Aaron Rodgers has Covid

[Dantés]

Are you a medical researcher? I am not, nor would I ever claim to have done any research on COVID-19. I am happy to read in scientific literature -- I'm pretty good at understanding abstracts and articles, but I am absolutely a lay person.

Ok man... can we not with this trope?

How many thousands of times a day are people talking about Covid-- what they've read, heard, experienced, think, etc-- both sides sharing what they've learned, and one says "so are you an epidemiologist?? A doctor?? A medical researcher??"

Obviously not! I'm a dude on a Packers forum sharing my opinions the same as you are. Notice how I didn't ask for your credentials when you gave an opinion? What's even the point of that?

 

[sschind]

It’s been prescribed to hundreds of members of congress, btw.

That alone is reason enough to hope it is not effective.

 

[Budman]

The Chiefs just breathed a sigh of relief....

 

[swhitset]

That’s an interesting question. I know the answer. Roughly. It’ll also put this argument to bed that these deaths are “made up” for some political gain or to gain some strategic advantage.
We also couldn’t do this until very recently, so you would not have access to the result even 12 months ago.

Warning: Don’t do this if you’ve made it political or personal and you dont want the truth or you don’t want to be wrong. This will take a bit and I’m not doing it for you.

1. Take the total number of deaths in your nation (for those not in the States) in each year going back 10 years before covid started (through 2019)
Total deaths from every known cause.

2. Find the average rate over 10 years (great sample size) of increase or decrease in deaths per national population.

3. Throw out the 1 high

4. Throw out the 1 low.

Use those 8 years information as your average mean for rate in % of death per total population.

5. Take 2020 and calculate the rate of death on % per population. All deaths not just covid. Public record

6. At the close of 2021 take the death % for population. Public record

7. Compare the overall rate of death for each year 2020/2021 to the mean.

8. Put the false arguments to rest and quit making conspiracy theories that support your political or other affiliation

You do realize that the same people that claim that this is all made up will not understand anything about what you just posted….

 

[Half Empty]

The Chiefs just breathed a sigh of relief....

Is there record of making instant HOFers out of 'who dat?' backups so much better than the Packers? Heck, I'm thinking all the way back to Tom Matte.

 

[swhitset]

For a statistic to be a significant value one needs at least thirty data points. Eight data points is not considered statistically significant. Obviously, inside of your data set there are more than eight data points, but that's not how you are using them. You're using an average of those eight. I'd buy that equation if you did, say, the last forty years.

And this shows why all of this is so hard to quantify… going back 40 years introduces so many other variables into the death rates … that I’m not sure increasing the sample size does anything to help the validity of the conclusions.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

For a statistic to be a significant value one needs at least thirty data points. Eight data points is not considered statistically significant. Obviously, inside of your data set there are more than eight data points, but that's not how you are using them. You're using an average of those eight. I'd buy that equation if you did, say, the last forty years.

You don't need 40 years to see a difference in trends. Now, three years would obviously be too small but 10 years would probably do it, you're not attempting to make an inference in a population (which is what the large sample size will do) you're only trying to see if there's a material difference in a trend over time. You'll have to control for outside factors (e.g., with the lockdown and everything there were probably fewer automotive fatalities just because there was less driving going on) but there's no reason you can't look at a large jump in a relatively stable trend and make the connection between the onset of a sudden illness and a big jump in death rate. Additionally, when people DO use a massive sample size (like the population of the US dying from covid) you get a ton of other complains about doctors lying because, I guess, doctors are being paid by Big Oil for whatever reason. Some people want to believe the data and the experts while others want to believe politicians or chiropractors.

 

[Krabs]

And this shows why all of this is so hard to quantify… going back 40 years introduces so many other variables into the death rates … that I’m not sure increasing the sample size does anything to help the validity of the conclusions.

I beg to differ. If we are talking about a pandemic, and other factors that kill off populations, then it would be statistically accurate. I would actually like to see the results. I'm not going to do it myself because I don't care enough. All I know is Rodgers tested positive for Covid and will not be playing on Sunday. Due to Covid rules, he will be eligible to come back for the Seahawks game and well rested I might add.

 

[Krabs]

You don't need 40 years to see a difference in trends. Now, three years would obviously be too small but 10 years would probably do it, you're not attempting to make an inference in a population (which is what the large sample size will do) you're only trying to see if there's a material difference in a trend over time. You'll have to control for outside factors (e.g., with the lockdown and everything there were probably fewer automotive fatalities just because there was less driving going on) but there's no reason you can't look at a large jump in a relatively stable trend and make the connection between the onset of a sudden illness and a big jump in death rate. Additionally, when people DO use a massive sample size (like the population of the US dying from covid) you get a ton of other complains about doctors lying because, I guess, doctors are being paid by Big Oil for whatever reason. Some people want to believe the data and the experts while others want to believe politicians or chiropractors.

I beg to differ. My job is data analysis. If I presented a project with only eight data points regardless of the size of the average in the data point it would be rejected due to not being a significant sample size. However, if only eight to ten data points existed that would be a different story. This is if you do not mine any of the data, which you are suggesting to be done. I'm speaking clear raw data. With that said, then the pandemic would be an outliner and would have to be tossed out of the data set. Fun stuff guys!

Go Pack Go!

 

[swhitset]

You don't need 40 years to see a difference in trends. Now, three years would obviously be too small but 10 years would probably do it, you're not attempting to make an inference in a population (which is what the large sample size will do) you're only trying to see if there's a material difference in a trend over time. You'll have to control for outside factors (e.g., with the lockdown and everything there were probably fewer automotive fatalities just because there was less driving going on) but there's no reason you can't look at a large jump in a relatively stable trend and make the connection between the onset of a sudden illness and a big jump in death rate. Additionally, when people DO use a massive sample size (like the population of the US dying from covid) you get a ton of other complains about doctors lying because, I guess, doctors are being paid by Big Oil for whatever reason. Some people want to believe the data and the experts while others want to believe politicians or chiropractors.

That is why you are just measuring total deaths … The idea is that if there is a large jump in deaths in the period in question…. that something new must have happened to cause them. The point is you don’t need to rely on politicians, medical examiners … or anyone else. If there is a large increase in deaths in that period the you can make a pretty safe assumption that a large percentage of that increase is due to that new situation (Covid)… Now Krabs does have a point about sample size… but so do you about measuring trends over a few years.

 

[elcid]

Just here to say that I am happy that this happens now and not during the playoffs. Im also happy with how the team has handled it so far, given the incredibly difficult situation we are in. Last week we were high on the Cards game and felt like not only a Super Bowl but a continuation of the Arod chapter in GB was happening, now all is in doubt. However, I do want to weigh in on the whole COVID debate a bit.

I will tell a small story of my country (the Netherlands).Our population density is incredibly high as we have such a small country compared to the stretched out lands of the US, and that means our bars/clubs are also small and tightly packed usually. I do find it peculiar that I as a vaxed person can go inside freely by showing a QR code that says I am vaccinated, while I can still carry the virus around and actually still have a significant (albeit little smaller) chance of spreading it, whereas an unvaxed person has to test himself first. I do believe that I as a vaxed person, should also be tested when going to big or crowded events/establishments, and it is unfair to think that unvaxed people are per definition the only ones who can spread it and that measures should only be imposed on them. I dont really believe in pressuring this group, and I think its best to instead be respectful for any of their doubts (however baseless they may be sometimes) and patiently try to reason with them as imo they will otherwise only become more radical (I do feel that often they already question whether there is some globalist inner circle who want to make/keep us sheeple and pressuring them surely wont help)

That being said, lockdowns, testing, masks mandates, vaccines 3 feet away and all that are all proven to work (if only for a small extent, but you do what you can and the "sacrifices" are really minimal). Furthermore, the plan never was to eradicate the virus (any sane person would understand that its hear to stay) with these measures but to mitigate their scope as it was a general surprise attack to our healthcare systems. I do agree that governments have sometimes overreacted, but I also feel like some slack can be cut, given that very few people alive have lived through (and can therefore only realistically have imagined) such a global health crisis as today.

Also, I cant for the life of me understand why you wouldn't take the vaccine after almost a year now of being able to have observed it being distributed under most of the world population now. The jury is out and the side effects are so extremely rare that ts really mind boggling why you wouldnt take one. I also find it funny how people want to look at the possible side effects of the vaccine through a magnifiying glass the size of the Empire State Building, but whimp away any side effects a corona infection might have. Its become such a political and tribalistic issue that unvaxxed people are incredibly entrenched.

 

[Schultz]

Hopefully Love is vaccinated. That would greatly reduce his chances of having it.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I beg to differ. My job is data analysis. If I presented a project with only eight data points regardless of the size of the average in the data point it would be rejected due to not being a significant sample size. However, if only eight to ten data points existed that would be a different story. This is if you do not mine any of the data, which you are suggesting to be done. I'm speaking clear raw data. With that said, then the pandemic would be an outliner and would have to be tossed out of the data set. Fun stuff guys!

Go Pack Go!

If the government passed a huge tax increase on gasoline, you're saying it would take 40 years to see if there was a difference in gas consumption? I appreciate your work but my work is fairly heavily involved in both statistics and economics; seeing a material change in a trend can be examined and causes can be inferred before you get to 40 years of data.

 

[Krabs]

If the government passed a huge tax increase on gasoline, you're saying it would take 40 years to see if there was a difference in gas consumption? I appreciate your work but my work is fairly heavily involved in both statistics and economics; seeing a material change in a trend can be examined and causes can be inferred before you get to 40 years of data.

No, you can see a trend and I also agree you can see a trend with 8-10 data points. The original post said that it was a significant sample, which I disagree with. To be statistically significant one needs at least 30 data points. That's where I beg to differ. Although, I would still want to see more than 10 years of data on the gasoline tax. Can I meet you in the middle at 20 years?

Report, Rodgers is still out due to testing positive for Covid.

 

[Don Barclay]

Ok man... can we not with this trope?

How many thousands of times a day are people talking about Covid-- what they've read, heard, experienced, think, etc-- both sides sharing what they've learned, and one says "so are you an epidemiologist?? A doctor?? A medical researcher??"

Obviously not! I'm a dude on a Packers forum sharing my opinions the same as you are. Notice how I didn't ask for your credentials when you gave an opinion? What's even the point of that?

I have zero problem with your opinion, nor am I getting into a ****-measuring competition about who's "smarter" -- you're obviously a smart guy.

I do have a big problem with those who claim they are doing research when they are not. That is a really specific term, and for you OR me, or certain pro athletes (cough cough) to claim we are doing "research" on COVID is really disrespectful of how science happens. That is all I'm saying.

 

[Title Town USA]

The NFL rules are ridiculous with the CCP Virus. Let this crap go already. Nobody cares who has the vaccine. It's their personal business.

 

[Dantés]

I have zero problem with your opinion, nor am I getting into a ****-measuring competition about who's "smarter" -- you're obviously a smart guy.

I do have a big problem with those who claim they are doing research when they are not. That is a really specific term, and for you OR me, or certain pro athletes (cough cough) to claim we are doing "research" on COVID is really disrespectful of how science happens. That is all I'm saying.

Research is most definitely *not* a super specific, technical term. People use it casually literally all the time to refer to their own reading on a given topic.

 

[Don Barclay]

Research is most definitely *not* a super specific, technical term. People use it casually literally all the time to refer to their own reading on a given topic.

I have seen this recently -- but it's a real problem and a large part of why I think people are having a hard time understanding COVID and medical science. It *is* in fact a specific term that refers to systematic investigation, and to increasing overall knowledge and understanding. The fact that it is currently in widespread misuse is a problem. It isn't only in science: consider the phrase "research and development", for instance.

I can't make you agree with me, I know that. But the erosion of science in our schools and in our culture is real, and considering "reading" the same thing as "research" is not just a little semantic issue. It diminishes the U.S.A., which is not something I take lightly.

 

[Don Barclay]

And on that note, how about Jordan Love! Sorry for getting super-serious about a nitty-gritty detail. I will be really hoping that we've got Bakhtiari-Jenkins on the left side this Sunday, so we can maybe see a little bit of what JoLo can do.

 

[mongoosev]

Makes a person wonder how effective these Covid protocols are!

Makes you wonder how effective these vaccines are.

 

[Zad Fnark]

I'm sure MLF can build a good game plan around Love's strengths. Plus we have two excellent running backs.

 

[AGreen2AJones]

Because clothes mandates effectively prevent me and my children from seeing people’s junk.

Mask mandates don’t effectively prevent covid spread.

You can't tell me what to wear. If you don't like it, don't look.

 

[Dantés]

You can't tell me what to wear. If you don't like it, don't look.

So if the government told you to wear a clown costume everywhere you go, you would think that's reasonable because of indecent exposure laws?

Actually, are you wearing a clown costume right now?

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

Yes, but they work up the street.

What`s thier QB like ? Any good ?

 

[AGreen2AJones]

Because clothes mandates effectively prevent me and my children from seeing people’s junk.

Mask mandates don’t effectively prevent covid spread.

And masks do prevent spread. Why do you think surgeons wear masks??

But again, you say it's you're freedom not to wear anything, so it's my freedom not to wear something over my junk. It's just another body part. There's nothing special about it.