2020 49ers Training Camp Thread

Originally posted by Polkadots:
"Lung damage" doesn't describe anything though. Those articles all suggest lesions. But, lesions, in and of themselves, don't mean much. A benign lesion wouldn't cause any distress. As someone with lung lesions (likely a result from where I grew up and being exposed to Valley Fever spores) I have managed fine.

What they're concerned with is will it casue problems later. They have seen case where people with no symptoms suddenly too a quick turn and died. That's what they're concerned with.

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:

Originally posted by Polkadots:

"Lung damage" doesn't describe anything though. Those articles all suggest lesions. But, lesions, in and of themselves, don't mean much. A benign lesion wouldn't cause any distress. As someone with lung lesions (likely a result from where I grew up and being exposed to Valley Fever spores) I have managed fine.

What they're concerned with is will it casue problems later. They have seen case where people with no symptoms suddenly too a quick turn and died. That's what they're concerned with.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/06/23/864536258/we-still-dont-fully-understand-the-label-asymptomatic

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.zmescience.com/medicine/covid-19-asymptomatic-lung-damage-0523532/amp/

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
What they're concerned with is will it casue problems later. They have seen case where people with no symptoms suddenly too a quick turn and died. That's what they're concerned with.

But I see nothing in the related articles showing any definitive link between those patients who died suddenly and COVID, other than they had COVID. But lots of people have / had COVID, and lots of people died. But dying with (or having had) COVID, is not the same as dying from COVID.

I understand the concern as similar diseases such as SARS and MERS had long-term lung damage. But one needs to quantify terms. Lung damage can be severe or completely benign. The flu can cause lung damage

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

Every recent study I've read still points to severe cases = lung damage. Do you by chance have a link to that Dr's findings?

It was on the front of my Xfinity home page. I just checked and they have new stuff up there now. Google lung damage in asymptomatic COVID cases and there are several sites that are reporting this. Warning it's not pleasant.

Thanks bud. Ok read a few different articles. And yes while some these asymptomatic patients who had pneumonia have shown some lung damage, they are likening it to someone with walking pneumonia. They seemed to all be on the same page that it wasn't irreversible though, so that's some bit of good news. But honestly this is all so relatively new, no one fully knows

Not sure if relevant to your discussion but just in case.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

Every recent study I've read still points to severe cases = lung damage. Do you by chance have a link to that Dr's findings?

It was on the front of my Xfinity home page. I just checked and they have new stuff up there now. Google lung damage in asymptomatic COVID cases and there are several sites that are reporting this. Warning it's not pleasant.

Thanks bud. Ok read a few different articles. And yes while some these asymptomatic patients who had pneumonia have shown some lung damage, they are likening it to someone with walking pneumonia. They seemed to all be on the same page that it wasn't irreversible though, so that's some bit of good news. But honestly this is all so relatively new, no one fully knows

Not sure if relevant to your discussion but just in case.

🚨

"Palm Beach County children are showing long-term lung damage from COVID-19."

"'When we take X-rays of kids, even if they don't have symptoms, there are changes in the lungs,' Alonso said. 'We have no idea what the long-term damage will look like.'"https://t.co/jRuCUvykYm

— MsResistFL (@MsResistFL) July 7, 2020

It's relevant

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:
It's relevant

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:
It's relevant

I think that may be the same one I read initially. One thing to note is this is in people under 30 who would normally have healthy lungs. As far as determining whether someone died from COVID or because of complications goes it doesn't matter. The virus is causing the complications like lung damage, kidney damage etc. My best friend had lung cancer and fought for 2 years. In the end he just came home one day and died on his bed even though his cancer was stable ( not gone) . Did the cancer kill him? I don't know. He may have had a heart attack or his body just gave out from fighting the illness. In either case it was the cancer that was the ultimate cause.

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
I think that may be the same one I read initially. One thing to note is this is in people under 30 who would normally have healthy lungs. As far as determining whether someone died from COVID or because of complications goes it doesn't matter. The virus is causing the complications like lung damage, kidney damage etc. My best friend had lung cancer and fought for 2 years. In the end he just came home one day and died on his bed even though his cancer was stable ( not gone) . Did the cancer kill him? I don't know. He may have had a heart attack or his body just gave out from fighting the illness. In either case it was the cancer that was the ultimate cause.

1) Of course it matters. In fact, it's all that matters. If 1000 people have COVID, but all die in a 9/11 type attack, you don't get to ignore the cause of death and blame COVID. Having COVID, and dying from COVID, are two separate and distinct events. One must differentiate between them.

2) That's correct, you don't know what killed him. To then end with "cancer was the ultimate cause," without providing medical evidence, is what renders such claims questionable. If your friend had shot himself due to the pain he was in, are you going to blame cancer for his death, since the pain was (assumed) to be from the cancer? Of course not. And that segues nicely into the following:

3) From NC's linked article above, "When we take X-rays of kids, even if they don't have symptoms, there are changes in the lungs," Alonso said. "We have no idea what the long-term damage will look like." Correct, they have no idea (right now). Changes does not equal damage. Thus, any claim about future damage is speculation. And, while such speculation may be (likely is) warranted, it is, none the less, speculation. What's worse is what's written shortly thereafter: "While the number of kids who have been tested is low, the increasing number of positive tests is cause for concern, Alonso said. "That's a significant number of children who will have consequences down the pike," she said. Alonso just said, and I provided the quote, "We have no idea what the long-term damage will look like." So, to then say they will have consequences (convention holds such a statement to be negative) is problematic. And that's why I take issue with how things are being reported. Within a one inch segment Alonso said X and ~X

I think COVID will present long term problems for people, much in the way other corona viruses have. Further, I am all for putting things on hold, but do so based on good science / actual evidence, not speculation. There may be a study out there showing actual long term damage (as best it can given the short timeline), and if that's the case, use that as your evidence. Right now though, based on the above, we have lofty claims without evidence. I think there are a ton of reasons to scale things back, but "potential" long term damage isn't one of them If you open that door, how many other "potential" things do we let run our lives?

20 days

Originally posted by Polkadots:
1) Of course it matters. In fact, it's all that matters. If 1000 people have COVID, but all die in a 9/11 type attack, you don't get to ignore the cause of death and blame COVID. Having COVID, and dying from COVID, are two separate and distinct events. One must differentiate between them.

2) That's correct, you don't know what killed him. To then end with "cancer was the ultimate cause," without providing medical evidence, is what renders such claims questionable. If your friend had shot himself due to the pain he was in, are you going to blame cancer for his death, since the pain was (assumed) to be from the cancer? Of course not. And that segues nicely into the following:

3) From NC's linked article above, "When we take X-rays of kids, even if they don't have symptoms, there are changes in the lungs," Alonso said. "We have no idea what the long-term damage will look like." Correct, they have no idea (right now). Changes does not equal damage. Thus, any claim about future damage is speculation. And, while such speculation may be (likely is) warranted, it is, none the less, speculation. What's worse is what's written shortly thereafter: "While the number of kids who have been tested is low, the increasing number of positive tests is cause for concern, Alonso said. "That's a significant number of children who will have consequences down the pike," she said. Alonso just said, and I provided the quote, "We have no idea what the long-term damage will look like." So, to then say they will have consequences (convention holds such a statement to be negative) is problematic. And that's why I take issue with how things are being reported. Within a one inch segment Alonso said X and ~X

I think COVID will present long term problems for people, much in the way other corona viruses have. Further, I am all for putting things on hold, but do so based on good science / actual evidence, not speculation. There may be a study out there showing actual long term damage (as best it can given the short timeline), and if that's the case, use that as your evidence. Right now though, based on the above, we have lofty claims without evidence. I think there are a ton of reasons to scale things back, but "potential" long term damage isn't one of them If you open that door, how many other "potential" things do we let run our lives?

AGree. We don't know what we don't know. The facts are sparse about asymptomatic people having lung damage. While there some evidence that they do have damage to their lungs because they have it but have no symptoms, from my point of view, it doesn't yet get to that 50% to 60% certainty level for me, where I can then make a decision based on incomplete *facts.* The facts from those articles get me to -- at most -- a 30% level of certainty that maybe there is something to this asymptomatic patients having undetected lung damage, so to me, it's not enough to make a decision to close the season or not from my perspective. If I was the NFL and that was the *sole* reason to cancel the season, I would not cancel the season.

Having said that, from what we *do* know - social distancing and mask wearing are sufficient (from my perspective) specially if the game is in an outdoor setting in bright sunlight or even cloudy - is safe enough for the fans. As for the NFL players, the players have definitely a higher risk because it's a contact sport, the players do have a higher risk of catching the virus. From what we know factually, the death rates keep going down, the mitigating drugs are working and more are being developed. So the risk of death is very low. If there is new helmets that incorporate a sort of mask and that all cuts and sweat are somehow avoided, I think the NFL can safely (with very low risk) allow the season to continue. Now, my worry is the fall when the flu season starts. I think that time period is where the game changes due to weather conditions. I think I would be OK for the NFL to shut the season down during the flu season if there is a spike in the virus.

Take this covid s**t to the Wuhan thread. Let's stick to football chat ladies

Originally posted by mayo49:
20 days

woooooooooooooooo

Originally posted by Polkadots:
1) Of course it matters. In fact, it's all that matters. If 1000 people have COVID, but all die in a 9/11 type attack, you don't get to ignore the cause of death and blame COVID. Having COVID, and dying from COVID, are two separate and distinct events. One must differentiate between them.

2) That's correct, you don't know what killed him. To then end with "cancer was the ultimate cause," without providing medical evidence, is what renders such claims questionable. If your friend had shot himself due to the pain he was in, are you going to blame cancer for his death, since the pain was (assumed) to be from the cancer? Of course not. And that segues nicely into the following:

3) From NC's linked article above, "When we take X-rays of kids, even if they don't have symptoms, there are changes in the lungs," Alonso said. "We have no idea what the long-term damage will look like." Correct, they have no idea (right now). Changes does not equal damage. Thus, any claim about future damage is speculation. And, while such speculation may be (likely is) warranted, it is, none the less, speculation. What's worse is what's written shortly thereafter: "While the number of kids who have been tested is low, the increasing number of positive tests is cause for concern, Alonso said. "That's a significant number of children who will have consequences down the pike," she said. Alonso just said, and I provided the quote, "We have no idea what the long-term damage will look like." So, to then say they will have consequences (convention holds such a statement to be negative) is problematic. And that's why I take issue with how things are being reported. Within a one inch segment Alonso said X and ~X

I think COVID will present long term problems for people, much in the way other corona viruses have. Further, I am all for putting things on hold, but do so based on good science / actual evidence, not speculation. There may be a study out there showing actual long term damage (as best it can given the short timeline), and if that's the case, use that as your evidence. Right now though, based on the above, we have lofty claims without evidence. I think there are a ton of reasons to scale things back, but "potential" long term damage isn't one of them If you open that door, how many other "potential" things do we let run our lives?

Cancer was the ultimate cause since it created all the problems he had. The treatments had destroyed his immune system and weakened his body. You often see people die from pneumonia but there was usually something that triggered the pneumonia. The lung damage they are seeing in these young people is not common with flu or other corona viruses. That's the reason they're concerned. There may not be long term problems but it's better to prepare now than to stick your head in the sand. If we had continued our research when SARs was first seen we may have been better prepared to handle COVID instead of the mess we have. We had lofty claims without evidence about this virus. Health officials warned us in late February or early March that this was dangerous. No hard evidence but they had a pretty good idea because it was something new that nobody had immunity to. Then Trump (with no evidence) said it will disappear in a month or so. One opinion based on scientific studies and the other based on nothing.

Originally posted by wailers15:
Take this covid s**t to the Wuhan thread. Let's stick to football chat ladies

That would be nice but you can't talk about any sports now without mentioning this virus.

Something I heard this morning makes me wonder what the point is of the COVID tests. Nascar driver Jimmie Johnson tested positive last week and had to sit out the race. Now just 4 days later he's had to negative tests. You can't get rid of the virus that fast so obviously there is a problem with the tests. His wife also tested positive but I haven't heard if she is now negative. If they can't get accurate testing it doesn't make sense to send guys home and cancel practices. If they are experiencing symptoms then that's a different story. Maybe they need to have 2 or 3 consecutive tests to validate it.