11 hours ago, bpac55 said:

I'm not saying the studies that you read are wrong but you can find studies that support arguments that the world is ending and this virus isn't going away and you can find studies that show this just like the flu.

The problem is which studies can we truly believe and trust and which ones show what Americans are really going through.

I've read studies and articles by doctors that would contradict you 100%.  Articles and studies that show that if I MIGHT have been near someone who had Covid then I am presumed to also have Covid.  Another positive case being added to the daily increase with no testing done but let's show higher numbers to add to the doom and gloom.  

That's the most frustrating part for a lot of middle ground people.  Who are you supposed to believe anymore?  For everyone doctor that says my mask protects you and yours protects me there is another doctor out there saying masks can cause just as much damage and don't work.  Shoot the N95 mask cases say right on the side, does not prevent Covid spread.

I'm asking these questions not to slight the studies you've read but to show why there is so much disconnect and confusion.  I'd love just honest to goodness answers.

I am referring to peer-reviewed scientific literature.

Listening to the ITB podcast and they brought up a great point regarding Peters. Not only is he switching positions and switching sides in a shortened offseason, he doesn’t practice much and hasn’t for a long time. How will the Eagles handle him during a truncated camp? Can he afford to have a bunch of veteran days off?

Also, they mentioned that they still are high on Mailata and Caplan suggested Pryor is the top backup at all OL positions besides center. The strange, truncated offseason will made it tough for the Eagles to go completely young at all backup OL positions. Peters doesn’t just fill in at RG, but also backup LT with Pryor being a big upgrade at the sixth OL spot over the rest of the guys. 

The problem is the talking heads syndrome, "Fairness" has become a balancing act where all opinions are treated equally. But all are not equal.

Some sources are more credible than others, a source can be biased but still credible, because there are different types of bias.

WSJ, the NY Times and Washington Post may be "biased" when it comes to the editorial page, but not the reporting - where bias comes in regarding reporting is usually the headline and where the story is located (front page, bottom of the fold on page 4). For one thing, economics dictates objective reporting, because elite newspapers depend on their reputation to maintain their value. Same holds for magazines like the New Yorker, Atlantic, etc. Skip the opinion pieces and read the journalism.

Internet focused sites have a balancing act between reputation and "click bait."

Vox, Business Insider, tend to more focused on maintaining their reputation. The more strident or ideological a piece, the more the reader should be skeptical.

Be wary of ideology focused groups like the Heritage Foundation or Americans for Progress. If you've never heard of the group/site, Google them, check the "About" page and the "Board of Directors" and top staff (who are they, what is their background, etc.).

Check out the author, if she's a reporter she likely has little first hand knowledge so focus on the sources, better articles have links to articles cited so you can check it out on your own.

Even with medical papers, most right now are pre-prints, some peer review articles have been rushed through the process - so none are the "Gospel Truth.' Rather, see it as an ongoing dialogue, and try to follow the conversation - often you'll find that disagreements are not what is reported, but something more subtle, an assumption about the magnitude of a parameter, or whether current evidence is strong enough to support a conclusion.

 

It takes a little work to verify sources, but all sites/authors are not created equal, some are knowledgeable, some are BS artists pushing an agenda.

Never depend on one or two sources, do a little "fingerwork," but it's not about finding "balance," it's about finding facts.And sometimes the absence of facts.

 

11 hours ago, HazletonEagle said:

For people who think deaths were over reported for COVID, all  you really have to do is look at deaths before COVID, and deaths after the pandemic hit.

We dont know who really died of the covid or the stroke if they had both... or COVID and the heart attack, etc... but when you look at the data and see that overall deaths increased in march, april, may... then you know that difference is due to COVID. That is how you know how big an impact on deaths the disease had even if you dont know what exactly killed each individual that died.

Overall deaths went up significantly, and the common denominator is COVID. 

 

Now if overall deaths go back down, and COVID deaths remain steady, then youll know they are being over reported. 

That's generally true, but it's a bit more complex.

For example, driving less reduces traffic mortality, which you could attribute to COVID at an aggregate level.

Unfortunately, teasing out the complex interactions will require sophisticated statistical analysis after the fact, looking at mortality from different causes, before and after COVID, and trying to determine which were due to the disease, which were due to overloading the health system, which due to secondary effects of social distancing and so on.

But in the middle of the pandemic, you make policy off "back of the envelope" estimates, and the increase in deaths above the "norm" is a good back of the envelope estimate.

11 hours ago, BDawk_ASamuel said:

Not disagreeing with you, but are there charts out there that show monthly overall death counts in the US? Not categorized by cause of death, just deaths? 

This is done through modeling, you develop a baseline forecast of deaths based on historical data, then compare it to actual deaths over that period. CDC collects data on deaths from various causes. So does the Census Bureau (I think). It's easy to Google it.

Now it's tricky b/c some factors vary, for example, flus have different mortality rates in different years. But there are some statistical techniques to deal with these issues, but it's also why the baseline is usually expressed as a range, i.e. 500K with a standard deviation of 10K.

12 hours ago, bpac55 said:

I'm not saying the studies that you read are wrong but you can find studies that support arguments that the world is ending and this virus isn't going away and you can find studies that show this just like the flu.

The problem is which studies can we truly believe and trust and which ones show what Americans are really going through.

I've read studies and articles by doctors that would contradict you 100%.  Articles and studies that show that if I MIGHT have been near someone who had Covid then I am presumed to also have Covid.  Another positive case being added to the daily increase with no testing done but let's show higher numbers to add to the doom and gloom.  

That's the most frustrating part for a lot of middle ground people.  Who are you supposed to believe anymore?  For everyone doctor that says my mask protects you and yours protects me there is another doctor out there saying masks can cause just as much damage and don't work.  Shoot the N95 mask cases say right on the side, does not prevent Covid spread.

I'm asking these questions not to slight the studies you've read but to show why there is so much disconnect and confusion.  I'd love just honest to goodness answers.

Don't confuse "articles", often written by people with little knowledge, citing sources of dubious validity, with legitimate studies.

And a MD has no special expertise on COVID, they may have spent a few days a decade ago in medical school reviewing a wide spectrum of infectious diseases, but they've spent their career focused on other issues. You want to look for experts who have spent most of their lives studying infectious diseases. I'd start with someone like Michael Osterholm, a "superstar" in the field.

When you read an article, see what the source(s) being referenced, who wrote it, where was it published, what's the author(s)' expertise, are there other articles supporting that conclusion? And in the current environment, WHEN was it published? Something written in April is based on data from February and maybe March, something in July has a much larger dataset to analyze.

If an article references other articles but not legitimate studies, or is on a website of dubious reliability, just ignore. Ignore the "echo chamber."

Best sites for following the virus:

Coronavirus Dashboard:  https://public.tableau.com/profile/ckelly2528#!/vizhome/COVIDDashboard-Public/Introduction?publish=yes

gives 7 day moving averages, front page, current, week ago, two weeks ago for Deaths, Confirmed Cases, Tests, % positive, links to state data

COVID-19 Map, Johns Hopkins:  https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html

CDC:  https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html

NYT Times:  https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html, gives updates on recent data

Science: https://www.sciencemag.org/collections/coronavirus?utm_medium=email&utm_source=membership&utm_campaign=tbc-2020-acq-fos-global-lead-list-3&utm_content=email2&dmc=P2BSO1EMAQL3&et_rid=218415818&et_cid=3301680 updates on research articles

The Economist coverage: https://www.economist.com/news/2020/03/11/the-economists-coverage-of-the-coronavirus

 

2 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

 

One thing Eagles have done the last couple years is add speed. Especially at LB and WR.

Edwards, at 4.77, is our slowest LB, most run in the 4.5-4.6 range.

Slay adds speed to our secondary, which could use some more athletes who can run, Maddox is the only other one with jets. But with faster LBs, speed is less important if your safeties can play a step or two deeper (LBs can drop quickly to fill the gaps in pass coverage).

2 minutes ago, austinfan said:

One thing Eagles have done the last couple years is add speed. Especially at LB and WR.

Edwards, at 4.77, is our slowest LB, most run in the 4.5-4.6 range.

Slay adds speed to our secondary, which could use some more athletes who can run, Maddox is the only other one with jets. But with faster LBs, speed is less important if your safeties can play a step or two deeper (LBs can drop quickly to fill the gaps in pass coverage).

I would really like to see more speed at FS. Instincts are more important, but speed is really important with Imgur much single high cover 1 we play. 

Eagles open fully on the 28th.

7 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Yes

LOL he's not Franco bad. What guy doesn't like a Bruce Willis movie...come on dude  He's made some crap for sure (esp lately), but a lot of enjoyable ones in the past. 

While y'all are discussing movies and actors... William Holden, Cliff Robertson... Devil's Brigade - its included with Amazon Prime.  For any youngsters who've never seen it... you are welcome, and yes, The AAMCO man is in it too!   

Are the Eagles bringing in the rookies next week or do they have everybody reporting on the 28th? 

2 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

Are the Eagles bringing in the rookies next week or do they have everybody reporting on the 28th? 

Looks like the memo is for all teams with the exception of HOU and KC — rookies July 21, QBs July 23, all other players July 28

Mind you, that’s just what the league has informed the NFLPA — the union isn’t always agreeable 

Hopefully this gets resolved soon. I’d have to imagine almost everyone’s rookie class is bigger than 20 when you include UDFAs

56 minutes ago, austinfan said:

Don't confuse "articles", often written by people with little knowledge, citing sources of dubious validity, with legitimate studies.

And a MD has no special expertise on COVID, they may have spent a few days a decade ago in medical school reviewing a wide spectrum of infectious diseases, but they've spent their career focused on other issues. You want to look for experts who have spent most of their lives studying infectious diseases. I'd start with someone like Michael Osterholm, a "superstar" in the field.

When you read an article, see what the source(s) being referenced, who wrote it, where was it published, what's the author(s)' expertise, are there other articles supporting that conclusion? And in the current environment, WHEN was it published? Something written in April is based on data from February and maybe March, something in July has a much larger dataset to analyze.

If an article references other articles but not legitimate studies, or is on a website of dubious reliability, just ignore. Ignore the "echo chamber."

Nails on a chalkboard when I hear/read a JD say what an MD does or does not know.

Man the older I get the more I notice the Philadelphia accent and how grating it can be.  I'm doing a training module for a new EMR system and the voice over keeps saying "notes" over and over with that hard philly "oat" sound in the middle.  Love this city but man I am about to jam a spork in my ear canal.

1 hour ago, ManuManu said:

Listening to the ITB podcast and they brought up a great point regarding Peters. Not only is he switching positions and switching sides in a shortened offseason, he doesn’t practice much and hasn’t for a long time. How will the Eagles handle him during a truncated camp? Can he afford to have a bunch of veteran days off?

That was my worry. Everyone seemed like the problem was solved by putting Peters there. We don't even know if he'll be good

6 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Hopefully this gets resolved soon. I’d have to imagine almost everyone’s rookie class is bigger than 20 when you include UDFAs

So is there a rotation or first come first serve?

7 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

So is there a rotation or first come first serve?

No idea. I’d imagine they would put a priority on rookies they are planning on contributing this season 

Curious if teams will hire more staff to have separate groups

39 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

Are the Eagles bringing in the rookies next week or do they have everybody reporting on the 28th? 

July 21 for rookies according to the tweet I posted. 

3 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

July 21 for rookies according to the tweet I posted. 

That’s three days away. Got to sign those draft choices, Howie. 

RIP John Lewis.  A true statesman. 

19 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

That’s three days away. Got to sign those draft choices, Howie. 

RIP John Lewis.  A true statesman. 

Oh, but he was one of those nasty disruptive protestors.