I never knew the blog had so many doctors, scientist and researchers. F Dr. Joe Rogan, I’m listening to Dr. Blog lol 

6 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

I never knew the blog had so many doctors, scientist and researchers. F Dr. Joe Rogan, I’m listening to Dr. Blog lol 

26 minutes ago, austinfan said:

You mean like the Cops who refused to wear masks at demonstrations even though they were required to do so?

The same Cops who justify killing unarmed civilians b/c they felt they were in danger but refused to get vaccinated even though far more Cops have died from COVID than were shot in the line of duty the past two years? I guess it's ok to put your co-workers and their families in danger?

Vaccines have been mandated since George Washington at Valley Forge. It's clearly in the purview of the government to "protect the general welfare."

As far as health workers, I'd fire any health worker who refused to get vaccinated on the grounds that you're too stupid to put anyone's life in your hands. Like the idiot PT who showed up at our house unvaccinated after we made it clear that we would only accept a vaccinated person, then took off his mask to make a call in the room with the patient. Or the ambulance driver who wasn't vaccinated when transferring my wife (who is vulnerable) to a different hospital. Sorry, people like that aren't heroes, they're zeros.

Maybe you need to live with family members who could die if infected to appreciate why some of us strongly support mandates.

Seems like a major false equivalence to me. You don't know where the cops who died from COVID contracted it, and that isn't in any way relevant in comparison to police involved shootings.

If the vaccine works well enough to mandate it, then the danger you're putting your co-workers and family in should be minimal. Now that so many are vaccinated, that should no longer be an issue. It's an issue for those who haven't been vaccinated or caught COVID, but at that point, it's their problem if they want to risk it.

And I know breakthrough cases exist, but when they're rare and death is rare, it changes the cost/benefit analysis of federal mandates.

And there are obviously drawbacks. If you have people losing jobs, then you have smaller work forces, which can lead to other problems. We saw what happened with the airlines a few weeks back already.

And it depends on if someone has natural immunity or not. If that PT caught COVID and has natural immunity they're more protected than they would have been if they were only vaccinated, so it's not being rational.

17 minutes ago, austinfan said:

A bar around Sturgis was far more dangerous than a BLM demonstration.

 

28 minutes ago, austinfan said:

Of course it is, if I have a technical question, I just call an expert I know - but I'm not interested in the technical details, I'm neither designing vaccines or testing their efficacy. 

I'm reviewing studies, mostly meta-studies, and seeing if their results are supported by the statistics presented.

So I don't care how the vaccine works (other than curiosity), I care about the rate of infection, hospitalization and death between vaccinated and non-vaccinated populations. And that sort of study depends on understanding statistics and study design, not the technical details of vaccination and immune system operation. These kind of studies are common in environmental science and policy, where cost benefit analysis requires estimates of the effect on the population with regard to mortality and disease of reducing a pollutant to a certain level. For example, you don't have to know the exact mechanism by which small particulates lead to an increase in lung cancer, just the correlation between the level of small particulates and the increase in the incidence of lung cancers to make rational policy. Now the cancer researcher might then use that correlation to justify targeting small particulates in her research.

"A man's got to know his limitations."

Not true. Just read the nominations and response for inclusion of new listing or even withdrawals from the biennial report on carcinogens as required by the Superfund laws to see how much dispute there is as to dose and respond.  The typical listings for TDLs are based on workplace level exposure over an eight hour period in most instances. There is even a disagreement as to mesothelioma being solely caused by asbestos fibers, long and short fibers and even the one fiber theory, all of which have published, peer reviewed studies.  The epidemiology of the vaccine issues are such a small statistical grouping as to not be granular enough to be statistically valid.  I understand fully how epidemiological studies work but the cautions associated with the mRNA and J&J/Astra Zeneca vaccines aren’t at that level at this point.  

Its 2021 and Jimmy Graham is your top targeted pass catcher in the red zone?  You might be in some sheet.  

17 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

I never knew the blog had so many doctors, scientist and researchers. F Dr. Joe Rogan, I’m listening to Dr. Blog lol 

Everyone that posts here is a real Doctor Manhattan 

20 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

I never knew the blog had so many doctors, scientist and researchers. F Dr. Joe Rogan, I’m listening to Dr. Blog lol 

There are a few of us who have actually put in that work…

afan isnt one of them

2 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Everyone that posts here is a real Doctor Manhattan 

 

9 out of the bottom 13 are NFC teams.

Just now, ToastJenkins said:

There are a few of us who have actually put in that work…

afan isnt one of them

Oh i don’t doubt that.

1 minute ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Everyone that posts here is a real Doctor Manhattan 

 

1 minute ago, Connecticut Eagle said:

 

9 out of the bottom 13 are NFC teams.

Problem is that both det and hou need a qb…

1 minute ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Pretty sure they’re not finished products.  One can see that Hurts doesn’t have the arm.  At Wilson and Fields has that much.  

I’d add if people don’t like Wilson then you should be concerned cause there were reports they were trying to get high enough to draft him 

1 minute ago, ToastJenkins said:

Problem is that both det and hou need a qb…

Houston is more debatable based on how they feel about mills at the end of the year. I’m guessing if there was a QB they love they’d make the move. But not sure that’s gonna be the case 

1 minute ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

Houston is more debatable based on how they feel about mills at the end of the year. I’m guessing if there was a QB they love they’d make the move. But not sure that’s gonna be the case 

I cant fathom they see Mills as a solution

1 minute ago, ToastJenkins said:

I cant fathom they see Mills as a solution

Yep. Unless they’re going full tank Browns. 

Cant help but wonder if pitt goes qb. Ben is looking awfully cooked

i could see rodgers going there

8 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

Not true. Just read the nominations and response for inclusion of new listing or even withdrawals from the biennial report on carcinogens as required by the Superfund laws to see how much dispute there is as to dose and respond.  The typical listings for TDLs are based on workplace level exposure over an eight hour period in most instances. There is even a disagreement as to mesothelioma being solely caused by asbestos fibers, long and short fibers and even the one fiber theory, all of which have published, peer reviewed studies.  The epidemiology of the vaccine issues are such a small statistical grouping as to not be granular enough to be statistically valid.  I understand fully how epidemiological studies work but the cautions associated with the mRNA and J&J/Astra Zeneca vaccines aren’t at that level at this point.  

Carcinogens depend, in the case of many substances, they're not working off large population studies but "rat studies," where they give rats mega-doses and assume a linear function that allows them to extrapolate to small doses in humans. Which I find dubious without strong supporting evidence from population studies, but in many cases, it's difficult to measure the level of actual exposure. So you have a lot of uncertainty.

So given that level of uncertainty, how do you make rational decisions? The precautionary principle? Flip a coin?

With small particulates, they could at least estimate the level of exposure over a wide expanse of population, both using air pollution modeling and monitoring the level of particulates in the air. Still a fair amount of uncertainty, but not so much you couldn't get decent estimates.

It's like climate modeling, the models are wrong, they almost have to be, the phenomenon is so complex - but "wrong" doesn't mean climate change isn't happening, rather, it means there is going to be a lot of uncertainty about how fast, and exactly what the impact will be, and how much CO2 and Methane cause "X" amount of change.

"Because something happening here, but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones?"

Lol

1 minute ago, ToastJenkins said:

Cant help but wonder if pitt goes qb. Ben is looking awfully cooked

i could see rodgers going there

I’m not sure Ben is better than Hurts or Minshew at this point. 

3 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

Yep. Unless they’re going full tank Browns. 

Their owner is baffling. No idea what to expect from that clown

15 minutes ago, Connecticut Eagle said:

 

9 out of the bottom 13 are NFC teams.

I actually talked about a couple weeks ago that the afc is full of good young QBs going forward. Have mahomes, herbert, Allen, jones, burrow, lamar jackson, wentz (depending how he continues playing… not so much young but in his prime years) and likely watson when he’s dealt to Miami. That’s a ton of good young or in their prime QBs. 

go look at the nfc, brady is still playing but for how long? Rodgers might get dealt to an afc team like raiders or broncos. Ditto with Russell Wilson. The best young/entering their prime QBs in the nfc are dak, Murray then unproven in fields, lance. So the 5 best QBs in the conference next year (if Wilson and rodgers are dealt to the afc) heading into the year might be brady, Stafford, murray, dak and then toss up between cousins, Ryan with lance, Daniel jones, fields, hurts behind them. Gets really ugly fast after the top 4

9 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

I cant fathom they see Mills as a solution

I say that too based off what I’ve seen. However we would be discounting this is the Texans organization. And i could see houston using the route more of building up their team rather than spending the capital on a QB right now. People use this for the eagles but houston has it way worse on that roster and can use that reasoning more so then the eagles. 

1 minute ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Proof that I have no clue what a catch is nowadays.  Looked no good to me in real time.  

We really should just call it no catch but still give the receiver a participation trophy 

Horrible flag on the bears