TMK9973

I'm most concerned about coaching. 

1st- Heinike needs to be the starter. I can't honestly tell you if he's better or not then Fritz but I know what Fritz ceiling is.  17 years and 9 teams, we know what he is.  And I don't think at 38 he's going to be better.

Heinike, at a minimum, is just below Fritz. But none of us really know what his ceiling is and the potential is there. He should be the starter.

Defense- the coaching is what concerns me. Why was Sweat not in there at multiple key moments?  When our secondary was being torn apart and it was clear that if we gave SD time, the passes were completed, so 1st and 2nd down we brought extra players and it worked. So 3rd and 16 and we sent only 4 and dropped back 8??

Dumb call.

Also, 4th and 7 before that on SD 40 with 7 mins left, why are we punting?  Either way we had to stop San Diego, might as well go for it.

And finally, go back even more. What has Hopkins shown in the past 2 years that says a 51 years FG is makeable.  Up by 3, a miss and they are close to FG range to tie it. Make it and they are still 1 score away from taking the lead. Punt there is the right call 

The coaching was extremely questionable 

This is a mistake. I sorta get Fitz but sitting Heinkie?

So out top 2 QBs, one who has hardly played in the NFL will go 3 weeks since taking a snap in a game?

2 hours ago, No Nonsense said:

Oh, they’re already calling for Biden’s resignation and impeachment. Who didn’t see that coming? But Biden has really crapped the bed on this. 

They have been calling for Bidens resignation since Jan 20th.

Dem Demanded Trump to resign many times

Republicans called for Obama to Resign many times

Dems called for Bush Jr to Resign many times

Repub called For Clinton to Resign.

Im not sure thats really news worthy.  

And I think Biden screwed up the withdrawal. Badly. But Hindsight is always 20/20.

As bad as this is and has been -I give Biden Credit for sticking to us leaving.   

So the bombing is bad.  On all Sides.  Here is the thing -Bombing was done by ISIS -NOT Taliban. Im am 100% sure the Taliban is NOT happy about this.  The Taliban wants to rule Afghanistan. They have a real desire to be seen as Afghanistan true government.  

In fact -IT looks like leading up to this attack, the British army was using Taliban as extra security.  Of course one of many issues the Taliban has is they don't have strong control over their foot soldiers. 

If the Taliban was smart -they would have a strong response. They would figure out a way to retaliate hard against ISIS and use it as proof that the US needs to get out, that they need to even further restrict access to the airport, and that they can handle their own security. 

At same time -They don't want to start a war with ISIS.  So look for some "arrest" and quick summary killings of "Those involved in the planning" and a statement saying "No evidence this was anything other then a small isolated group".

On the political side -Biden is F***D.  There is NO good response here. Only bad option that make him look week.  Continue the withdrawal, stop it, expand security,  Fight Taliban, Bomb ISIS somewhere, I see absolutely NO choice Biden could make that does not re-emphasis how badly this withdrawal is going.  

and if by some chance the GOP wins the house -Expect 2 years of non stop hearings on the withdrawal.  

2 hours ago, China said:

 

At the conference, Lindell had all of the invited cybersecurity experts sign a legal document explaining the rules and stipulations under which he would give out the $5 million reward — all of which Alderson says he met.

This is the interesting part to me.

I would like to it.  

Because I think we all knew this was hyperbole and would not be paid out (LIke when TX gov promised a million to anyone who could come forward with proof of voter fraud, and when the PA gov did come forward and showed cases of fraud BY Trumpers, nothing happened)

BUT - If Lindell had something IN writing, that outlined the info on how to collect, and it was signed and followed...

Well -that to me is now a contract.  

37 minutes ago, DCSaints_fan said:

 

With respect to bin Laden, I'm wondering if the US invasion of Afghanistan was necessary, or they could have done what they needed to do from a carrier as soon as they got the intel, or they did they really need a land base? 

Well - We tried BEFORE 9/11 to get him and never did.

After 9/11 we needed boots on the ground because he kept hiding. We had to flush him out.

Once he went to Pakistan we prob could have taken him out from afar -But bombing a neighborhood in a country that is suppose to be a allied is prob not a great look.  

2 hours ago, tshile said:

We’re at a covid testing center now. 
 

I’m getting tested too. I’m vaccinated. 

Just out of curiosity -Why the testing center?  There are at home tests now.  Is a PCR test required or just what you want? Just asking.  

I just saw a report where FOX news is requiring employees disclose their vaccination status.

Thats kinda funny.  

1 minute ago, PartyPosse said:

You can do what you want, I don’t know why you’d be so vehemently against it unless you think there are some detriments to it, which in a way does make you an anti-Vaxxer (even though I know you’re not). Like I said, you don’t realize the potential repercussions until it’s too late.

 

Also, I got J&J back in April, so it’d been about 2 months when I contracted it. Being in Vegas at a casino, it’s not all the surprising which is why I do think context matters. Being in a Petri dish like Vegas I do think yin need to take extra precautions than say a rural town in Idaho that doesn’t get a lot of travelers coming through.

yeah -I guess im against it in general is that I would rather the focus be on getting everyone the 2 shots here, and around the world.  I feel that is the best way to beat this thing and that in addition, if we start pushing for things that the data doesn't fully support, it will hurt the efforts to get those on the fence (My sister when from Anti vax to vax hesitant - she wants to travel end of this year so she started leaning towards getting the shots and now is pushing back with the "We still dont seem to know enough. Thinking I'll wait

But you actually stumbled on another great point.  The J&J seems to be the lease effective against delta.  

I also would love to see data about if those that got the J&J got a booster of Moderna or Pfizer -Would that be a big help?  

Just now, PartyPosse said:

I’m way under 60 and healthy and vaccinated. I also used to run 4-5 times a week 3-5 miles. 
 

It’s been two months since I got covid. I still can’t run. 
 

So, **** the arguments against boosters. You don’t realize how much you’ll want it until it’s too late.

Understood. Questions -Did you catch covid after being fully vaccinated?

How much after being fully vaccinated?

Would a 3rd booster have made a difference at all?  (That one prob can't be answered).

There is possible and probable.  It is POSSIBILE to get covid after getting 2 shots. Its POSSIBILE to get really sick even after 2 shots. And its POSSIBILE that a 3rd booster can reduce that risk (although its also POSSIBILE that after a 3rd shot you still get covid and get sick).

But thats not probable.  It is probable that if you have had 2 shots you wont get it and even if you did get it, you wont be really sick.  and does a 3rd booster really change those odds?  (I dont have the answer).

Example -I think flying a plane is pretty safe.  It is possible that when I board a plane It will crash and possible that if it crashes I could die.  Sitting in the back row in a middle seat reduces my chance of dying IF the plan I am on crashes (And it COULD happen).

But what is probable is the plane wont crash and if it does -Where i am sitting wont really change my odds enough for me to pick the back row middle seat when i am flying. 

(and i hate making these posts cause i know i sound like a anti vaxer. And I'm not. I'm just explaining the reason why as of right now, i will not get a booster even thought i am at 8 months since my 2nd shot in 1 week).

I am also 100% willing to change. If the consensus around the experts say they reviewed the data and a 3rd booster shot will significantly reduce my odds of getting sick from covid and passing it on to children and others - I will do that.  But that is far from the consensus right now.  

2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

As somebody else has pointed out doing real world effectiveness studies on vaccines is hard (so many variables).  But I'd be shocked if the protection of getting covid after 8 months dropped, but the protection against severe sickness and death don't change.

This wouldnt shock me and here is why.

The way I understand it from a layman perspective - Is the vaccine is teaching our immune system how to beat covid if our body gets infected with covid.  The 1st shot includes what looks like the Spike protein and shows the body how to fight it. The 2nd one is kinda like a test run where the spike protein shows up again, the instructions are still there and the body attacks it.  Kinda like training and then attacking.  

So after some months -I can see where when the body has not seen the spike protein in a bit - it may not be as quick to react and remember how to fight it, allowing a break through infection.  However the body was trained, so if that break through happens, then the body remembers how to fight it and does.  

Again -That is how i see it as a pure layman.  

13 minutes ago, China said:

Study: Fully vaccinated people with "breakthrough" COVID Delta infections carry as much virus as the unvaccinated

 

A study by University of Oxford scientists has found that people who contract the Delta variant of COVID-19 after being fully vaccinated carry a similar amount of the coronavirus as those who catch the disease and have not been inoculated. The researchers stressed that vaccination still offers good protection against catching the disease in the first place, and protects against getting seriously ill with it.

 

The survey of real-world U.K. data indicates, however, that vaccinated people with "breakthrough" infections could still pose a significant infection risk to those who have not been vaccinated.

 

"With Delta, infections occurring following two vaccinations had similar peak viral burden to those in unvaccinated individuals," the study, which has not yet been peer reviewed, concludes. Viral "burden" or viral load refers to how much coronavirus-infected people carry and thus "shed," or release into the environment around them, where it can potentially infect others.

 

Click on the link for the full article

It does seem pretty clear that if you are fully vaccinated and get it there is a point where you will have as much a viral load as a unvaxed person.

BUT - The key there is 1st you have to get it (Still much less chance once you are vaccinated) AND for how long. Vax people may have the same viral load but only for 1 day or so vs unvaxed who can carry it for multiplie days.  

But I DO think this is where the boosters come in.  Logic being if a booster reduces the chance of break through cases (Even if the person doesnt get sick) that it reduces the amount of people that could spread it thereby helping reduce cases.  

I get it.  But how long do we do that? Get a booster every 6 to 8 months for the rest of our lives?  All to avoid the small chance of catching a virus that, if you have been vaccinated, prob wont have much effect on you?  

12 hours ago, 86 Snyder said:

Does anyone happen to have a good, recent link to show what percentage of covid hospitalizations are vaccinated now?  I keep hearing its 1-2% but would love a link.

 

Got in an argument tonight and would love something to that effect.

 

Im also supposed to show evidence of Tucker Carlson lying but im pretty goddam sure I got that one covered lol.

I do for VA. Not for the country.

https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/coronavirus/covid-19-in-virginia/covid-19-cases-by-vaccination-status/

98.34% of all cases are those not fully vaccinated.

97.24% of all hospitalizations are those not fully vaccinated. 

98.17% of deaths are those not fully vaccinated. 

47 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

In a pandemic? Why?

I'd argue that saying don't do things like above HURT the arguement to wear masks and get the vaccine.

Why?  Because we are (Rightfully) saying "FOLLOW THE SCIENCE! FOLLOW THE STUDIES!  I dont care what your GUT says -Science, studies, experts know more then your gut"

The science says covid is not found in water, is not spread from surfaces, and is killed by UV rays. So -besides the fact that in General studies have found water fountains to be safe (https://www.health.state.mn.us/diseases/coronavirus/water.html) we also need to look at the entire picture. UNC requires vaccination or weekly testing of all students, requires masks on campus, and has a water fountain outside. 

These kids doing this has a lower risk then them all being in the dorms together.  

IMO the way we win this is to say "We will follow the science" and then follow it.  

13 hours ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

I don't know about you, but I'd rather get a booster after 8 months and get my protection back in the 90%+ protection again (against stopping any infection) than have it be around 60% like a bad flu shot year.  Regardless if the chance of severe infection is still extremely low.  

I understand that.  

I don't have the same logic.

If I catch covid but have minor to no symptoms -Why do I care?

My 2nd shot knocked me out HARD for about 36 hours.  It was 100% worth it to reduce my risk of getting seriously sick and spreading it.

but to stop my 1 in 26 chance of getting it and only 1 in 900 chance of having anything other the minor (or no) symptoms (Those odds come from one of the studies that CDC released yesterday and include ALL age groups.  When under 60 was actually even lower), meh.

Maybe a yearly booster shot?

Currently the WHO is very much against booster shots for everyone and they think it would be much better served focusing on getting the rest of the world get their 1st 2 shots to really stop variants.  

I want to add _again -I am not anti Vax. EVERYONE should get the 1st two shots ASAP and frankly -I question peoples judgement on those that do not.

I am not against anyone getting a booster shot. For those over 60 or with Covid High Risk issues -Its prob the right thing to do.

But being under 60 and healthy - The data doesn't seem to support it and the experts are def not in agreement.  

Not to keep making the same point-but the study most cited about effectiveness going away over time is from Israel. 

And it seems many of the leading experts in Israel are saying the study is not reliable.  

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-study-claims-major-drop-in-vaccine-protection-experts-dont-believe-it/

14 minutes ago, ixcuincle said:

The boosters make perfect sense. the immunity wears off over time. we were warned before hand that we may need yearly boosters like the flu shots because half this ****in' country won't vaccinate

 

we never achieved herd immunity

 

now we pay the price

The THEORY of Boosters make perfect sense.

But the timing does not.

What study says 8 months makes a difference? What info out there says boosters are needed 8 months after pfizer and moderna but not J&J?  

After 6 months both Pfizer and Moderna say their vaccines is still 90+% effective.  

Israeli study says after 6 months Pfizer drops to 60+% effective at stopping everything - but still 90+% effective at avoiding serious illness.  The 3 CDC studies released this week show no major drop in effectiveness for those under 60 in preventing serious illness AND for Moderna -Shows that the effective rate after 8 months is STILL higher then the effective rate of the J&J vaccine overall.  

So beside the "We always said Booster might be needed" where is the studies that show "Studies show its needed".

Im not saying that doesnt exist. I just havent seen it.  

I believe that there are experts out there and also that I am not one of them. I got my vaccines shot way back in Dec and volunteered over 150 hours of weekends to help get the vaccines to others.

I am NOT a anti vaxer.  

But the boosters make no sense.  The studies and data all seem to show that 9+ months after 2 shots- you are still protected from the worst side effects.  Pfizer seems to still be 40% effective against preventing it and Moderna is over 70% - More then 6 months later!  

I understand boosters for high risk -but why would we recommend boosters for everyone else?  Not only that -Why booster for those that took Modena or Pfizer -but nothing for J&J, which seems to be the least effective overall?

I am not against boosters - but at least the data being released doesn't seem to back up the conclusion of needing it.  

33 minutes ago, Hersh said:

The best thing to do is talk with your pediatrician

This.  To be honest -Doctors have always, and will always, prescribe meds "off -label".  It is legal and common.  (Esp with mental illness).

There are already kids under 12 who have been given a vaccine for one reason or another.  Usually those with other conditions.

There is no reason to lie about your Childs age.  If you think your child, who is under the age cut off, needs the vaccine talk to your Dr. They will either agree and give it to the child, or tell you why they do not feel that is the best way to do it.  

1 hour ago, gbear said:

The hard part of enrolling a child in clinical trials is the possibility they will be in the placebo group.  Quick related question, when they release results of the trials, do they typically tell the patients which group they were in?  It is a part of trials I have not seen reported, so I am curious.  I would think they would need to this time.  I just wonder if it is the normal course.

 

I had 3 friends that were part of the ordinal trail. Once the results were finalized they were told what group they were in and with the 1 friend i had in the placebo, they were offered the real vaccine as soon as they were told they were in the placebo group.  

I am guessing it is the same with the kids.  

13 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

Can you provide links where I can read about this? I googled it, and have seen enough to know you didn't just make it up. But I would like a source I trust going into detail if you have one. This is the first I ever heard of this (not that i typically would be looking for this info anyway) 

Sure. But what part?

History of the Taliban

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/8/18/this-history-of-the-taliban

But there is other history of course.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippie_trail

The Hippie trail that went through Afghanistan

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/weekinreview/18bumiller.html

Afghanistan as it was in the late 70's when it was communist but  Western

And of course -Good history of the war in the 80's where the US helped the group that would become the Taliban.  

https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-islamic-state-group-afghanistan-europe-middle-east-70451c485d46908ef5c6a83a1de9f0f6

2 minutes ago, TMK9973 said:

Sure. But what part?

 

History of the Taliban

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/8/18/this-history-of-the-taliban

 

But there is other history of course.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippie_trail

 

The Hippie trail that went through Afghanistan

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/weekinreview/18bumiller.html

 

Afghanistan as it was in the late 70's when it was communist but  Western

 

And of course -Good history of the war in the 80's where the US helped the group that would become the Taliban.  

 

https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-islamic-state-group-afghanistan-europe-middle-east-70451c485d46908ef5c6a83a1de9f0f6

 

 

The last link is the one i meant to post.  Jut the timeline.  But 1983 and 1986 were big.  83 when Reagan called them freedom fighters. And 1986 when the US developed and gave them shoulder portable surface to air anti aircraft weapons, which changed everything.  

BTW -Everyone wants to find someone to blame.  And yes- There is def blame to go around (Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden) all had their part.

But lets not forget the true responsible administration. Reagan.  

Prior to 1978 Afghanistan was pretty westernized and a hot tourist spot for Hippies.  Then there were disagreements among different fractions of communist.

Russia went in to prop up the Government, AND to stop Religious zealots from taking control. 

Russia was trying to have a communist, but Western Secular country. You know- basicly the same thing we wanted for the last 20 years.  

We could have stayed out.  We could have looked the other way. We could have even supported pro-democracy movement.

But the only ones fighting were the ultra religious and Reagan saw a great chance to kill Russians and funded and armed the Mujahideens - completely ignoring their ideology.   All Americans knew was they were killing Russians sooo - lets help them!! (See Rambo III).

THAT was the problem. They WON.  Became the Taliban...and here we are.  

1 hour ago, CjSuAvE22 said:

Why would we leave a bunch of military equipment there and not destroy it before we left...wt*?!?

Because it wasnt left in the middle of the streets.

We left it with the Afghan army.  We didnt know they were going to just walk away.  

I can't get over quiting. Yes, it's a learning season. Learn to not quit!

Who, besides #17, is so important ok offense that risking a injury is too big of a risk??

We were up by 15 to saints in 2018 with less then 3 mins left. We lost.

Cowboys were down by 2 scores last week with under 2 mins left. Won.

Play for 60 full mins should not be a controversial statement or something that is not a given.

Besides #17, who is sooo good on our offense that a injury kills us??

Play the entire game!!

Rivera quit. Again.  A quiter. I'm done with him. He's like gruden.   Could have had the ball with over 3 mins left down 2 TDs vs 1 mins.

I don't care if we had no chance to win. We could have sent the message that we play until the end!!