quote:

ORIGINAL: HL OSWALD


Please just send this F'ing selfish A hole packing, no matter the cost

quote:

ORIGINAL: HL OSWALD

TOUCHDOWNWIRE

pri·ma don·na (noun): a very temperamental person with an inflated view of their own talent or importance

The Minnesota Vikings come into the 2021 NFL season with the league’s lowest vaccination rate, a fact that has raised concerns from both head coach Mike Zimmer and co-owner Mark Wilf. Recently, rookie quarterback Kellen Mond landed on the NFL’s Reserve/COVID list with a positive test, and quarterbacks Kirk Cousins and Nate Stanley were placed on the list as close contacts.

This has not changed Cousins’ position on vaccinations, which tend to be unique, unless you’re in the middle of a red state. You may remember that last September, Cousins said this about COVID in general:

“I want to respect what other people’s concerns are. For me personally, just talking no one else can get the virus, what is your concern if you could get it, I would say I’m gonna go about my daily life. If I get it, I’m gonna ride it out. I’m gonna let nature do its course. Survival-of-the-fittest kind of approach. And just say, if it knocks me out, it knocks me out. I’m going to be OK. You know, even if I die. If I die, I die. I kind of have peace about that.”

Which is an… interesting conceit, given what we know almost a year later.

On Thursday, both Cousins and Stanley were activated from the Reserve/COVID list, and after practice, Cousins was asked his position on vaccinations:

“I think the vaccination decision is a private. very private health matter for me. I’m going to keep it as such. I do believe as a leader of the team, it’s very important to follow the protocols and avoid this close contact, because that is what it’s going to come down to — did you have a close contact? So, I’m going to be vigilant about avoiding a close contact. I’ve even thought about, ‘Should I just set up, literally, Plexiglas around where I sit, so this could never happen again?’ I’ve thought about it, because I’m going to do whatever it takes. We’re going to avoid this close contact thing, and look forward to make sure I’m playing every game this year.”

Cousins said that he wants to follow the protocols so that he can play every week, and that as long as he doesn’t test positive, and he doesn’t have a close contact, it’ll all work out. He fell a bit short of his “I’m going to do whatever it takes” promise when asked about getting vaccinated.

“The NFL encourages us to get vaccinated, and as I said, it’s just a very private health decision. I’m going to keep it private as such.”

When asked how he weighed his rights versus his potential effect on the team, and how he can believe that simply keeping his distance will prevent more issues at a time when COVID is spreading among the unvaccinated, Cousins was steadfast.

“We can agree to disagree with that. I’m going to be very vigilant with the protocols.”

When asked whether missing four practices affected his decision? Well…

“I’m taking into account everything that’s happening, and very much doing my research. Trying to understand why I missed [time], and trying to make sure it doesn’t happen again.”

What that research is, we have no idea, though we’re guessing liberal doses of FOX News and NewsMax are probably involved. We know that Dr. Allen Sills, the NFL’s Chief Medical Officer, has not been consulted.


Perhaps this is at the root of what Zimmer said Monday.

“These guys, some of them just won’t do it. I shouldn’t say it, but some of the things they read is just, whew, out there.”

“Out there” is a pretty fair way to put it when your starting quarterback would apparently rather create a “Boy In the Bubble” scenario in the quarterback room. Seems a bit… er… “privileged” to me, in that Cousins would not get away with this were he not the Vikings’ starting quarterback, but this is where we are.

America’s fight to get past COVID and return to any level of normalcy has been affected to a disturbing degree by a certain percentage of people who insist more on their rights to be super-spreaders than their responsibility to themselves and those around them, and that’s just something we’re all going to have to live with — if we can. This brings up all kinds of questions about responsibility to one’s self and one’s teammates, but in Cousins’ case, it seems that if he’s in any kind of COVID box, it’s the fault of those around him, and if he wants to build a wall (gee, where have we heard THAT before), he’s not going to be moved from that position.

Whether he would be moved with a positive test that would keep him away from the game he loves, and would prevent him from helping his teammates and coaches as much as possible, we do not know. But we suspect a particular answer that would simply kick the problem forward.

Which helps nobody — least of all, Cousins himself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: HL OSWALD

TOUCHDOWNWIRE

pri·ma don·na (noun): a very temperamental person with an inflated view of their own talent or importance

The Minnesota Vikings come into the 2021 NFL season with the league’s lowest vaccination rate, a fact that has raised concerns from both head coach Mike Zimmer and co-owner Mark Wilf. Recently, rookie quarterback Kellen Mond landed on the NFL’s Reserve/COVID list with a positive test, and quarterbacks Kirk Cousins and Nate Stanley were placed on the list as close contacts.

This has not changed Cousins’ position on vaccinations, which tend to be unique, unless you’re in the middle of a red state. You may remember that last September, Cousins said this about COVID in general:

“I want to respect what other people’s concerns are. For me personally, just talking no one else can get the virus, what is your concern if you could get it, I would say I’m gonna go about my daily life. If I get it, I’m gonna ride it out. I’m gonna let nature do its course. Survival-of-the-fittest kind of approach. And just say, if it knocks me out, it knocks me out. I’m going to be OK. You know, even if I die. If I die, I die. I kind of have peace about that.”

Which is an… interesting conceit, given what we know almost a year later.

On Thursday, both Cousins and Stanley were activated from the Reserve/COVID list, and after practice, Cousins was asked his position on vaccinations:

“I think the vaccination decision is a private. very private health matter for me. I’m going to keep it as such. I do believe as a leader of the team, it’s very important to follow the protocols and avoid this close contact, because that is what it’s going to come down to — did you have a close contact? So, I’m going to be vigilant about avoiding a close contact. I’ve even thought about, ‘Should I just set up, literally, Plexiglas around where I sit, so this could never happen again?’ I’ve thought about it, because I’m going to do whatever it takes. We’re going to avoid this close contact thing, and look forward to make sure I’m playing every game this year.”

Cousins said that he wants to follow the protocols so that he can play every week, and that as long as he doesn’t test positive, and he doesn’t have a close contact, it’ll all work out. He fell a bit short of his “I’m going to do whatever it takes” promise when asked about getting vaccinated.

“The NFL encourages us to get vaccinated, and as I said, it’s just a very private health decision. I’m going to keep it private as such.”

When asked how he weighed his rights versus his potential effect on the team, and how he can believe that simply keeping his distance will prevent more issues at a time when COVID is spreading among the unvaccinated, Cousins was steadfast.

“We can agree to disagree with that. I’m going to be very vigilant with the protocols.”

When asked whether missing four practices affected his decision? Well…

“I’m taking into account everything that’s happening, and very much doing my research. Trying to understand why I missed [time], and trying to make sure it doesn’t happen again.”

What that research is, we have no idea, though we’re guessing liberal doses of FOX News and NewsMax are probably involved. We know that Dr. Allen Sills, the NFL’s Chief Medical Officer, has not been consulted.


Perhaps this is at the root of what Zimmer said Monday.

“These guys, some of them just won’t do it. I shouldn’t say it, but some of the things they read is just, whew, out there.”

“Out there” is a pretty fair way to put it when your starting quarterback would apparently rather create a “Boy In the Bubble” scenario in the quarterback room. Seems a bit… er… “privileged” to me, in that Cousins would not get away with this were he not the Vikings’ starting quarterback, but this is where we are.

America’s fight to get past COVID and return to any level of normalcy has been affected to a disturbing degree by a certain percentage of people who insist more on their rights to be super-spreaders than their responsibility to themselves and those around them, and that’s just something we’re all going to have to live with — if we can. This brings up all kinds of questions about responsibility to one’s self and one’s teammates, but in Cousins’ case, it seems that if he’s in any kind of COVID box, it’s the fault of those around him, and if he wants to build a wall (gee, where have we heard THAT before), he’s not going to be moved from that position.

Whether he would be moved with a positive test that would keep him away from the game he loves, and would prevent him from helping his teammates and coaches as much as possible, we do not know. But we suspect a particular answer that would simply kick the problem forward.

Which helps nobody — least of all, Cousins himself.

I wonder if this moronic drival has a liberal slant?

The talking points of a 12 year old.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kwheats

[:-][:@] Justin Jefferson Hurt at training camp left field holding his shoulder

quote:

ORIGINAL: DavidAOlson

quote:

ORIGINAL: jbusse

quote:

ORIGINAL: Burns

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/08/go-moderna-calls-3rd-shot-vaccine-protect-new-strains/

More shots, more profits. Yeah!.................. More suckers.

As the saying goes, never let a good crisis go to waste:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/21/business/covid-vaccine-billionaires/index.html

Although I don’t doubt the efficacy of the covid vaccines, extremely safe, re-purposed drugs (e.g., ivermectin) could have put us on a better path far sooner for a fraction of the cost. To me, the failure to seriously consider these inexpensive alternatives paints a very poor picture of the way high-level healthcare decisions are made in the U.S. If you think I’m talking nonsense, check out the data:

https://ivmmeta.com/

You're clearly not familiar with the research because there was a massive effort to screen already existing drugs to see if any had an effect. One even got approval (Remdesivir), despite a weak effect.

You'll note the site's work hasn't been submitted to a reputable journal. But that's because it wouldn't pass peer review. It's faux science, dressed up with enough numbers to fake out people who don't do science.

For example, the site undercuts itself: it responds to the critique by an "internet personality" by avoiding the critique. For example, the critique noted the site didn't contact the authors in cited papers (essential in a meta-analysis), and the site never responds to that issue. Instead it just throws dirt in the air by saying that the "internet personality" admits he didn't contact all the authors, either. But that's not a requirement of the critique; the site admitted they didn't even do the basics right.

Another issue is that ivermectin was only effective against the virus in a cell culture. When scientists attempted to replicate the effect in human cells, it failed. Skipping over a lot of biochemical details... but for example https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.17.444467v2 ; even when they increased the concentration to ridiculous levels, it still failed.

The site attempts to minimize that issue, but mostly waves it off in a way that shows it's not doing science. The reason why actual scientific results are strong is because they connect everything. Pre-clinical: show the drug works in various cell cultures, explain the biochemical mechanisms, show it works in test organisms. Then comes clinical testing to show it actually works in practice.

The pandemic effort to repurpose drugs was a magnet for fraud. I suspect that's because if a drug showed any potential in the initial screening, someone could generate a fraudulent study showing "it worked" and get lots of attention. It was a long-shot gamble with fame if the drug actually worked. Unfortunately in a pandemic, people desperate for anything would glom onto the hope provided by those fraudsters.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jbusse

quote:

ORIGINAL: DavidAOlson

quote:

ORIGINAL: jbusse

quote:

ORIGINAL: Burns

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/08/go-moderna-calls-3rd-shot-vaccine-protect-new-strains/

More shots, more profits. Yeah!.................. More suckers.

As the saying goes, never let a good crisis go to waste:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/21/business/covid-vaccine-billionaires/index.html

Although I don’t doubt the efficacy of the covid vaccines, extremely safe, re-purposed drugs (e.g., ivermectin) could have put us on a better path far sooner for a fraction of the cost. To me, the failure to seriously consider these inexpensive alternatives paints a very poor picture of the way high-level healthcare decisions are made in the U.S. If you think I’m talking nonsense, check out the data:

https://ivmmeta.com/

You're clearly not familiar with the research because there was a massive effort to screen already existing drugs to see if any had an effect. One even got approval (Remdesivir), despite a weak effect.

You'll note the site's work hasn't been submitted to a reputable journal. But that's because it wouldn't pass peer review. It's faux science, dressed up with enough numbers to fake out people who don't do science.

For example, the site undercuts itself: it responds to the critique by an "internet personality" by avoiding the critique. For example, the critique noted the site didn't contact the authors in cited papers (essential in a meta-analysis), and the site never responds to that issue. Instead it just throws dirt in the air by saying that the "internet personality" admits he didn't contact all the authors, either. But that's not a requirement of the critique; the site admitted they didn't even do the basics right.

Another issue is that ivermectin was only effective against the virus in a cell culture. When scientists attempted to replicate the effect in human cells, it failed. Skipping over a lot of biochemical details... but for example https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.17.444467v2 ; even when they increased the concentration to ridiculous levels, it still failed.

The site attempts to minimize that issue, but mostly waves it off in a way that shows it's not doing science. The reason why actual scientific results are strong is because they connect everything. Pre-clinical: show the drug works in various cell cultures, explain the biochemical mechanisms, show it works in test organisms. Then comes clinical testing to show it actually works in practice.

The pandemic effort to repurpose drugs was a magnet for fraud. I suspect that's because if a drug showed any potential in the initial screening, someone could generate a fraudulent study showing "it worked" and get lots of attention. It was a long-shot gamble with fame if the drug actually worked. Unfortunately in a pandemic, people desperate for anything would glom onto the hope provided by those fraudsters.

I wouldn't have bothered responding except for the subsequent mic drop comment, as if the narrow critique above somehow invalidates the results of 61 treatment/control group studies included in the website's analysis.

To say that ivermectin is only effective against the virus in a cell culture is simply not true. The basis for the results reported on the ivermectin website is 23,285 actual patients across 61 treatment/control group studies. So, as far as you're concerned, throw out a meta-analysis of these 61 studies because the site didn't contact the authors of the 61 studies? OK, but out of curiosity, what's the point of contacting these authors? For many types of analyses, I wouldn't need to contact the authors of a paper in order to incorporate its findings. And how is it that failing to contact the authors invalidates the meta analysis?

Regardless, looked at in isolation, most of the individual studies on its effectiveness show statistically significant results in favor of ivermectin (with the usual caveats, i.e., best when taken within 5 days of the onset of symptoms in combo with vitamin D for example). The website reports a near-comprehensive list of those involving actual patients, including 107 on covid/ivermectin among which 71 are peer reviewed. You want to throw out those results too? You can't possibly invalidate any meaningful number of those studies, so in essence you simply refuse to believe their findings. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but don't act like it's more than that. The 61 treatment/control group studies represent the work of 586 researchers.

Focusing on the paper you cite, it only uses "human airway-deprived cell models" to show that ivermectin doesn't work. What is more convincing, the response of a cell model or the response of 23,285 actual human beings?

A significant percentage of the world uses ivermectin for covid, with some estimates >20%. You're suggesting that the countries that use it widely are a victim of fraud. Maybe their health authorities are smarter than you think.

Meanwhile, it's not surprising that the approved Remdesivir drug costs $3,000 per patient. That's the point. Suppress cheap alternatives.

quote:

ORIGINAL: The Happy Norseman

quote:

ORIGINAL: jbusse

quote:

ORIGINAL: DavidAOlson

quote:

ORIGINAL: jbusse

quote:

ORIGINAL: Burns

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/08/go-moderna-calls-3rd-shot-vaccine-protect-new-strains/

More shots, more profits. Yeah!.................. More suckers.

As the saying goes, never let a good crisis go to waste:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/21/business/covid-vaccine-billionaires/index.html

Although I don’t doubt the efficacy of the covid vaccines, extremely safe, re-purposed drugs (e.g., ivermectin) could have put us on a better path far sooner for a fraction of the cost. To me, the failure to seriously consider these inexpensive alternatives paints a very poor picture of the way high-level healthcare decisions are made in the U.S. If you think I’m talking nonsense, check out the data:

https://ivmmeta.com/

You're clearly not familiar with the research because there was a massive effort to screen already existing drugs to see if any had an effect. One even got approval (Remdesivir), despite a weak effect.

You'll note the site's work hasn't been submitted to a reputable journal. But that's because it wouldn't pass peer review. It's faux science, dressed up with enough numbers to fake out people who don't do science.

For example, the site undercuts itself: it responds to the critique by an "internet personality" by avoiding the critique. For example, the critique noted the site didn't contact the authors in cited papers (essential in a meta-analysis), and the site never responds to that issue. Instead it just throws dirt in the air by saying that the "internet personality" admits he didn't contact all the authors, either. But that's not a requirement of the critique; the site admitted they didn't even do the basics right.

Another issue is that ivermectin was only effective against the virus in a cell culture. When scientists attempted to replicate the effect in human cells, it failed. Skipping over a lot of biochemical details... but for example https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.17.444467v2 ; even when they increased the concentration to ridiculous levels, it still failed.

The site attempts to minimize that issue, but mostly waves it off in a way that shows it's not doing science. The reason why actual scientific results are strong is because they connect everything. Pre-clinical: show the drug works in various cell cultures, explain the biochemical mechanisms, show it works in test organisms. Then comes clinical testing to show it actually works in practice.

The pandemic effort to repurpose drugs was a magnet for fraud. I suspect that's because if a drug showed any potential in the initial screening, someone could generate a fraudulent study showing "it worked" and get lots of attention. It was a long-shot gamble with fame if the drug actually worked. Unfortunately in a pandemic, people desperate for anything would glom onto the hope provided by those fraudsters.

I wouldn't have bothered responding except for the subsequent mic drop comment, as if the narrow critique above somehow invalidates the results of 61 treatment/control group studies included in the website's analysis.

To say that ivermectin is only effective against the virus in a cell culture is simply not true. The basis for the results reported on the ivermectin website is 23,285 actual patients across 61 treatment/control group studies. So, as far as you're concerned, throw out a meta-analysis of these 61 studies because the site didn't contact the authors of the 61 studies? OK, but out of curiosity, what's the point of contacting these authors? For many types of analyses, I wouldn't need to contact the authors of a paper in order to incorporate its findings. And how is it that failing to contact the authors invalidates the meta analysis?

Regardless, looked at in isolation, most of the individual studies on its effectiveness show statistically significant results in favor of ivermectin (with the usual caveats, i.e., best when taken within 5 days of the onset of symptoms in combo with vitamin D for example). The website reports a near-comprehensive list of those involving actual patients, including 107 on covid/ivermectin among which 71 are peer reviewed. You want to throw out those results too? You can't possibly invalidate any meaningful number of those studies, so in essence you simply refuse to believe their findings. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but don't act like it's more than that. The 61 treatment/control group studies represent the work of 586 researchers.

Focusing on the paper you cite, it only uses "human airway-deprived cell models" to show that ivermectin doesn't work. What is more convincing, the response of a cell model or the response of 23,285 actual human beings?

A significant percentage of the world uses ivermectin for covid, with some estimates >20%. You're suggesting that the countries that use it widely are a victim of fraud. Maybe their health authorities are smarter than you think.

Meanwhile, it's not surprising that the approved Remdesivir drug costs $3,000 per patient. That's the point. Suppress cheap alternatives.

You realize you're better off banging your head against a wall than trying to communicate with a troll, right? Trolls aren't interested in honest discourse, they just want a negative reaction. Why trolls get validation through their behavior is a mystery (it's likely because they're a failure in the real world) but the destruction they leave in their wake can be pretty bad if people don't stop feeding them at the first sign of trouble. Look what the troll's done to this site in just two days! His insipid "observations" about the Vikings, combined with his moronic conspiracy theories have sucked the oxygen out of the room. Since the mods won't remove him, I'd recommend that no one respond to any of the trolls posts....ever. It might take a little while, but everyone's patience will pay off. Eventually he'll get bored and find someone else's time to waste...

quote:

ORIGINAL: ronhextall

If Cousins misses any games because of Covid I don't see how the Vikings bring him back next year. The PR hit would be absolutely massive.

I think any team that has an unvaccinated starting QB is hamstringing their season.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ratoppenheimer

.
.
i think we need another wr...larry Fitzgerald or golden tate....even dez bryant...maybe....


Ian Rapoport@RapSheet
#Vikings WR Justin Jefferson, who went down hard in practice, suffered a separated shoulder or sprained AC joint, source said. Sigh of relief.

Ian Rapoport@RapSheet
Tests came out as good as possible for Justin Jefferson, who is now considered day-to-day. All positive news.