Printable View
So by "read an article", do you mean you actually found a peer-reviewed article in a medical/science journal and got this info directly from the source?...or you read some random article that popped up in your Google feed?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bdawg
Dang! Is this post gonna go away soon, I thought ED was about Msu sports?
Where are the mods?
To make my post sports talk, I think we are a 5-7 team, improved but so is everyone else! Defense looks ok but may lack depth. Offense, improved but how much is the question? I think we are solid at our special teams.
So you think we only win one conference game? I think our floor is 6-6 and ceiling is 8-4 this year.Quote:
Originally Posted by basedog
I'm thinking we will lose a non conference game, I'm not sure we are last or not in the west but we a for sure close if not. I do think we could win 6 games, I'm not sure again about the overall play making ability. I do think Will Rogers will be much improved, I just hope he can stay healthy.Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelCurtain74
Yeah I'm done now. Some people just can't stand a point of view different from their own. Back to sportsQuote:
Originally Posted by basedog
Lol. Really? I asked you to provide the source of your point of view so I can read it for myself. You know, to understand where you're coming from by comparing it with what I've read.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bdawg
If you're going to cut against the grain to that extent, I'd think one would be eager to share such novel insight.
Good for you and I hope others follow suit! And to add, I really like our DC, and we need play makers, I just can't see the "small game" being successful in the Sec, maybe for Bama because they have so much depth, size, speed and tradition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bdawg
No one wants to answer my questions about natural immunity, either, with sources. Never mind that I've talked to Drs., too. It's cool. It's America everyone free to choose(unless mandated) and decide what's best for themselves. Have a good one. You can have the last word. I won't respond.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeardoMSU
Our DC did a lot with little last year imo given who all played in the back field. What do you mean by "small game"? I like our LBs and I think we are plenty good in the back field. Hope our DL holds up because that's where it counts. But I think we will be fine there too. I think the 3-3-5 is what's necessary to put speed on the field to cover space like these spreads O are doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by basedog
You know what they call therapeutics that have established scientific evidence of actually working, medicine. Until then, it is essentially a placebo. Cannot be proven to help, just coincidental that some folks get better when taking them. Indistinguishable from the base statistical case. That is why they dismiss them.Quote:
Originally Posted by coastratdog
"Small Ball", little dink passes, no speed and open field runners with moves or break away speed. Oh I know we need some, but you gotta run the ball and throw the ball downfield more. We ain't gonna be very good against a 8 man front without stretching the defense and of course knock them off the ball. I think our OL may be be better, but depth again is a question in my mind!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bdawg
I got you. You were talking defense and I thought you were saying"small game" in reference to our 3-3-5. I think on O Will will be more apt to check to run plays this year to get people out of the drop 8. He should be much more comfortable this year running the O and getting us in the right play.Quote:
Originally Posted by basedog
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsan...cdc-chickenpox
"For the delta variant, the R0 is now calculated at between six and seven," Wenseleers says. So it's two- to three-times as contagious as the original version of SARS-CoV-2 (R0 = 2 to 3) but less contagious than the chickenpox (R0 = 9 to 10).
So why did the CDC say the delta variant was "just as transmissible as" the chickenpox?
For one, the leaked document underestimated the R0 for chickenpox and overestimated the R0 for the delta variant. "The R0 values for delta were preliminary and calculated from data taken from a rather small sample size," a federal official told NPR. The value for the chickenpox (and other R0s in the slideshow) came from a graphic from The New York Times, which wasn't completely accurate.
...
CDC is using NYT for R0 values? Jeez
The problem isn't number of rooms. It's staff. We are down 2,000 nurses in this state from this time last year. That is disturbing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Liverpooldawg
I?m in healthcare. I?m not on front lines by any means, but have some insight. It?s not good right now from their perspective . My boss just gave us a rundown of the situation and the projections of the weeks to come. A lot of nervousness and fear about the coming weeks.
That sucks man.Quote:
Originally Posted by William Tecumsah Sherman
Where are you, btw?
Jackson metro. Like I said, I?m not in the thick of it, thanks to the Lord. But we just had a meeting and info was relayed. They are anticipating a very difficult month ahead. Hopefully projections are wrong.
Thank you for sharing this! It really helps promote accurate information, as we all know that memes from musicians on social media is the "go to" place for all health related information. I wish I had seen this before getting vaccinated. Had I know that PHDs in Wood Science and/or Parapsychology were questioning the science - I would have taken a closer look...Quote:
Originally Posted by msstate7
It should be interesting. Following India and EU models with the variant puts us at around the half way mark of where they were. Should we follow the same model we should start seeing cases go down in the next two weeks. Not saying I'm right or wrong just looking at how fast Delta has moved through other countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by William Tecumsah Sherman