(09-25-2020 03:02 PM)Dukester Wrote:  

(09-25-2020 01:27 PM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(09-25-2020 08:27 AM)Centdukesfan Wrote:  A very good thread summary of harvard and Stanford professors on the response to covid

https://twitter.com/NickHudsonCT/status/1309471981792886784?s=19

I don't have the time to dedicate to it all right now, and frankly probably never will (it is a 2 hour video), but I didn't get much from Nick's summary.

3/43 - "Runaway exponential growth hasn't happened anywhere. With the possible exception of Iran, the epidemic has exhibited marked consistencies." It seems like this is saying that even with all the steps taken, that Nick appears to believe were not warranted, the virus is spreading at the same speed as others, those which we don't take extra precautions for. That seems to imply it would have been much worse than others had we done nothing, or that the steps taken helped to some level.

6/43 - "Using cases is complicated. Countries define them differently. Cases should be defined by a positive test AND presence of symptoms. Recording cases on a test only is unsound." But then in 7/43 - "Assessing fatality rates using cases is a mistake, because the denominator is underestimated. For every confirmed case there are multiples more infections, although the vast majority are asymptomatic." The underlines are mine and seem to be counter to one another. First it's that there should be a higher bar to be considered a "case" and then its for every "case" there are multiple others. Doesn't that potentially get us back to the same number of "cases" in the calc?

I honestly started scanning at that point due to way too many sensational words that are likely not supported by data, causing me to lose confidence - i.e., runaway exponential, massive overprediction, skyrocketed, vast majority, small fraction. I mean he basically started by saying the data sucks and there is a lot of unknowns, so I'm not sure how he can be so confident in those words.

You gave it more time than the 60 seconds I spent.

I don't have time to read what a private equity actuary puts together. There are tons of these being distributed and circulated in the right wing circles basically saying this is a hoax that is overblown due to the election. I've got family that send me this stuff. To be quite honest, this world wide pandemic will probably not be mentioned again after the US election. Yeah right....

I'm going to follow Tony, the CDC, and the FDA on this, and hope the White House does not censor their direction/advise.

(09-25-2020 03:32 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  It’s hard to take your view on this seriously when you post stuff like “Covid is over”. That makes me doubt your logic even though I know you’re bright.

(09-25-2020 03:29 PM)Centdukesfan Wrote:  

(09-25-2020 03:02 PM)Dukester Wrote:  

(09-25-2020 01:27 PM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(09-25-2020 08:27 AM)Centdukesfan Wrote:  A very good thread summary of harvard and Stanford professors on the response to covid

https://twitter.com/NickHudsonCT/status/1309471981792886784?s=19

I don't have the time to dedicate to it all right now, and frankly probably never will (it is a 2 hour video), but I didn't get much from Nick's summary.

3/43 - "Runaway exponential growth hasn't happened anywhere. With the possible exception of Iran, the epidemic has exhibited marked consistencies." It seems like this is saying that even with all the steps taken, that Nick appears to believe were not warranted, the virus is spreading at the same speed as others, those which we don't take extra precautions for. That seems to imply it would have been much worse than others had we done nothing, or that the steps taken helped to some level.

6/43 - "Using cases is complicated. Countries define them differently. Cases should be defined by a positive test AND presence of symptoms. Recording cases on a test only is unsound." But then in 7/43 - "Assessing fatality rates using cases is a mistake, because the denominator is underestimated. For every confirmed case there are multiples more infections, although the vast majority are asymptomatic." The underlines are mine and seem to be counter to one another. First it's that there should be a higher bar to be considered a "case" and then its for every "case" there are multiple others. Doesn't that potentially get us back to the same number of "cases" in the calc?

I honestly started scanning at that point due to way too many sensational words that are likely not supported by data, causing me to lose confidence - i.e., runaway exponential, massive overprediction, skyrocketed, vast majority, small fraction. I mean he basically started by saying the data sucks and there is a lot of unknowns, so I'm not sure how he can be so confident in those words.

You gave it more time than the 60 seconds I spent.

I don't have time to read what a private equity actuary puts together. There are tons of these being distributed and circulated in the right wing circles basically saying this is a hoax that is overblown due to the election. I've got family that send me this stuff. To be quite honest, this world wide pandemic will probably not be mentioned again after the US election. Yeah right....

I'm going to follow Tony, the CDC, and the FDA on this, and hope the White House does not censor their direction/advise.

Are you really just going to write off a professor of medicine from Harvard Medical School, another professor of medicine from Stanford, and a professor of structural biology from stanford (who by the way won a nobel prize)?

Only the very fringe believe this virus is a hoax. I understand the virus is serious, but also understand the seriousness of lockdowns and other unhelpful blunt measures to "prevent" the spread.

(09-25-2020 03:35 PM)Centdukesfan Wrote:  

(09-25-2020 03:32 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  It’s hard to take your view on this seriously when you post stuff like “Covid is over”. That makes me doubt your logic even though I know you’re bright.

We are very close to being below the pandemic threshold for deaths as a percentage of all causes, and are only being propped up by the laundering of 45 day old deaths.

(09-25-2020 03:42 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  

(09-25-2020 03:35 PM)Centdukesfan Wrote:  

(09-25-2020 03:32 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  It’s hard to take your view on this seriously when you post stuff like “Covid is over”. That makes me doubt your logic even though I know you’re bright.

We are very close to being below the pandemic threshold for deaths as a percentage of all causes, and are only being propped up by the laundering of 45 day old deaths.

When will these deaths finally cycle through so we can get data that supports your position? I’ve heard this before, but if the data is just wrong due to a lag, shouldn’t the death rate eventually drop off a cliff and show far lower numbers? When will that happen? Is this where that “it will disappear after the election” logic comes from? Genuinely interested in your thoughts.

(09-25-2020 03:54 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  I definitely believe there is merit to the claim about some death reporting lagging or “laundered”. Interested in who the 36 entities are who are referenced as reporting in the graph shown. Unfortunately, garbage people are pushing garbage data, so I have to dig around and be a skeptic or otherwise I’m a fool.

(09-25-2020 03:54 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  I definitely believe there is merit to the claim about some death reporting lagging or “laundered”. Interested in who the 36 entities are who are referenced as reporting in the graph shown. Unfortunately, garbage people are pushing garbage data, so I have to dig around and be a skeptic or otherwise I’m a fool.

(09-25-2020 04:28 PM)olddawg Wrote:  MAC announced today they will play a 6 game, conference only schedule starting Nov 4. Looks like all the FBS conferences will have some sort of Fall FB.

(09-25-2020 05:49 PM)Centdukesfan Wrote:  Yes. All the data you see is originates local then to state then to federal agencies

(09-25-2020 04:33 PM)NJDuke97 Wrote:  

(09-25-2020 04:28 PM)olddawg Wrote:  MAC announced today they will play a 6 game, conference only schedule starting Nov 4. Looks like all the FBS conferences will have some sort of Fall FB.

Yep Big 10 was the bellwether then PAC MW and Mac joined. I know Mac didn’t make a lot on game day attendance or bowls really- I guess their financial model is from the modest Tv deal they have. I think maybe what has changed is the methods for testing and associated costs such that they aren’t as significant anymore and the Mac won’t lose as much money by playing and having to test regularly in the Fall? Or maybe these conferences realized that Fall or Spring they are going to have to test regularly because there won’t be a reliable vaccine that’s been tested in circulation by then.

(09-26-2020 09:00 AM)Polish Hammer Wrote:  

(09-25-2020 04:33 PM)NJDuke97 Wrote:  

(09-25-2020 04:28 PM)olddawg Wrote:  MAC announced today they will play a 6 game, conference only schedule starting Nov 4. Looks like all the FBS conferences will have some sort of Fall FB.

Yep Big 10 was the bellwether then PAC MW and Mac joined. I know Mac didn’t make a lot on game day attendance or bowls really- I guess their financial model is from the modest Tv deal they have. I think maybe what has changed is the methods for testing and associated costs such that they aren’t as significant anymore and the Mac won’t lose as much money by playing and having to test regularly in the Fall? Or maybe these conferences realized that Fall or Spring they are going to have to test regularly because there won’t be a reliable vaccine that’s been tested in circulation by then.

Well the MAC initiated the cancellations and those conferences followed. Now they realized a season lost would do damage recruiting-wise and other aspects that would take long to recover from. I don’t get the feeling they have deep enough pockets to do full daily testing. Oddly, their season will now be played primarily when the weather is horrible and unpredictable out in the Midwest and attendance would be minimal anyway. And while they don’t make much money off the bowls, they pool the money together and won’t allow a school to lose money off a bowl either. Some teams in other conferences lose a ton of money going to a bowl when you factor in a travel party and length of stay and the amount is more than the bowl payout, but the MAC has that covered.

(09-26-2020 02:20 PM)NJDuke97 Wrote:  

(09-26-2020 09:00 AM)Polish Hammer Wrote:  

(09-25-2020 04:33 PM)NJDuke97 Wrote:  

(09-25-2020 04:28 PM)olddawg Wrote:  MAC announced today they will play a 6 game, conference only schedule starting Nov 4. Looks like all the FBS conferences will have some sort of Fall FB.

Yep Big 10 was the bellwether then PAC MW and Mac joined. I know Mac didn’t make a lot on game day attendance or bowls really- I guess their financial model is from the modest Tv deal they have. I think maybe what has changed is the methods for testing and associated costs such that they aren’t as significant anymore and the Mac won’t lose as much money by playing and having to test regularly in the Fall? Or maybe these conferences realized that Fall or Spring they are going to have to test regularly because there won’t be a reliable vaccine that’s been tested in circulation by then.

Well the MAC initiated the cancellations and those conferences followed. Now they realized a season lost would do damage recruiting-wise and other aspects that would take long to recover from. I don’t get the feeling they have deep enough pockets to do full daily testing. Oddly, their season will now be played primarily when the weather is horrible and unpredictable out in the Midwest and attendance would be minimal anyway. And while they don’t make much money off the bowls, they pool the money together and won’t allow a school to lose money off a bowl either. Some teams in other conferences lose a ton of money going to a bowl when you factor in a travel party and length of stay and the amount is more than the bowl payout, but the MAC has that covered.

In a weird way I wonder if the current environment makes the bowls more financially viable for some of these schools. We used to hear about how they lost money on bowls due in part to having to travel (bands?) and buy ticket allotments that they would eat. With no fans at a bowl and tv only maybe the finances work better due to lower expenses for the teams but then again if they are having to cover the cost of regular Covid testing leading up to the bowl game maybe it ends up being a wash.