Players opting out

[WarHeel]

4 hours ago, raz said:

and 78% of the people who get the virus have heart damage from it.   

Sources?

[LinvilleGorge]

15 minutes ago, WarHeel said:

Sources?

https://www.cardiovascularbusiness.com/topics/cardiovascular-imaging/78-covid-19-patients-heart-damage-recovery

[Moo Daeng]

16 minutes ago, WarHeel said:

Sources?

https://www.statnews.com/2020/07/27/covid19-concerns-about-lasting-heart-damage/

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2768916

[bLACKpANTHER]

1 hour ago, Cookie Lyon said:

The NFL and MLB have completely fumbled this from the beginning.

Kudos to Adam Silver!

 

NBA consistently miles ahead of any other league on a number of issues.. covid being #1 with a bullet

[Ship]

NBA can do this because they have the smallest amount of players and were at the end of the season so they don’t even have all teams. Even if NFL did conference bubbles there would be so many more players and staff. Seems like bubble is the best way to do it, but harder to practice 

[WarHeel]

37 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

https://www.cardiovascularbusiness.com/topics/cardiovascular-imaging/78-covid-19-patients-heart-damage-recovery

This is a study with 100 patients and the article clearly states “Our findings demonstrate that participants with a relative paucity of preexisting cardiovascular condition and with mostly home-based recovery had frequent cardiac inflammatory involvement,” so basically many of those with COVID were presenting with cardiac comorbidities to begin with.

[TheSpecialJuan]

Keep in mind, players have until August 3rd to opt out 

[WarHeel]

39 minutes ago, Moo Daeng said:

https://www.statnews.com/2020/07/27/covid19-concerns-about-lasting-heart-damage/

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2768916

Needs more studies. A 100 patient sampling from a cohort isn’t the gold standard to toss around percentage and generalize them for the entire population of those who have been diagnosed with COVID.

[LinvilleGorge]

3 minutes ago, WarHeel said:

This is a study with 100 patients and the article clearly states “Our findings demonstrate that participants with a relative paucity of preexisting cardiovascular condition and with mostly home-based recovery had frequent cardiac inflammatory involvement,” so basically many of those with COVID were presenting with cardiac comorbidities to begin with.

They did a test group involving a similar population that hadn't been exposed to COVID. Don't ask for sources when you already have your mind made up. Also, don't quote something and then display a stunning lack of understanding of what you quoted. "Paucity" means scarcity. Those people specifically largely did not have preexisting heart issues.

[WarHeel]

5 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

They did a test group involving a similar population that hadn't been exposed to COVID. Don't ask for sources when you already have your mind made up. Also, don't quote something and then display a stunning lack of understanding of what you quoted. "Paucity" means scarcity. Those people specifically largely did not have preexisting heart issues.

I have a better understanding of this stuff than about 99% of you on here. This study that you and another posted is a cohort study. Randomized controlled trials are the standard we need to set for research before we make generalizations. Otherwise we allow bias to control our outcomes.
 

Read up:

https://www.mdmag.com/journals/cardiology-review-online/2006/march2006/march-2006-glasser

“Using colon cancer as another example, one assumes at study outset that the subject is disease free (normal) at the time of enrollment; in fact, he or she may already have undiagnosed colon cancer. This could bias the study results because the exposure of interest (eg, a low-fiber diet) may have nothing to do with the outcome of interest (colon cancer), as the subject already has the outcome irrespective of the exposure.“

[LinvilleGorge]

8 minutes ago, WarHeel said:

I have a better understanding of this stuff than about 99% of you on here. This study that you and another posted is a cohort study. Randomized controlled trials are the standard we need to set for research before we make generalizations. Otherwise we allow bias to control our outcomes.
 

Read up:

https://www.mdmag.com/journals/cardiology-review-online/2006/march2006/march-2006-glasser

“Using colon cancer as another example, one assumes at study outset that the subject is disease free (normal) at the time of enrollment; in fact, he or she may already have undiagnosed colon cancer. This could bias the study results because the exposure of interest (eg, a low-fiber diet) may have nothing to do with the outcome of interest (colon cancer), as the subject already has the outcome irrespective of the exposure.“

Gotcha, so you just don't understand English and that led you to make an argument that was refuted by your own quote so now you choose to move the goalposts. 

No, it's not an absolutely conclusive slam dunk study and needs more study. But you can't simply outright dismiss things that don't fit with your preexisting confirmation bias.

[TheSpecialJuan]

[WarHeel]

7 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Gotcha, so you just don't understand English and that led you to make an argument that was refuted by your own quote so now you choose to move the goalposts. 

No, it's not an absolutely conclusive slam dunk study and needs more study. But you can't simply outright dismiss things that don't fit with your preexisting confirmation bias.

I misread the article as I was in between clients and I’ll own that but I’m not “moving the goal posts” as it’s still not the gold standard of studies and we need to stop spreading fear to the general public who doesn’t know how to interpret this data. 

[LinvilleGorge]

3 minutes ago, WarHeel said:

I misread the article as I was in between clients and I’ll own that but I’m not “moving the goal posts” as it’s still not the gold standard of studies and we need to stop spreading fear to the general public who doesn’t know how to interpret this data. 

Understood, but shouldn't that have been your first statement instead of your new goalpost location?