Joe Barry has tested positive for COVID-19, will not coach on Thursday Night

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Once again, i've ignored nothing. You saying that is the case doesn't make so and the chances being "extremely small" are getting bigger every passing day post innoculation and with every new set of data that comes in.

anyway, i'm not going debate the merits of pro or not. I will say, testing negative he should be subjected to the same rules as everyone else because he is neither sick, nor with a viral load that is evident upon testing.

He is no more dangerous than any other person on that field with a negative test.

According to the latest studies I have read it takes up to five days until an individual who has been infected with COVID-19 tests positive.

Therefore an unvaccinated individual who was in close contact with someone who tests positive is at a huge risk to test positive within the next 120 hours.

I fully understand the NFL not wanting to have someone like that playing because of one negative test.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,795
According to the latest studies I have read it takes up to five days until an individual who has been infected with COVID-19 tests positive.

Therefore an unvaccinated individual who was in close contact with someone who tests positive is at a huge risk to test positive within the next 120 hours.

I fully understand the NFL not wanting to have someone like that playing because of one negative test.
and clearly vaccinated individuals can both carry and spread it. How do you tell the difference? Odds? what are the odds, exactly? There are data sets after data set after data set that show the contact tracing and close contact quarantining of negative testing and asymptomatic quarantining to have zero net impact on transmission in schools, work places or public. I'm sorry they don't put those out on the nightly news for you. and you saying it's huge risk doesn't make it any more so than any other person who's testing negative.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,077
Reaction score
7,893
Location
Madison, WI
I was happy to see the NFL do what some haven't had the balls to do, that of encouraging players to get vaccinated. Making the consequences what they are was a smart move and making it public, to encourage fans to get vaccinated, even better. Those people who still refuse to get vaccinated, due to an embarrassing long list of excuses, should pull their heads out of their....Take a look at what is going on in countries like Russia and Romania, where vaccination rates are low.
 

PikeBadger

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
6,287
Reaction score
1,700
Lol. Not at all Captain. You decided to disagree with my opinion that it’s nice to have Gray given the spot we’re in.

For whatever reason, you have an overwhelming compulsion to pick fights over benign opinions.
It's because you're wearing a blue shirt Dantes. My closet apparently only contains blue shirts.
 

PikeBadger

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
6,287
Reaction score
1,700
DO NOT accept an invite for a 3 hour tour if there are any movie stars, millionaire's or a MaryAnn around.
You conveniently neglected to include professor. I find this intellectually dishonest on your behalf. You too must be wearing a blueshirt.
 

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
11,949
Reaction score
2,899
I'm not mad at Lazard at all. He knew entering the season that he could miss a game because of being a close contact to someone who tests positive if he isn't vaccinated though.



Once again, I only mentioned Gray wasn't successful as a defensive coordinator. You decided to pick a fight afterwards.



The CDC defines “Close Contact” as living in the same household, being within six (6) feet of someone for at least fifteen (15) cumulative minutes, or being in direct contact with secretions from a sick person with COVID-19 (e.g., being coughed on).



The one thing that is actually dumb is to believe that an unvaccinated person who had close contact with someone who tested positive isn't a risk to anyone else because of a single negativ test.



No, but you have to have a complete lack of knowledge on how COVID-19 spreads.



Once again, an unvaccinated person who has been in close contact with someone who tested positive is more dangerous to get infected and spread the virus.

False. I made a completely uncontroversial statement about Gray and you picked a fight and now you're upset because you're getting the rougher end of it.

It's what you do.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,795
I was happy to see the NFL do what some haven't had the balls to do, that of encouraging players to get vaccinated. Making the consequences what they are was a smart move and making it public, to encourage fans to get vaccinated, even better. Those people who still refuse to get vaccinated, due to an embarrassing long list of excuses, should pull their heads out of their....Take a look at what is going on in countries like Russia and Romania, where vaccination rates are low.
we fit 2 people under 40, one a 16 year old girl with heart holters in the past 3 weeks due to the vaccine. Your conditioning hasn't equipped you to have a real conversation on the topic.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
and clearly vaccinated individuals can both carry and spread it. How do you tell the difference? Odds? what are the odds, exactly? There are data sets after data set after data set that show the contact tracing and close contact quarantining of negative testing and asymptomatic quarantining to have zero net impact on transmission in schools, work places or public. I'm sorry they don't put those out on the nightly news for you. and you saying it's huge risk doesn't make it any more so than any other person who's testing negative.

Do you suggest vaccines aren't working???

In addition I would be interested in at least one study by a respected source that suggests that contact tracing and quarantining close contacts has no impact.

Do you think I'm living in a country that doesn't have access to information available out there???
 

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
11,949
Reaction score
2,899
Once again, i've ignored nothing. You saying that is the case doesn't make so and the chances being "extremely small" are getting bigger every passing day post innoculation and with every new set of data that comes in.

anyway, i'm not going debate the merits of pro or not. I will say, testing negative he should be subjected to the same rules as everyone else because he is neither sick, nor with a viral load that is evident upon testing.

He is no more dangerous than any other person on that field with a negative test.

There are people for whom any amount of risk mitigation regarding COVID is unacceptable. They don't think critically about it, they just blast any call for tests, vaccines, quarantines, etc. because the cost of such measures could never be low enough for them to be ok with the mitigation.

Then there are people who whom no amount of mitigation is unacceptable because they are religiously dedicated to the cult of safeism. They don't think critically about it, they just argue that all it, the mask mandates, the vaccine mandates, the enforced quarantines, the enforced lockdowns, etc. are all reasonable because it agrees with their religious infatuation with the virus.

That's how you wind up with people who think it's reasonable to tell a healthy young person he can't work when he's not sick and can prove it-- no critical thinking, just a slobbering attachment to a cause that can't be questioned.

So it seems that Captain is in the latter camp. We already knew Poker was. Shoot, he put me on ignore just because I had the temerity to have a different opinion on COVID stuff than he does. That's some puritanical devotion right there.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,795
Do you suggest vaccines aren't working???

In addition I would be interested in at least one study by a respected source that suggests that contact tracing and quarantining close contacts has no impact.

Do you think I'm living in a country that doesn't have access to information available out there???
No, I suggested that a man who's neither symptomatic and has a negative test before game time is as safe to be on that field as the other men who are not symptomatic and have negative tests before game time on the field.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
False. I made a completely uncontroversial statement about Gray and you picked a fight and now you're upset because you're getting the rougher end of it.

It's what you do.

It's hilarious that you're so ignorant to believe you're the one getting the better end of a fight I never picked.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Then there are people who whom no amount of mitigation is unacceptable because they are religiously dedicated to the cult of safeism. They don't think critically about it, they just argue that all it, the mask mandates, the vaccine mandates, the enforced quarantines, the enforced lockdowns, etc. are all reasonable because it agrees with their religious infatuation with the virus.

That's how you wind up with people who think it's reasonable to tell a healthy young person he can't work when he's not sick and can prove it-- no critical thinking, just a slobbering attachment to a cause that can't be questioned.

So it seems that Captain is in the latter camp.

It's not being dedicated to safeism but it's trusting science instead of conspriacy theorists that can't solve their kids maths homework but have become self-proclaimed experts on COVID-19 over the past 18 months.

No, I suggested that a man who's neither symptomatic and has a negative test before game time is as safe to be on that field as the other men who are not symptomatic and have negative tests before game time on the field.

You don't understand that a negative test a day before a game doesn't guarantee a player not being infectious by the time the game starts.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,795
It's not being dedicated to safeism but it's trusting science instead of conspriacy theorists that can't solve their kids maths homework but have become self-proclaimed experts on COVID-19 over the past 18 months.



You don't understand that a negative test a day before a game doesn't guarantee a player not being infectious by the time the game starts.
Spend less time trying to figure out what you think I don't understand and realize what it is you don't. I'm well aware of what testing signifies or not. and I didn't have to learn about it on the internet.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Spend less time trying to figure out what you think I don't understand and realize what it is you don't. I'm well aware of what testing signifies or not. and I didn't have to learn about it on the internet.

Yet you claim that a player who tested negative a day before a game is of no risk to others. It seems you don't understand it after all.
 

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
11,949
Reaction score
2,899
It's not being dedicated to safeism but it's trusting science instead of conspriacy theorists that can't solve their kids maths homework but have become self-proclaimed experts on COVID-19 over the past 18 months.

^ prime example.

“If they question any of the mitigation, they’re idiots.”

It’s the same logic as “If they favor any of the mitigation, they’re commies.”

That’s the irony. They’re the same.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Say what you like. The whole forum knows I’m right about this. They deal with the same petty ********.

The Packers don't even agree with you that Gray is the best choice to handle all of Barry's duties vs. the Cardinals tonight.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,795
Yet you claim that a player who tested negative a day before a game is of no risk to others. It seems you don't understand it after all.
Except I didn't say no risk did I?
No, I suggested that a man who's neither symptomatic and has a negative test before game time is as safe to be on that field as the other men who are not symptomatic and have negative tests before game time on the field.
That's what I said.

Who was more risk on Sunday to others, the guy who tested positive on Monday or the guy testing negative?

They all have risk, it's never a sum zero game.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Except I didn't say no risk did I?

That's what I said.

Who was more risk on Sunday to others, the guy who tested positive on Monday or the guy testing negative?

They all have risk, it's never a sum zero game.

An unvaccinated player that has been deemed to have been in close contact with an individual who tested positive is a higher risk than a vaccinated player though.

That shouldn't be that hard to understand.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,077
Reaction score
7,893
Location
Madison, WI
we fit 2 people under 40, one a 16 year old girl with heart holters in the past 3 weeks due to the vaccine. Your conditioning hasn't equipped you to have a real conversation on the topic.
Lol...my conditioning? Yes, let's ignore logic, statistics and experts and run in fear of the vaccine because some guy named Mondio has a couple of examples of complications.

Go drink more of your fooking orange Kool aid. Lol one more time @ "MY CONDITIONING"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Latest posts

Top