University of Illinois projects

Status
Not open for further replies.

GBRforLife1

Sophomore
Feb 18, 2020
1,457
2,395
113
I'm more worried about a player getting Covid 19 during activities away from the team. We are seeing this summer that a lot of our nation's young people simply will let the threat of getting infected stop them from going out and having a good time.
Because it's a non-issue for them. Most never even know they have it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OzzyLvr

ATLsker

Walk On
Sep 1, 2009
140
75
28
You need to take remedial math. That might be the worst attempt at statistical analysis I've ever seen. Using an extremely poor attempt at predicting deaths from an extrapolation from the general population to college athletes as the basis of your fiction was your first mistake. For a healthy 18-25 college athlete with no underlying disease process, the risk of death from COVID is bascially zero. The odds of having a football player die from COVID regardless of whether or not he's playing football or not is less than 1 in 100,000. There will be more college football players die in car wrecks this fall than will die from COVID over the next couple of years. Better make it illegal for them to ride in or drive cars.
LOL I get the feeling you didn't understand it. Maybe your kid can explain it to you.

"The odds of having a football player die from COVID regardless of whether or not he's playing football or not is less than 1 in 100,000"

Source for this wild claim (besides your butt)? The CDC says case fatalities are around 1 in 1,300 (no comorbidities, 10-19 age group). What do you think happens if 30% of players get it?
 

ATLsker

Walk On
Sep 1, 2009
140
75
28
The point is that a reallllly small death rate spread across 13,000 people is actually pretty deadly.
 

NikkiSixx

Graduate Assistant
Sep 14, 2013
5,517
3,661
113
In case you missed it, quite a few people on this board have had it already. I have a college aged kid who I'm afraid is going to be sitting at home taking classes on line that I'm paying 70K per year. And yeah my kid is on a college sports team. For a HEALTHY college aged kid this virus poses about as close to ZERO percent risk as it gets. I'm honestly more worried about some other infectious agent such as a strep than I am COVID for my 21 year old. I'm a medically trained professional. When "researchers" like this guy at Illinois release things like he did, the general is not equipped to analyze the projection with a critical eye.

Life involves some degree of risk no matter what. My "hobby" right now is considered to be one of the riskiest occupations for your health, injury or death in America and yet I do it and no I don't need the money. IF your kid has diabetes, severe asthma, cancer or some other disease process, then they shouldn't play football this fall. If he's healthy, I don't think we should deprive them of their college opportunities.
You don't really know enough about the virus to make those claims. You're only addressing the respiratory component of it and not the HIV component of it.

There is risk associated with life, with doing just about anything. However that risk has changed dramatically and is not at normal levels, no matter how hard you and others try to spin things as being normal, they aren't right now.

I do agree with letting people handle their own levels of risk tolerance, but in this case, the way it is spread works counter intuitive to the self or individual first model of things.

Read this all too common article about a person who took a risk, and lost not necessarily because of his own decision, but because of the stupidity and/or selfish acts of someone else.

https://www.wbtv.com/2020/07/02/yea...t-about-going-out-died-coronavirus-day-later/
 

Crazyhole

Junior
Jun 4, 2004
1,759
2,458
113
They say the virus had a mutation in Italy and is much more contagious here than when it first began. And a person can spread it asymptotically for days. It's great that we can be so cavalier with other people's lives I guess. But 130k+ dead is no joke to most people.
I read that this mutation is much more contagious but less deadly. That stands to reason when we look at the numbers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Charlie Marlow

dinglefritz

College Football Hall of Fame
Jan 14, 2011
23,859
17,465
113
You don't really know enough about the virus to make those claims. You're only addressing the respiratory component of it and not the HIV component of it.

There is risk associated with life, with doing just about anything. However that risk has changed dramatically and is not at normal levels, no matter how hard you and others try to spin things as being normal, they aren't right now.

I do agree with letting people handle their own levels of risk tolerance, but in this case, the way it is spread works counter intuitive to the self or individual first model of things.

Read this all too common article about a person who took a risk, and lost not necessarily because of his own decision, but because of the stupidity and/or selfish acts of someone else.

https://www.wbtv.com/2020/07/02/yea...t-about-going-out-died-coronavirus-day-later/
I've been either studying about or dealing with viruses including different corona viruses for almost 40 years. I have a graduate level professional degree in a medical field that routinely deals with epidemiological issues. What's your experience level?

So a guy with a gray beard who obviously is packing a few extra pounds and has who knows whatever other health issues, dies from the virus. Guess what. He was stupid for going to a party. and exposing himself to COVID. That's on him. That has nothing to do with college aged kids.
 

dinglefritz

College Football Hall of Fame
Jan 14, 2011
23,859
17,465
113
They say the virus had a mutation in Italy and is much more contagious here than when it first began. And a person can spread it asymptotically for days. It's great that we can be so cavalier with other people's lives I guess. But 130k+ dead is no joke to most people.
"they say". That is one theory that hasn't been proven. First we were told it can be spread asymptomatically. THEN the WHO and multiple other sources comes out and says no it can't. Then we were told it can be spread asymptomatically but that's rare. Now the CDC says it can be spread asymptomatically commonly. Which is it? IF it's suddenly more virulent then it's odd that the CFR continues to drop. Keeping preaching the gospel.
 

dinglefritz

College Football Hall of Fame
Jan 14, 2011
23,859
17,465
113
I read that this mutation is much more contagious but less deadly. That stands to reason when we look at the numbers.
Don't believe everything you read. It isn't suddenly vastly more contagious. It has more to with reaching a critical level of prevalence within a given population to where spread is more common combined with stupid behavior by people....you know like going out and marching for hours side by side screaming and yelling at the cops. The full effect of the spread from those protests is felt for weeks and amplifies as time goes on. I expect new attention to mask wearing and reducing bar capacity alone would be enough to dramatically drop the number of new cases within 3-4 weeks..
 

GBRforLife1

Sophomore
Feb 18, 2020
1,457
2,395
113
Are we still believing in the whole global conspiracy of scientists thing?
I believe facts. I have no idea what you're believing so stop the "we" garbage.

I know the head mask guy thinks masks are garbage in public and private until he's politically pressured to say otherwise:


As for scientists, here's what a Nobel Laureate says:
 

dinglefritz

College Football Hall of Fame
Jan 14, 2011
23,859
17,465
113
LOL I get the feeling you didn't understand it. Maybe your kid can explain it to you.

"The odds of having a football player die from COVID regardless of whether or not he's playing football or not is less than 1 in 100,000"

Source for this wild claim (besides your butt)? The CDC says case fatalities are around 1 in 1,300 (no comorbidities, 10-19 age group). What do you think happens if 30% of players get it?
The source is the multiple daily communications a Dr. I "know" gets from the CDC. Where do you see the CDC claim of 1 in 1,300 (no comorbidities) for 10-19 year olds? Link you source or at least give the name of the article. We've not had a single child even hospitalized from COVID let alone die from it in our area. My state has had 2 Kawasaki syndrome kids and they don't even know if that was from COVID. Neither of them died.

You do understand that all the CDC reports is what is given to them by the reporting Dr. or institution. They can only report IF any other comorbidites were listed on the death certificate. IF the Dr. only puts COVID down as the cause of death and not the child had cystic fibrosis, severe refractory asthma or leukemia then that is all the CDC "knows".

In Italy, in the early stages there were less than 1% of deaths (including the elderly) who didn't have another comorbidity. In our experience locally, if you don't have diabetes, heart disease, COPD or some other serious comorbidity, you're not dying from this. Even WITH some serious comorbidities, most people are recovering.
 
Last edited:

dinglefritz

College Football Hall of Fame
Jan 14, 2011
23,859
17,465
113
I believe facts. I have no idea what you're believing so stop the "we" garbage.

I know the head mask guy thinks masks are garbage in public and private until he's politically pressured to say otherwise:




As for scientists, here's what a Nobel Laureate says:
I cited an article in the LA Times where they interviewed Levitt I think back in February. It's really too bad that Levitt hasn't been leading our policies on this thing instead of a career bureaucrat. The guy has almost been exactly right on all of his predictions regarding this virus.
 

GBRforLife1

Sophomore
Feb 18, 2020
1,457
2,395
113
Don't believe everything you read. It isn't suddenly vastly more contagious. It has more to with reaching a critical level of prevalence within a given population to where spread is more common combined with stupid behavior by people....you know like going out and marching for hours side by side screaming and yelling at the cops. The full effect of the spread from those protests is felt for weeks and amplifies as time goes on. I expect new attention to mask wearing and reducing bar capacity alone would be enough to dramatically drop the number of new cases within 3-4 weeks..
Case numbers are already dropping. The shutdowns or delayed openings only hurt the economy. They're reactionary and too late.
 

GBRforLife1

Sophomore
Feb 18, 2020
1,457
2,395
113
The point is that a reallllly small death rate spread across 13,000 people is actually pretty deadly.
You're trying to take theoretical risk and pass it off as actual risk without providing any context or adjustment to real world effects on those numbers.

This is disingenuous at best, but probably ignorant and incompetent.

The fact remains the deaths in that age group are infinitesimal compared to others. And to college students with access to health care it's likely even smaller.
 

dinglefritz

College Football Hall of Fame
Jan 14, 2011
23,859
17,465
113
Case numbers are already dropping. The shutdowns or delayed openings only hurt the economy. They're reactionary and too late.
I've said it before, I'm not a fan of wide open bars. Maybe go to disposable bottles only and outdoor service but don't let people pack in a bar shoulder to shoulder. That kills me because a friend owns a bar/grill and it's my favorite place to sit at his bar and watch sports visiting with area acquaintances. People get really stupid with a drink or two in them. Shutting down the rest of businesses IMO was a really stupid thing to do.
 

NikkiSixx

Graduate Assistant
Sep 14, 2013
5,517
3,661
113
I've been either studying about or dealing with viruses including different corona viruses for almost 40 years. I have a graduate level professional degree in a medical field that routinely deals with epidemiological issues. What's your experience level?
"they say". That is one theory that hasn't been proven. First we were told it can be spread asymptomatically. THEN the WHO and multiple other sources comes out and says no it can't. Then we were told it can be spread asymptomatically but that's rare. Now the CDC says it can be spread asymptomatically commonly. Which is it? IF it's suddenly more virulent then it's odd that the CFR continues to drop. Keeping preaching the gospel.
wait, I thought you were the expert, now you don't know?

Have you even looked into the HIV inserts on the rna of the virus? nobody is talking about that part of it.

I find that very hard to believe that you would have that kind of experience and then not know anything about how the virus is spread or who to believe. If you have 40 years studying them, SURELY you have a colleague that has brought you up to speed on it.. or not..
 

Charlie Marlow

Assistant Head Coach
Sep 23, 2005
9,962
5,789
113
In Your Head
wait, I thought you were the expert, now you don't know?

Have you even looked into the HIV inserts on the rna of the virus? nobody is talking about that part of it.

I find that very hard to believe that you would have that kind of experience and then not know anything about how the virus is spread or who to believe. If you have 40 years studying them, SURELY you have a colleague that has brought you up to speed on it.. or not..
It's dingle's MO... he's the expert on every single topic.
 

Charlie Marlow

Assistant Head Coach
Sep 23, 2005
9,962
5,789
113
In Your Head
"they say". That is one theory that hasn't been proven. First we were told it can be spread asymptomatically. THEN the WHO and multiple other sources comes out and says no it can't. Then we were told it can be spread asymptomatically but that's rare. Now the CDC says it can be spread asymptomatically commonly. Which is it? IF it's suddenly more virulent then it's odd that the CFR continues to drop. Keeping preaching the gospel.
I's well understood that it is spread asymptomatically, don't be dense. I won't argue that the WHO and CDC has been mystifyingly stupid on some of what they have said. I mean I thought you were posting for weeks on end that it was spreading more than people thought. But now it's not? Scripps and Los Alamos seems to have identified the mutation and the r naught has been bumped from 2.5 to 5.7 the last time I checked. But what this board needs is another 10,000 posts from you preaching the same gospel. cute
 

Crazyhole

Junior
Jun 4, 2004
1,759
2,458
113
Don't believe everything you read. It isn't suddenly vastly more contagious. It has more to with reaching a critical level of prevalence within a given population to where spread is more common combined with stupid behavior by people....you know like going out and marching for hours side by side screaming and yelling at the cops. The full effect of the spread from those protests is felt for weeks and amplifies as time goes on. I expect new attention to mask wearing and reducing bar capacity alone would be enough to dramatically drop the number of new cases within 3-4 weeks..
Idk, it seemed to be legit. The virus now has more spikes that are used to attach to cells, making it more infectious but those spikes break off easier, or something to that effect.
 

Nebraska_Reality

Sophomore
Oct 23, 2019
1,074
481
83
I've been either studying about or dealing with viruses including different corona viruses for almost 40 years. I have a graduate level professional degree in a medical field that routinely deals with epidemiological issues. What's your experience level?

So a guy with a gray beard who obviously is packing a few extra pounds and has who knows whatever other health issues, dies from the virus. Guess what. He was stupid for going to a party. and exposing himself to COVID. That's on him. That has nothing to do with college aged kids.
Why aren't you directing more of your discontent towards the guy that showed up at the party knowing he was positive, but clearly not understanding that he could still pass it on while being symptomatic?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Charlie Marlow

ATLsker

Walk On
Sep 1, 2009
140
75
28
The source is the multiple daily communications a Dr. I "know" gets from the CDC. Where do you see the CDC claim of 1 in 1,300 (no comorbidities) for 10-19 year olds? Link you source or at least give the name of the article. We've not had a single child even hospitalized from COVID let alone die from it in our area. My state has had 2 Kawasaki syndrome kids and they don't even know if that was from COVID. Neither of them died.

You do understand that all the CDC reports is what is given to them by the reporting Dr. or institution. They can only report IF any other comorbidites were listed on the death certificate. IF the Dr. only puts COVID down as the cause of death and not the child had cystic fibrosis, severe refractory asthma or leukemia then that is all the CDC "knows".

In Italy, in the early stages there were less than 1% of deaths (including the elderly) who didn't have another comorbidity. In our experience locally, if you don't have diabetes, heart disease, COPD or some other serious comorbidity, you're not dying from this. Even WITH some serious comorbidities, most people are recovering.
Table 3: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6924e2.htm#T3_down

I don't doubt that the odds are super super low, I just think there is enough of a chance that there could be some bad implications for football.

And yeah, the data could be have errors like that. Especially when dealing with as small a number as we are discussing. We really need more time to gather data and study this thing.

Also there have to be football players with comorbitities. Tommie Frazier and Javorio Burkes come to mind. Even guys like Damion Daniels would probably struggle with a respiratory disease.
 

jlb321

Recruiting Coordinator
Aug 8, 2014
6,926
7,821
113
Truth about chloroquine finally came out after months of lies about the drug. How many deaths could have been avoided if people were able to take that drug? Thank your media and other morons for that.
If you are referring to the OBSERVATIONAL report from Henry Ford hospital that in addition to HQ also included several other therapies given at the same time - that paper has been met with near universal condemnation from the science community to the point where the authors and reviewers have been accused of negligence

an observational report is only for hypothesis generation that leads to proper trials
The gold standard is a prospective randomized controlled trial which has subsequently been done both in the US and U.K. based on these observations and showed no benefit with HQ

It is unfortunate that this was published after the authors themselves called for proper studies which had since been completed and showed no benefit

here’s how the head of biostatistics at Vanderbilt responded
 
Last edited:

GBRforLife1

Sophomore
Feb 18, 2020
1,457
2,395
113
I don't doubt that the odds are super super low, I just think there is enough of a chance that there could be some bad implications for football.
I don't. Now that we cancelled each other out the season can go on.


We really need more time to gather data and study this thing.
No we don't. We need to get back to living our lives. You really need to quit listening to the MSM. In this age group the flu is more serious than corona.
 

Baxter48

All-American
Sep 22, 2010
4,355
4,265
113
58
Gods country
Truth about chloroquine finally came out after months of lies about the drug. How many deaths could have been avoided if people were able to take that drug? Thank your media and other morons for that.
And the really stupid part was the people that had the symptoms were told to stay home self quarantine unless you basically need hospitalization, then it was almost to late. A Dr from Texas said she had her patients come in right away got tested and if they were positive she treated them with chloroquine, she had a 100% recovery. She said the sooner they were given the medication the better.
 

dinglefritz

College Football Hall of Fame
Jan 14, 2011
23,859
17,465
113
Table 3: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6924e2.htm#T3_down

I don't doubt that the odds are super super low, I just think there is enough of a chance that there could be some bad implications for football.

And yeah, the data could be have errors like that. Especially when dealing with as small a number as we are discussing. We really need more time to gather data and study this thing.

Also there have to be football players with comorbitities. Tommie Frazier and Javorio Burkes come to mind. Even guys like Damion Daniels would probably struggle with a respiratory disease.
Again. You need to take a remedial math class. Did you even look at the report you linked. Better read it again. You do realize that it has included the disclaimer "with REPORTED underlying conditions". You do understand what that means right? IF the Dr. or hospital doesn't include that the kid had chronic asthma (which most don't when filling out a death certificate) then the CDC doesn't get that information.

From that chart for 10 to 29 year olds out of TENS of MILLIONS of cases nationwide during that time frame they say we've had 4 deaths in the 10-19 age group and 24 in the 20-29 age group without KNOWN OR REPORTED underlying conditions. . Right off the bat I'll tell you that most of those deaths in that last group were closer to 29 than 20. You don't understand how these stats are arrived at and the PROBLEM with the variables such as the way a Dr. fills out a death certificate. We've not had a single kid hospitalized from COVID in our area. Not one. I've been reading (and understanding) epidemiological reports and statistics for 40 years.

People with ZERO epidemiological training and scientific background should NOT be trying to interpret disease statistics.

Javarrio had a KNOWN genetic renal disease. He CHOSE to continue to play football to get an education despite the risks. I know more about that situation than I can share. Tommie eventually was diagnosed with inflammatory bowel disease which IF he had been honest with his Dr.s about his GI symptoms probably would have been diagnosed and treated at a much earlier stage.
 
Last edited:

jflores

Offensive Coordinator
Feb 3, 2004
8,301
3,682
113
PSU announced it's first student death. Believe he lived off but near campus.

Going to happen but you can see why unis aren't taking fanboard advice to just go YOLO on the decision making process.
 

jflores

Offensive Coordinator
Feb 3, 2004
8,301
3,682
113
It's dingle's MO... he's the expert on every single topic.
Dingles educated in this. No reason he can't have an opinion and a strong one at that. Dingles not going to have an easy time with this because his opinion is at odds with most "folks who matter".

It's hard to be in a position you can't do anything about.
 

dinglefritz

College Football Hall of Fame
Jan 14, 2011
23,859
17,465
113
It's dingle's MO... he's the expert on every single topic.
In this case I am an expert on this. I've lived epidemiology and population medicine for nearly 40 years in my professional life. I've read thousands of scientific reports and studies during that time SOME of which dealt with Corona virus. My family is also living with this every day of the week as my spouse is THE expert on this specific matter in our area. When you read studies one thing that always has to be considered is the sampling error. There's a HUGE issue when you have a variable where you're relying on thousands of different Drs filling out death certificates for patients. Some of those Dr.s don't take the time to even read the patient's history when they get called on to pronounce a patient dead and sign a death certificate. You can NOT take that information and come to the conclusion he came to based on what is in that data from the CDC. Yes young people are going to die from this but, IF they're healthy the risk is basically zero.
 

dinglefritz

College Football Hall of Fame
Jan 14, 2011
23,859
17,465
113
PSU announced it's first student death. Believe he lived off but near campus.

Going to happen but you can see why unis aren't taking fanboard advice to just go YOLO on the decision making process.
There are going to be hundreds of deaths in college aged people with comorbidities. That happens every single year in college students from influenza and pneumococcal pneumonia and meningitis as well.
 
Last edited:

dinglefritz

College Football Hall of Fame
Jan 14, 2011
23,859
17,465
113
If you are referring to the OBSERVATIONAL report from Henry Ford hospital that in addition to HQ also included several other therapies given at the same time - that paper has been met with near universal condemnation from the science community to the point where the authors and reviewers have been accused of negligence

an observational report is only for hypothesis generation that leads to proper trials
The gold standard is a prospective randomized controlled trial which has subsequently been done both in the US and U.K. based on these observations and showed no benefit with HQ

It is unfortunate that this was published after the authors themselves called for proper studies which had since been completed and showed no benefit

here’s how the head of biostatistics at Vanderbilt responded
People were grasping at straws when that report came out. That said, I can't find any peer reviewed papers that assess if it helps lessen the severity of disease if taken prophylactically as it is taken for malaria. It may very well limit infections if taken prior to exposure. We don't know. The only studies I've read dealt with hospitalized patients who are already very sick. Initial reports versus a peer reviewed paper are way different animals. The media reporting from people with very limited knowledge has fueled a lot of misconceptions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OzzyLvr

jflores

Offensive Coordinator
Feb 3, 2004
8,301
3,682
113
Nebraska athletic director Bill Moos and Hogue both said following best practices for testing, as recommended by NCAA and conference medical experts, is the only option when dealing with the health of athletes.

"We're not going to skimp," Moos said. "That is a legitimate expense, and it's something we are prepared to incur."


Seems we can argue about McCaffrey snap count now?
 

Red I 73

Senior
Nov 25, 2007
2,729
1,568
113
West Des Moines, Iowa
Nebraska athletic director Bill Moos and Hogue both said following best practices for testing, as recommended by NCAA and conference medical experts, is the only option when dealing with the health of athletes.

"We're not going to skimp," Moos said. "That is a legitimate expense, and it's something we are prepared to incur."


Seems we can argue about McCaffrey snap count now?
McCaffrey gets paid per snap count??
 

jlb321

Recruiting Coordinator
Aug 8, 2014
6,926
7,821
113
People were grasping at straws when that report came out. That said, I can't find any peer reviewed papers that assess if it helps lessen the severity of disease if taken prophylactically as it is taken for malaria. It may very well limit infections if taken prior to exposure. We don't know. The only studies I've read dealt with hospitalized patients who are already very sick. Initial reports versus a peer reviewed paper are way different animals. The media reporting from people with very limited knowledge has fueled a lot of misconceptions.
post exposure prophylaxis - no benefit in this NEJM paper

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638
 
  • Like
Reactions: dinglefritz

dinglefritz

College Football Hall of Fame
Jan 14, 2011
23,859
17,465
113
post exposure prophylaxis - no benefit in this NEJM paper

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638
The first red flag with this study is that the subjects who were enrolled and given "prophylactic" hydroxychloroquine were started on the drug within 4 days of diagnosis of their contact. The odds are very high that source of the infection was shedding virus for several days before that. Regardless, this a post-exposure pre-illness treatment for COVID. That still does not evaluate pre-exposure prophylactic use of the drug. Many people are already exhibiting symptoms by day 4 after exposure. That is what happens when peers review papers like this. They pick apart the information and point out the potential errors in the research or conclusions. This was great research but once again the information derived needs to be taken in the context of the methods.

IMO, the best way to determine efficacy would be to have people on hydroxycloroquine for a number of days THEN expose them to the virus via challenge. Would you like to volunteer for that study?
 

Crazyhole

Junior
Jun 4, 2004
1,759
2,458
113
The first red flag with this study is that the subjects who were enrolled and given "prophylactic" hydroxychloroquine were started on the drug within 4 days of diagnosis of their contact. The odds are very high that source of the infection was shedding virus for several days before that. Regardless, this a post-exposure pre-illness treatment for COVID. That still does not evaluate pre-exposure prophylactic use of the drug. Many people are already exhibiting symptoms by day 4 after exposure. That is what happens when peers review papers like this. They pick apart the information and point out the potential errors in the research or conclusions. This was great research but once again the information derived needs to be taken in the context of the methods.

IMO, the best way to determine efficacy would be to have people on hydroxycloroquine for a number of days THEN expose them to the virus via challenge. Would you like to volunteer for that study?
We will see that in Africa, although they don't keep very good records so it can and probably should be disregarded.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts