SMU takes it by 14.

Memphis leading ECU by 11 in the 1st half.

Jayden Gardner plays like the AAC POY and drops 73 points, but Memphis still wins comfortably, 97-83.

The Day 2 Bracket:

1. Cincy vs
8. South-Central Florida

4. Wichita State
BYE

2 Houston vs
7. SMU

3. Tulsa vs
6. Memphis

(03-12-2020 11:09 PM)Hurricane Drummer Wrote:  The Day 2 Bracket:

1. Cincy vs
8. South-Central Florida

4. Wichita State
BYE

2 Houston vs
7. SMU

3. Tulsa vs
6. Memphis

Wait.. Memphis beat pissed off gardner?

(03-13-2020 07:58 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(03-12-2020 11:09 PM)Hurricane Drummer Wrote:  The Day 2 Bracket:

1. Cincy vs
8. South-Central Florida

4. Wichita State
BYE

2 Houston vs
7. SMU

3. Tulsa vs
6. Memphis

Wait.. Memphis beat pissed off gardner?

Yep the Tigers were up by 20 but held on to beat ECU by 3 despite having 41 turnovers!!

(03-13-2020 08:04 AM)ZachMan Wrote:  

(03-13-2020 07:58 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(03-12-2020 11:09 PM)Hurricane Drummer Wrote:  The Day 2 Bracket:

1. Cincy vs
8. South-Central Florida

4. Wichita State
BYE

2 Houston vs
7. SMU

3. Tulsa vs
6. Memphis

Wait.. Memphis beat pissed off gardner?

Yep the Tigers were up by 20 but held on to beat ECU by 3 despite having 41 turnovers!!

However, the refs made a bad call in the closing seconds of the game. Had it not been for that questionable call, and the last-second one-handed 92-foot length-of-the-court desperation shot that went in, the game would have gone into OT.

The ref was tested immediately after the game, and the results showed that his blood alcohol content was 0.195.

As a result, the game has been appealed to Commissioner Aresco's office, and a press release is expected in 45 minutes.

There is a severe lack of coronavirus discussion on the AAC forum. There needs be more threads to address it.

I'm going back to the Realignment forum. They're keeping me up-to-date on COVID19.

(03-13-2020 08:42 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  There is a severe lack of coronavirus discussion on the AAC forum. There needs be more threads to address it.

I'm going back to the Realignment forum. They're keeping me up-to-date on COVID19.

If you're actually interested in the covid-19 developments, you might be interested in the thread I started, examining whether the rate of increase in prevalence is skyrocketing or possibly beginning to level off already in the U.S., due to the extraordinary closings and public education efforts.

I've been tracking the prevalence/incidence reports from CDC, and this week so far, the incidence hasn't been spiking the way it has in Italy and Germany, for example.

(03-12-2020 11:06 PM)Hurricane Drummer Wrote:  Jayden Gardner plays like the AAC POY and drops 73 points, but Memphis still wins comfortably, 97-83.

(03-13-2020 10:30 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(03-13-2020 08:42 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  There is a severe lack of coronavirus discussion on the AAC forum. There needs be more threads to address it.

I'm going back to the Realignment forum. They're keeping me up-to-date on COVID19.

If you're actually interested in the covid-19 developments, you might be interested in the thread I started, examining whether the rate of increase in prevalence is skyrocketing or possibly beginning to level off already in the U.S., due to the extraordinary closings and public education efforts.

I've been tracking the prevalence/incidence reports from CDC, and this week so far, the incidence hasn't been spiking the way it has in Italy and Germany, for example.

Because nobody is getting tested. Trust me, it is highly underreported this far.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Cincinnati about to tip off against South-Central Florida. Reports saying players must take a Purell bath before the games today.

(03-13-2020 11:01 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-13-2020 10:30 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(03-13-2020 08:42 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  There is a severe lack of coronavirus discussion on the AAC forum. There needs be more threads to address it.

I'm going back to the Realignment forum. They're keeping me up-to-date on COVID19.

If you're actually interested in the covid-19 developments, you might be interested in the thread I started, examining whether the rate of increase in prevalence is skyrocketing or possibly beginning to level off already in the U.S., due to the extraordinary closings and public education efforts.

I've been tracking the prevalence/incidence reports from CDC, and this week so far, the incidence hasn't been spiking the way it has in Italy and Germany, for example.

Because nobody is getting tested. Trust me, it is highly underreported this far.

Absolutely true - the reported prevalence rates are highly likely to underestimate the actual number of COVID-19 cases.

However, given that the reporting mechanisms have not changed since Sunday, the data suggesting the possibility of a slowing rate of increase may tend to be broadly accurate - - or at least more accurate than the number of reported cases - - even though the actual number of cases may be higher than the current report of ~1,900 cases, up from 1,000 cases on Tuesday and 1,600 cases on Thursday evening.

The only way that the under-reporting (due to under-testing) of the number of cases would cause a greater than reported increase in the number of reported disease prevalence would be if the reporting mechanisms are somehow becoming less and less accurate with each passing day this week.

Is that possible?

It might be possible, but only if the number of actual cases has skyrocketed to such an extreme extent that the reporting mechanisms are becoming much less and less accurate with each passing day.

Even if the prevalence were skyrocketing to that extent, the magnitude of the increase in the number of cases should not have declined between Tuesday and today, after an initial 100% increase between Sunday and Tuesday.

Q: What would it mean if the rate of increase has begun to slow this week?

A: Most likely, it would suggest that the extraordinary public health measures and education efforts that have been instituted this week may have already begun to slow the rate of increase in incidence, even though the number of cases continues to increase, and even though the number of reported cases significantly underestimates the actual number of new cases.

Q: So, in other words, we aren't out of the dark yet?

A: Correct. The only hint of good news may be that the efforts that are being made to curb the rate of increase are, perhaps, starting to have a beneficial effect.

It isn't leveling off. It is still growing. Likely 6 to 8 weeks.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

(03-13-2020 07:28 PM)mlb Wrote:  It isn't leveling off. It is still growing. Likely 6 to 8 weeks.

Yes - it is still growing, and isn't leveling off, and the virus may continue to be of significant concern for another 6 to 8 weeks in the U.S., and as long as there are active COVID-19 cases in the U.S. (and internationally).

Beyond that, many epidemiologists expect the COVID-19 virus to mutate, just as other coronaviruses have mutated. Just as flu vaccines must be developed each year, there may have to be new COVID vaccines developed each year (after the first effective COVID vaccine is developed, hopefully within the next 12 months). Even after it becomes possible to inoculate large numbers against COVID-19 disease, our nation may have to maintain an ongoing effort to prevent and treat COVID cases for years to come, analogous to the efforts to prevent and treat the continuing mutations of the common cold and flu viruses.

However, after a 100% increase in reported prevalence in 36 hours, from Sunday to Tuesday, the rate of increase in reported prevalence in the next 36 hours (Tues-Thurs) was only approximately 60%.

Based on current data (17.2% increase in the 18 hours since 8:36 pm Thursday), we appear be on track for a ~35% increase in reported prevalence in the 36 hours between Thursday evening and Saturday late morning.

Q: Could this all be reversed if the public health efforts are relaxed too quickly, or if people stop taking extraordinary precautions?

A: Yes, definitely.

Q: Also, might this week's data be merely a "blip," rather than a strong indicator of a long-term trend?

A: It certainly could.

Q: So what kind of good news is there if the decrease in the incidence rate for new cases has begun to taper off slightly?

A: The only good news would be that we may be seeing evidence that the precautions taken so far this week by millions of Americans may be starting to help reduce the incidence rate to some extent.

Ohio went from 5 to 13 the past 24 hours. Most other states are the same, except completely underreported. It is completely an issue of lack of testing.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

(03-13-2020 07:41 PM)mlb Wrote:  Ohio went from 5 to 13 the past 24 hours. Most other states are the same, except completely underreported. It is completely an issue of lack of testing.

Good point. The rates of increase in prevalence vary widely from state to state and region to region, depending on how many disease vectors (infected persons) there are in each location.

Lack of testing is a huge problem, absolutely, and it tremendously limits our knowledge of the actual extent of the illness.

What the available CDC prevalence reports are showing, however, is that when all the high and low incidence regions are combined, the rate of increase may have slowed since the initial 100% upsurge between Sunday and Tuesday.

If that is true, then it's hugely important, because it tell us that we can limit the spread of the virus by continuing all of the public health efforts (education of the public, restrictions on large events, closing schools, self-quarantining, etc.) that have begun this week.