7 hours ago, Dan T. said:

This poll did NOT go how Senator Johnson thought it would.  L.O.L.

 

 

 

 

It's even better now lol...

2 hours ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:

Could be wrong but i thought he meant NFL players in general, not just our players 

If so, he probably should have posted in the ATN forum's COVID list thread...

1 hour ago, Die Hard said:

 

I don't think that's fair. That's a pretty neutral tweet speaking about weather/driving conditions.... 2" of snow can be legitimately hazardous for some people.

When there's no difference in how the president of the United States and his staff handle capturing a dangerous terrorist responsible for 3,000 American deaths, and how a newly elected governor handles reports of 2 inches of snow, something's wrong lol...

27 minutes ago, bearrock said:

@Califan007 Right now, I assume the HHS number and the local/state number shouldn't have a meaningful variance in terms of trend (I'm not sure whether CDC number is separate from HHS data collection or if it's based on state numbers, whatever).

 

But let's say some states start fudging numbers in the future or drop covid data collection altogether.  Then having that HHS data collection becomes critical.  So what exactly is the downside of having hospitals continue to include covid death numbers in the reports sent to HHS?  What is the benefit of dropping the reporting requirement when it's something hospitals should be keeping track and reporting to state/local anyway?

From what I'm seeing, if some states dropped reporting COVID deaths altogether in what they send to the federal government, then the hospitals would be responsible for sending their death counts to the feds? Not really sure, though...because in that pic I posted it makes it sound as if hospitals were required to do just that but can stop doing so if their local state government is sending that same data to the federal government (along with whatever other data they send).

I remember there was some state in which hospitals were announcing that they would collectively publish their COVID data daily because their state government was changing how often (or even if) they were releasing that same data. So these healthcare collectives said "**** that, we'll just release it ourselves then"...

^^^Also:

"The HHS dataset is a national goddamn treasure that we at CTP fought to publicize and get into wider use. But this specific thing is not what you think it is."

"You will be seeing *exactly the same death counts* you saw before unless you’re a very specialized data analyst. I’m still getting freaked out texts so I want to make this super clear."

"Would I like to see a rationale for the HHS data change? Totally. But this isn’t what people think it is."

(someone else): "As the invested layperson, as near as I can tell they're changing the reporting to weekly and all cause respiratory deaths. So the deaths will get counted, granted with a larger lag and bundled to add extra confusion."

(and to that end...)

Deactivation of Certain Data Elements for Federal Reporting

The new guidance “deactivates” the federal reporting of 27 data elements, primarily focused on supply chain and therapeutics whose use has been curtailed (e.g., remdesivir). HHS notes that while the federal government will not require hospitals to report the data, HHS will retain the data fields in its reporting templates and guidance in the event that local, state and territorial partners wish to use them in their own reporting processes.

Additional responses/tweets:

"*thank you.* IDK people understand that especially at smaller hospitals, it's people scrambling to collect this information and upload it daily. If it's not being used for decisionmaking it frankly doesn't make sense to ask, especially when it's only in-facility mortality."

(and to that end lol...)

21 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

I think the article quoted by China covered that point.  Right now there's redundancy between federal reporting and state reporting.  But we also know that some states have, shall we say, less than stellar track record with prioritizing data fidelity when it comes to covid related numbers.  

 

If everything is working as it should (no state is fudging with the reporting criteria), there is de minimis burden on hospitals to report death numbers to both federal and state (because hospitals still have whole host of other numbers to report to HHS anyway.   It's literally plugging in one more number).  If on the other hand, some states start fudging the criteria, manipulate the numbers once they receive it from hospitals,  or shut down covid death reporting altogether, missing that data redundancy of federal reporting becomes a huge issue.  

 

So given the negligible benefit and potential downside, what exactly is the logic behind not requiring reporting covid related deaths to HHS?

Doesn't matter if the source of the daily death counts we've all been seeing rarely relied on direct hospital death counts to begin with. The same article said that something like 1/3rd of COVID deaths don't occur in hospitals anyway.

6 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Who would trade for a player who’s contract is going to expire before the next season?

 

 

 

To be fair, I did say "nobody in their right mind" lol 😂

On 1/16/2022 at 11:02 AM, bearrock said:

 

As much I would like to believe it's fake news, no longer requiring federal reporting of covid death is definitely true.

 

From the horse's mouth https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/covid-19-faqs-hospitals-hospital-laboratory-acute-care-facility-data-reporting.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjcj-ea97b1AhVCm-AKHfPeBUcQFnoECAYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2oDWTLshCZ2dsIDL6N5SiZ

 

Element 16

 

 

From China's article

 

 

 

What is the downside of hospitals being continued to report covid deaths if they are supposed to report them to states anyway? In the absence of mandatory federal reporting, how many states will gladly fudge with the numbers?

 

I keep hoping that I'm missing something because this sounds bat**** insane.  If it was done by the Trump administration, I would be polishing my pitchforks.

I found this:\

A misleading claim that the government is going to stop tracking COVID-19 deaths is going viral — even though it isn’t true

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/misleading-viral-claim-on-government-tracking-covid-19-deaths-debunked-2022-1

• A viral claim falsely said the US government was no longer tracking COVID-19 deaths.
• In reality, HHS is no longer asking hospitals to report COVID-19 deaths.
• Most COVID-19 death counts rely on data from the CDC and local or state agencies, not HHS

“BREAKING,” one viral tweet said. “US Government to end daily COVID death reporting.”

The tweet then said the US Department of Health and Human Services will no longer require hospitals to report daily COVID-19 deaths to the agency. That part is true, according to guidance recently issued by HHS, but it does not affect the daily COVID-19 death counts that the vast majority of people have been consulting throughout the pandemic.

Epidemiologists and data journalists on Twitter chimed in to debunk the claim that the US was no longer tracking deaths.

“Seriously this is so misleading, please stop spreading it,” Erin Kissane, who cofounded The Atlantic’s COVID Tracking Project, said in a tweet.

Kissane said the daily death counts most people are following, like the one maintained by The New York Times, do not rely on or use data from HHS. She said those counts use data compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or from local and state health authorities directly.

“You will be seeing *exactly the same death counts* you saw before unless you’re a very specialized data analyst,” Kissane said.

This guy's take on where Wilson could go cracks me up lol...

2 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Yeah, you're right.  But, I mean, honestly, there are no more games to play, he's not going to be retained, I doubt he even had an exit interview.  He's most likely going to retire.

 

So you're TECHNICALLY right.  

 

But it don't matter a damn.  

Well the guy said "He's not under contract with anybody"...that's not true lol. I mean, we could trade him, I guess, if we wanted to. I'm not saying anyone would trade for Fitz, because nobody in their right mind would.

58 minutes ago, -JB- said:

He was paid 10 million dollars for the season.  Is WFT season not over?  He’s not under contract with anybody.

I think he's technically still under contract until the start of the new season.

45 minutes ago, Forehead said:

 

Well, Dan Marino never won a Super Bowl so that one is easy.  He was obviously too pretty.

 

John Elway had/has horse teeth.

 

Joe Montana, as already covered above, has a butt chin. And the sort of odd thousand yard stare/lower forehead combination that reminds you more of a lobotomy patient than a functional person.  He couldn't be anything other than a winner.

 

This theory works, I tell you.

 

 

 

You should have titled your thread "If you want a Super Bowl-winning QB" instead of "If you want a franchise QB"...that way it cuts down on variables lol.

But to your hypothesis: which one was better looking: Russell Wilson or Cam Newton? I submit that Newton was the better looking QB which 'splains the SB results for both players.

Who was better looking: Matt Leinart or Trent Dilfer? Trent goes to show that, when it comes to winning SBs, your looks matter more than your talent.

Who was better looking: Mark Sanchez or Mark Rypien? No explanation needed.

I am submitting your name for the Nobel Peace Prize for contributions to sports.

25 minutes ago, DCSaints_fan said:

The rest of the games were not competitive.  It was a pretty dull WC weekend.  

This game wasnt competitive, either...

Jerry Jones sends stern message to Cowboys after embarrassing Wild Card loss

https://fansided.com/2022/01/16/jerry-jones-reaction-cowboys-wild-card-loss-video/?ref=SiteHype.com

Let’s spare hyperbole: The Dallas Cowboys playoff loss on Sunday afternoon was nothing short of embarrassing.

[...]Even before the controversial ending to the game, questions were being asked about just what in the actual hell Mike McCarthy was thinking. One person perhaps thinking that more than anyone else is the man paying McCarthy: Cowboys owner Jerry Jones.

After the loss, Jones didn’t directly address McCarthy or his coaches by name, but his message nevertheless felt very pointed.

It’s worth mentioning that Dan Quinn is getting some significant head coaching interest this hiring cycle. One potential option for Jones could be to fire McCarthy and promote Quinn to head coach, which would be a rather seamless transition.

12 minutes ago, Ball Security said:

Yes, Dak should have handed it to the ref.  Once he handed it to the center, the center should have handed it to the ref.  The ref was trying to spot it appropriately, but the Cowboys made a wall.  The reg did the best he could there.

Belichick makes his players run to the "ref" and hand him the ball after every play--during practices. He wants it to become like muscle memory...

Was that Samaje Perine with a carry in the Bengals’ playoff game?…

It might be time to put your phone on vibrate lol...

This guy has a cannon of an arm...I say we sign him.

I be strokin'!!

It's Bill Burr so, yeah, NSFW language lol...