Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Season in jeopardy?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • JvDub95
    replied
    Originally posted by broncolee View Post
    I know they are different although they both show similar symptoms. I'm saying no matter what you may have they clinics and hospitals don't care. They will label you so they get their kickback's. It's a fact, there are hundreds of nurses and doctors coming out about e and as long as that continues I won't believe a word about our "numbers"

    Leave a comment:


  • broncolee
    replied
    Originally posted by JvDub95 View Post
    Not necessarily, a common cold or the flu can show antibodies since it's a virus. Both part of the covid family, imo, that's why we have so many numbers. People are so afraid of this thing any little symptom they have they'll get checked and it'll come back covid19. Hate all you want people, it's happening all over the country....lies on top of lies
    https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/heal...019-vs-the-flu

    They are different.

    Leave a comment:


  • orange crush75
    replied
    Originally posted by JvDub95 View Post
    Not necessarily, a common cold or the flu can show antibodies since it's a virus. Both part of the covid family, imo, that's why we have so many numbers. People are so afraid of this thing any little symptom they have they'll get checked and it'll come back covid19. Hate all you want people, it's happening all over the country....lies on top of lies
    I remember reading about Drs saying covid wasnt a flu . It has different strains . The flu antibodies stay for about 3 months , the flu antibodies stay in your system for 8 months. They supposedly can tell a difference. I dont trust 100% about this whole ordeal . Agreed lies on top of lies

    Leave a comment:


  • JvDub95
    replied
    Originally posted by orange crush75 View Post
    By the antibody test. I cant tell you the specifics but they check antibodies. So if you get that test and have antibodies you've been exposed. They calculated the numbers of people with antibodies and came to the conclusion that the numbers infected were 10x higher.
    Not necessarily, a common cold or the flu can show antibodies since it's a virus. Both part of the covid family, imo, that's why we have so many numbers. People are so afraid of this thing any little symptom they have they'll get checked and it'll come back covid19. Hate all you want people, it's happening all over the country....lies on top of lies

    Leave a comment:


  • broncolee
    replied
    Originally posted by DenverBlood View Post
    How can they possibly have any kind of statistical proof on this? So many people still haven’t even been tested. Outside of grocery shopping or doing a hike my family hardly ever leaves the house. We have no reason to be tested. As is the case for probably millions more.
    Originally posted by orange crush75 View Post
    By the antibody test. I cant tell you the specifics but they check antibodies. So if you get that test and have antibodies you've been exposed. They calculated the numbers of people with antibodies and came to the conclusion that the numbers infected were 10x higher.
    Someone mentioned, either in this thread or the corona virus thread, a study conducted in the LA area by USC and some other organizations that showed, through antibodies testing, that far more people have been exposed than originally thought. That study only involved one county, but it’s certainly the case for a lot more areas.

    Leave a comment:


  • orange crush75
    replied
    Originally posted by DenverBlood View Post
    How can they possibly have any kind of statistical proof on this? So many people still haven’t even been tested. Outside of grocery shopping or doing a hike my family hardly ever leaves the house. We have no reason to be tested. As is the case for probably millions more.
    By the antibody test. I cant tell you the specifics but they check antibodies. So if you get that test and have antibodies you've been exposed. They calculated the numbers of people with antibodies and came to the conclusion that the numbers infected were 10x higher.

    Leave a comment:


  • DenverBlood
    replied
    Originally posted by orange crush75 View Post
    Dont forget they've found that the numbers of positive is 10x what they thought . That in itself lowers the death rate. Maaskers , sorry to hear about your anxiety. My wife has had anxiety since my daughters were born , so for 24 yrs now . It's a rough thing to deal with . Take precautions that make you feel comfortable and safe . I wish you the best .
    How can they possibly have any kind of statistical proof on this? So many people still haven’t even been tested. Outside of grocery shopping or doing a hike my family hardly ever leaves the house. We have no reason to be tested. As is the case for probably millions more.

    Leave a comment:


  • orange crush75
    replied
    Dont forget they've found that the numbers of positive is 10x what they thought . That in itself lowers the death rate. Maaskers , sorry to hear about your anxiety. My wife has had anxiety since my daughters were born , so for 24 yrs now . It's a rough thing to deal with . Take precautions that make you feel comfortable and safe . I wish you the best .

    Leave a comment:


  • Hadez
    replied
    Originally posted by lvbronx View Post
    Pro football isn't like regular jobs. NFL players have negotiations and contracts. If a player lives up to the terms of the contract I sure won't judge any player for making a personal decision.

    I'm not sure the 1% death rate is the only thing we should consider. It seems like some think 1% is just a number. Out of the 100 people or so on the Bronco sideline, who specifically do you think should die? Let's pick a real person and not just some number.

    What if a player has a pregnant wife? Should he be at his child's birth and if so, how long does he have to isolate first?

    But 1% death rate is only one factor. What about the 19% that get COVID and don't die but have other very serious conditions because of it?

    Look at a video of the Bronco sidelines. After you've picked the one person on that sideline that dies, now pick 19 more people on that same sideline that will have any of these conditions. Who gets a stroke? Who loses cognitive function? Please be specific with your choices.

    The problem with this data is the same as the people who are trying to push the ~0.05% fatality rate but from the other side.

    It assumes everyone in the USA will test positive for Covid19 which is a bad assumption.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hadez
    replied
    Originally posted by maaskesr View Post
    I know in Nebraska they didn't even keep track of "closed" cases for the first couple months. I think using that as the denominator is not a accurate way of finding the death rate. Even using total positive cases is almost certainly under counted, as many have no idea they have it (hence the continued spread). I haven't seen anyone suggest anything near 8% as a possible death rate number.

    And just an FYI, I have bad health anxiety, and fret over all things that can kill me all the time (and go to counselling twice a month). I'm seriously concerned about this. I drive my family nuts over precautions. But I try not to be a fear-monger.
    Considering they were not testing people with symptoms as late as April I think a lot of caution needs to be used when looking at early data,

    Leave a comment:


  • DENVERSB50CHAMP
    replied
    One Day At A Time ! DB4L !!

    Leave a comment:


  • maaskesr
    replied
    Originally posted by Freyaka View Post
    Good post. Right now, percentage of closed cases that end in death is about 8%, not 1% like everyone so erroneously attempts to claim. (because they figure it up by taking the total population divided by the number of deaths, which is not an accurate way to do anything because the entire population hasn't been exposed) If that 8% figure holds true over the entire population, 8% of the population is 26,256,000. That's more us citizens than all the wars in the last 100 years
    I know in Nebraska they didn't even keep track of "closed" cases for the first couple months. I think using that as the denominator is not a accurate way of finding the death rate. Even using total positive cases is almost certainly under counted, as many have no idea they have it (hence the continued spread). I haven't seen anyone suggest anything near 8% as a possible death rate number.

    And just an FYI, I have bad health anxiety, and fret over all things that can kill me all the time (and go to counselling twice a month). I'm seriously concerned about this. I drive my family nuts over precautions. But I try not to be a fear-monger.

    Leave a comment:


  • maaskesr
    replied
    This has all become so politicized that I don't trust any opinions, meme's, etc. I try and just look at stats and the research (and even the research can possibly be politicized as in the anti-hydroxy study that was released with a ton of errors).

    As of right now, I don't see this ending for awhile. It seems antibodies don't stay in the body more than a few months, so immunity, as of now, doesn't seem to be a thing. It's also pretty clear that people under 40 in good health have almost no complications, statistically. So I don't know what we do with all that. Players themselves would probably be fine, but all the supporting staff may not be. And fans...I don't see how fans can come back unless it's all up to choice.

    My personal gut feeling is almost all professional sports will be cancelled mid-season. There are bound to be outbreaks and because still so little is known, they'll just postpone/cancel. (NBA has the best chance with their "bubble", but I personally doubt it holds).

    Hope I'm wrong and science can take this down.

    Leave a comment:


  • Freyaka
    replied
    Originally posted by lvbronx View Post
    Pro football isn't like regular jobs. NFL players have negotiations and contracts. If a player lives up to the terms of the contract I sure won't judge any player for making a personal decision.

    I'm not sure the 1% death rate is the only thing we should consider. It seems like some think 1% is just a number. Out of the 100 people or so on the Bronco sideline, who specifically do you think should die? Let's pick a real person and not just some number.

    What if a player has a pregnant wife? Should he be at his child's birth and if so, how long does he have to isolate first?

    But 1% death rate is only one factor. What about the 19% that get COVID and don't die but have other very serious conditions because of it?

    Look at a video of the Bronco sidelines. After you've picked the one person on that sideline that dies, now pick 19 more people on that same sideline that will have any of these conditions. Who gets a stroke? Who loses cognitive function? Please be specific with your choices.

    Good post. Right now, percentage of closed cases that end in death is about 8%, not 1% like everyone so erroneously attempts to claim. (because they figure it up by taking the total population divided by the number of deaths, which is not an accurate way to do anything because the entire population hasn't been exposed) If that 8% figure holds true over the entire population, 8% of the population is 26,256,000. That's more us citizens than all the wars in the last 100 years

    Leave a comment:


  • 58Miller
    replied
    Originally posted by lvbronx View Post
    Pro football isn't like regular jobs. NFL players have negotiations and contracts. If a player lives up to the terms of the contract I sure won't judge any player for making a personal decision.

    I'm not sure the 1% death rate is the only thing we should consider. It seems like some think 1% is just a number. Out of the 100 people or so on the Bronco sideline, who specifically do you think should die? Let's pick a real person and not just some number.

    What if a player has a pregnant wife? Should he be at his child's birth and if so, how long does he have to isolate first?

    But 1% death rate is only one factor. What about the 19% that get COVID and don't die but have other very serious conditions because of it?

    Look at a video of the Bronco sidelines. After you've picked the one person on that sideline that dies, now pick 19 more people on that same sideline that will have any of these conditions. Who gets a stroke? Who loses cognitive function? Please be specific with your choices.

    Does age make any difference in the 19%
    Advance age and underlying conditions play a huge part in those who have complications,hospitalized, and die from this virus.

    Here’s an example of New York:

    Death rates for COVID-19 in New York City as of July 12, 2020, by age group (per 100,000 people)

    Rate per 100,000 people
    0-17 years 0.75
    18-44 years 21.37
    45-64 years 202.77
    65-74 years 663.84
    75 years and older 1,668.45

    The Virus is deadly for the elderly and people with underlying conditions. Their are cases of healthy young people dying but it is rare.

    The NFL and other leagues I’m sure are taking this into consideration.

    Several soccer leagues have opened back up and so has NASCAR and the UFC.

    Have their been deaths in those leagues? Do 19% of those affected have serious conditions?
    I don’t think using the 1% death rate is fair or saying that the virus affects the healthy and ages 18-44 the same as 65 and older and those with underlying conditions.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X