Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

COVID-19

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

  • Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post

    Full discloser it has been awhile since I looked at the data for this and even then this isn't my field but I will list off observations then list why I lean towards a certain direction.

    Observation 1: If direct link exist it should be relatively easy to find since the prevalence of childhood vaccinations is really high in rich countries and has been for a really long time. So this gives any researcher an ample sample size to show a cause and effect relationship. So autism is a spectrum and in my opinion is one of those diagnoses that is a phenotypic presentation of disease which is a fancy way of saying that there is probably are many causes of it and that one direct link is probably a foolish way to look at it. So for instance if you look at mental retardation there are many causes of it and some of them are genetic, some of them are chemical, some of them are nutritional. So in other words diagnosis of a disease can be a catch all when in reality the biology going on is much more complex than just saying autism or MR.

    Observation 2: So it just so happens that my wife early on treated autistic kids in southern California. IT was a family of 5 with all three kids have varying degrees of autism. To me as a researcher the obvious connection is a genetic one. The likelihood of this occurring by coincidence is really really low and that family years later found out they had a genetic problem that caused it. So this to me at least linked the diagnosis and the cause to be a large genetic component.

    Observation 3: How much of the increase in diagnosis of autism is do to improved diagnostics, reporting, health coverage, education? These questions do not explain all of the increase in numbers but the question does explain some of the increase in autism rates. In cardiology we know that these impact the increase in heart disease diagnosis and it sort of makes sense if you think about it. If I give the means, the knowledge and the technology to diagnosis then you will see an increase in the disease prevalence among a population.

    So for me if vaccinations are a risk for increasing autism it should be easier to show a cause and effect relationship than it actually is. In addition one should explain if there is direct link what biology is at play here that increases the risk. The chemical agents are given in so little quantity and for such a short period of time that they would have to be so harmful that it should be easy to study on nerve cells in a dish. In other words it should be easy to show a direct link. That to me just doesn't add up and is sort of like me saying that a women drinking one beer causes fetal alcohol syndrome which it doesn't.

    If vaccines trigger an autoimmune response that is high enough to see phenotypically then we should be able to see it in diagnostic panels for inflammatory markers, antibodies that bind to nerve cells, etc etc. This is why I do not believe vaccines trigger it because we should be able to pick this up with the the technology now.

    Lastly I wonder how much of the genetic component and the age play a factor in the increase in autism. That is to say that the age of the mom and the pregnancy's is known risk factor for genetic disorders. We all inherit our mother mitochondrial DNA which are the organelles that generate the energy for all of our cells. Nerve cells are chalked full of them and highly dependent on them in addition to this moms are having kids later in life than ever before. So the eggs themselves are older and hence the DNA is less stable overtime. This is why age is known risk factor for congenital disease. To me this is way more likely of an explanation to the increase rates of autism than say a vaccine which merely triggers an immune response that basically already gets triggered multiple times a year with live viruses and bacterium and fungi from nature.

    As for big pharma screwing over researchers well that is just not how it works in a basic laboratory. The NIH is federally funded and is independent of private industry. The whole reason is so basic research can be untainted by big pharma and so innovation happens without outside influence. IF I write a grant and suspect a conflict of interest on the panel of colleagues reviewing that grant I can suggest that my grant be reconsidered by another panel. IF the critics I receive on that grant are without merit I can appeal the score. The people ultimately scoring that grant have to disclose conflicts of interest or they will be barred from reviewing grants.
    I don't doubt anything you have said here. You obviously know your stuff. As a layperson with kids who has only read up on a few articles here and there over the years from biased articles on both sides of the issue, I generally wind up in a quandary about it all. Definitely the spectrum has broaden over the last 30 years and thus the diagnosis rate increases.

    I am more inclined to accept that environmental factors are a more prevalent leading cause like chemical runoff, dumping, ground water leaching. As you pointed out certain power plant pollution as well.

    But at the core of all this are parents who claim that their kids changed or dimmed with in a short time after receiving their recommended child hood vaccines. Maybe there are genetic markers that some how interact with these vaccines? All know is that if you are a parent and this happened to your kid, the first thing you are thinking is what occurred recently out of the normal that could cause such drastic change in my child. These parents aren't grasping at straws and saying my kid had vaccines 3 months ago. These changes are happening with in like 2 weeks of inoculation. There seems to be a push lately to completely discredit these parents and their experiences.

    There are people out there who are even discrediting alternative/delayed vaccination schedules as being dangerous and exposing your child and the public to diseases even though they all end up with the same vaccinations by school aged.

    The recommended vaccine schedule is based on two things:

    1.) When children are likely to be exposed to these infections

    2.) When their immune systems are developed enough to safely respond to the vaccine

    But are they considering the child's development milestones in these schedules? I don't think so. For instance, There is some speculation out there that the Rubella portion of the MMR vaccine is seen as an autism link. Because the actual disease itself can cause brain damage and mental retardation in toddlers. So why would you give a live version of the virus to a toddler during one of the most important brain development periods of their life? 12-24 months when they're brains are going into overdrive trying to recognize speech patterns and comprehension. This just also happens to be the most common diagnosis period for autism.

    Is the country really at risk for an MMR outbreak if children didn't get these vaccines until they are 30 months old? Probably not.

    I remember having this conservation with our pediatrician for our oldest daughter. We specifically chose her as our Ped because she had a background in vaccine studies. When we initially discussed this with her. She gave us a look of disbelief that we were nutjob anti-vaxers and she was going to recommend us find a different pediatrician. I had to explain to her that we were pro-vaccine, but like many new parents we are concerned about the amount of vaccines give at one time as they were much more than we had in the 80's, are the vaccines indeed preservative free - is there actually such a thing? What did she think of spreading some of these vaccines out, and that we thought she might have more informed opinions on these topics because of the her background. She was actually very supportive of our concerns about preservatives and spacing them out, but in the end we ended up doing the standard schedule because our daycare required it by the State. But if we actually had the opportunity we probably would have spread those shots out.
    You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by graphic-er View Post

      I don't doubt anything you have said here. You obviously know your stuff. As a layperson with kids who has only read up on a few articles here and there over the years from biased articles on both sides of the issue, I generally wind up in a quandary about it all. Definitely the spectrum has broaden over the last 30 years and thus the diagnosis rate increases.

      I am more inclined to accept that environmental factors are a more prevalent leading cause like chemical runoff, dumping, ground water leaching. As you pointed out certain power plant pollution as well.

      But at the core of all this are parents who claim that their kids changed or dimmed with in a short time after receiving their recommended child hood vaccines. Maybe there are genetic markers that some how interact with these vaccines? All know is that if you are a parent and this happened to your kid, the first thing you are thinking is what occurred recently out of the normal that could cause such drastic change in my child. These parents aren't grasping at straws and saying my kid had vaccines 3 months ago. These changes are happening with in like 2 weeks of inoculation. There seems to be a push lately to completely discredit these parents and their experiences.

      There are people out there who are even discrediting alternative/delayed vaccination schedules as being dangerous and exposing your child and the public to diseases even though they all end up with the same vaccinations by school aged.

      The recommended vaccine schedule is based on two things:

      1.) When children are likely to be exposed to these infections

      2.) When their immune systems are developed enough to safely respond to the vaccine

      But are they considering the child's development milestones in these schedules? I don't think so. For instance, There is some speculation out there that the Rubella portion of the MMR vaccine is seen as an autism link. Because the actual disease itself can cause brain damage and mental retardation in toddlers. So why would you give a live version of the virus to a toddler during one of the most important brain development periods of their life? 12-24 months when they're brains are going into overdrive trying to recognize speech patterns and comprehension. This just also happens to be the most common diagnosis period for autism.

      Is the country really at risk for an MMR outbreak if children didn't get these vaccines until they are 30 months old? Probably not.

      I remember having this conservation with our pediatrician for our oldest daughter. We specifically chose her as our Ped because she had a background in vaccine studies. When we initially discussed this with her. She gave us a look of disbelief that we were nutjob anti-vaxers and she was going to recommend us find a different pediatrician. I had to explain to her that we were pro-vaccine, but like many new parents we are concerned about the amount of vaccines give at one time as they were much more than we had in the 80's, are the vaccines indeed preservative free - is there actually such a thing? What did she think of spreading some of these vaccines out, and that we thought she might have more informed opinions on these topics because of the her background. She was actually very supportive of our concerns about preservatives and spacing them out, but in the end we ended up doing the standard schedule because our daycare required it by the State. But if we actually had the opportunity we probably would have spread those shots out.
      So I totally support asking questions and hard question at that of scientist or medical professionals. I personally wish more people asked the questions like you did so these types of misconceptions or reasonable concerns can be addressed. No one person has all the answers but it is only by using all the resources and knowledge that we can all agree on what is reasonable for our society. That sounds hokey or idealistic but it is how I see things being argued out based on logic and facts.

      So if you look at the Rebulla vaccine you brought up the pathology of that disease and the association of developmental disease is linked to the mother getting rebullla especially in the first trimester and then the fetus having all sorts of congenial malformations.

      So to understand the whole live virus vaccine I need to explain how it was developed. This all boils down to classic selection and a easier example is how you select for a miniature dog or some other feature you want like long hair or short hair. You just keep breeding the ones with the feature you want.

      So how is this done with a virus? A person takes the virus from a biopsy and put it in a dish with cells. Then they take the cells that are infected with the virus and put them in another dish with more cells and let them grow. Then do it again and again and again until you see the cells basically have a very very slow ability to infect those cells. The virus is there but it has been selected to have a very slow ability to infect and replicate in human cells. So when a person gets vaccinated the virus basically can not avoid or replicate fast enough to cause harm to a healthy person. The virus was selected to be very bad at being a virus so that the immune cells can beat the hell out of it.

      This selection process happens all the time in nature. It happened with covid 19 with a favorable mutation that gave it the ability to infect humans really really easily. The scientist developing the rebulla vaccine basically used the same methods that nature uses but for the opposite traits a virus wants.

      Last edited by Gamble1; 12-10-2020, 02:23 PM.

      Comment


      • Are there any actual stats about how much we've really improved death rates with Covid-19? Obviously, we've learned some things since spring... But how much has really changed? What is the projected IFR and has it really lowered in any great way?

        I know I hear people talking about the "death rate" declining, but mostly what they are seeing (or repeating) is we're testing more and catching more cases throughout the summer. So, when you do the simple math on CFR (case fatality rates) of course that number will drop. Deaths are pretty much a fixed number, especially once we had the ability to properly recognize diagnose each Covid-19 case that died. But the other side of that equation has been growing larger as we were able to find and record more cases.

        We always knew there were more cases than we were catching.

        In the initial wave, once testing got anywhere at all, you had to be pretty bad with symptoms before you could get tested (outside of some select people). So of course, the CFR would be higher then.

        We're still not catching all of the cases... just more of them.

        So... what is the projected IFR now? Not CFR.

        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

        ------

        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

        -John Wooden

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post

          https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-b...%20tuna%20fish



          https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...cury-get-into/

          So again this can be measured and we don't need some conspiracy riddled argument to just ask the question What is the main source of Mercury in the environment that is making its way into our bodies? The answer isn't vaccines.
          Exactly how do you know that injecting even a small amount of mercury directly into ~100% of all infant's blood isn't worse than the risk involving 10% of mothers having elevated levels in their blood? That isn't even comparable to an apples and oranges comparision.

          Also, keep in mind there were around 9 vaccines potentially given in 1990 and a couple more around 2000. Not all had thimerasol. Still I know several did.

          Of course, I'm not making the claim that thimerasol had anything to do with autism. I actually doubt it. But I don't believe it's been disproven and it's not irrational to think that...or at least have that as an opinion.

          Comment


          • Welp, maskless Sweden just dropped in 7 day rolling average per capita death rate. I get that Sweden isn't doing great. But they are, today at least, doing better than Germany yet no mask mandate in Sweden. IDK guys. Doesn't seem to matter now does it?

            https://ourworldindata.org/coronavir...ickerSort=desc

            Comment


            • https://cnycentral.com/news/local/em...5-CvfXpv8IPqGA

              Thank God I live in Indiana, we are among the first tier here. I feel betrayed for the EMS workers in NY state, they did not deserve this at all.


              Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Peck View Post
                https://cnycentral.com/news/local/em...5-CvfXpv8IPqGA

                Thank God I live in Indiana, we are among the first tier here. I feel betrayed for the EMS workers in NY state, they did not deserve this at all.
                If anyone should be tier 1a, it should be EMS. That's NY for you though.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

                  Exactly how do you know that injecting even a small amount of mercury directly into ~100% of all infant's blood isn't worse than the risk involving 10% of mothers having elevated levels in their blood? That isn't even comparable to an apples and oranges comparision.

                  Also, keep in mind there were around 9 vaccines potentially given in 1990 and a couple more around 2000. Not all had thimerasol. Still I know several did.

                  Of course, I'm not making the claim that thimerasol had anything to do with autism. I actually doubt it. But I don't believe it's been disproven and it's not irrational to think that...or at least have that as an opinion.
                  Its called ppm and half life of a toxin. If the environmental exposer is greater than a couple of vaccines then vaccines are not the main source of mercury toxicity. You would the first person ever to suggest that postnatal mercury exposer is more harmful than in utero exposer. Even with that assumption the main source of mercury exposer is not vaccines. It is food and it makes its way into the breast milk or crosses into the placental barrier in utero.

                  This is the whole reason why pregnant moms are told not to eat a lot of shell fish. Again you also have to show that the equivalent of a can of tuna of mercury causes autism. Good luck with that.

                  Comment




                  • Sarah Solomon
                    @sarahsolfails

                    The Indianapolis Star, Indiana, November 22, 1918

                    10:25 PM ? Dec 10, 2020


                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                      Welp, maskless Sweden just dropped in 7 day rolling average per capita death rate. I get that Sweden isn't doing great. But they are, today at least, doing better than Germany yet no mask mandate in Sweden. IDK guys. Doesn't seem to matter now does it?

                      https://ourworldindata.org/coronavir...ickerSort=desc
                      And now Sweden is above France, Germany, UK. etc etc. Again you completely ignore what has been already shown in my post. Sweden has a lag of deaths being reported. The 7 day average deaths are skewed since deaths are lagging over 7 days. This artificially lowers the average or makes the graphing inaccurate on certain days.

                      You are so bent on being right you are ignoring logical explanations for the data high and low points.

                      https://ourworldindata.org/coronavir...ickerSort=desc
                      Last edited by Gamble1; 12-12-2020, 11:08 AM.

                      Comment


                      • ^damn, wonder if it's that heart complication that goes with covid...espn story didn't mention covid at all

                        Comment


                        • That's one of those things that could cause some immediate ripples, due to knowns and unknowns. Will the NCAA take a pause to answer any questions, or continue on? I know Coach K has questioned why they are playing basketball in a pandemic.
                          Did having Covid have anything to do with his collapse? Make an existing condition worse? Create a long lasting condition? Would a longer break after having Covid mitigated the chances of this, or once you have Covid does it elevate these risks forever? Or did Covid have nothing to do with this and it's just coincidental and a ticking timebomb that finally went off?

                          These type of questions are why the Big Ten originally opted not to play football in the fall. Then they got pressure, and even pressure from you know who that even took credit for the return of Big Ten football this fall.
                          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                          ------

                          "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                          -John Wooden

                          Comment


                          • I'm trying to find exactly when (or if) he actually tested positive for Covid-19 since the reporting is vague on when except "over the summer". I'm seeing this from less than a month ago though-
                            November 22, 2020
                            Johnson and the Gators won't participate in team activities for a week due to positive COVID-19 tests and contact tracing protocols.
                            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                            ------

                            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                            -John Wooden

                            Comment


                            • I can find plenty of news about that Nov 22nd shutdown due to Covid-19 but nothing specifically about 'who' was positive. I don't see anything about a summer issue... but the current news is dominating the search so I'm not exactly surprised it would be buried.
                              So, the only thing I can find for certain is the team had a Covid shutdown announced Nov 22nd due to "positive tests and contract tracing...", less than a month ago.
                              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                              ------

                              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                              -John Wooden

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X