1 minute ago, austinfan said:

Citation?

You wouldn't know how to read it if they provided one.

1 minute ago, eagle45 said:

You wouldn't know how to read it if they provided one.

Are you always an a-hole, or just on your bad days?

Someone makes a controversial claim, asking them to back it up with a legitimate reference (no, Fox News and Newsmax do not qualify, neither does Brietbart) is not unreasonable.

Just now, austinfan said:

Are you always an a-hole, or just on your bad days?

Someone makes a controversial claim, asking them to back it up with a legitimate reference (no, Fox News and Newsmax do not qualify, neither does Brietbart) is not unreasonable.

Underqualified attorneys who pretend to be medical and scientific experts are a pet peeve of mine, as are those who repeatedly push predictable and tired political issues in social forums where they do not belong.  Your football opinions are the easiest to deal with, but admittedly the icing on the cake.  You're just a royal flush.  

Do you have a reference for saying that surgeons only know how to cut or for implying that docs from 3rd tier medical schools are not to be trusted because they are not up to date on research?  Being a former science major at Penn does not qualify...

6 minutes ago, austinfan said:

Are you always an a-hole, or just on your bad days?

Someone makes a controversial claim, asking them to back it up with a legitimate reference (no, Fox News and Newsmax do not qualify, neither does Brietbart) is not unreasonable.

But CNN does? Anywho

22 minutes ago, austinfan said:

Citation?

There are more out there, but here are some examples. They are small numbers, but it should be out in the open.

Pfizer: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-58380867 (there are more out there). NZ at least makes it easy to find: https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/COVID-19/safety-report-33.asp

J&J: https://komonews.com/news/local/king-county-woman-dies-from-blood-clots-after-getting-johnson-johnson-vaccine (honestly, the J&J should probably be pulled for other reasons as well)

European countries have concerns about Moderna in under 30yo: https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-business-denmark-public-health-health-453163d8f93618fde90c06d3474921a0 (I think France was just added to the list as well) 

27 minutes ago, T-1000 said:

He's been really good in the slot this year, and he was in the past. So long as he plays there and nowhere near the outside he is at the very least an above average starting CB in the league if not good.

Yea, he's been one of their best, most reliable defenders this year by far.  I posted a list of the upcoming UFA for the Eagles and I have them bringing Maddox back.  The question I have though, is of the 6 other CB on the roster, do they feel they have his replacement?  Chachere was the guy to replace him when he got hurt yesterday.  He seems more like an outside CB to me.  They have Josiah Scott and Kary Vincent who are ideal nickel CB.  

Money is going to be tight.  They may very well be looking at a replacement for Steve Nelson.  I'd like that to be in the draft but Howie has a very poor record at drafting CB.  

The more I think about it, the more I think they let him test FA and hope to get a comp pick for him.  

29 minutes ago, DeathByEagle said:

Wouldnt be surprised if Mike Mayock is fired before the end of the season. 

Wonder if we could trade Howie for Mayock. 

1 minute ago, bpac55 said:

Yea, he's been one of their best, most reliable defenders this year by far.  I posted a list of the upcoming UFA for the Eagles and I have them bringing Maddox back.  The question I have though, is of the 6 other CB on the roster, do they feel they have his replacement?  Chachere was the guy to replace him when he got hurt yesterday.  He seems more like an outside CB to me.  They have Josiah Scott and Kary Vincent who are ideal nickel CB.  

Money is going to be tight.  They may very well be looking at a replacement for Steve Nelson.  I'd like that to be in the draft but Howie has a very poor record at drafting CB.  

The more I think about it, the more I think they let him test FA and hope to get a comp pick for him.  

Our CBs may be fine if we add to the DL and create more pressure.

1 minute ago, bpac55 said:

Yea, he's been one of their best, most reliable defenders this year by far.  I posted a list of the upcoming UFA for the Eagles and I have them bringing Maddox back.  The question I have though, is of the 6 other CB on the roster, do they feel they have his replacement?  Chachere was the guy to replace him when he got hurt yesterday.  He seems more like an outside CB to me.  They have Josiah Scott and Kary Vincent who are ideal nickel CB.  

Money is going to be tight.  They may very well be looking at a replacement for Steve Nelson.  I'd like that to be in the draft but Howie has a very poor record at drafting CB.  

The more I think about it, the more I think they let him test FA and hope to get a comp pick for him.  

Nelson is worth double what he’s making now at least and that’s still a bargain. I wouldn’t mind bringing him back as we groom these younger prospects.

8 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

Underqualified attorneys who pretend to be medical and scientific experts are a pet peeve of mine, as are those who repeatedly push predictable and tired political issues in social forums where they do not belong.  Your football opinions are the easiest to deal with, but admittedly the icing on the cake.  You're just a royal flush.  

Do you have a reference for saying that surgeons only know how to cut or for implying that docs from 3rd tier medical schools are not to be trusted because they are not up to date on research?  Being a former science major at Penn does not qualify...

It's not as simple as conservative coverage vs blitzing and disguising. To assume it's mostly personnel driven, you don't realize the detail that goes into good NFL defense. Specific zone drops, teaching players technique, identifying plays based on trends/formations/etc. 

But everyone is an expert defensive coordinator, fans and media alike. Lazy work.

 

1 minute ago, schuy7 said:

It's not as simple as conservative coverage vs blitzing and disguising. To assume it's mostly personnel driven, you don't realize the detail that goes into good NFL defense. Specific zone drops, teaching players technique, identifying plays based on trends/formations/etc. 

But everyone is an expert defensive coordinator, fans and media alike.

 

I just look at the score and I can see he messed up.

59 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Minshew to Jefferson and Smith, with Jeremy Chinn in the secondary would have been better...  just sayin'.

A couple free agent safety's on the market to look at for the next year, if they don't get extended. 
Jessie Bates, Marcus Williams. 
Neither will be cheap, but it's time they invest in the position for a long term fix. Both players are 25. Grab one of them then invest say round 2 for another safety to pair up.
I'm sure Howie won't do either because it makes sense and will improve the defense and apparently he's dumb deaf and blind to that side of the ball. 

For the record, I'm as radically pro-vaccine as it gets.  I could understand and potentially sympathize with arguments for forced vaccinations nationwide and absolutely support mandating vaccines to enjoy certain privileges such as travel, restaurants, movies, etc.

The overall safety of the vaccine is unquestionable.  But acknowledging that there have been plane crashes is not synonymous with saying air travel is unsafe.  The vaccine stimulates an immune response, fever, and stress on the body.  That alone, over the 7.2 billion shots administered, is going to kill people.  A lot of them, actually.  It is several orders of magnitude safer than the alternative, but there are absolutely vaccine-related deaths.

7.2 billion repetitions of anything will kill thousands of people.  Statistically, there need to be at least 5,000 people who died because they drove to get the vaccine.

Sign Arnette 

5 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

For the record, I'm as radically pro-vaccine as it gets.  I could understand and potentially sympathize with arguments for forced vaccinations nationwide and absolutely support mandating vaccines to enjoy certain privileges such as travel, restaurants, movies, etc.

The overall safety of the vaccine is unquestionable.  But acknowledging that there have been plane crashes is not synonymous with saying air travel is unsafe.  The vaccine stimulates an immune response, fever, and stress on the body.  That alone, over the 7.2 billion shots administered, is going to kill people.  A lot of them, actually.  It is several orders of magnitude safer than the alternative, but there are absolutely vaccine-related deaths.

7.2 billion repetitions of anything will kill thousands of people.  Statistically, there need to be at least 5,000 people who died because they drove to get the vaccine.

Except in kids. 

25 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

Underqualified attorneys who pretend to be medical and scientific experts are a pet peeve of mine, as are those who repeatedly push predictable and tired political issues in social forums where they do not belong.  Your football opinions are the easiest to deal with, but admittedly the icing on the cake.  You're just a royal flush.  

Do you have a reference for saying that surgeons only know how to cut or for implying that docs from 3rd tier medical schools are not to be trusted because they are not up to date on research?  Being a former science major at Penn does not qualify...

1 minute ago, dawkdaballhawk said:

Except in kids. 

It’s probably completely fine in kids too.  But I do agree that probably is not the word we want to use.  Different issue that I’m not prepared to say yay or nay.  We have a board pediatrician for that one.  

3 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

It’s probably completely fine in kids too.  But I do agree that probably is not the word we want to use.  Different issue that I’m not prepared to say yay or nay.  We have a board pediatrician for that one.  

While not as robust as the data we have in adults, the still substantial amount of data we have shows the vaccine is exceedingly safe in kids. 

1 minute ago, eagle45 said:

It’s probably completely fine in kids too.  But I do agree that probably is not the word we want to use.  Different issue that I’m not prepared to say yay or nay.  We have a board pediatrician for that one.  

I'm fine with the vaccines in adults, but not the mandates at this time. Personally, it seems like the should hold off until more data rolls in, especially for younger people. Also, the data on children vs the risk of COVID doesn't add up for me. But get vaccinated, but also understand the risks. At the very least know the signs of myocarditis so you know how to get help, if needed.

2 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

While not as robust as the data we have in adults, the still substantial amount of data we have shows the vaccine is exceedingly safe in kids. 

Any idea how low in age we can go with it?  I would assume the data, even if not the safety, has to taper off at a certain age.

 

My question with mandates/vaccines/kids and such is what is the end goal?  I don't think we'll ever see 100% vaccinated nor will we ever see a time in our lives again when there is no more Covid.  It's here for good.  We have to live with it.

What do we need to see where we can say OK, we don't need to have this separation because of mandates and forcing kids to have them.  I've just never seen a realistic goal.  The only time we were ever really given a timeline was when they said 2 weeks to stop the spread. 

1 hour ago, dawkdaballhawk said:

To be fair, people died from the J&J and pfizer vaccines.

Stop spreading that BS. According to the CDC, there is no evidence that the Pfizer vaccine has caused any deaths.

34 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

Underqualified attorneys who pretend to be medical and scientific experts are a pet peeve of mine, as are those who repeatedly push predictable and tired political issues in social forums where they do not belong.  Your football opinions are the easiest to deal with, but admittedly the icing on the cake.  You're just a royal flush.  

Do you have a reference for saying that surgeons only know how to cut or for implying that docs from 3rd tier medical schools are not to be trusted because they are not up to date on research?  Being a former science major at Penn does not qualify...

Unfortunately, I've had to deal with a dozen surgeons or so the last couple decades due to a family issue. And I am related to a number of doctors, including a couple on the staff of a top medical school - I've heard my share of horror stories. So I have first and second hand experience - we've dealt with good surgeons, but also some outright liars and others who cut with callous regard to post-surgical treatment and advice. And I've dealt with numerous GPs - some were decent and thoughtful, others arrogant and of the opinion that a M.D. meant their judgement should not be questioned. I am quite capable of reading the medical literature, I have both a science education and a background with statistical studies.

I don't think I'm "underqualfied" as an attorney either, having finished in the top third of a top 15 law school (that was my limit b/c I'm lousy at memorization and regurgitation, still a key to success in Law School, the only intellectually challenging courses were Constitutional Law which I aced). I wasn't a "good lawyer" b/c I'm a lousy rainmaker, which is the primary key to making partner in a Law Firm - but I was good at doing law in my area of expertise. I don't opine on law outside of Regulatory and Administrative Law (what I do) and Constitutional Law (what I love and hope to write on). Otherwise I simply point to a reputable source.

You on the other hand, what exactly do you have to recommend yourself beside an inflated sense of self-importance?