Covid hits MSU athletes

[iaafan]

Why is that mind blowing? It works that way with any communicable disease. The 20,000 U.S. average seasonal flu deaths are an estimate and calculated in the same way. It's an extrapolation of the positive cases and deaths at a limited number of medical facilities.So, we are comparing apples to apples.

So, I head to the doctor because my entire family is not feeling well, and I get tested and come up positive for antibodies to CV19, and I mention to the doctor that my wife and kids... and my old man are all feeling under the weather too. Are we saying that doctor is supposed to record 6 cases of CV19, me and my wife, my three kids, and my dad? I honestly don't know how this all works.

You are exactly correct. When they do any covid tracing for a positive case, they have a survey and if anyone around that positive case didn’t feel well or had any symptoms, even with no lab result or confirmation, they chalk them up to a case as well for CDC reporting. Asinine and irresponsible.

Funny how no one is taking about the fact that daily deaths just hit back to back lows at 215 each of the last 2 days. 15,000 people died of something else the last 2 days in this country.

It's a pretty safe presumption (presumption doesn't mean 100% confirmed, it just means that it's probable) that if someone in your house has tested positive for a cold, flu, or covid and that others are presenting the same symptoms, then they probably have the same thing. So it's safe to presume they do.

A couple months ago people were claiming that there were hundreds of thousands of more cases of covid than being reported, yet now that those cases are being found via antibody tests and via presumption they disagree.

I personally know a family who got the virus. It only hit the father and his 2 kids and wife have not tested positive. That means 3 of the 4 have not contracted the virus. That’s why assumptions or presumptions aren’t ideal or responsible here.

Were they sick? Probably not, if they didn't test positive for covid. So if they weren't sick, then there's no reason to presume they had it and the example you're giving they didn't since they tested them and they didn't test positive.

Yes the two kids felt under the weather (placebo, knowing your dad has it, can be a powerful thing on anyone around the stick person) but tested negative. The CDC would chalk that up to 2 more positive cases if they didn’t have the state lab negative to counter it. Therein lies the problem and why I take issue with this irresponsible reporting.

Again, many people doubting the CDC and other experts wanted the exposure numbers to be high just a couple months ago. Now that the CDC is saying they're higher, they're doubting it. Those people need to make up their mind or I'm just going to figure that if the CDC says the sky is blue, they'll question that too.

I don’t know that people like me “wanted” the exposure numbers to be high. Personally, I “want” the exposure numbers to be zero so we can get back to living our lives.

However, myself and others have said we suspected the virus has been around way longer than we currently know about, and that it’s highly likely way more people have been infected than we know about. I was actually told just a couple weeks ago that no person smarter than myself thinks the virus has been around longer than what we know.....

I just don’t understand why people are shocked that cases are rising. It’s a virus. We’re testing for it often. Cases are going to rise. A lot. And when they do, if the deaths keep dropping like they have been for months, it really puts a different spin on it in my opinion. Way more cases and way fewer deaths seems to be a good thing to me?

Yep, me too! That's why I can't figure out the outrage. This is just what a lot of people were saying months ago and now that they seem to be getting proven right, they're saying it's a big hoax. They can't have their cake and eat it too.

[ilovethecats]

What it comes down to is, would a person rather be right...or healthy. I would like to err on the side of caution being a septigenarian I would gladly skip a football season, all things being equal, to stay away from the virus. If there actually isn't a danger...but no one is SURE! Put me down for being a sniveling g liberal coward!

Which is more than fair. But if we aren’t sure, like you suggested we may not be.....then why do the rest of us have to live in that same fear? No doubt anyone who is scared should definitely not go to football games. The rest of us should be able to make our own decisions.

So the question is: who decides if we can or can't spread the disease? Do we make that decision on our own and willingly infect others or does the government intervene on behalf of general public safety? Not caring if you get covid yourself is one thing, but not caring if you get it and spread it to others is another thing, isn't it?

It is. But if those that are afraid of going out stay home, they’ll be safe. Unless we just lock back down and close businesses. Isn’t that the entire point of closing schools and forcing people to not work?

If we REALLY pretended it was for the safety of the people, we’d have to close down ALL businesses because those “essential” ones are apparently putting their workers lives at risk to make a buck. But they won’t do that anytime soon.

I’m obviously not afraid of this virus. I’ve been working and traveling for both business and pleasure. The only people I should ever be around are people who are also ok going out and about. And if I go to a game, and then to the grocery store, I’ll only be around people comfortable with games and stores.

But I totally agree with you. If you’re very fearful of it, you should continue locking down, staying inside, not working, and keeping kids home from school. Just like we were all forced to do months ago. Only now it will just be those who choose to do that.....

[codecat]

What it comes down to is, would a person rather be right...or healthy. I would like to err on the side of caution being a septigenarian I would gladly skip a football season, all things being equal, to stay away from the virus. If there actually isn't a danger...but no one is SURE! Put me down for being a sniveling g liberal coward!

Which is more than fair. But if we aren’t sure, like you suggested we may not be.....then why do the rest of us have to live in that same fear? No doubt anyone who is scared should definitely not go to football games. The rest of us should be able to make our own decisions.

So the question is: who decides if we can or can't spread the disease? Do we make that decision on our own and willingly infect others or does the government intervene on behalf of general public safety? Not caring if you get covid yourself is one thing, but not caring if you get it and spread it to others is another thing, isn't it?

It is. But if those that are afraid of going out stay home, they’ll be safe. Unless we just lock back down and close businesses. Isn’t that the entire point of closing schools and forcing people to not work?

If we REALLY pretended it was for the safety of the people, we’d have to close down ALL businesses because those “essential” ones are apparently putting their workers lives at risk to make a buck. But they won’t do that anytime soon.

I’m obviously not afraid of this virus. I’ve been working and traveling for both business and pleasure. The only people I should ever be around are people who are also ok going out and about. And if I go to a game, and then to the grocery store, I’ll only be around people comfortable with games and stores.

But I totally agree with you. If you’re very fearful of it, you should continue locking down, staying inside, not working, and keeping kids home from school. Just like we were all forced to do months ago. Only now it will just be those who choose to do that.....

Have to agree with this: A good comparison is that Montana reported 87 Highway Fatalities so far in 2020.
https://dojmt.gov/highwaypatrol/montana ... al-report/

YTD corona virus deaths in Montana are listed today as 23, which would be since some point after the first of the year. Its obvious that when traveling in your car, you are nearly 4 times likely to die as from the corona virus thus far. The same argument could be made for guns vs. vehicles used to mass murder.

There is only 1 reason for the overreach of shutting down the economy and the press picking and choosing which stats to report and that is: The Left know they cannot and will not beat Donald Trump in 2020 unless the they either destroy the economy or greatly hamper it by November. As always with the left though, their efforts to divide, destroy, and buy votes is neatly hidden behind a more noble motive to they can pump their chests with the false pride of "we are more caring, compassionate, and better than you"

[TomCat88]

I just go along with what Fauci says for the most part (I do double-check on him occasionally). If that guy ain't telling the truth, then I give up on humanity even more than I already have.

Today Fauci said:

"So we've got to make sure that we don't create this binary type thing of 'it's us against them,'" he said of public health efforts and the US economy.
"It's not. We're all in it together."

Unfortunately, he's way too smart to run for president.

[Cledus]

I just go along with what Fauci says for the most part (I do double-check on him occasionally). If that guy ain't telling the truth, then I give up on humanity even more than I already have.

Today Fauci said:

"So we've got to make sure that we don't create this binary type thing of 'it's us against them,'" he said of public health efforts and the US economy.
"It's not. We're all in it together."

Unfortunately, he's way too smart to run for president.

What are your thoughts on him lying about the effectiveness of wearing masks? Or using taxpayer money to fund research that leads to discoveries he then patents in his name? Or about his fanboi emails to Hillary?

What does your critical thinking have to say about these?

[catsrback76]

[TomCat88]

I just go along with what Fauci says for the most part (I do double-check on him occasionally). If that guy ain't telling the truth, then I give up on humanity even more than I already have.

Today Fauci said:

"So we've got to make sure that we don't create this binary type thing of 'it's us against them,'" he said of public health efforts and the US economy.
"It's not. We're all in it together."

Unfortunately, he's way too smart to run for president.

What are your thoughts on him lying about the effectiveness of wearing masks? Or using taxpayer money to fund research that leads to discoveries he then patents in his name? Or about his fanboi emails to Hillary?

What does your critical thinking have to say about these?

I've seen he's been accused of lying, but I've seen nothing that substantiates that and his explanation makes sense. If you have a link that proves otherwise, please send it. Odd that he'd be around still if he's been discredited for lying about anything to do with coronavirus.
A lot of unsubstantiated claims about Fauci out there. I haven't seen the one about patents. Please send a link.
Here's example of false claims: https://www.factcheck.org/2020/05/fauci ... emdesivir/

Fauci has been the target of death threats and bogus claims on social media, including a post that falsely claims he is advocating the use of remdesivir as a potential treatment for COVID-19, because he “invented” it, along with Bill Gates, and they’ll profit from its use.

The fanboi stuff doesn't have much backbone to it that I've seen, but if you have a substantive link, please send link. Being a friend of Hillary Clinton doesn't automatically mean he's not telling the truth.

So my "critical thinking" says that none of the anti-Fauci stuff has any staying power and when that's the case, I don't continue to give it much though. People don't like what he has to say, but that doesn't make him a liar, cheat or fanboi. If you'd like to send some links from credible news sources or individuals, I'd be glad to look at them and change my mind.

[wapiti]

This graph does not mean much.
It does not explain the scale at all.
It does not explain the risk at all. I assume it is a risk at getting sick with Covid. But what does a 9 mean?? Is it a 9% chance of getting sick???? or maybe .9%. This graph is meant to scare people and it seems to have done that for you.

[iaafan]

This graph does not mean much.
It does not explain the scale at all.
It does not explain the risk at all. I assume it is a risk at getting sick with Covid. But what does a 9 mean?? Is it a 9% chance of getting sick???? or maybe .9%. This graph is meant to scare people and it seems to have done that for you.

Looks like they wanted to keep it simple. I agree it doesn't have much detail, but this is pretty common for charts like this. It appears the risks are just relative to one another. It doesn't do much for me. I'm going to go where I'm going to go. Wear a mask, if necessary, distance and use sanitizer where appropriate.

[MSU01]

This graph does not mean much.
It does not explain the scale at all.
It does not explain the risk at all. I assume it is a risk at getting sick with Covid. But what does a 9 mean?? Is it a 9% chance of getting sick???? or maybe .9%. This graph is meant to scare people and it seems to have done that for you.

There's not a scale because relative risk of being exposed to COVID-19 is not a quantitative variable, it's a qualitative one. The graph is showing the relative risk of various activities, and while most of it is common sense information (i.e. going to a bar is riskier than exercising outdoors), you are making several giant leaps in stating that it is meant to scare people. The numbers aren't supposed to have any meaning in themselves - the meaning comes from comparing the activities assigned to one number to the activities assigned to another number and being able to conclude that Activity X puts me at more or less risk of exposure than Activity Y. This is not complicated.

This entire thread is turning into a really great demonstration of why the chance of having a normal sports season anytime soon is plummeting by the day.

[wapiti]

This graph does not mean much.
It does not explain the scale at all.
It does not explain the risk at all. I assume it is a risk at getting sick with Covid. But what does a 9 mean?? Is it a 9% chance of getting sick???? or maybe .9%. This graph is meant to scare people and it seems to have done that for you.

There's not a scale because relative risk of being exposed to COVID-19 is not a quantitative variable, it's a qualitative one. The graph is showing the relative risk of various activities, and while most of it is common sense information (i.e. going to a bar is riskier than exercising outdoors), you are making several giant leaps in stating that it is meant to scare people. The numbers aren't supposed to have any meaning in themselves - the meaning comes from comparing the activities assigned to one number to the activities assigned to another number and being able to conclude that Activity X puts me at more or less risk of exposure than Activity Y. This is not complicated.

This entire thread is turning into a really great demonstration of why the chance of having a normal sports season anytime soon is plummeting by the day.

So you do admit the graph is not worth much. When the numbers don't have any meaning then the graph does not have much meaning either.

[catgradtimes2]

This graph does not mean much.
It does not explain the scale at all.
It does not explain the risk at all. I assume it is a risk at getting sick with Covid. But what does a 9 mean?? Is it a 9% chance of getting sick???? or maybe .9%. This graph is meant to scare people and it seems to have done that for you.

There's not a scale because relative risk of being exposed to COVID-19 is not a quantitative variable, it's a qualitative one. The graph is showing the relative risk of various activities, and while most of it is common sense information (i.e. going to a bar is riskier than exercising outdoors), you are making several giant leaps in stating that it is meant to scare people. The numbers aren't supposed to have any meaning in themselves - the meaning comes from comparing the activities assigned to one number to the activities assigned to another number and being able to conclude that Activity X puts me at more or less risk of exposure than Activity Y. This is not complicated.

This entire thread is turning into a really great demonstration of why the chance of having a normal sports season anytime soon is plummeting by the day.

So you do admit the graph is not worth much. When the numbers don't have any meaning then the graph does not have much meaning either.

The graph is what it is. Some activities are riskier than others, simple as that.

[MSU01]

This graph does not mean much.
It does not explain the scale at all.
It does not explain the risk at all. I assume it is a risk at getting sick with Covid. But what does a 9 mean?? Is it a 9% chance of getting sick???? or maybe .9%. This graph is meant to scare people and it seems to have done that for you.

There's not a scale because relative risk of being exposed to COVID-19 is not a quantitative variable, it's a qualitative one. The graph is showing the relative risk of various activities, and while most of it is common sense information (i.e. going to a bar is riskier than exercising outdoors), you are making several giant leaps in stating that it is meant to scare people. The numbers aren't supposed to have any meaning in themselves - the meaning comes from comparing the activities assigned to one number to the activities assigned to another number and being able to conclude that Activity X puts me at more or less risk of exposure than Activity Y. This is not complicated.

This entire thread is turning into a really great demonstration of why the chance of having a normal sports season anytime soon is plummeting by the day.

So you do admit the graph is not worth much. When the numbers don't have any meaning then the graph does not have much meaning either.

I do not admit the graph is not worth much. For the variable it's displaying, relative risk of exposure, it's simple, easy to read, and does a good job. If the graph were to incorrectly include a meaningless scale that implied that a Level 9 activity is 9 times more risky than a Level 1 activity or that a Level 6 activity is twice as risky as a Level 3 activity, then I'd say the graph would become misleading and not valid.

[catatac]

I wonder where the activity of attending a BLM rally, or any other rally or protest for that matter would fall? Based on some of the numbers I've seen it would be right there with the riskiest of all activities, maybe right below going to a bar, or maybe right at the religious service one.

[St George]

They just announced that a prison south of Boise Idaho had over 100 inmates test positive for CV19 and not a single one of those was showing any symptoms.

[91catAlum]

They just announced that a prison south of Boise Idaho had over 100 inmates test positive for CV19 and not a single one of those was showing any symptoms.

That is interesting. Someone from the WHO a few weeks ago stated that asymptomatic transmission of COVID is "very rare" so I wonder what the specifics of that prison situation were.

[iaafan]

They just announced that a prison south of Boise Idaho had over 100 inmates test positive for CV19 and not a single one of those was showing any symptoms.

That is interesting. Someone from the WHO a few weeks ago stated that asymptomatic transmission of COVID is "very rare" so I wonder what the specifics of that prison situation were.

12 of 119 positive tests showed symptoms. There was one cell block in the prison that had 103 positive tests and no one had symptoms.


https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2020/ ... -prison-c/

The prison is in Kuna, Idaho.

[Cataholic]

They just announced that a prison south of Boise Idaho had over 100 inmates test positive for CV19 and not a single one of those was showing any symptoms.

That is interesting. Someone from the WHO a few weeks ago stated that asymptomatic transmission of COVID is "very rare" so I wonder what the specifics of that prison situation were.

12 of 119 positive tests showed symptoms. There was one cell block in the prison that had 103 positive tests and no one had symptoms.


https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2020/ ... -prison-c/

The prison is in Kuna, Idaho.

Wow. I wonder if it is a different strain of Covid? Maybe something not as strong?

[MSU01]

They just announced that a prison south of Boise Idaho had over 100 inmates test positive for CV19 and not a single one of those was showing any symptoms.

That is interesting. Someone from the WHO a few weeks ago stated that asymptomatic transmission of COVID is "very rare" so I wonder what the specifics of that prison situation were.

103 cases with zero showing symptoms sounds too good to be true, and you know what they say about things that sound too good to be true. The median incubation period for COVID-19 is around 5 days, so my guess would be that they tested a group of people who had been exposed to the virus much more recently than that, and those who will develop symptoms haven't done so yet.

Here's one of the best articles I've seen with regards to asymptomatic case percentage and undercounting of cases due to people who were asymptomatic or had mild symptoms that didn't qualify to be tested: https://news.iu.edu/stories/2020/05/iup ... virus.html

[PHAT CAT]

So what about MSU athletes? Football athletes first, because this is a football page. It's nice to hear from all the google doctors on this site. But your charts and opinions don't really mean two gobs of goat ******. Any of the other fellas test positive? Thanks.