. If it was actually getting better as tests increase the % would be going down, certainly not flat or up. As a country it is increasing as a % from it's low at 4.4% in mid June (500,000 test average) and across 4-5 states it's absolutely sky rocketing. Here is your web site.   https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/testing/individual-states/usa  Look at Arizona, Texas, Florida, among several others. Ohio, which was one of the most aggressive shut down states in the country is now seeing the same data trend in much smaller numbers as are plenty of other states that nobody is paying attention to yet (I live in Ohio that's why I'm commenting on it). But give Ohio time, I'm sure those small numbers won't be very small in another month. Rising %'s against rising tests is a very bad trend.

[DBilz2500]

There will be football, fellas. Enough with the doom and gloom 

[MJS]

On 6/26/2020 at 8:13 PM, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Actually, the problem is that demographics that broad are used in most of the available data.

 

So we don't have answers to questions like "what is the risk, really, to a healthy 35 yr old NFL OLman?" that are as clear cut as we would like, not from "spin" but just because those are the bins in which data is being proffered.

The bins generally look at 18-44 and then 45-64 from the COVID sources I have looked at.

 

The NY share of deaths in the 18-44 range is only 3.9%, but it jumps up to 22.4% of deaths in the 45-64 age range.

 

So that does appear to be a way to spin it one way by adding those two demographic ranges together (not necessarily by you, but by whoever has been spreading those facts) to make younger adults more scared so they adhere to the recommendations.

 

It's pretty clear there is a steep divide between a 20 year old and a 60 year old, as we would expect intuitively.

 

BTW, age 75+ account for 48.7% of deaths. This disease is clearly much more deadly for the elderly.

 

The thing that people don't seem to be talking about is the huge divide on gender. 61.8% of the deaths have been men. And of those who died without an underlying condition, 72.2% were men. Really interesting.

[HamSandwhich]

1 hour ago, KzooMike said:

Last time the US saw a 7 day moving average positive test % at 6.4% (current) was late May and we averaged about 400,000 daily tests at that time. Now we are averaging over 600,000. You don't need a Harvard degree in statistics to do the math. If it was actually getting better as tests increase the % would be going down, certainly not flat or up. As a country it is increasing as a % from it's low at 4.4% in mid June (500,000 test average) and across 4-5 states it's absolutely sky rocketing. Here is your web site.   https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/testing/individual-states/usa  Look at Arizona, Texas, Florida, among several others. Ohio, which was one of the most aggressive shut down states in the country is now seeing the same data trend in much smaller numbers as are plenty of other states that nobody is paying attention to yet (I live in Ohio that's why I'm commenting on it). But give Ohio time, I'm sure those small numbers won't be very small in another month. Rising %'s against rising tests is a very bad trend.

You're missing the point here buddy, the tests are open to many more other than just those who are feeling sick.  There are people who are testing positive now that have no symptoms.  This is something that was already thought to be the case.  It's showing that the disease is much less deadly than originally thought.  There are several places around where I live that are offering testing regardless and without the approval of doctors.  Is there an actual uptick in the number of people dying?  Nope. 

29 minutes ago, DBilz2500 said:

There will be football, fellas. Enough with the doom and gloom 

That sounds like a racist, or privileged, or something else that is offensive to the left, statement. Keep it down.

6 minutes ago, MJS said:

The bins generally look at 18-44 and then 45-64 from the COVID sources I have looked at.

 

The NY share of deaths in the 18-44 range is only 3.9%, but it jumps up to 22.4% of deaths in the 45-64 age range.

 

So that does appear to be a way to spin it one way by adding those two demographic ranges together (not necessarily by you, but by whoever has been spreading those facts) to make younger adults more scared so they adhere to the recommendations.

 

It's pretty clear there is a steep divide between a 20 year old and a 60 year old, as we would expect intuitively.

 

BTW, age 75+ account for 48.7% of deaths. This disease is clearly much more deadly for the elderly.

 

The thing that people don't seem to be talking about is the huge divide on gender. 61.8% of the deaths have been men. And of those who died without an underlying condition, 72.2% were men. Really interesting.

Boom, what's the average life expectancy? 

[Mikie2times]

19 minutes ago, HamSandwhich said:

You're missing the point here buddy, the tests are open to many more other than just those who are feeling sick.  There are people who are testing positive now that have no symptoms.  This is something that was already thought to be the case.  It's showing that the disease is much less deadly than originally thought.  There are several places around where I live that are offering testing regardless and without the approval of doctors.  Is there an actual uptick in the number of people dying?  Nope. 

 

If your point is to say that it has a lower mortality rate than previously expected, I have thought that was the case for some time but that is still very much open to further data. Lag period on deaths and who is being infected (is the recent surge in just the sub 30 demographic? If so, obviously you won't see that many deaths now,  how about a month from now after they spend time with parents and grandparents?). Regardless of who is getting infected they're mingling with all the people that impact the rate of deaths. A nearly perfect correlation exists long term with death and infection totals. Go figure. You're banking on that changing?

 

If your point is to say it is reducing in cases and not accelerating, that is not correct. Even using your own logic, before we only tested the sick and now we test a much larger subset of people in addition a much larger amount of people. So testing a small group of sick people vs a large group of healthier people and as a % you would expect the latter to have a higher %?

  

Edited June 28, 2020 by KzooMike

[HamSandwhich]

16 minutes ago, KzooMike said:

If your point is to say that it has a lower mortality rate than previously expected, I have thought that was the case for some time but that is still very much open to further data. Lag period on deaths and who is being infected (is the recent surge in just the sub 30 demographic? If so, obviously you won't see that many deaths now,  how about a month from now after they spend time with parents and grandparents?). Regardless of who is getting infected they're mingling with all the people that impact the rate of deaths. A nearly perfect correlation exists long term with death and infection totals. Go figure. You're banking on that changing?

 

If your point is to say it is reducing in cases and not accelerating, that is not correct. Even using your own logic, before we only tested the sick and now we test a much larger subset of people in addition a much larger amount of people. So testing a small group of sick people vs a large group of healthier people and as a % you would expect the latter to have a higher %?

  

I’m saying personal responsibility for individual families is needed on the first point.

 

the second point you can to say definitively one way or the other because we were not testing as much and the clientele has changed from only sick to now anyone. There are no conclusions other than educated guesses, which for me is that this was much more prevalent and wide spread in the community than what we were told. 
 

Either way, there is no justification for shutting down again if there was one in the first place.

One other thing, I was fine at first when we didn’t know. When we started to see the numbers not justifying our fears, it took an act of god to get some in government to admit and reopen. The media is again trying to stoke fear in hopes a shutdown will happen again, there justification is a means to bring down the right and trump. That’s it. Doesn’t matter if you agree or not in this attempt, that’s what it’s about. They’re scaring people into submission for that reason. How else does something that is so much less deadly continuing to scare people?

Edited June 28, 2020 by HamSandwhich

[HardyBoy]

How the hell is a virus political?

 

It isn't, please listen, take a breath and listen, this isn't political. The approach that was taken doesn't seem to be working. The time to judge that approach and the pepple leading is later. Right now we need tweaks to the approach now to do better. 

 

Also, please stop judging this on deaths only, there is a scary good chance this causes long term permanent damage in younger people. Even if that happens in only 5% of the population of 20-35 year olds, you are talking about huge generational socio-economic impacts. They are seeing this attack the testicles and potentially screw up testosterone level and impact fertility. Stop with the alive or dead narrative, the early data is really concerning...I was yelling about this virus in mid feb and peolle wouldn't listen and started calling me a crazy prepper until the moment the nba cancelled their season, and I was right. 

 

I've been saying since mid-march I was really concerned with long term impacts of not super crqzy infections based on SARS, MERS and early data on SARS-COV-2. This was the main story on reuters friday and they are not partisan: 

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-effects/scientists-just-beginning-to-understand-the-many-health-problems-caused-by-covid-19-idUSKBN23X1BZ

 

If you think this is a conspiracy or whatnot, please consider the fact that your side might just as easily be getting socially engineered. Please, look at the motivations of everyone involved, objectively, trust no-one and then look for the most likely explanation on who has the most to gain with any given narrative.

 

Please, please, please, just take a step back, nobody is attacking you personally, it is a refusal to engage in discussion beyond a few talking points. Your self worth is not diminished if you objectively reevaluate your position based on new evidence. I'm not saying change your mind because people want you to, just objectively view the evidence with regards to the virus without ego. I promise everyone wants the people in charge to succeed right now...this has a legit chance to cause permanent significant damage to healthy young people without significant symptoms, and until we can rule that out, this is extemely serious and not some game of political tic tac toe.

[Mikie2times]

18 minutes ago, HamSandwhich said:

I’m saying personal responsibility for individual families is needed on the first point.

 

the second point you can to say definitively one way or the other because we were not testing as much and the clientele has changed from only sick to now anyone. There are no conclusions other than educated guesses, which for me is that this was much more prevalent and wide spread in the community than what we were told. 
 

Either way, there is no justification for shutting down again if there was one in the first place.

I certainly agree with your first point.

 

I also agree that it has been more wide spread the entire time (which is why I was/still am inclined to think the mortality rate was always likely lower than reported).

 

I disagree that the data is inconclusive. It is very much conclusive that cases are rising. Under no situation can you have a rising denominator and a rising % without it being statistically significant. We could have been only testing people on Ventilator's at first and now testing people with Popsicle's. If the % is higher and the total is higher, it's statistically significant.

 

How you feel about that data, shut downs, shutting down again. That's all personal opinion. I've bounced back and forth on that topic. Go full out Darwin, rip the band aid off, only the strong survive, save the economy vs flatten the curve, bleed out slow, preserve as much medical resources to save lives as possible and the economy gets crushed. We decided to do a little of both. As it was said in Breaking Bad, half measures rarely work. We needed to go all in early with one of the two options but we missed that window. Now we will bleed out on both accounts.      

Edited June 28, 2020 by KzooMike