Jump to content


Will There Be a 2020 Football Season?


Chances of a 2020 season?   

58 members have voted

  1. 1. Chances of a 2020 season?

    • Full 12 Game Schedule
      20
    • Shortened Season
      13
    • No Games Played
      22

This poll is closed to new votes

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 04/12/2020 at 06:09 PM

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Huskers93-97 said:

Sounds to me like you have "some" scientists against it. "some" scientists are a proponent of it. Which scientist to believe. Which study to believe? I cannot believe there can be such divide when it comes to everything on this issue. Sorry but Politics is the one thing that explains why there is such a divide. 

The scientists that promote HCQ also tend to promote crazy ideas like using alien DNA to cure disease. Not all scientists are created equal.

  • Plus1 5
Link to comment

1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

There's really big difference between scientists disagreeing and clinical trial data.

This looks like a sample of trial data to me? If anything I think we can agree on something. (Why can no one agree on anything with Covid)?

 

These seven studies include: an additional 400 high-risk patients treated by Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, with zero deaths; four studies totaling almost 500 high-risk patients treated in nursing homes and clinics across the U.S., with no deaths; a controlled trial of more than 700 high-risk patients in Brazil, with significantly reduced risk of hospitalization and two deaths among 334 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine; and another study of 398 matched patients in France, also with significantly reduced hospitalization risk. Since my letter was published, even more doctors have reported to me their completely successful use.

  • Plus1 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment

There's really not that much disagreement among scientists. Scientists are a lot more comfortable than politicians and the public when discussing uncertainties. We ask them for definitive answers but they typically want to know more before declaring anything as fact. We could all benefit from a peer review process, but we're incredibly impatient as a rule.

 

A Tea Party organization recently launched a group of front-line healthcare workers to promote hydroxychloroquine as both treatment and cure. The political motives are much clearer than the results -- the narrative is to go back in time and support Trump's early endorsement of hydroxychloroquine, blame the media for not reporting the success of hydroxychloroquine (only Breitbart covered their presser on the Capitol steps) and literally state that hydroxychloroquine and zinc eliminate the need for wearing masks. 

 

The medical establishment never said hydroxychloroquine wasn't worth pursuing: they knew all about it from malaria treatments. By the time Trump spoke they'd had the first run of tests and found the results to be either unsuccessful or inconclusive, but kept hydroxychloroquine in the mix. Trump took that tiny glimmer and ran with it.  Most folks in the medical community thought it was irresponsible for the President to endorse it as a cure to a frightened nation. That's not a conspiracy against Trump, but it does reveal why scientists would prefer he shut up about all the things he knows nothing about. 

  • Plus1 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
31 minutes ago, Huskers93-97 said:

This looks like a sample of trial data to me? If anything I think we can agree on something. (Why can no one agree on anything with Covid)?

 

These seven studies include: an additional 400 high-risk patients treated by Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, with zero deaths; four studies totaling almost 500 high-risk patients treated in nursing homes and clinics across the U.S., with no deaths; a controlled trial of more than 700 high-risk patients in Brazil, with significantly reduced risk of hospitalization and two deaths among 334 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine; and another study of 398 matched patients in France, also with significantly reduced hospitalization risk. Since my letter was published, even more doctors have reported to me their completely successful use.

That is from an opinion piece by a doctor, not a trial or even a paper. He provides no links to any of the trials he's claiming support his conclusions. The only paper he gives a reference to is his own paper from May 27.

 

What really undercuts his case though is the anecdotes he uses to draw conclusions from, which is exactly why clinical trials have strict controls and methodology - to prevent the exact cherrypicking of data to draw conclusions that doctor then does throughout the rest of the article. He doesn't point to any clinical trials because every clinical trial conducted so far contradicts his conclusion.

  • Plus1 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment

2 hours ago, Huskers93-97 said:

I just think people have been in such hysteria since this thing broke that no one has paused and said ok what are the actual risks here. 

 

What are the actual risks? Death is an actual risk to ~1% of those that catch the virus. Serious ongoing impaired health to some number of those infected is an actual risk. Literally the longer this goes on, and the more we learn about the health risks outside of death, the more we understand that this isn't just some bad case of the flu. One study shows 78% of recovered patients show ongoing heart issues. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2768916

 

Quote

I just dont think people would freak out over a small percentage of people with side effects. Hell have you ever read the small percentage of side effects they show on almost every prescription drug? Heart attack, stroke, on and on. No one worries about popping the pill when their is risk.

 

 

So your argument is that because small portions of the US sometimes voluntarily choose to take medication that might have negative health impacts we should just stop caring about a virus that continues to spread in which those that are infected have no choice? This is absurd.

 

If everyone listened to you we'd end up with 3.8 million people dead in the US alone with millions more suffering from ongoing heart/lung/psychiatric conditions. 1% doesn't sound like a lot until you do the math does it?

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Branno said:

 

What are the actual risks? Death is an actual risk to ~1% of those that catch the virus. Serious ongoing impaired health to some number of those infected is an actual risk. Literally the longer this goes on, and the more we learn about the health risks outside of death, the more we understand that this isn't just some bad case of the flu. One study shows 78% of recovered patients show ongoing heart issues. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2768916

 

 

So your argument is that because small portions of the US sometimes voluntarily choose to take medication that might have negative health impacts we should just stop caring about a virus that continues to spread in which those that are infected have no choice? This is absurd.

 

If everyone listened to you we'd end up with 3.8 million people dead in the US alone with millions more suffering from ongoing heart/lung conditions. 1% doesn't sound like a lot until you do the math does it?

We would reach herd immunity long before that happened... and your math is bad.  1% is only 3.28 million.  

 

In all seriousness, do any of you guys personally know someone who has had the virus that has some of the long term effects discussed?  I now know more than 20 people who have had it now.  It wasn't easy for some of them but all but one say they feel completely normal now.  The one that doesn't lost his sense of taste/smell.  It has just started to return 4 weeks after being diagnosed.  That was his only symptom.  

 

I do think it's serious even if it ONLY kills the .3% of people that my math comes up with.  It sucks that we as a society are going through this.  That said, I think it's crazy to not take all the information into account.  This doesn't impact kids the same way it does older adults.  Our kids can go to school and play sports.  Yes, they may have to quarantine for a while before they go visit family but that beats the heck out of not living their school/college lives for a year or two.  

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment

140,000 people are dead in six months from this virus and we've got people here continuing to downplay it, and pushing hydroxychloroquine as a treatment.

 

Really shows you where a portion of our population gets their news. Sad.

 

 

Quote

 

Hydroxychloroquine with or without Azithromycin in Mild-to-Moderate Covid-19

In this trial involving hospitalized patients with mild-to-moderate Covid-19, we did not find a significant difference in a 15-day ordinal clinical-status outcome among groups that received standard care, hydroxychloroquine alone, or hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin. Patients who received hydroxychloroquine, either with azithromycin or alone, had more frequent events of QTc interval prolongation and elevation of liver-enzyme levels than patients who did not receive either agent.

 

 

  • Plus1 3
Link to comment
29 minutes ago, Hilltop said:

We would reach herd immunity long before that happened... and your math is bad.  1% is only 3.28 million.  

 

In all seriousness, do any of you guys personally know someone who has had the virus that has some of the long term effects discussed?  I now know more than 20 people who have had it now.  It wasn't easy for some of them but all but one say they feel completely normal now.  The one that doesn't lost his sense of taste/smell.  It has just started to return 4 weeks after being diagnosed.  That was his only symptom.  

 

I do think it's serious even if it ONLY kills the .3% of people that my math comes up with.  It sucks that we as a society are going through this.  That said, I think it's crazy to not take all the information into account.  This doesn't impact kids the same way it does older adults.  Our kids can go to school and play sports.  Yes, they may have to quarantine for a while before they go visit family but that beats the heck out of not living their school/college lives for a year or two.  

 

You noted: I think it's crazy to not take all the information into account. You have ALL the information you need. And you made the solemn pledge that "student-athlete health and safety is paramount."

 

You have to make a decision here and each of these levels are different with these three things: students, student-athletes, finances, liability, media, brand, fans, faculty, staff, parents and ethics. Your decision must accompany all of these things and be taken into consideration. Please be specific. Do not weasel out of this by saying "I am not in this position." I just put you in these positions and you have to make a decision and tell us your plan of action. 

 

1. You are the President of the University of Nebraska system. What is your decision and what do you do?

 

2. You are the Superintendent of Schools in an area where there is an unusually high number of covid? What is your decision and what do you do?

 

3. You are Bill Moos. What is your decision and what do you do? 

 

4. You are Scott Frost. What is your decision and what do you do? 

 

5. You are the parent of a football playing student-athlete at Nebraska who has a chance at a pro-career. What is your decision and what do you do?

 

6. Your other child is a high school senior, not playing athletics. What is your decision and what do you do?

Link to comment

1-  I follow the local health directives in place at the time.  I absolutely open school if it's allowed.  

2-  I follow the local health directives in place at the time.  I absolutely open school if it's allowed.  

3-  I follow the directives of the B1G, NCAA, and local health directives in place at the time.

4-  What my boss tells me to do.  

5-  I tell them they are an adult and it's their decision.  Exactly what I told my son yesterday.

6-  I send them to school if it's open.  

 

You are making this way more complicated than it needs to be.    https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/reopening-schools.html

  • Haha 1
  • Fire 1
Link to comment

I don't mean to be bombastic or generate a gross over-simplification, but I'm going to do that a bit anyways:

 

Why are people critical of the 1% projected death rate? Yes, we're probably not going to have 3.28 million people die from it this year, but even the ~150k we have dead right now is disappointing.

 

What if we had been told that we could have a college football season in 2020, but one Husker player had to die? Or, 1% of college football athletes had to die? Would people be so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ about it all then?

 

I get that this isn't like heart disease or the flu, but it's something that SCIENCE is trying to guide us on... and we have a lot of people right now just saying 'meh... science schmience.'

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Enhance said:

What if we had been told that we could have a college football season in 2020, but one Husker player had to die? Or, 1% of college football athletes had to die? Would people be so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ about it all then?

 

Sadly, there is a significant portion of the population so selfish they are willing to risk someone else's life so they can have football.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, knapplc said:

140,000 people are dead in six months from this virus and we've got people here continuing to downplay it, and pushing hydroxychloroquine as a treatment.

 

Really shows you where a portion of our population gets their news. Sad.

 

 

 

i suppose this is the only one of the many studies done showing adverse results?

nothing positive out there on this drug....sigh

still many health care workers using. this as a preventative, they must be crazy.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
1 minute ago, hunter49 said:

i suppose this is the only one of the many studies done showing adverse results?

nothing positive out there on this drug....sigh

still many health care workers using. this as a preventative, they must be crazy.

 

You're welcome to provide studies from reputable sources that show it is an effective treatment.

 

Or would you like to hear from the FDA?

 

 

 

 

  • Plus1 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Visit the Sports Illustrated Husker site



×
×
  • Create New...