Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TobusRex

Economic impact of COVID 19 may kill wrestling programs

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, ionel said:

Yes, you are correct but internet forums, computers, displays and keyboards have also advanced, so read my post, I said 2017/18.

I guess my reading comprehension has not that advanced either...

Making the predictive yearly flu vaccine before they know and how many different strains  of flu virus there will be and which will be the most virulent seems like a lot more of a crapshoot than focusing on a single known virus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gimpeltf said:

The number I heard yesterday was that there were thousands of minor mutation strains. That sounds pretty quick to me.

Not sure where that figure came from but I see now 14 strains. Still fairly quick for 6 months.

 

Just found one of those reports- will not claim as to accuracy. And do not dispute basic premise stated as to whether these mutations are that different.

Each strain of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus changes at an average speed of about one mutation per month. As of date, more than 10,000 strains had been sequenced by scientists around the globe, containing more than 4,300 mutations, according to the China National Centre for Bioinformation.

There's a huge difference between passenger mutations that have no effect, functional mutations that escape a part of the immune response, and enough escape mutations  to evade an immune response. It takes escape from multiple epitopes within the virus to evade the immune system.  I know we are tempted to try to read every report/news article and get what information we can, but there is a ton of misleading information out there.

 

Take this thread for example...All the reliable literature and evidence predicts that the CFR for covid is somewhere between 0.5 and 1% (this has been clear since March).  Yet even within this thread you have some people who have not gotten this information and still believe CFR is more around 5 to 10% as was seen for SARS.  Then there's another group of people who think that the CFR is actually far below 0.5 to 1% and that this virus is not worse than the flu.  Getting accurate information in this time without the ability to interpret primary scientific and medical literature is daunting and challenging.  So i'd say just trust me, an anonymous poster from themat.com, that this virus is bad enough to warrant the extreme measures being taken to limit the spread (masks, distancing, canceling sports, etc), but not so bad that we will be stuck inside forever and that we can't have a partial reopening of some business with very low density in less hit areas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jim L said:

I guess my reading comprehension has not that advanced either...

Making the predictive yearly flu vaccine before they know and how many different strains  of flu virus there will be and which will be the most virulent seems like a lot more of a crapshoot than focusing on a single known virus

Seems more like an "educated guess" than a crapshoot, to me. Most of the time they get it right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Billyhoyle said:

There's a huge difference between passenger mutations that have no effect, functional mutations that escape a part of the immune response, and enough escape mutations  to evade an immune response. It takes escape from multiple epitopes within the virus to evade the immune system.  I know we are tempted to try to read every report/news article and get what information we can, but there is a ton of misleading information out there.

 

Take this thread for example...All the reliable literature and evidence predicts that the CFR for covid is somewhere between 0.5 and 1% (this has been clear since March).  Yet even within this thread you have some people who have not gotten this information and still believe CFR is more around 5 to 10% as was seen for SARS.  Then there's another group of people who think that the CFR is actually far below 0.5 to 1% and that this virus is not worse than the flu.  Getting accurate information in this time without the ability to interpret primary scientific and medical literature is daunting and challenging.  So i'd say just trust me, an anonymous poster from themat.com, that this virus is bad enough to warrant the extreme measures being taken to limit the spread (masks, distancing, canceling sports, etc), but not so bad that we will be stuck inside forever and that we can't have a partial reopening of some business with very low density in less hit areas. 

I’m saying there doesn’t seem to be an accurate CFR.  Where has it been clear since March?  The study referenced after my last reply seems to be saying that the death rate is about 0.2% - so that differs from your stated 0.5-1%

I’m also still unclear by what you mean when you say “successfully cleared”...not dying?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

I’m saying there doesn’t seem to be an accurate CFR.  Where has it been clear since March?  The study referenced after my last reply seems to be saying that the death rate is about 0.2% - so that differs from your stated 0.5-1%

I’m also still unclear by what you mean when you say “successfully cleared”...not dying?

 

That study from Stanford has been debunked. It was the result of false positives due to being conducted in an area without enough people infected and possibly some selection bias in those tested. 

 

The more accurate picture of CFR was from two key sources. The early indicator in March were the numbers out of South Korea, where widespread contact tracing and testing was done. More recently, The serology study in NY state placed the CFR in this range as well. To really know for sure, more serology studies in hotbeds of infection like that conducted in New York need to be carried out.

 

A virus is cleared when the genetic information it uses to replicate is cleared or no longer is in a functional state. The time it takes for this to happen can vary individual to individual, but it’s not THAT rare for somebody to appear to be fighting off a virus only to have the virus eventually get the upper hand or come back. Most cases of reported reinfection likely fall into the latter, and the way to know is to compare the sequences of the two supposed unique infections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Billyhoyle said:

That study from Stanford has been debunked. It was the result of false positives due to being conducted in an area without enough people infected and possibly some selection bias in those tested. 

 

The more accurate picture of CFR was from two key sources. The early indicator in March were the numbers out of South Korea, where widespread contact tracing and testing was done. More recently, The serology study in NY state placed the CFR in this range as well. To really know for sure, more serology studies in hotbeds of infection like that conducted in New York need to be carried out.

 

A virus is cleared when the genetic information it uses to replicate is cleared or no longer is in a functional state. The time it takes for this to happen can vary individual to individual, but it’s not THAT rare for somebody to appear to be fighting off a virus only to have the virus eventually get the upper hand or come back. Most cases of reported reinfection likely fall into the latter, and the way to know is to compare the sequences of the two supposed unique infections.

It seems the numbers can vary wildly, depending on where you look.

It looks like South Korea’s current death rate based on confirmed cases is now over 2%. Have they reduced their contact tracing?

Honestly I’m not trying to say it’s higher or lower than that, I’m just saying it doesn’t seem like there’s really been a conclusion that can really be believed yet.  Seems the data for the main New York study I’m seeing has a high margin of error as well - https://www.360dx.com/infectious-disease/new-york-california-serology-studies-give-early-estimates-covid-19-prevalence#.Xr8NY6QpCEc.  Can you link to the one you’re referring to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

It seems the numbers can vary wildly, depending on where you look.

It looks like South Korea’s current death rate based on confirmed cases is now over 2%. Have they reduced their contact tracing?

Honestly I’m not trying to say it’s higher or lower than that, I’m just saying it doesn’t seem like there’s really been a conclusion that can really be believed yet.  Seems the data for the main New York study I’m seeing has a high margin of error as well - https://www.360dx.com/infectious-disease/new-york-california-serology-studies-give-early-estimates-covid-19-prevalence#.Xr8NY6QpCEc.  Can you link to the one you’re referring to?

You would never expect testing to catch the majority of cases of those infected for a disease like coronavirus where 99% recover and many don't exhibit any symptoms. The reason the South Korea data was so valuable is that it hovered around 1% when other countries with more limited testing had data suggesting 5 to 10%.   Is it possible that the CFR is actually something like 1.5% or 0.4 %? Absolutely-a lot depends also on the health and age of the population infected.  But most estimates peg it somewhere between 0.5 and 1, and it's definitely not 0.1-0.2 % and it's definitely not >2-3%. 

Edited by Billyhoyle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Billyhoyle said:

That study from Stanford has been debunked. It was the result of false positives due to being conducted in an area without enough people infected and possibly some selection bias in those tested. 

Please reference the article that "debunked." There has been more than one Stanford study. If you watched the last video Dr. B addressed the Twitter talk and explained why they were wrong.  Also pretty sure twitter isn't a peer reviewed journal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, ionel said:

Please reference the article that "debunked." There has been more than one Stanford study. If you watched the last video Dr. B addressed the Twitter talk and explained why they were wrong.  Also pretty sure twitter isn't a peer reviewed journal.

Did the paper itself go through a peer reviewed journal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, ionel said:

Please reference the article that "debunked." There has been more than one Stanford study. If you watched the last video Dr. B addressed the Twitter talk and explained why they were wrong.  Also pretty sure twitter isn't a peer reviewed journal.

This was my most recent reading on the subject.  It’s now ancient (in the age of covid.)

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04/antibody-surveys-suggesting-vast-undercount-coronavirus-infections-may-be-unreliable

 

That this has been such a politically charged issue has made the pre print/non reviewed/straight to media science challenging to wade through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, madcat11 said:

This was my most recent reading on the subject.  It’s now ancient (in the age of covid.)

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04/antibody-surveys-suggesting-vast-undercount-coronavirus-infections-may-be-unreliable

 

That this has been such a politically charged issue has made the pre print/non reviewed/straight to media science challenging to wade through.

That is certainly useful information to read and consider but it doesn't debunk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ionel said:

That is certainly useful information to read and consider but it doesn't debunk.

Agree and agree.

 

Still so much we don’t know.  A lot of noise out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, madcat11 said:

Agree and agree.

 

Still so much we don’t know.  A lot of noise out there.

This is true.  And its disappointing that what we mostly hear is just repeating the old noise rather than focus on the new relevant info. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Billyhoyle said:

You would never expect testing to catch the majority of cases of those infected for a disease like coronavirus where 99% recover and many don't exhibit any symptoms. The reason the South Korea data was so valuable is that it hovered around 1% when other countries with more limited testing had data suggesting 5 to 10%.   Is it possible that the CFR is actually something like 1.5% or 0.4 %? Absolutely-a lot depends also on the health and age of the population infected.  But most estimates peg it somewhere between 0.5 and 1, and it's definitely not 0.1-0.2 % and it's definitely not >2-3%. 

Can you link any of the “most estimates” that haven’t been “debunked”?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is that 0.5% including all the deaths misreported as covid deaths?

does it include all the deaths that are from other causes where they also happened to have the covid antibodies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, madcat11 said:

We should do one thread for serious discussion and another for conspiracy theories/where we fight about how much we hate or love the president.

I usually try to only answer people who are asking questions in good faith and are generally curious, but sometimes it’s difficult to immediately identify the people with an agenda. 

 

49 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Can you link any of the “most estimates” that haven’t been “debunked”?

The most accurate survey was the serology study conducted in NY state. You can find the information through google. The serology tests in California were inaccurate as not enough of the population has been infected.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Billyhoyle said:

I usually try to only answer people who are asking questions in good faith and are generally curious, but sometimes it’s difficult to immediately identify the people with an agenda. 

 

The most accurate survey was the serology study conducted in NY state. You can find the information through google. The serology tests in California were inaccurate as not enough of the population has been infected.  

According to this (posted earlier), it seems the NY #’s are questionable as well - https://www.360dx.com/infectious-disease/new-york-california-serology-studies-give-early-estimates-covid-19-prevalence#.Xr_OuqQpCEc

Based on the test specificity stated in the study, up to 25% of the positives in NYC could have been false positives.

And that’s not even questioning how the sample was chosen (at grocery stores).  

Edited by 1032004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NFHS (governing body for high school sports) has released their return to play plan. For what it's worth, wrestling and football are both in the "high risk" category. On one hand, you never like being labeled high risk, but on the other hand, it's nice to be tethered to football, especially considering our season is much later. 

Here's the link:

https://www.nfhs.org/articles/guidance-for-state-associations-to-consider-in-re-opening-high-school-athletics-and-other-activities/

Edited by SamStall365247

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another article by Dave Matter of the St. Louis Post Dispatch where he discusses Mizzou wrestling quite a bit.  The article covers how other sports will be affected by the loss of revenue from football.  There are a lot of quotes from Brian Smith.

In the article he quotes Lindsey Darvin, an assistant professor in the sport management department at SUNY Cortland.

“Football is king and football always has been,” Darvin said. “But from a Title IX perspective, some people don't understand that Title IX applies to both genders. It’s not a women’s policy. But on the men's side, it's really easy to cut Olympic teams, because in terms of the three-prong test, those male athletes really can't bring a Title IX suit against a school. Because usually the numbers are still higher for men participants. Usually there’s even more teams for men, even if they cut those.”  (I added the emphasis.)

What school has more men's teams than women's teams?  Maybe a school that doesn't have football with the 85 scholarships??? Or a majority men's school?  She's making a statement that makes it seems like a majority of universities have more men's teams than women's teams.

https://www.stltoday.com/sports/college/mizzou/dave-matter-other-sports-in-danger-with-college-football-revenue-at-risk/article_3961c603-397e-5bf8-b720-7cd5de6cc642.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/19/2020 at 5:39 PM, SamStall365247 said:

The NFHS (governing body for high school sports) has released their return to play plan. For what it's worth, wrestling and football are both in the "high risk" category. On one hand, you never like being labeled high risk, but on the other hand, it's nice to be tethered to football, especially considering our season is much later. 

Here's the link:

https://www.nfhs.org/articles/guidance-for-state-associations-to-consider-in-re-opening-high-school-athletics-and-other-activities/

Wrestling I believe, not football. Football brings in too much money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TobusRex said:

https://www.al.com/news/2020/05/montgomery-running-out-of-icu-beds-as-coronavirus-cases-double-in-may.html

 

The "gaslight the public into thinking COVID 19 isn't an issue" strategy being used by the GOP/Trump doesn't seem to be working. Remember: the pandemic was ONGOING when the GOP decided to force workers back into the work force to prop up the dummy's economy. In other words the curve had not been "flattened", and now the rural (red) areas are starting to suffer.  Hilariously some of the astroturf "protestors" going around to stir up sound bites for the Trump/GOP propaganda campaign have carried the infection back to their homes, spiking the infection rates in  Trump strongholds.  Some GOP led states have stopped providing information on COVID 19 infections/deaths (makes them look very foolish). A cover up on a grand scale. This is, without doubt, the most clever coverup/scam/gaslight I've ever seen. 

Isn’t the opening/closing done on a state/county level?  And even when the state/county opens, businesses can choose to stay closed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/14/2020 at 4:23 PM, fanta said:

Wrestling WILL NOT continue again until ALL WRESTLERS are VACCINATED. 110% Guaranteed!!

Finally someone who is thinking about the whole picture. Half baked ideas, rushing to conclusion, impatience = disaster and more trips to the cemetary than necessary. It's coming down to the old saying, your money or your life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...