NUance

I'm watching the Matrix with my ten year old son. He's into it! We didn't finish it tonight because he had to go to bed. But I'm glad he is interested in a classic sci-fi film.

DABO: 'Zero doubt' NCAA football season will start on time." LINK ============================ There you have it, folks.

Where I'm at right now: Some articles say the anti-malaria drug touted by Trump is effective. Other articles say it's not. Some even say Trump is profiteering from it. I'm no doctor. I don't know which side it right. But I do think the truth of this matter will be determined shortly. It will be interesting to then see the reaction of the other side.

But then I read this: All that hilariously misguided and counterproductive criticism the media piled on chloroquine (purely for political reasons) as a viable treatment will now go down as the biggest Fake News blunder to rule them all. The media actively engaged their activism to fight ‘bad orange man’ at the cost of thousands of lives. Shame on them. LINK ==================================================== So ... what is the truth?

‘This is insane!’ Many scientists lament Trump’s embrace of risky malaria drugs for coronavirus By Charles PillerMar. 26, 2020 , 11:30 AM www.sciencemag.org When President Donald Trump recently touted the common malaria treatments hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine as potential remedies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), he ignited unprecedented demand for the drugs—and set scientists’ teeth on edge. And many are critical of the small French clinical study of just 42 patients that seems to have touched off most of the excitement. “The president was talking about hope,” Anthony Fauci, director of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said diplomatically at one of the White House briefings where Trump praised the drugs’ potential. Others are less diplomatic. Darren Dahly, a co-author of one of several critiques of the initial study and a principal statistician at the University College Cork School of Public Health, said it would be “egregious” to recommend treatments for millions of people based on such a small trial, regardless of its quality. “This is insane!” tweeted Gaetan Burgio, an Australian National University expert on drug resistance, noting what he sees as lapses in the 6-day trial, including inconsistent testing of virus levels in the patients. LINK ========================================================================== When I read this it sounds like scientists and journalist alike are condemning Trump for suggesting malaria drugs.

Columns: 1. Devaney 2. Ahman Green 3. Scott Frost 4. Kenny Bell

So it is written. So it shall be done.

I'm going old school: 1. Devaney 2. Turner Gill 3. Ahman Green 4. Johnny Rodgers

via an Adam Carriker Tweet: LINK Who would you take from each row? Who would you take from each column?

edit: I posted this as a test to verify the image would show up before starting a thread. LINK

I wonder if he's related to Bob Mcadoo? It's not a very common name.

Now that it's become more widely know (article and all) I'm guessing it'll be a movie before too long. It's a movie I'd like to see.

Wow, that was a great read!

Could Nebrasketball cause Covid-19?? I feel that way every time I watch a game.

Once we've brought back the diamond formation I hope we'll also implement the "Only Call Plays That Work" strategy!

It's clear China is under-reporting. By a lot. This NY Times article says China's official death toll is 3,322. Other sources estimate it's north of 40,000. LINK That said, even though China was the one who opened Pandora's box, they've done a decent job of containing it--once they realized the potential to become a pandemic.

Yeah, I don't have an issue with it either. And it's not like we had a choice last year. I'm not trying to bash Miles, but the cupboard was pretty bare when Hoiberg took over. Nebrasketball pretty much sucked this year. But imagine what would have happened if Hoiberg hadn't overhauled our roster with transfers.

Does anyone actually know the mortality rates? I've heard everything from 0.5% to 3.0%. A google of the topic reveals sources saying we're overestimating the death rate, and others saying we're underestimating it. This WebMD article based on a Lancet study appears to be the most authoritative. LINK They say 1.38%. overall, and provide a breakout of cases requiring hospitalization by age group (the graphic above). Edit: Here's an article on why death rates from various sources and countries differ: LINK

Got to hand it to Hoiberg. He's all over the transfer portal. Basically, it's how we recruit now. lol

Are you campaigning for Bernie Sanders?