forums

Big 10 used a flawed report to make decision

Maybe the Big 10 realized the U.S leads in caes per day, deaths per day, overall deaths and overall cases and realized at this moment it's not worth it( no fans at games, lawsuits, etc)
 
Advertisement
AHURT12 said:
Maybe the Big 10 realized the U.S leads in caes per day, deaths per day, overall deaths and overall cases and realized at this moment it's not worth it( no fans at games, lawsuits, etc)
Click to expand...
The Big 10 isn't a hive mind that all thinks the same. It is pretty clear that not all of the Big Ten felt the same way. All those schools have doctors and at a minimum Nebraska and Iowa didn't think the info that was shared was enough to cancel in August
 
fincane said:
The Big 10 isn't a hive mind that all thinks the same. It is pretty clear that not all of the Big Ten felt the same way. All those schools have doctors and at a minimum Nebraska and Iowa didn't think the info that was shared was enough to cancel in August
Click to expand...

I think a season for all conferences could have been done but they would all need to be basically in a bubble if not it wouldn't work
 
fincane said:
They used it on NBA players and staff as they were about to start playing again and the results almost universally matched those of the nasal swabs used at the same time. Apparently the sensitivity rate is anywhere between 88%-94% according to the thread I read and because of the cost you can test more often and get more accurate results.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the information. A false negative rate up to 12% is better than the Abbott (as high as 20%) test but still will miss up to 12/100 persons who are positive with COVID. Hopefully the next time these 12/100 people are tested it will correctly result In a positive. This is why repeat testing is important on a frequent basis. In the meantime they are infective.
 
AHURT12 said:
Maybe the Big 10 realized the U.S leads in caes per day, deaths per day, overall deaths and overall cases and realized at this moment it's not worth it( no fans at games, lawsuits, etc)
Click to expand...
there are a large percentage of Americans that will never understand the desire of some to try to twist numbers in such a way as to make our own country look bad. To compare the numbers in the US to countries that have such different make ups (population density, immigration rules, customs and cultures etc etc) is so intentionally deceptive. BTW the infection rate in my house is 0% so I have handled covid better than any country in the world.
 
Ecush said:
there are a large percentage of Americans that will never understand the desire of some to try to twist numbers in such a way as to make our own country look bad. To compare the numbers in the US to countries that have such different make ups (population density, immigration rules, customs and cultures etc etc) is so intentionally deceptive. BTW the infection rate in my house is 0% so I have handled covid better than any country in the world.
Click to expand...

All ok
 
AHURT12 said:
Maybe the Big 10 realized the U.S leads in caes per day, deaths per day, overall deaths and overall cases and realized at this moment it's not worth it( no fans at games, lawsuits, etc)
Click to expand...
Maybe they didn't. This has been going on more months and all the numbets are fudged. If they looked at everything you mentioned without looking into ots validity it's a poor representation of an organization tied with higher learning...
 
AHURT12 said:
I think a season for all conferences could have been done but they would all need to be basically in a bubble if not it wouldn't work
Click to expand...
Then time for a new thought. The first didn't materialize like you thought it would..
 
Advertisement
Ecush said:
there are a large percentage of Americans that will never understand the desire of some to try to twist numbers in such a way as to make our own country look bad. To compare the numbers in the US to countries that have such different make ups (population density, immigration rules, customs and cultures etc etc) is so intentionally deceptive. BTW the infection rate in my house is 0% so I have handled covid better than any country in the world.
Click to expand...
It isn't rocket science. All those countries are like 1/50 of ours...
 
1LuvCane said:
Maybe they didn't. This has been going on more months and all the numbets are fudged. If they looked at everything you mentioned without looking into ots validity it's a poor representation of an organization tied with higher learning...
Click to expand...

All ok.
 
Ecush said:
there are a large percentage of Americans that will never understand the desire of some to try to twist numbers in such a way as to make our own country look bad. To compare the numbers in the US to countries that have such different make ups (population density, immigration rules, customs and cultures etc etc) is so intentionally deceptive. BTW the infection rate in my house is 0% so I have handled covid better than any country in the world.
Click to expand...
This is so very accurate. Data is being misused in a variety of ways every day to justify positions. Then legitimate questions are framed as denying science. The sad part is that we look to studies more and more and that means more bad studies are out there.
 
Advertisement
fincane said:
The Big 10 isn't a hive mind that all thinks the same. It is pretty clear that not all of the Big Ten felt the same way. All those schools have doctors and at a minimum Nebraska and Iowa didn't think the info that was shared was enough to cancel in August
Click to expand...
Correct. There were many reps from multiple departments from every Big 10 school. There was plenty of discussions and disagreements and needless to say at the end of the day the majority made The vote to shut it down. Now one guy disputes a study, one of many considered, and the experts here run with it. I posted in late July that the Big 10 season was in huge jeopardy and continued feeling that way throughout the process. I do not agree with the way the players have been treated through that process and feel the administrations kept kicking the can down the road knowing the inevitable all at the players expense. I see the same thing happening in the remaining 3 conferences and with the return of students to campuses spikes will occur. Baseball can’t stay clean and there are prisoners with more freedoms, so campuses will have a difficult time avoiding spikes. I hope I am wrong but I don’t see college football this fall. Your points are well taken and I’ll take my crow well done if I’m wrong.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Long (but abbreviated) review of the actual study.

I just read the flawed study. There are aspects of the data that are interesting. The guy who is contesting (prof D Francis) the study was especially interested in the EF of the control group. Namely that it was quoted as a tight range that was statistically not likely to happen. (incidentally, the normal mean EF that the D.Francis quoted was 70, which seems high to me, and he sort of tweets like an *******) This is sort of statistically nit picking, but i guess it is necessary to properly evaluate studies.

This oddly quoted EF does call into question the results.

The study did show evidence of raise native T1 in what 70% of the the recovering covid patients. (Native T1 is a biochemical marker for cardiac fibrosis, which implies some amount of scar tissue in the heart) along with some decreases in function (small, but statistically significant.) and some evidence of other inflammation.

The author of the study says there seems to be evidence of (SOME KIND OF) myocardial damage in severe Covid cases. But more studies need to be done. The contested EF mean score doesn't completely discount this assertion.

The reason I yelled SOME KIND OF, is this is a heart MRI, cellular level biomarker study. connecting some kind of myocardial damage with actual functional damage is another thing entirely. But, the contested numbers do throw into doubt the connection in this study between a biochemical markers and function effect. to some extent.

So there seems to be damage. but more studies need to be done. I'm interested to see how other, more qualified reviewers assess the study.
 
xbobdog said:
Long (but abbreviated) review of the actual study.

I just read the flawed study. There are aspects of the data that are interesting. The guy who is contesting (prof D Francis) the study was especially interested in the EF of the control group. Namely that it was quoted as a tight range that was statistically not likely to happen. (incidentally, the normal mean EF that the D.Francis quoted was 70, which seems high to me, and he sort of tweets like an *******) This is sort of statistically nit picking, but i guess it is necessary to properly evaluate studies.

This oddly quoted EF does call into question the results.

The study did show evidence of raise native T1 in what 70% of the the recovering covid patients. (Native T1 is a biochemical marker for cardiac fibrosis, which implies some amount of scar tissue in the heart) along with some decreases in function (small, but statistically significant.) and some evidence of other inflammation.

The author of the study says there seems to be evidence of (SOME KIND OF) myocardial damage in severe Covid cases. But more studies need to be done. The contested EF mean score doesn't completely discount this assertion.

The reason I yelled SOME KIND OF, is this is a heart MRI, cellular level biomarker study. connecting some kind of myocardial damage with actual functional damage is another thing entirely. But, the contested numbers do throw into doubt the connection in this study between a biochemical markers and function effect. to some extent.

So there seems to be damage. but more studies need to be done. I'm interested to see how other, more qualified reviewers assess the study.
Click to expand...
So … there's something going on, we don't know what, we need to study more. Did I get that right?
 
Let's just keep it real here.

The Big 10 Commissioner is a dumbass.

He specifically said that there is too much uncertainty to go forward and have fall sports in the Big 10.
He did not say why or how he came to this asinine conclusion other than general statements and excuses about science and doctors. And also said slogans like "we need to do the right thing".

He did this without a plan. What kind of leader is that?

He also did it 6 days after releasing a schedule.

It does not add up people.

And no study in the world is going to make it add all up.


There is no guarantee that any clinical study will prove any health improvements and alleviate safety concerns of the students in 2021, 2022 or 2023. So does that mean they will cancel the season in those years too?
Of course not.

This was not about health concerns. This is about other factors they do not want to talk about and /or are lying about.
 
Back
Top