We Don't Know The Opt Out Rules

[Ring 6]

I am genuinely envious of people who are still fortunate enough to think COVID-10 is mostly media-driven hysteria. People who haven't watched loved ones die alone, and had to mourn them with zoom funerals. Who aren't watching friends in their 40s struggling with months of symptoms and permanent lung damage. I wish I were one of you. And I hope this hellish reality never intrudes on your illusions.

Anyone thinking it’s a hoax is a fool. But anyone believing the numbers are accurate and the reporting unbiased is wrong too.
It is certainly possible to consider this a horrific thing and one person dying is terrible while also recognizing the people communicating to the public about it are not giving accurate numbers.
Of course taking that argument to the extent that is all fake, masks are a scam, etc etc is very dangerous.
There is somewhat of a fine line between truth and accuracy being good and the reaction to that truth and accuracy being good.

 

[RASTAN99]

Got any statistics on athletes getting the virus not dying but having damage done to their lungs such that they can no longer compete?

Zero instances of this have been reported.

 

[TheRainMaker]

Again, there's been tons of misinformation from the get go. Anybody can find a story or stat that backs their experience up to say it's real or it's an exaggeration. During the second month of the California lock down, it was reported that hospitals where crowded so I expected a war zone when I had to pick my Dad up from the ER for an unrelated incident. It was empty. That's my experience. It's inevitable I will property get it, just like I can't run away from the flu forever. But when people's wallets have been affected by this or a loved one dies, it becomes political.

Like I said before, I don't think it's exactly a hoax, but the media will make you believe whatever they want you to believe.

The real ignorance is thinking the media is looking out for your best interest. They act like they care, but disasters gets them ratings which equals money. They don't give a s*** who dies as long as it doesn't happen to them or anyone they know and will skew the statistics to fit whatever narrative they want you to believe. And I can understand the skeptics as we're months away from an election and a virus suddenly appears. The Dems had absolutely no shot before this occurred and the media's "scoreboard of deaths" which have turned into "cases" are their only shot.

@pmb116 "maybe not" what?

 

[luuked]

If anything his level of risk increased by opting to work in the medical system.

I don't see how unless the clinic/hospital he works in is so severely underfunded that they can't afford any proper PPE. NFL locker rooms, practices and gamedays are much more dangerous than working as a MD with proper equipment.

 

[luuked]

Got any statistics on athletes getting the virus not dying but having damage done to their lungs such that they can no longer compete? Nah, didn't think so.

Ask again in 5-15 years. As we have learned with concussions just because there is no instant problem it doesn't mean that there won't be any down the line. We have clearly seen what the virus can do to healthy lung tissue.

 

[Patsgofor4]

Death rate of COVID is 2.2%

Death rate of SARS in 2002 was 9.6%

Mortality rates of viruses worldwide | Statista

Congratulations, in a single post you have demonstrated and you have no idea what the f*ck you're talking about. Stay in your lane and stop getting your talking points from Breitbart News message boards. The contention that death rate is the only important statistic, when it comes to an epidemic or pandemic, is used as internet red meat for the simple minded and the misinformed.

Here's How COVID-19 Compares to Past Outbreaks


SARS is another type of coronavirus that came out of China and spread quickly through respiratory droplets. Though the SARS death rate was higher than COVID-19, COVID-19 has already claimed more lives.

According to Johnson, contact tracingTrusted Source — or monitoring people in close contact with those who contracted it — was really effective with SARS, largely because symptoms were severe and therefore easier to identify and contain.

In addition, Schleiss said the SARS virus didn’t have the “fitness to persist in the human population,” which eventually led to its demise.

Schleiss added this doesn’t seem to be the case with COVID-19, which seems to be able to spread and thrive in the human body.

Overall, though SARS’ death rate was higher, COVID-19 has led to “more fatalities, more economic repercussions, more social repercussions than we [had] with SARS,” Johnson said.

This article was from March 12 and COVID-
19 had already caused more than six times the number of global deaths as SARS 2002-3.

Let me guess, you are among the millions of morons who don't plan to get the vaccine, once it is, hopefully, available in 2021?

 

[Ring 6]

Even if you give an appropriately wide margin of error the original comparison to SARS is absolutely ludicrous. Only 8000 people even got infected with SARS before an adjusted vaccine was able to counter it. It was contained in a matter of a few months, a year at most.

COVID-19 isn't under control even in the slightest, and things aren't going to get better until it is under control.

We could be looking at COVID-related problems raging for years, not weeks or months. Especially if the current potential vaccines are no more successful than the last 6 efforts to do the same thing..

I’m not the one who made the comparison.
And you can’t compare something based upon “cases” when there is no consistent standard to determine cases.
My point is simply that the numbers being reported are BS, and for some reason people such as you seem to think accepting that reality requires believing it’s a hoax.
I’m not sure how we got to this place where we are today when the response to someone disagreeing with you about anything allows you to extrapolate that into meaning they disagree with you about everything you believe so therefore you can attribute something they didn’t say to them so you can argue with them. Truly bizarre.

 

[Ring 6]

Congratulations, in a single post you have demonstrated and you have no idea what the f*ck you're talking about. Stay in your lane and stop getting your talking points from Breitbart News message boards. The contention that death rate is the only important statistic, when it comes to an epidemic or pandemic, is used as internet red meat for the simple minded and the misinformed.

Here's How COVID-19 Compares to Past Outbreaks


SARS is another type of coronavirus that came out of China and spread quickly through respiratory droplets. Though the SARS death rate was higher than COVID-19, COVID-19 has already claimed more lives.

According to Johnson, contact tracingTrusted Source — or monitoring people in close contact with those who contracted it — was really effective with SARS, largely because symptoms were severe and therefore easier to identify and contain.

In addition, Schleiss said the SARS virus didn’t have the “fitness to persist in the human population,” which eventually led to its demise.

Schleiss added this doesn’t seem to be the case with COVID-19, which seems to be able to spread and thrive in the human body.

Overall, though SARS’ death rate was higher, COVID-19 has led to “more fatalities, more economic repercussions, more social repercussions than we [had] with SARS,” Johnson said.

This article was from March 12 and COVID-
19 had already caused more than six times the number of global deaths as SARS 2002-3.

Let me guess, you are among the millions of morons who don't plan to get the vaccine, once it is, hopefully, available in 2021?

He stated a fact and made no commentary about what the fact implies.
However in relation to what risk you take by exposing yourself, the mortality rate would be pertinent if not the most important fact.

You immediately jump to arguing that he is a dope because he said mortality rate is the only important statistic.
He didn’t say that.

it’s easy to disagree often with the poster you responded to, but my point in responding here is that this seems to now be the prevalent route of discussion in our country.

Someone makes a statement and someone else who doesnt like that statement assumes this means that person a) disagrees with everything you believe and b) agrees with everyone you abhor.
Then you proceed to castigate them and argue about beliefs you assigned to them that they never stated.

 

[Patsgofor4]

I wonder about David Andrews. He already missed a season with blood clots in his lungs and if this thing attacks the respiratory system I’d assume that could be very bad.

I have heard this brought up on the radio as well. The notion that Andrews will opt out because he is "high risk" stems from a basic misunderstanding about pulmonary emboli. While in extreme cases, a pulmonary embolus can cause necrosis of lung tissue, it is a disease of the arteries supplying blood to the lungs, not of the airways themselves. When someone is diagnosed with his/her first blood clot, either involving the lower extremities (called a deep vein thrombosis or DVT) that patient undergoes extensive testing to look for underlying clotting disorders that would predispose him/her to clots. In the past majority of cases, someone with one of these clotting disorders would require lifelong anticoagulation (blood thinners). The fact that Andrews has been cleared to play almost certainly means that he is no longer on a blood thinner, which means he tested negative for a hypercoagulable disorder.

I haven't seen this mentioned in the news but in my opinion there's a good chance that he developed a lower extremity clot (DVT) during the long flight from Boston to Israel, or the return flight. Andrews was one of the players to joined Kraft in his yearly trip to Israel. Long flights are one of the most high risk activities for development of clots, which is why I take an aspirin and use compression stockings for any flight longer than 4 hours. The lower extremity clot(s) then likely traveled up into his lungs. Once the clots have dissolved/reabsorbed, his risk for another clot going forward would be no greater than any of us. The typical course for being on blood thinners is six months, if the screening for clotting disorders is negative.

One of the most dangerous and damaging risks of a severe COVID-19 infection is dramatic clotting that can occur (something that is not associated with the seasonal flu) but this affects those without any prior history of clotting or a genetic predisposition to clotting as well.

 

[Ross12]

Congratulations, in a single post you have demonstrated and you have no idea what the f*ck you're talking about. Stay in your lane and stop getting your talking points from Breitbart News message boards. The contention that death rate is the only important statistic, when it comes to an epidemic or pandemic, is used as internet red meat for the simple minded and the misinformed.

Here's How COVID-19 Compares to Past Outbreaks


SARS is another type of coronavirus that came out of China and spread quickly through respiratory droplets. Though the SARS death rate was higher than COVID-19, COVID-19 has already claimed more lives.

According to Johnson, contact tracingTrusted Source — or monitoring people in close contact with those who contracted it — was really effective with SARS, largely because symptoms were severe and therefore easier to identify and contain.

In addition, Schleiss said the SARS virus didn’t have the “fitness to persist in the human population,” which eventually led to its demise.

Schleiss added this doesn’t seem to be the case with COVID-19, which seems to be able to spread and thrive in the human body.

Overall, though SARS’ death rate was higher, COVID-19 has led to “more fatalities, more economic repercussions, more social repercussions than we [had] with SARS,” Johnson said.

This article was from March 12 and COVID-
19 had already caused more than six times the number of global deaths as SARS 2002-3.

Let me guess, you are among the millions of morons who don't plan to get the vaccine, once it is, hopefully, available in 2021?

Calm down and respect your fellow board members. No reason to speak to others like this.

 

[Ring 6]

Got any statistics on athletes getting the virus not dying but having damage done to their lungs such that they can no longer compete? Nah, didn't think so.

Do you?

 

[Simpelton]

He stated a fact and made no commentary about what the fact implies.
However in relation to what risk you take by exposing yourself, the mortality rate would be pertinent if not the most important fact.

Not just no but HELL no. The infection rate is the most important fact. Without infection, mortality is impossible after all.

And the infection rate for COVID-19 is off the chart compared to any other similar virus in the last 100 years. It's as infectious as the so-called Spanish Flu epidemic that started 103 years ago, the only reason it isn't killing as many people is we're much better at treating the complications that killed a lot of people a century ago like pneumonia and secondary infections.

Not to mention that mortality rates ignore significant life altering changes in condition that are potentially serious in their own right. Permanent lung and kidney damage are both significantly notable aftereffects of the disease and can definitely impact athletic performance.

 

[Simpelton]

Do you?

He doesn't need them. The fact that it's clearly possible is all the incentive athletes need to be cautious. This argument is only really a problem for those who are trying to claim that there ISN'T a problem. You can't just moo out a mindless "no u" and go back to your cud on this one.

 

[BTTA]

Of potentially getting COVID and dieing or having lasting damage for the rest of his life because of it ? Or bringing it home with him and infecting anyone in his family who then might be hospitalized because of it ? He has been working at the very frontline as doctor and therefore actually knows how serious the situation is.

Unless you are part of the bottom earners and really need the money there are many more reasons to sit this season out than to play. Gotta think long term. Let the contract toll, live off the opt-out stipend for a year and reevaluate where things stand next year.

Also since you are bringing up risk, here is what falls into the "high risk group":



Over half of all NFL players are high risk.

OK, but wait. This is mixing categories. There are risks created by specific medical conditions, and then there are demographics of people who have a higher incidence of those conditions, and there are demographics of people who have lower access to quality health care.

Some NFL players fall into the first category, for sure. But very few of them (compared with the overall population) have problematic medical conditions, and all of them have access to quality health care.

 

[Brewskies]

Interesting how a player can just simply opt out when they are under contract.

These are different times. When most contracts were signed in the NFL, COVID-19 wasn't running rampant.

 

[Ring 6]

Not just no but HELL no. The infection rate is the most important fact. Without infection, mortality is impossible after all.

And the infection rate for COVID-19 is off the chart compared to any other similar virus in the last 100 years. It's as infectious as the so-called Spanish Flu epidemic that started 103 years ago, the only reason it isn't killing as many people is we're much better at treating the complications that killed a lot of people a century ago like pneumonia and secondary infections.

Not to mention that mortality rates ignore significant life altering changes in condition that are potentially serious in their own right. Permanent lung and kidney damage are both significantly notable aftereffects of the disease and can definitely impact athletic performance.

In a conversation about the risks of if you catch a virus mortality rate is a very important statistic.
You making up the fact that stating mortality rate means you are saying it’s all that matter is a you problem. You are arguing with yourself.

 

[Ring 6]

He doesn't need them. The fact that it's clearly possible is all the incentive athletes need to be cautious. This argument is only really a problem for those who are trying to claim that there ISN'T a problem. You can't just moo out a mindless "no u" and go back to your cud on this one.

Wait so the guy invalidated someone’s argument by asking that question and the answer is irrelevant? Wtf?

 

[Hyped]

How can covid deaths be underreported?
It is widely known that state governments and hospitals are incentivized with aid for calling a death a covid death. There are plenty of anecdotal cases where families are saying deaths were miscategorized.

The number of positives of course is understated because many people have had it and never knew. The number of deaths is certainly not understated.
The trends are also extremely misleading because more tests will result in more positives and many more tests are being done. Plus they are counting previously infected people with antibodies as being infected now. That’s a miscalculation affecting them trends doubly.

- Not arguing that hospitals aren't incentivized.
- Anecdotal evidence is nice, but meaningless.
- Not arguing the number of positives. Arguing that "deaths are understated".
- Yup, more tests = more positives. No argument there.
- Don't care about recounting previously infected folks. I am saying that even if we are miscounting, the number of deaths is statically likely understated/undercounted.

-Here are some links (including the CDC's official one):

Official U.S. coronavirus death toll is 'a substantial undercount' of actual tally, Yale study finds
The Uncounted Dead
COVID-19-associated Deaths Significantly Undercounted
Excess Deaths Associated with COVID-19

Last, but not least....this is a NFL player "opt out" thread...not a COVID-19 one. So, I am stepping out here....I'll just click on "useful" in response to your inevitable response to my response to your response to my original post, LOL.

 

[Clonamery]

Do you?

I know of two competitive long distance runners (1 Ironman) who will no longer compete. There is also the baseball player, Eduardo Rodriguez. Let’s call him day to day with myocarditis.

My point is that it’s not simply, have the virus get better because you’re a world class athlete or die if you’re elderly or have an underlying issue like some seem to imply. The individual risk for permanent damage to lungs, etc. is real for anyone, athlete or not.

 

[Simpelton]

Wait so the guy invalidated someone’s argument by asking that question and the answer is irrelevant? Wtf?

We don't need stats to prove there's a risk. You need stats to even begin to try to prove a negative, that there's no significant risk to athletes. not every opposite is symmetrical.