USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Covfefe-19 The 12th Part: The Only Thing Worse Than This New Board Is TrumpVirus2020
- Thread starter Handyman
- Start date
- Status
I will ask again, What do you suggest we do until we get below < 1.0
Since board certified expert Swansong can't shed any light here maybe you can, can you let me know the last time a respiratory disease only required a positive PCR test as the sole method of diagnosis and not a clinical examine to validate the test?
In reality your, 1/R[SUB]t[/SUB] > 1.0 = Garbage. Because of the way "cases" are tabulated with a sh*tty PCR test. And on top of all of that the data is garbage because of the mismangement.
Let me know when they start counting cases like this. Until then stay scared and keep wetting yourself.
I will give you a hint: They will start counting cases like this when the vaccine is out.
Oh hey its Not Present. Thank you for saving us from one of your long winded posts. Also, did you not quote me but copied and pasted me? You better check with Kepler and see if that is ok?
Here is another one for you.
In the meantime you can never stay inside enough, its the safe thing to do. When you do have to leave and enter the scary world make sure to put on your PC Virtue Signaler aka your face diaper, its #Science.
net presence
Active member
Well Chuck, since you have yet to respond to the videos of your guy struggling mightily to say basic words which, clearly indicates he has some sort of significant cognitive issue, I'll address your comments in respond to jerphisch's question regarding youth athletics. I've spent over three decades very deeply involved in administrating youth and adult recreational and competitive athletics.
First, I'm glad you believe that none of your players or those from other teams became infected. Don't you think that, considering almost 40% of all infections are asymptomatic might make it challenging to definitively prove no one became infected? Just a thought. In my area, three U14 baseball teams of the same level and from the same association had to combine into one for the last 5 weeks of the summer due to a fairly large outbreak among the three teams. You know what originally seeded that breakout? 5 of the players spread out between two of the teams had skated in a summer hockey tourney together where over 20 total parents and players became infected. Funny, once they combined the three teams, it was all of the best players from the three teams. More in a bit on how that ties in to your following comment...
"So be it. Players are offered the opportunity to play and compete close to normal, and those who are uncomfortable with it, well, they don't have to participate. Nevertheless, it seems like those who choose not to participate get angry at those who do choose to participate. Why is that??"
Let me explain...the vast majority of players and their parents who are enthusiastically choosing to play, tend to be the players who are in the upper third of ability or, at least they and their parents believe they are. It's my opinion that the reason for this is that the parents of these "upper level" players are already extremely invested in their players both in time and money. Which in turn makes them far more likely to find ways to emotionally justify why they feel the virus isn't a very big threat to either their child or the rest of their families.
Now, the reason why the next group of players in ability then choose to play, even if the parents may be more cautious regarding the risks of the virus, is the simple fear of their son or daughter genuinely falling behind from a developmental standpoint. This is especially true once the kids reach the U12 level of athletics and, that pressure to play is magnified even more if the player and the parents feel the player is a "bubble" player. Unfortunately, in the world of a once in a hundred year pandemic, the masochistic, invincible, and "play through pain" psychology of the competitive sports world actually is a significant negative. It's the main reason the combined baseball team in my area was all the best players of all three teams. Three of which were originally infected but had tested negative and so were able to continue playing.
The rest of the parents of the other players chose to pull their players out to minimize the risk of infection. While the parents of the better players -- even though their kids are only 13 and 14 years old -- genuinely believe their kids have a future in competitive sports after high school, despite the fact less than 4% of athletes ever do. And, to exacerbate the whole situation, the vast majority of people who volunteer to serve in leadership positions on the boards of youth sports associations tend to be parents of the upper-level kids. Which means that, in the situation we're currently in, the decision making tree in regards to whether an organization should or shouldn't play a "normal" season is dominated by people who are already likely inclined to downplay the virus as it is.
So Chuck, that's why those of us with young athletes who take the virus more seriously get a little frustrated when organizations dominated by people who down play of the virus, continue to argue for "business as usual".
First, I'm glad you believe that none of your players or those from other teams became infected. Don't you think that, considering almost 40% of all infections are asymptomatic might make it challenging to definitively prove no one became infected? Just a thought. In my area, three U14 baseball teams of the same level and from the same association had to combine into one for the last 5 weeks of the summer due to a fairly large outbreak among the three teams. You know what originally seeded that breakout? 5 of the players spread out between two of the teams had skated in a summer hockey tourney together where over 20 total parents and players became infected. Funny, once they combined the three teams, it was all of the best players from the three teams. More in a bit on how that ties in to your following comment...
"So be it. Players are offered the opportunity to play and compete close to normal, and those who are uncomfortable with it, well, they don't have to participate. Nevertheless, it seems like those who choose not to participate get angry at those who do choose to participate. Why is that??"
Let me explain...the vast majority of players and their parents who are enthusiastically choosing to play, tend to be the players who are in the upper third of ability or, at least they and their parents believe they are. It's my opinion that the reason for this is that the parents of these "upper level" players are already extremely invested in their players both in time and money. Which in turn makes them far more likely to find ways to emotionally justify why they feel the virus isn't a very big threat to either their child or the rest of their families.
Now, the reason why the next group of players in ability then choose to play, even if the parents may be more cautious regarding the risks of the virus, is the simple fear of their son or daughter genuinely falling behind from a developmental standpoint. This is especially true once the kids reach the U12 level of athletics and, that pressure to play is magnified even more if the player and the parents feel the player is a "bubble" player. Unfortunately, in the world of a once in a hundred year pandemic, the masochistic, invincible, and "play through pain" psychology of the competitive sports world actually is a significant negative. It's the main reason the combined baseball team in my area was all the best players of all three teams. Three of which were originally infected but had tested negative and so were able to continue playing.
The rest of the parents of the other players chose to pull their players out to minimize the risk of infection. While the parents of the better players -- even though their kids are only 13 and 14 years old -- genuinely believe their kids have a future in competitive sports after high school, despite the fact less than 4% of athletes ever do. And, to exacerbate the whole situation, the vast majority of people who volunteer to serve in leadership positions on the boards of youth sports associations tend to be parents of the upper-level kids. Which means that, in the situation we're currently in, the decision making tree in regards to whether an organization should or shouldn't play a "normal" season is dominated by people who are already likely inclined to downplay the virus as it is.
So Chuck, that's why those of us with young athletes who take the virus more seriously get a little frustrated when organizations dominated by people who down play of the virus, continue to argue for "business as usual".
net presence
Active member
No one is "rejecting medical science". I'm relying on actual data. You can tell the difference, right?
A doctor's opinion - well reasoned or not - does not overturn data. If the data says places like NY, NJ and MA really effed this thing up, and places like FL, TX and GA didn't - well, then that means those states did a better job balancing real life needs (especially employment and overall mental health of their citizens) with medical care (minimizing deaths) than the others.
And unless you have a real affinity for authoritarianism, you realize that the states and their governors all get to make their own policies, and our President should never be expected to jump in and shut the whole thing down. It's a dangerous step, and it's one that was not taken by President Wilson (D 1918-1919), President Eisenhower (R 1958) or Presidents Johnson/Nixon (D/R 1968-1969) when they faced their pandemics. Furthermore, no country even remotely close to our size has done better in managing the current situation.
COVID-19 began in China - FACT. The WHO and Communist China conspired to insulate China from blame - FACT. The rest of the world has been forced to play defense ever since. FACT.
COVID-19 has had its most dire impacts on the elderly and immuno-compromised. We suspected that at the beginning, and the data has since confirmed that. FACT. The "first wave" peaked six months ago. FACT. Most (admittedly not all) folks who were not elderly or compromised who have contracted COVID-19 survived or will survive with no serious after-effects. FACT.
Folks who cannot admit FACTS, and continue to foster hysteria and fear, are ill-advised at best.
Oh Chuck....your "data" is coming from "right-wing" troll farms. Neither you or 1820 have yet to cite a single, legitimately respected, U.S. expert in regards to this virus that agrees with anything you and Jeb claim as "real data". Not one expert is saying places like GA, FL, and Tx handled the virus better than the ones you are criticizing. Not. A. Single. One.
Seriously? "Unless WE have a real affinity for authoritarianism?!?" Holy shyt, talk about projection. Unlike most of your cohorts who think "size matters", it doesn't when comparing how countries have done in regards to managing the virus. And, even if it did, that wasn't what you clowns were saying back in July...All of a sudden size matters? Rich...very rich. Nobody is arguing where the virus started. THAT has nothing to do with how we chose to handle it as a country. I hate to break it to you Chuck but, I don't think the word "fact" means what you think it does, especially as it relates to data regarding Covid since none of your facts are any such thing.
Are you that afraid to attempt to address the fact that thousands of people who have been infected, many who were asymptomatic, have come down with lung scarring, myocarditis, and other significant/permanent life altering issues? And thus, measuring risk based solely on deaths or, even severity of illness while actually infected is legitimately negligent? Especially if your main motivation for doing so is to "keep the economy open" because your moron leader thinks that's the only way he can get re-elected.
I'll make you a bet Chuck, I'll bet you any money that after Biden wins, the virus will still go on killing a thousand Americans a day for at least another 30-60 days, if not through the entire winter because it'll take at least another 45-60 days after Joe's inauguration for any significant policy changes virus related to have a significant effect on reducing infection. I offer that bet as I'm also willing to wager that you and 1820 likely believe the current propaganda that the virus will magically "disappear" after the election is true. I have a sneaky suspicion that IF, emphasis on IF Biden is able to gain a landslide electoral win on election night, that there's a very good chance we won't be hearing from you or 1820 for quite awhile after that night. Especially if the Dems take the Senate as well. I hope you're ready for your world to change in a very large way.
A doctor's opinion - well reasoned or not - does not overturn data. If the data says places like NY, NJ and MA really effed this thing up, and places like FL, TX and GA didn't - well, then that means those states did a better job balancing real life needs (especially employment and overall mental health of their citizens) with medical care (minimizing deaths) than the others.
And unless you have a real affinity for authoritarianism, you realize that the states and their governors all get to make their own policies, and our President should never be expected to jump in and shut the whole thing down. It's a dangerous step, and it's one that was not taken by President Wilson (D 1918-1919), President Eisenhower (R 1958) or Presidents Johnson/Nixon (D/R 1968-1969) when they faced their pandemics. Furthermore, no country even remotely close to our size has done better in managing the current situation.
COVID-19 began in China - FACT. The WHO and Communist China conspired to insulate China from blame - FACT. The rest of the world has been forced to play defense ever since. FACT.
COVID-19 has had its most dire impacts on the elderly and immuno-compromised. We suspected that at the beginning, and the data has since confirmed that. FACT. The "first wave" peaked six months ago. FACT. Most (admittedly not all) folks who were not elderly or compromised who have contracted COVID-19 survived or will survive with no serious after-effects. FACT.
Folks who cannot admit FACTS, and continue to foster hysteria and fear, are ill-advised at best.
Oh Chuck....your "data" is coming from "right-wing" troll farms. Neither you or 1820 have yet to cite a single, legitimately respected, U.S. expert in regards to this virus that agrees with anything you and Jeb claim as "real data". Not one expert is saying places like GA, FL, and Tx handled the virus better than the ones you are criticizing. Not. A. Single. One.
Seriously? "Unless WE have a real affinity for authoritarianism?!?" Holy shyt, talk about projection. Unlike most of your cohorts who think "size matters", it doesn't when comparing how countries have done in regards to managing the virus. And, even if it did, that wasn't what you clowns were saying back in July...All of a sudden size matters? Rich...very rich. Nobody is arguing where the virus started. THAT has nothing to do with how we chose to handle it as a country. I hate to break it to you Chuck but, I don't think the word "fact" means what you think it does, especially as it relates to data regarding Covid since none of your facts are any such thing.
Are you that afraid to attempt to address the fact that thousands of people who have been infected, many who were asymptomatic, have come down with lung scarring, myocarditis, and other significant/permanent life altering issues? And thus, measuring risk based solely on deaths or, even severity of illness while actually infected is legitimately negligent? Especially if your main motivation for doing so is to "keep the economy open" because your moron leader thinks that's the only way he can get re-elected.
I'll make you a bet Chuck, I'll bet you any money that after Biden wins, the virus will still go on killing a thousand Americans a day for at least another 30-60 days, if not through the entire winter because it'll take at least another 45-60 days after Joe's inauguration for any significant policy changes virus related to have a significant effect on reducing infection. I offer that bet as I'm also willing to wager that you and 1820 likely believe the current propaganda that the virus will magically "disappear" after the election is true. I have a sneaky suspicion that IF, emphasis on IF Biden is able to gain a landslide electoral win on election night, that there's a very good chance we won't be hearing from you or 1820 for quite awhile after that night. Especially if the Dems take the Senate as well. I hope you're ready for your world to change in a very large way.
Chuck Murray
WIS & Effingwoods Hockey Almanac
Still making excuses for Northeast blue state governors sending COVID-19 patients back into nursing homes, eh? I'm pretty sure that was a reckless decision on its face, unless you're an apologist for people in charge who just happen to believe in the things you believe in. The analysis of degrees of death (not "nearly as bad") is certainly a unique take, I'll give you that.
I don't ordinarily spend a lot of time perusing NPR, but here's a link on the situation down in Peru. They started out with some of the strictest lockdowns in the world, yet despite that, they're now basically leading the world in COVID-19 deaths per capita ...
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/08/90708...irus-outbreaks
"Peru's per capita COVID-19 mortality rate of 93.28 per 100,000 is higher than that of any other nation except the tiny European republic of San Marino (population: 34,000), according to an analysis by Johns Hopkins University."
As an aside to 'net ... my experience with our group this summer does not fit your profile, as far as motivations you may have seen in your activities (I've been doing my thing pretty much as long as you have, both coaching and at board level). I understand what you're looking at, and suspect it might be because I'm working with an older group overall than the ones you're describing. That's not discrediting your experience - it simply doesn't match what our experience this summer was.
But don't forget, this is just your end-of-season call-up, so get back to work on cutting down the length of your posts, and maybe we'll see you again come Spring training ...
hockeyfan77
Registered User
Eduardo Rodriguez (myocarditis) has been cleared to resume walking in a couple weeks.
Rodriguez developed myocarditis after contracting COVID-19 and hasn't been able to do any real physical activity since the diagnosis. However, the long-term prognosis is good. "They’re hoping his offseason will be normal and he’ll be able to build himself up for (‘21)." Red Sox manager Ron Roenicke said
Rodriguez developed myocarditis after contracting COVID-19 and hasn't been able to do any real physical activity since the diagnosis. However, the long-term prognosis is good. "They’re hoping his offseason will be normal and he’ll be able to build himself up for (‘21)." Red Sox manager Ron Roenicke said
Chuck Murray
WIS & Effingwoods Hockey Almanac
You already lost. The US rolling seven-day average of deaths has been under 1,000 for over a month already, and has been hovering at or around 700 per day for the last week or so.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/d...n=NorthAmerica
This is not boding well for your potential call-up to the bigs next Spring, 'net ... plus the length, all wasted with that simple basic verifiable error on the data. You may need another year in the minors after all? And to think, I thought I was seeing some progress ...
Slap Shot
I got nothing
Oh Chuckles you're so disingenuous it's astounding. YTD there has been 208,440 deaths. The current 7-day daily death average is 751 which projects to 72,800 additional deaths or 281k by EOY. While that 7-day has gradually lessened the past few weeks, the same for daily cases started increasing September 11th and as anyone knows that likely means a subsequent increase in daily deaths.
Additionally as the weather begins to get worse it will exacerbate the situation. But let's pretend you're right and it's going to magically stop or slow down. What do you in your infinite wisdom far superior to that of the experts predict until EOY - 50k more deaths? 35k? Would 240k by EOY be just hunky dorey for you?
And you fall into the gutless and lazy trap of arguing anyone wants these things to happen - as if this ****storm is ok because you think we think it will help our guy win. Only Republicans think like that. Don't project your insecurities, limp dick, and win at all cost deficiencies on the rest of us. No one wants any of this. I see MN Republicans making the same argument, as if Walz truly believes locking things down, increased deaths and cases will help him get reelected. Really? Really?
You're either out of your depths on this topic or you're being intentionally obtuse for reasons only you know. Your choice.
Additionally as the weather begins to get worse it will exacerbate the situation. But let's pretend you're right and it's going to magically stop or slow down. What do you in your infinite wisdom far superior to that of the experts predict until EOY - 50k more deaths? 35k? Would 240k by EOY be just hunky dorey for you?
And you fall into the gutless and lazy trap of arguing anyone wants these things to happen - as if this ****storm is ok because you think we think it will help our guy win. Only Republicans think like that. Don't project your insecurities, limp dick, and win at all cost deficiencies on the rest of us. No one wants any of this. I see MN Republicans making the same argument, as if Walz truly believes locking things down, increased deaths and cases will help him get reelected. Really? Really?
You're either out of your depths on this topic or you're being intentionally obtuse for reasons only you know. Your choice.
Returning life to normal, 100%, as soon as possible. And look to protect those that are most vulnerable. In my State of MN that would be protecting the very, elderly. Non of the arbitrary measures to date in the general population have helped them at all anyway and the list of consequences from the measures will have a lasting effect.
It has been a colossal disaster.
Go figure, no longer useful when, current activity isn't "Scary."
Two of the most closely watched metrics – Current COVID19 hospitalizations and COVID19 ICU bed occupancy- have been deleted from the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) dashboard.
Of course there are big number cumulative totals going back to March, "Scary."
But remove the context that this thing has all but burnt out, "Not Scary."
"Cases" will be loudly and proudly displayed = "Scary"
Casedemic
The Fact Sheets for the PCR tests say they're not supposed to be used on asymptomatic people, and diagnoses should be confirmed with clinical observations.
Few people know that the tests detect non-infectious virus, that yesterday's reported tests were sampled any time from yesterday to multiple weeks ago, that reported deaths actually occurred on many different days over the past 4-6 months.
Tiny Amounts of Virus == RNA fragments; bits and pieces of RNA strands PCR = Designed for *surveillance*; not *diagnosis* or infection-level
A very long prelude, but necessary. Part of the ‘project fear’ that is rather too obvious, involving second waves, has been the daily count of ‘cases’. Its important to understand that, according to the infectious disease specialists I’ve spoken to, the word ‘case’ has to mean more than merely the presence of some foreign organism. It must present signs (things medics notice) and symptoms (things you notice). And in most so-called cases, those testing positive had no signs or symptoms of illness at all. There was much talk of asymptomatic spreading, and as a biologist this surprised me. In almost every case, a person is symptomatic because they have a high viral load and either it is attacking their body or their immune system is fighting it, generally a mix. I don’t doubt there have been some cases of asymptomatic transmission, but I’m confident it is not important.
That all said, Government decided to call a person a ‘case’ if their swab sample was positive for viral RNA, which is what is measured in PCR. A person’s sample can be positive if they have the virus, and so it should. They can also be positive if they’ve had the virus some weeks or months ago and recovered. It’s faintly possible that high loads of related, but different coronaviruses, which can cause some of the common colds we get, might also react in the PCR test, though it’s unclear to me if it does.
Lots of good info, good discussion. (Not for team #PeePants of course)
https://lockdownsceptics.org/lies-da...lse-positives/
If you don't have this you don't have a Case. You have junk.
Two of the most closely watched metrics – Current COVID19 hospitalizations and COVID19 ICU bed occupancy- have been deleted from the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) dashboard.
Of course there are big number cumulative totals going back to March, "Scary."
But remove the context that this thing has all but burnt out, "Not Scary."
"Cases" will be loudly and proudly displayed = "Scary"
Casedemic
The Fact Sheets for the PCR tests say they're not supposed to be used on asymptomatic people, and diagnoses should be confirmed with clinical observations.
Few people know that the tests detect non-infectious virus, that yesterday's reported tests were sampled any time from yesterday to multiple weeks ago, that reported deaths actually occurred on many different days over the past 4-6 months.
Tiny Amounts of Virus == RNA fragments; bits and pieces of RNA strands PCR = Designed for *surveillance*; not *diagnosis* or infection-level
A very long prelude, but necessary. Part of the ‘project fear’ that is rather too obvious, involving second waves, has been the daily count of ‘cases’. Its important to understand that, according to the infectious disease specialists I’ve spoken to, the word ‘case’ has to mean more than merely the presence of some foreign organism. It must present signs (things medics notice) and symptoms (things you notice). And in most so-called cases, those testing positive had no signs or symptoms of illness at all. There was much talk of asymptomatic spreading, and as a biologist this surprised me. In almost every case, a person is symptomatic because they have a high viral load and either it is attacking their body or their immune system is fighting it, generally a mix. I don’t doubt there have been some cases of asymptomatic transmission, but I’m confident it is not important.
That all said, Government decided to call a person a ‘case’ if their swab sample was positive for viral RNA, which is what is measured in PCR. A person’s sample can be positive if they have the virus, and so it should. They can also be positive if they’ve had the virus some weeks or months ago and recovered. It’s faintly possible that high loads of related, but different coronaviruses, which can cause some of the common colds we get, might also react in the PCR test, though it’s unclear to me if it does.
Lots of good info, good discussion. (Not for team #PeePants of course)
https://lockdownsceptics.org/lies-da...lse-positives/
If you don't have this you don't have a Case. You have junk.
Last edited:
Context Sucks
Oh no Sweden didn't achieve immortality for the old this year. Terrible!
aparch
Acetaminamerican
Here's an interesting take: African nations have responded to Coronavirus so much better than the US.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ouldnt-be-surprised/?utm_source=pocket-newtab
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ouldnt-be-surprised/?utm_source=pocket-newtab
Jimjamesak
Already insane, UAA making it worse
Well...
The posts aren't for earning any "goodwill." They are data driven and provide context. If someone disputes that, it would be interesting to hear why and see info/data on the topic at hand.
Last edited:
This is a hysterical piece to say the least.
Kenya, for example tests about 10 people per 1,000, the US about 324 per 1,000. What would the US "Cases" be if they we were testing 10 people per 1000 thousand? Or what would the Kenya "Cases" be if they were testing 324 people per 1,000? Which Country is going to have more "Covid Deaths," the one testing 324 per 1000 or testing 10?
This was from Mid July, Africa (entire continent) testing. Not much has changed since then.
Testing remains limited by shortages of supplies, with just 7.2 million tests conducted on a continent of 1.3 billion people. Data collection is incomplete as some people are dying at home or before being tested. Few African countries were equipped to widely track deaths even before the pandemic.
For context the US rips of 7 million tests in about 10 days for 330,000,000 people +.
Again, the answers are going to be in the excess deaths historical data.
Africa’s case fatality rate in this pandemic remains relatively low at just over 2%, but that measure is weakened if authorities don’t know the real number of deaths.
Here is more info the chew on.
Nigeria isn't known for outstanding heathcare. Nigeria has the worst flu mortality in the world. They're a crowded country with 63% of U.S. pop. and 5x the density. Flu mortality rate 726% of the U.S. rate. But covid mortality rate is <1%???
Last edited:
- Status