drfish

My thoughts. 1. Re-watched a couple of times. Still way too many flags on 1st O. GE22 needs to not get quite so deep when he leaks out of the backfield as the safety valve. I'll reserve judgement on the check down throws. I am not sure how you throw with touch laterally with a 30 MPH crosswind. Otherwise, on the downfield throws, I thought Martinez looked pretty good. His numbers weren't as good as they could have been if 3 completions weren't called back by penalty and a couple catchable drops were caught. No passes like the 2nd INT at Rutgers. I don't count the 40 yards in the air against a 30 MPH headwind on the last play of the half that was about 2 yards short of dropping over for a TD. I think the 1st O would have had a better chance of scoring more TD's if it wasn't touch football. In the second half the RB had pretty good YAC (albeit against lower unit defense). I don't remember one bad snap from Cam. I will be interested to see how it translates to REAL action in the fall. 2. Never want to see Thud again in a spring game. Thud is a dud. 3. I think people largely saw what they wanted to see. Good or Bad.

On that tweet that Mavric posted, it looked to me like AM looked down at Stoll coming on the crossing route from the right to get Wandale open with his eyes. I liked that a lot

Frost pretty much says what he thinks. He has been obviously frustrated by the inconsistencies and the lack of maintaining focus plus he has gotten a lot of heat nationally when if you look at what he said he probably had valid points. He got hammered for pushing to play when the conference shut things down, but if you look at what he actually said just before that he said that not having football would not prevent players from being exposed to covid. If anything, they were probably safer playing because there would be much more motivation to avoid riskier behavior, vis a vis covid. I suspect that is correct especially as it appears outdoor activity is pretty low risk. Then when he pushed for a replacement game and said other schools might appreciate the ability to do that he was hammered again, but how much happier would "t"OSU be if they knew they could go out and get another game if the "team up north" is unable to go. (Of course the BIG will change those rules if they risk keeping OSU out of the playoff.

Cities in the midwest (where COVID is rising significantly compared to the coasts) with large university populations. Yes, they have football teams. They also have thousands of students who are more prone to party and ignore prevention recommendations. This is probably cherry picking data (using the data that support your premise while ignoring the data that do not support it (Americans have become very good at this) and cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy (occurring together, therefore there is a causal relationship. Does anybody REALLY believe that it is due to football teams spreading virus and not irresponsible general college population spreading virus? If anything, the virus rates in all 5 conferences and the timing of the start of play suggests that the two are not related since the relationship to 1st game played and increases are much different. Relating COVID spikes to FBS power 5 football is not supported by an initial look at the data. If it was football related, then the curves in all the conferences should begin at roughly similar intervals from the onset of play. I would argue that the graph shows the opposite. There is no consistent relationship between the onset of games in power 5 conferences and the onset of spikes in cases.

I guess i will weigh in on this with my random thoughts. 1. Treatments have improved as you would expect it would as we gain more experience. 2. Covid deaths are under-reported. The CDC information that is bolded in Hilltops post is not saying that cases are being misclassified as COVID 19. It is saying that deaths that are likely directly or indirectly caused by covid are being classified as something else. 3. Masks are the single most effective source control (something designed to prevent an infected person from spreading the infection to others) measure available to decrease the spread from asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic persons. Self-isolation being the most effective for symptomatic individuals. Anecdotally (which is clearly not scientific) in the case of our facility, we have had a few cases amongst the staff, but almost all could be traced back to a family contact and were not acquired through contact with patients (all staff and all patients are required to wear a mask with rare exceptions). If masks were not very effective, I would have expected more cases of spread to staff from patients. Most of the community acquired cases that I have seen have been related to mask-less exposures at family or similar events. 4. Most business (with the exception of bars and restaurants where mask wearing is not possible) can be conducted in reasonable safety If staff and customers wear masks and try to keep their distance from each other. We have to be mindfull that excessive restriction of trade will results in significant hardship as well due to loss of livelihood which can certainly have a negative impact on health. Plus, we can't continuously depend upon the Federal Santa to keep printing money to give out without expecting to pay the price later. 5. The failure to issue a mask mandate by many Governors around the country is a lack of responsible leadership. It would be like saying, "I think nobody should drink and drive, everyone should use good sense, but we cannot mandate not driving while intoxicated. " 6. I would have no problem with people refusing to wear masks if the mask protected them and not the others around them. If you want to take a health risk, fine. You are an adult and you can make your own decisions. However, the decision not to wear a mask is a decision to put the people around you at risk and you don't have a valid right to do that. 7. Taking reasonable precautions in not "living in fear." 8. Refusing to wear a mask in a business that asks you to do so is being a selfish a$$hole.

Personally, I hope Mertz positive test turns out to be a false positive one. I am encouraged by what I saw from the defense during the first half at OSU. I am hopeful that the coverage will tighten up a bit, but I doubt Mertz has as much escape ability as Fields does. It wasn't a fluke that the score was tied with 4 minutes to go in the half. If Nebraska corrects the correctable, they have a good shot against most of the rest.

The mortality rate for COVID-19 in those age 10 to 20 (the closest group was reported) was 0.2% . The mortality of influneza in 2019 was 0.002% (ages 5-17). For 2018 the mortality rate of influenza was 0.007% in that age group. This is a moratilty rate that is 100 times higher than influenzas. Please stop spouting off information of the top of your head or that you have heard some other ill-informed person say and check the S@#t out. Also, for those who are interested in that sort of thing there is a book, "The Psychology of Pandemic" that goes into peoples reactions to pandemic events. It is surprising how similar it is compared to 1918, and the 1300's (bubonic plaque). A good read. Mods please forgive me, I was only trying to provide context for the rationale behind the Big Ten COVID protocol. I promise that this is that last ignorant post I will respond to in this thread. What does it mean for Wisconsin if Mertz is confirmed positive. What does it mean for Nebraska if he isn't? Those would be interesting things to discuss.

Myocarditis is the 3rd leading cause of sudden death in athletes. COVID causes myocarditis, including MRI findings in athletes with MILD or NO symptoms. /rant Additionally, I suspect that you and your 43 friends would not be a very close match for the stresses put on a body by the rigors of division 1 competitive athletics, so your observations are pretty meaningless in assessing the risk to said athletes. Except, perhaps the incautious nature of people of that age. I know quite a few people who have dealt with COVID as well. 2 or 3 who had it in May are still having headaches and fatigue causing a major impact on their ability to return to their previous level of function. I know several more who had a rough time of it, including hospitalization. This group does not compare well with the athletes in question either. I also know people who have lost friends and family members to COVID, so take that for what it is worth as well. It is possible that we are being more cautious than is necessary, but we do not know enough to know that. Is it better to err on the side of caution or err on the side of recklessness. How many potentially preventable deaths are acceptable in your estimation? I don't necessarily mean to be harsh, but being on the front lines, I am losing patience with COVID minimizers. If your point is to imply that COVID is not as bad as it is being made out to be, please spare me. There have been 300,000 more deaths in 2020 than would be expected to occur based on usual all-cause mortality. It is likely that COVID related deaths are being under-reported not over-reported. /endrant Back to the thread. Anyway, if Mertz is unable to go and Wisconsin doesn't have an outbreak that prevents the game from occuring, this is a stroke of luck for the Huskers since they will be down two DB starters for the first half. Hopefully, he does not have it, though.

Won't see a better QB all season. Probably not one as good. The possible COVID on Mertz may mean we don't face him. He looked pretty accurate. It is hard to beat a QB that puts the ball exactly where it needs to be time after time after time without significant pressure. Won't see a set of WR's that good either. I was really encouraged by what I saw. How many 3rd and shorts did they stuff Saturday. When was the last time you saw that from the Husker D. That was probably the most physical I have seen the defense be in some time.

One last item. The CDC's 10 day recommendation which is that you may end self-isolation when you are 10 days post onset of symptoms AND have no fever for 24 hours without taking any fever reducing medications AND have improvement in symptoms, though resolution of symptoms is not required. The former re-testing protocol has been discontinued because they have not been able to isolate replicable viral RNA (essentially infectious virus) by 10 days in anyone with mild or moderate symptoms that meets those criteria. They have been able to isolate non-replicable viral RNA in many people for weeks after infection. So CDC says you can end self-isolation 10 days after symptoms start or 10 days after a positive test if you were tested due to a COVID contact. In terms of athletes as an example, if an athlete has symptoms on Nov 1 and has a positive test on Nov 3, they would be required to self-isolate until Nov 11, at which point thay could return to in person activities, like classroom activities etc. They would be evaluated with EKG, high sensitivity troponin (a marker for cardiac injury) and an echocardiogram. I believe that they also may have to get a cardia MRI. If these are negative, they are put in a monitored re-conditioning protocol. This usually is 10-15 minutes of sub maximal exercise and gradually increases over the next 6 days to full participation. One final thought on the positive antigen test. I suspect that Nick Saban had a false positive rapid antigen test and then had 3 neg PCR tests so he was allowed to return to the sideline. Don't know that for certain, but seems logical.

Sorry to post again, but I was not complete. The time off could be longer if the re-conditioning doesn't go well. Also if there is evidence of myocarditis, the treatment is 3-6 months of rest. A lost season. I was involved in drafting the COVID protocol for our local area schools. The Big Ten's protocol is consistent with the American College of Cardiology recommendations. I believe the Big Ten would say that if it prevents one athlete from dying from Sudden Cardiac Death due to COVID, it was worth it. I would agree. The second test would indeed be a nucleic amplification test which is a more accurate test. All tests can have both false positives and false negatives.

Just for reference. The 21 day issue is present due to the following. The American College of Cardiology has recommended that all athletes who test positive for COVID-19 should have total rest (not bed rest, but no training at all) for a period of 14 days. Following 14 days of no conditioning and no weight lifting, they are probably put into a 7 days (assuming they perform adequately ) "re-conditioning" protocol. The concern is that there has been evidence that COVID-19 may cause myocarditis. Ohio State released some preliminary data in September where cardiac MRI's were done on 20 some athletes. 8 of these athletes met the MRI criteria for myocarditis. 4 had no symptoms and 4 had minimal symptoms. Myocarditis is an infection/inflammation of the heart muscle. Exercise during myocarditis can increase the severity. Myocarditis is the 3rd leading cause of sudden death among athletes. In Italy during their initial peak of COVID, there was a substantial rise in out of hospital sudden cardiac death, almost all of which was COVID related. That is the crux of the concern. 21 days is about the minimum that you could be out.

USA is number 1. As many have said already, please do not go out unless you have to. Please stay away from others if you do. Wash, wash, wash when you get home. For your co-workers sake DO NOT GO TO WORK SICK. Even if you don't have COVID-19, you will spread what you have around and schmuck's like me will have to try to sort stuff out.

I am gratified to see that many are starting to take this seriously. It is important that we do what we can to "flatten the curve" so that we do not overwhelm the medical system. The fact of that matter is that we don't really know what the attack rate for this virus will be (i.e., how many will catch it. We don't know what the final case fatality rate will be, 3% has been postulated, but we won't know for some time. One thing to remember is that, at least locally, we are not very many people with mild symptoms, so the actual number of cases is likely much higher than the reported case numbers. I do not know if that is the case for New York. We are still on target for 50,000 cases by Wednesday, but it looks like it will not be 90,000. The last 3 days or so have seen a slight slowing in the overall rate of increase of new cases, but it is not enough to say it is a trend. The danger in positions like Thurston's is that if we under-react, by the time we figure that out, it is too late to try to put the genie back in the bottle. Distancing is the only tool that we can be confident in at the moment. It is important to use it. We should all please remember that we are all in this together. If you have friends or neighbors in a high risk group, offer to pick up groceries for them if you are going. Also, we need to be cognizant of the fact that those with little means are likely to be most affected by the economic impact of this thing. Don't forget your local food bank. Stay home if you can. Go out if you must, but keep your distance from others (about 6') and wash your hands. 'There is a difference between panic and being smart. Again, if you have a fever and cough, please call your medical office before coming in. They can tell you if you need to be evaluated , or if you can care for yourself at home. Everyone with a cough that comes in burns up a mask that is hard to replace most people with have mild symptoms that do not require special medical care. Be Safe. will check in on Wed.

That is probably correct. We have not been testing much, so our actual numbers are going to be significantly higher. However, that is not a comforting thought as in places where community spread is established we are missing quite a few cases. The Imperial College report is rather chilling