The Commish
Footballguy
Of all the adjectives I'd use for Florida, "right" isn't one of them. It's been more the Leroy Jenkins!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! approach than anything.Otis said:
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
*** OFFICIAL *** COVID-19 CoronaVirus Thread. Fresh epidemic fears as child pneumonia cases surge in Europe after China outbreak. NOW in USA (8 Viewers)
- Thread starter Big League Chew
- Start date
Osaurus
Footballguy
Most likelyEven up here in CF, I think we're at 4.8 or 4.9%.....tons of unnecessary pain to get here, but it looks like we might be, finally, cresting the hill....well until all the people come back
Bluto Blutarsky
Footballguy
Dr Patterson has been talking about these markers since March. Crazy he was so far ahead of everyone else.
Terminalxylem
Footballguy
The SARS-CoV-2 inflammatory pathway wasn’t fully elaborated by Dr. P (even RANTES had been studied in the original SARS) and there are multiple immunomodulators under investigation, including some targeting the markers discussed in Culdeus’ link. Here is a chart from the NIH summarizing potential therapeutics, including their molecular targets.
Not trying to rain on your parade, but let’s try and keep leronlimab pep talk in one of the investment threads, at least until they release any clinically meaningful data.
UOFI_316
Footballguy
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I play in a 45-and-over soccer league. We just got an email this morning that they are planning to play a fall season. I was expecting it to be cancelled for sure. What's the consensus from knowledgeable people about whether this seems like a good idea and relatively safe for me to participate in? This is in Montgomery County Maryland, season probably starts early September, and the games are all outdoors.
ChiefD
Footballguy
My brother has been playing in Chicago and hasn't had any issues. He is 46.
Two of my kids are playing hockey and my 14 year old son has been having conditioning drills and tryouts for high school soccer. We are following all the safety protocols they have in place.
I would think you'd be fine. Just be safe and take precautions where you can.
Edit to add: I'm in Kansas City.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
I have to think that if baseball can be played, you should be able to play. It seems like the "go to" for successful implementations of group gatherings is to be outside and not clumped together for large periods of time. I've never playe soccer, but based on my observations of the sport, it seems to fit that criteria.
top dog
Footballguy
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
This is so true! Every season we start off the first game with like 8 subs and everybody is like "I didn't get enough playing time, this sucks!" Then by like game four we're scrounging to get enough players because we've lost a bunch of guys to season-ending injuries.
top dog
Footballguy
I'm 46 and almost blew out a knee THINKING about your 45 and older soccer season. My back hurt for like a month over the winter because I stepped off the bottom step "wrong". Didn't fall. Didn't trip. Just stepped wrong. Them sport days are over for me.
belljr
Footballguy
We just played 2 months of softball probably 40ish games. Not one issue that I know of. The 2 "cases" I know of were from a parent who was exposed and potentially exposed their kid. Afaik no one other than the parent ended up having it. I'm in NJ
culdeus
Footballguy
By and large this is not spreading outdoors where people are in motion, it's even debatable whether it's spreading when people are not in motion.
If under 30 BMI I would feel very safe.
The Z Machine
Footballguy
(not a doctor). I agree, but with the caveat that if you live with or are in close proximity with someone that's 75+ and has significant comorbidities, I'd err on the side of caution simply due to the risk of infecting them and the serious consequences therein.culdeus said:
culdeus
Footballguy
Grace Under Pressure
Footballguy
Arizona is trending down. The governor is crediting masks and the closing of bars. Better late than never governor.
The states that still seem to be out-sizing their contribution are CA, FL, TX, GA, NC, TN, LA and AL. Especially the first 3. These are the states that had 10 or more deaths yesterday according to Worldometers. NY and IL had fewer than 10 deaths, so it can be done in the larger population states.
The states that still seem to be out-sizing their contribution are CA, FL, TX, GA, NC, TN, LA and AL. Especially the first 3. These are the states that had 10 or more deaths yesterday according to Worldometers. NY and IL had fewer than 10 deaths, so it can be done in the larger population states.
Doug B
Footballguy
// = a short blues harmonica riff.top dog said:I'm 46 and almost blew out a knee // THINKING about your 45 and older soccer season. // My back hurt for like a month over the winter // because I stepped off the bottom step "wrong". // Didn't fall. Didn't trip. Just stepped wrong. // Them sport days are over for me.fatguyinalittlecoat said:
I heard your post in my head as an old-school bad-news blues song.
Last edited by a moderator:
ericttspikes
Footballguy
Seems like the CDC's updated testing recommendations would negatively effect all the states who set positivity thresholds for their phases. Now the CDC are NOT recommending asymptomatic people to get tested. Pretty big change from the "test everybody" policy that many states currently have. Not really sure if state health departments use CDC guidelines or are just making up stuff themselves.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/testing-overview.html
If you do not have COVID-19 symptoms and have not been in close contact with someone known to have a COVID-19 infection:
You do not need a test.
A negative test does not mean you will not contract an infection at a later time.
If you decide to be tested, you should self-isolate at home until your test results are known, and then adhere to your health care provider’s advice. This does not apply to routine screening or surveillance testing at work, school, or similar situations.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/testing-overview.html
If you do not have COVID-19 symptoms and have not been in close contact with someone known to have a COVID-19 infection:
You do not need a test.
A negative test does not mean you will not contract an infection at a later time.
If you decide to be tested, you should self-isolate at home until your test results are known, and then adhere to your health care provider’s advice. This does not apply to routine screening or surveillance testing at work, school, or similar situations.
jamny
Footballguy
Arizona is one of 5 states that Cuomo has taken off the list requiring quarantine when coming to NY.
Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, Maryland and Montana Are Removed
Doug B
Footballguy
Same as it ever was. I don't recall the CDC ever saying everyone needed to be tested. Nor am I aware of a state ever having a "test everybody" policy.
Doug B
Footballguy
Four scenarios on how we might develop immunity to Covid-19 (STAT News, 8/25/2020)
("We" here meaning "society" or "humanity")
Excerpts:
("We" here meaning "society" or "humanity")
Excerpts:
ericttspikes
Footballguy
The page was changed yesterday and detailed for the first time that asymptomatic people don't need to get a test. Here is a snapshot of the same page from Aug 22.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200822095711/https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/testing-overview.html
My county in IL advertises their testing facility all over and their homepage says:
Who Should Get Tested
Anyone may get tested, regardless of symptoms or other criteria.
https://www.dupagehealth.org/601/COVID-19-Testing
I've seen other social media posts of other IL testing facilities encouraging anyone to come get tested for free, regardless of symptoms.
Assume that is the same in other states, but maybe not.
If counties in IL like DuPage change their "Who should get tested" guidelines to "only people experiencing symptoms", I'm wondering how that impacts policy based on % positives .
IL is testing almost 50k a day. There is no way there are 50k symptomatic people getting tested a day. How many asymptomatic people are getting tested now and why?
Last edited by a moderator:
Doug B
Footballguy
This part?
That's still not "test everybody". Testing asymptomatics did and still does make sense in certain settings and for research purposes. It was never a thing where it was like "Welp -- the state of Texas didn't get their whole population tested. They clearly dropped the COVID ball!"
I think your county, also, is attempting to cast a wider testing net for public health surveillance. Testing for individual diagnoses is one important goal ... but another one is to test to get a sense of the "background radiation" level of COVID-19 among the population. The latter can only be accomplished by testing some portion of apparently healthy people with no known exposure.
There are also likely to be a significant number of people who have had "not sure" exposures -- "Someone at my work tested positive, but it's been two weeks since I've dealt with them. I have no symptoms. Should I still get tested?" Once testing got easier to come by, the answer became "Yes! Go get tested just to make sure". There's been a few tests taken by my own family just like this.
Last edited by a moderator:
Doug B
Footballguy
I'm looking at the updated CDC guidance you posted, ericttspikes. I don't see it as a 180-degree turn. Just as a refinement. All they're saying is that "You do not need a test" -- from the CDC's point of view -- if you have no symptoms and no exposures. On the other hand, some local public health officials may still be actively collecting COVID surveillance information from the no-symptoms-no-exposure crowd -- so local guidance might trump the CDC in some areas.
Doug B
Footballguy
How do you mean? If fewer asymptomatics or totally-healthies don't take a COVID test ... how does that fit in with getting schools/colleges back to "normal"? Also unsure what you mean by "flooding the system".
culdeus
Footballguy
Didn't just yesterday word came out that expectations are more than 60k tests in last week are college kids getting tests just to be able to go into dorms, not for any other reason?
This could be an attempted method to head more blanket testing off, jmo.
culdeus
Footballguy
There was next to no flu in the southern hemisphere this year.
I don't think this is the right year to make those comparisons as we are taking relatively extreme measures vs. disease worldwide.
Covid seems more modulated by humidity , but temperature plays a role, possibly because dewpoints do get modified by temperature. As we go into the winter there is to be expected higher rates of death where temps are low and humidity is high. &nbsp
Think NYC)
beer 30
Footballguy
This from the President of the University of South Carolina yesterday:
Please be aware of the following guidance on reducing the spread of COVID-19 and the potential sanctions students face for placing others at risk:
- Wear a face covering both on and off campus. Even when outside, try to maintain physical distancing of at least 6 feet and wear a face covering, except when eating outside or exercising. If you are living in a suite-style residence hall or a house or apartment with others, always wear your mask in common spaces and when interacting with others. Abiding by these simple guidelines is one of the best ways to protect yourself and others from infection.
- Get tested. All students are strongly encouraged to take advantage of free COVID-19 testing offered through UofSC. Last week we began walk-up saliva-based testing Monday-Friday, with results shared within 24 hours. This testing is free and it's recommended you go once a week. Learn more by visiting the COVID-19 website.
jamny
Footballguy
I only added flu to give it reference. I really just want to know if any cold weather areas have noticed a second wave of covid.There was next to no flu in the southern hemisphere this year.
I don't think this is the right year to make those comparisons as we are taking relatively extreme measures vs. disease worldwide.
Covid seems more modulated by humidity , but temperature plays a role, possibly because dewpoints do get modified by temperature. As we go into the winter there is to be expected higher rates of death where temps are low and humidity is high. &nbsp
culdeus
Footballguy
Oh, I thought you were looking for a situation perhaps where flu was coming on without covid, and it was also cold.
I mean there hasn't really been cool weather anywhere that has had an outbreak more than 6 months ago. I suppose Wuhan will be the first that would potentially qualify?
NYC/Seattle still probably looking at maybe 1 more month before they would.
Doug B
Footballguy
I still don't think I understand culdeus' point. The various colleges testing non-symptomatic students seems to fall into the CDC's "early identification in special settings" bucket (scroll up a few posts, highlighted in red & blue). It's not like public health officials somewhere are pulling strings to make colleges "over-test" to serve some nefarious purpose.
It read to me like culdeus was saying that all the extra testing at colleges was somehow illegitimate and making some number or other look worse than it should look. I'm sure I'm missing something, though.
culdeus
Footballguy
No, the idea is that it's probably not in the best interests to serve populations with gobs and gobs of tests like that on asymptomatic people where they could be used. And I believe the "special settings" is meant to signify a targeted truly random screening, not a workplace or housing qualifier testing.
Doug B
Footballguy
OK ... I follow you now. Thanks for explaining.
I agree with you in a situation where tests are scarce, like the way it was back in March. I disagree with you if we've gotten to the point where testing is "cheap & easy". I think we're actually a lot closer to "cheap & easy" in the U.S. right now than we are to "scarce". It's still going to get cheaper and easier as we go forward.
Last edited by a moderator:
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
So I am now seeing doctors trying to explain that low positivity % isnt really such a good thing.
Lol.
Lol.
The Commish
Footballguy
Context would be helpful....if we are decreasing the amount of testing we are doing or narrowing those eligible for testing, I can easily see that argument.
Doug B
Footballguy
Link so others can read it too? Or was it something you saw/heard via broadcast?
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
First time i heard was a broadcast, but Ellie Murray tweeted about it yesterday. They are responding to universities that are cycling through tons of tests and have a low positivity % like MIT and U of I.
Everything has context and I understand their argument. My point is that none of them gave a rat's you know what when positivity % was high or if there was a school that found 50 infections the first week. It is only once we see decreases do we need context.
Doug B
Footballguy
Here's Ellie Murray's tweet:
I don't see what's exceptional or problematic about that. I see where you're coming from, but I don't agree. I think it's OK to situationally concentrate on different measures to support near-future predictions and (in turn) in-the-moment decision making.
To me, all it seems like Murray is saying is that the big ramp-up in college testing should not serve as a proxy for how an entire town/state/region is doing. IMHO, that's a fair statement.
Grace Under Pressure
Footballguy
There's no good argument against widespread testing. In fact if everyone tested themselves every day we'd have this thing beat in a month.
Simply run through the exercise to see how this works. Start with a population of 1,000 and go through the steps of what would happen if every one of them was tested every day.
The real world examples are the NBA and the NFL. In the NBA bubble, they're going on like a month straight with no new cases. Did they invent a cure in the bubble? No. They test everyone all the time. Yes, masks and social distancing, etc. But it's the testing that squashes this thing.
Simply run through the exercise to see how this works. Start with a population of 1,000 and go through the steps of what would happen if every one of them was tested every day.
The real world examples are the NBA and the NFL. In the NBA bubble, they're going on like a month straight with no new cases. Did they invent a cure in the bubble? No. They test everyone all the time. Yes, masks and social distancing, etc. But it's the testing that squashes this thing.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
If literally every test has been negative, the testing is completely irrelevant. Its the bubble that has solved the riddle.
I am not saying dont do it, but the NBA is a terrible example of testing saving the day or squashing anything.
Grace Under Pressure
Footballguy
No. Go through the exercise. The tests were not all negative at first. They are now because they tested, isolated and traced until there were no more positives.
