Max Dean to Penn State?

[portajohn 434]

2 hours ago, Le duke said:

Anyways, it's done. 

https://www.centredaily.com/sports/college/penn-state-university/psu-wrestling/article251303618.html

I wonder if PSU has had any interest from people in the portal about wrestling 157 or 165 for them.

Evan Wick?

[1032004 1,405]

Askren is probably pushing Wick to go to PSU.   He seemed like he was close with him, and he’s dying to get some of Cael’s secrets. 

[portajohn 434]

36 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Askren is probably pushing Wick to go to PSU.   He seemed like he was close with him, and he’s dying to get some of Cael’s secrets. 

A lot of Wick back to California rumors out there.  Im wondering if Griffith is a more realistic shot at this point if Cael can convince him to stay at 165.  I'll say the transfer portal is making the offseason fun.  Guys on BWI are trolling Suriano back to PSU.  When has the offseason been this much fun?

[1032004 1,405]

32 minutes ago, portajohn said:

A lot of Wick back to California rumors out there.  Im wondering if Griffith is a more realistic shot at this point if Cael can convince him to stay at 165.  I'll say the transfer portal is making the offseason fun.  Guys on BWI are trolling Suriano back to PSU.  When has the offseason been this much fun?

Yeah I was kinda joking.  Seems like joining his brother (and training with Truax) at Cal Poly probably makes sense

[1032004 1,405]

6 hours ago, Ohio Elite said:

 

Well this brings this thread (and some of the others that were deleted) full circle.

Confirmed Max to PSU within the first 5 minutes, but the Cornell discussion starts around 18:30.

Confirmed it was nothing to do with Cornell wrestling, and all about the school as a whole, mostly in regards to covid it seems.

He didn’t really give an opinion on the vaccine other than saying “it should be people’s choice.”   

But he seemed the most upset about their quarantine procedures, having to be an enforcer of mask requirements and breaking up large groups despite college kids having a “0% mortality rate,” and having to “sign your rights away” when you enter the school.

He also at one point said “Cornell” canceled winter/spring sports...but didn’t the Ivy League do that?

Edited May 11, 2021 by 1032004

[VakAttack 3,963]

Cael does it again.

Weird how that keeps happening at weights where a high level wrestler might sit on the bench.

Anyway, the truly interesting thing is whether the Penn State fans will continue to take very thinly veiled shots at Iowa about transfers, lol.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[ShakaAloha 416]

27 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

Weird how that keeps happening at weights where a high level wrestler might sit on the bench.

Anyway, the truly interesting thing is whether the Penn State fans will continue to take very thinly veiled shots at Iowa about transfers, lol.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
 

All of the good teams (non-Ivy) are guilty of it...Penn State, Iowa, Oklahoma State, Ohio State, Arizona State, etc.  They all have supplemented their rosters with studs from other programs in the past few years.

[Billyhoyle 2,469]

1 hour ago, 1032004 said:

Well this brings this thread (and some of the others that were deleted) full circle.

Confirmed Max to PSU within the first 5 minutes, but the Cornell discussion starts around 18:30.

Confirmed it was nothing to do with Cornell wrestling, and all about the school as a whole, mostly in regards to covid it seems.

He didn’t really give an opinion on the vaccine other than saying “it should be people’s choice.”   

But he seemed the most upset about their quarantine procedures, having to be an enforcer of mask requirements and breaking up large groups despite college kids having a “0% mortality rate,” and having to “sign your rights away” when you enter the school.

He also at one point said “Cornell” canceled winter/spring sports...but didn’t the Ivy League do that?

So basically confirming everything that Rob Koll said.  

[VakAttack 3,963]

13 minutes ago, ShakaAloha said:

All of the good teams (non-Ivy) are guilty of it...Penn State, Iowa, Oklahoma State, Ohio State, Arizona State, etc.  They all have supplemented their rosters with studs from other programs in the past few years.

I agree.  I don't think there's anything wrong with this.  I don't think this dramatically alters the team race unless it's Brooks that goes up and he wins or puts up big bonus.

[1032004 1,405]

21 minutes ago, Billyhoyle said:

So basically confirming everything that Rob Koll said.  

Pretty much.  I admit I was wrong about there possibly being something else going on with the team/Koll.

But, my interpretation was that it wasn’t necessarily that much about the vaccine.  Although speaking of which, will be interesting to see what he does if PSU or the B10 require it which definitely could happen...

Edited May 11, 2021 by 1032004

[Le duke 386]

16 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

I agree.  I don't think there's anything wrong with this.  I don't think this dramatically alters the team race unless it's Brooks that goes up and he wins or puts up big bonus.

That was my thought on it, too.

I don't know that Max Dean beats out an in-shape Beard at 197. Dean is hardly huge for 184 and certainly wouldn't be at 197.

 

 

Edited May 11, 2021 by Le duke

[portajohn 434]

19 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

I agree.  I don't think there's anything wrong with this.  I don't think this dramatically alters the team race unless it's Brooks that goes up and he wins or puts up big bonus.

Dean is a safety net if the Beard getting surgery rumor is true. So it's a push.  157 and 165 are the biggest holes for PSU to match Iowa next year.  Getting Griffith by convincing him to go 165 gets them closer but they would still have to address 157.  Iowa is still very much in the driver's seat

[Drew87 349]

1 hour ago, portajohn said:

Dean is a safety net if the Beard getting surgery rumor is true. So it's a push.  157 and 165 are the biggest holes for PSU to match Iowa next year.  Getting Griffith by convincing him to go 165 gets them closer but they would still have to address 157.  Iowa is still very much in the driver's seat

Call me crazy, but griffith looked small at 165.  How would he handle the dudes at 174?

[1032004 1,405]

PD2 with his first rational thought in...forever?

 

Also, does anyone else find it weird that Gabe seems to be speaking for Max?  Has Max said anything himself?

[Le duke 386]

Whoa. For maybe the first time ever, I find myself agreeing with PD2.

 

Edited May 11, 2021 by Le duke

[klehner 730]

49 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

PD2 with his first rational thought in...forever?

 

Also, does anyone else find it weird that Gabe seems to be speaking for Max?  Has Max said anything himself?

 

[dman115 511]

15 hours ago, Le duke said:

Apparently people still don't understand how this **** works. Not surprising, but frustrating none the less.

dman115, do you understand that you can still contract COVID after being vaccinated? And that you can then spread it to others?

 

Apparently YOU don't understand how this **** works.  So, you are going to go with the "because the virus is only 95% effective" narrative...and I say "only" to make a point to how ridiculous your thought process is...or I should say perceived thought process based on your posts.  I had this same freaking discussion with my mother who only watches the MSN.  She literally thought we needed to continue to live as if the vaccine is 0% effective as we do when it is 95% effective because of the 5% who may still get Covid and/or transmit it.  You do realize that you can't transmit Covid unless you are infected...right (you can find that on the CDC website)?  And a vaccine that is 95% effective means there's a 95% chance you won't get infected...do YOU understand THAT??  Or did your local news not tell you that??   I said the same things to her.  I also then asked her what will be the trigger that tells us masks are no longer needed??  I told her that we should live our life for the potential 5%, or go back to normal with one of the most effective vaccines in the history of mankind?  She started to quickly change her mind, but commented she will probably still choose to wear a mask...of which I said "Mom that is your right and everyone should respect that."

Here is another thing I find funny...you have people that push and push the vaccine even though it was extremely expedited and didn't follow normal safety testing regulations, but then turn around and speak out the other side of their mouth when it comes to the question if if you can catch/spread Covid or not after being vaccinated...can't trust that uncertainty, but holy crap they will push rolling the dice on a novel vaccine that hasn't been fully and rigorously tested.  SMH   I've said this before, it is almost as if some people are trying to find ways NOT to return to "normal" versus doing everything we can to do so...I'll never understand that thought process.

[Le duke 386]

11 minutes ago, dman115 said:

Apparently YOU don't understand how this **** works.  So, you are going to go with the "because the virus is only 95% effective" narrative...and I say "only" to make a point to how ridiculous your thought process is...or I should say perceived thought process based on your posts.  I had this same freaking discussion with my mother who only watches the MSN.  She literally thought we needed to continue to live as if the vaccine is 0% effective as we do when it is 95% effective because of the 5% who may still get Covid and/or transmit it.  You do realize that you can't transmit Covid unless you are infected...right (you can find that on the CDC website)?  And a vaccine that is 95% effective means there's a 95% chance you won't get infected...do YOU understand THAT??  Or did your local news not tell you that??   I said the same things to her.  I also then asked her what will be the trigger that tells us masks are no longer needed??  I told her that we should live our life for the potential 5%, or go back to normal with one of the most effective vaccines in the history of mankind?  She started to quickly change her mind, but commented she will probably still choose to wear a mask...of which I said "Mom that is your right and everyone should respect that."

Here is another thing I find funny...you have people that push and push the vaccine even though it was extremely expedited and didn't follow normal safety testing regulations, but then turn around and speak out the other side of their mouth when it comes to the question if if you can catch/spread Covid or not after being vaccinated...can't trust that uncertainty, but holy crap they will push rolling the dice on a novel vaccine that hasn't been fully and rigorously tested.  SMH   I've said this before, it is almost as if some people are trying to find ways NOT to return to "normal" versus doing everything we can to do so...I'll never understand that thought process.

But that's not what the science says at all. Everything you've said here is based upon a faulty (incorrect) understanding of this.

What your statement fails to address is that the COVID vaccines don't stop you from getting infected after you are vaccinated, or from spreading it to others. The vaccines dramatically decrease your likelihood of having a severe symptomatic response and POTENTIALLY make them less likely from transmitting.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html

Edited May 11, 2021 by Le duke

[Pinnum 835]

11 hours ago, 1032004 said:

He also at one point said “Cornell” canceled winter/spring sports...but didn’t the Ivy League do that?

Symantecs really.  The Ivy League is merely the schools in the conference and all of the schools, Cornell included, made the decision to cancel their sports.  It’s the reason Cornell didn’t compete in sports the Ivy League doesn’t sponsor. 

[dman115 511]

2 minutes ago, Le duke said:

But that's not what the science says at all.

What your statement fails to address is that the COVID vaccines don't stop you from getting infected after you are vaccinated, or from spreading it to others. The vaccines dramatically decrease your likelihood of having a symptomatic response and POTENTIALLY make them less likely from transmitting.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html

Okay...you seem like a nice guy Le duke (plus I love your username)...but maybe our reading comprehension is different....from your link, and I quote:

• A growing body of evidence suggests that fully vaccinated people are less likely to have asymptomatic infection and potentially less likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2 to others. However, further investigation is ongoing.

And this I especially enjoyed as it shows that the CDC may in fact be using some common sense and logic:

• The risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection in fully vaccinated people cannot be completely eliminated as long as there is continued community transmission of the virus. Vaccinated people could potentially still get COVID-19 and spread it to others. However, the benefits of relaxing some measures such as testing and self-quarantine requirements for travelers, post-exposure quarantine requirements and reducing social isolation may outweigh the residual risk of fully vaccinated people becoming ill with COVID-19 or transmitting the virus to others.

Your move Le duke!  :)

[Lurker 2,033]

2 minutes ago, dman115 said:

And this I especially enjoyed as it shows that the CDC may in fact be using some common sense and logic:

• The risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection in fully vaccinated people cannot be completely eliminated as long as there is continued community transmission of the virus. Vaccinated people could potentially still get COVID-19 and spread it to others. However, the benefits of relaxing some measures such as testing and self-quarantine requirements for travelers, post-exposure quarantine requirements and reducing social isolation may outweigh the residual risk of fully vaccinated people becoming ill with COVID-19 or transmitting the virus to others.

Your move Le duke!  :)

Look at that, a balance between health safety and productivity!!

[dman115 511]

Just now, Lurker said:

Look at that, a balance between health safety and productivity!!

Right!!??  Was so happy to read that!

[Billyhoyle 2,469]

14 minutes ago, Le duke said:

But that's not what the science says at all.

What your statement fails to address is that the COVID vaccines don't stop you from getting infected after you are vaccinated, or from spreading it to others. The vaccines dramatically decrease your likelihood of having a severe symptomatic response and POTENTIALLY make them less likely from transmitting.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html

The link you posted literally says people who are vaccinated are less likely to get infected. The clinical trial data shows the vaccines are 95% effective, meaning 95/100 people who would have gotten infected do not. That leaves 5% who can still get infected. It’s likely that the decrease in CFR after vaccination is even better than that. So a disease that had a CFR of ~0.5 to 1 % drops to about .01% or even less.  
The bottom line is that people who are vaccinated are much less likely to get sick or spread the disease.  It’s why Cornell implemented their mandate, and PSU likely will eventually follow. 

Edited May 11, 2021 by Billyhoyle

[1032004 1,405]

19 minutes ago, dman115 said:

Apparently YOU don't understand how this **** works.  So, you are going to go with the "because the virus is only 95% effective" narrative...and I say "only" to make a point to how ridiculous your thought process is...or I should say perceived thought process based on your posts.  I had this same freaking discussion with my mother who only watches the MSN.  She literally thought we needed to continue to live as if the vaccine is 0% effective as we do when it is 95% effective because of the 5% who may still get Covid and/or transmit it.  You do realize that you can't transmit Covid unless you are infected...right (you can find that on the CDC website)?  And a vaccine that is 95% effective means there's a 95% chance you won't get infected...do YOU understand THAT??  Or did your local news not tell you that??   I said the same things to her.  I also then asked her what will be the trigger that tells us masks are no longer needed??  I told her that we should live our life for the potential 5%, or go back to normal with one of the most effective vaccines in the history of mankind?  She started to quickly change her mind, but commented she will probably still choose to wear a mask...of which I said "Mom that is your right and everyone should respect that."

Here is another thing I find funny...you have people that push and push the vaccine even though it was extremely expedited and didn't follow normal safety testing regulations, but then turn around and speak out the other side of their mouth when it comes to the question if if you can catch/spread Covid or not after being vaccinated...can't trust that uncertainty, but holy crap they will push rolling the dice on a novel vaccine that hasn't been fully and rigorously tested.  SMH   I've said this before, it is almost as if some people are trying to find ways NOT to return to "normal" versus doing everything we can to do so...I'll never understand that thought process.

Actually "95% effective" doesn't mean that there's a 95% chance you won't get infected.   It means there's a 95% less chance you'll get infected than if you did not get the vaccine - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/13/learning/what-does-95-effective-mean-teaching-the-math-of-vaccine-efficacy.html

Note, this does not mean there's only a 0.75% chance of getting covid without the vaccine.  That was just over the study period.

Nonetheless, I would tend to agree with you that I don't think we should be all that concerned about those that are vaccinated (and I think that with proof, the vaccinated should be exempt from mask requirements except for maybe crowded indoor settings).   We should be concerned about the people that either want to get vaccinated but can not, and yes even those that specifically choose not to get vaccinated.    The concern with one of your earlier posts is if that number is more than just "the fringe."   If that number is too high, it will still spread among that population, leading to unnecessary deaths, not to mention potential local restrictions if outbreaks occur.    However, I do think the deaths should be well below what they've been since we have most of the vulnerable population vaccinated as well as a pretty decent % of the total country vaccinated.

[Le duke 386]

1 minute ago, Billyhoyle said:

The link you posted literally says people who are vaccinated are less likely to get infected. The clinical trial data shows the vaccines are 95% effective, meaning 95/100 people who would have gotten infected do not. That leaves 5% who can still get infected. It’s likely that the decrease in CFR after vaccination is even better than that. So a disease that had a CFR of ~0.5 to 1 % drops to about .01% or even less. 

Yes, I know that. Which is why I said "it doesn't stop you from getting infected", which is not mutually exclusive to "less likely to get infected".

However, their statement seems to conflict with yours. They are including the word "symptomatic" in there for a reason. Maybe I'm wrong. 

 

All authorized COVID-19 vaccines demonstrated efficacy (range 65% to 95%) against symptomatic, laboratory-confirmed COVID-19.

• For each authorized COVID-19 vaccine, the overall efficacy was similar to the efficacy across different populations, including elderly and younger adults, in people with and without underlying health conditions, and in people representing different races and ethnicities.

All authorized COVID-19 vaccines demonstrated high efficacy (≥89%) against COVID-19 severe enough to require hospitalization.