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.
I know somebody with a heart problem that was instructed not to. Somebody with an arrhythmic heart was told she shouldn't until further tests were done on her heart. She was tested for COVID antibodies, even, because they thought she might have previously had COVID. She was wearing a heart monitor last we spoke. Bad situation all around for somebody I like.
Dear Cole,
Well, if there's one person with whom the NFL should be conferring regarding its medical and financial policies, it should definitely be a player's wife with no medical or financial experience or expertise.
I think the point was that she didn't provide any "facts". It was just a bunch of posts amounting to "nuh uh" and "NFL is bad".
Shes not giving medical advice. Shes saying how dumb the NFL policy is and I agree with her.
Right.
Sure, you got any?
His point... is a non vaccinated person negative test different than a vaccinated person's negative test?
There are plenty here with more expertise than me, but I believe the answer to your question is "yes", they are different because unvaccinated people are significantly more likely to be asymptomatic vectors for transmission and for longer periods of time. For sake of argument, if that were the case, would you agree that the policy is fine as is?
No. I'm fine with the NFL having a policy and everyone has to live by it. The policy doesn't follow science, so we should at least admit that.
But testing doesn't pick up a positive case until N days after exposure, with N being variable depending on circumstances. It's the same reason my kids can't go back to school until a negative test more than 4 days after exposure. We know that vaccinated players are significantly less likely to become infected after exposure. The NFL's policy takes a calculated risk measurement on that basis. If you want to argue that they shouldn't bother testing anyone until N days after exposure, be my guest. But to say the policy doesn't follow science, you're just incorrect.
You can't say the policy takes calculated risks, but also follows the science. The science is that vaccinated people can get and transmit covid. Vaccinated contacts take their tests a day later. If it's negative they go back to work, but we just established that isnt a valid method to contain the spread of covid.
Just two??? How about letting multiple other scientists put in their 2 cents and we go from there. Peer review rules in this case, I would believe. For instance, if one has 97 on his side and the other has 3?. Rational thinking would point towards the side with 97, but these days more and more folks seem to just 'choose' the side that confirms there bias. Experts be damned.
While the first bolded is true, vaccinated people do not do so at nearly the same rate as unvaxxed. Again, you know this. If one said "X is a 90% risk, Y is a 30% risk, we're going to be more stringent about preventing X", that is absolutely following science.
So what are the % of vaccinated vs unvaccinated cases? The CDC said they weren't going to track breakthrough cases and only breakthrough hospitalizations. So I dont think we even know the real numbers. Vaccinated people weren't even testing for covid until recently. Considering the vaccine is working, the vaccinated are even less likely to show symptoms while still having covid which means they have even less reason to test.
You're just wrong here. Vaccinated players are less likely to be infected. Vaccinated players are less likely to spread an infection to others. We can therefore conclude that more vaccinated players = overall reduction in spread. It's baffling that you would try to argue otherwise.
I agree they are less likely. I'd like to see the stats on it if you have those.
I don't have the statistics. I'm not sure anyone has exact statistics. @Doug B is your best bet, I imagine,
As long as we're admitting to massive flaws in the logic behind the NFL's covid policy.
Educated by a democratic teachers union. What else could you expect. It's what leftists do.Skoo said:
Skoo said:
Sad that people use a word like science in order to shield their malice intentions which are truly political in nature.Skoo said:
The NFL policy doesn't make sense to me. On one hand they say protocols are in place to protect everyone from a killer virus, but on the other hand it admits to just playing a % game with mitigation strategies.
1. Playing %s reduces risk for sure. But when the NFL stops implementing measures at x%, it's a broken policy. Daily tests for covid for everyone would reduce risks to everyone even more, but the NFL says that mitigation strategy is unnecessary.
There has to be a line at which additional mitigation strategies aren't necessary or worth the additional cost/time/hassle. Maybe that line is "test unvaccinated players more frequently", maybe it's "test all players more frequently", maybe it's "cancel the season". Where the line is will be a matter of opinion and there will be lots of opinions. But, just because the NFL has chosen a different line than you would like does NOT mean the NFL isn't following science, as you keep repeating.
Last I read, approx. 93% of players are vaccinated, or about 13 times the amount of unvaxxed. Note that as cutdowns progress, this number may change, depending on whether more vaxxed or unvaxxed players get cut, but we can probably ignore that for now. When there are 13 times as many vaxxed players as unvaxxed, we would expect more positive tests to occur in vaxxed players than in unvaxxed players, in terms of raw numbers.
