Paper used to cancel B1G season under fire for suspected data falsification
Link below: Venk Murphy, Professor at UM Med school/ Rubenfire professor of preventative Cardiology strongly suspects the paper will be retracted due to falsified data after seeing the statistics cited in it are nearly impossible to exist. Link below. https://twitter.com/venkmurthy/status/1294406748678365191
August 15th, 2020 at 1:06 AM ^
I’m so shocked /s
August 15th, 2020 at 2:18 AM ^
Prepare for Malarkey (Andy Slavitt) Sealioning and editing comments continuously below...
August 15th, 2020 at 2:35 AM ^
Really? Asking for the source of the fucking ridiculous claims in the OP is “sealioning”
edit: and am I supposed to know who Andy slavitt is?
August 15th, 2020 at 2:41 AM ^
Joined 8/10/2020. lol.
August 15th, 2020 at 8:27 AM ^
Time to check IP addresses?
August 15th, 2020 at 8:35 AM ^
Venk Murthy. Previously known as Peter Venkman
August 15th, 2020 at 10:26 AM ^
My other account got banned for yelling at an old man in a house that is white
August 15th, 2020 at 11:09 AM ^
Which name did you use then?
August 15th, 2020 at 11:27 AM ^
DebatableScience
August 15th, 2020 at 11:37 AM ^
Thanks.
August 15th, 2020 at 9:52 AM ^
This is ridiculous. Bigfoot has grossly exaggerated UM professor Venk’s gross exaggerations of another professor’s tweet about a single anomaly in a tweeted table from a study.
UM professor: “The BIG10 report on COVID relies heavily on this paper which found rampant abnormalities among normal controls and had many statistic that make no sense.”
UK Professor Tweet: This one statistic in the table being tweeted is flawed, I don’t have to read any more of it. (Edit: The UK professors criticism of the statistic has been questioned as a misreading. This is why he needs to read the whole damn thing before he starts criticizing a paper and not just make some cursory review of a table in a tweet”)
Also, the UM professor referenced a Sports Illustrated article that clearly only “speculates“ that the BIG10 based its decision partially on the study. Direct quote from SI: “Reports like these may have swayed decision-makers at the highest level of the school's 14 universities and in the Big Ten offices.”
JC people, don’t believe everything you read in social media.
The exact quote from the UM professor has two major fabrications that are not backed by his links: “Rampant abnormalities” and “relies heavily”
Further, I can’t even find the original paper. But it was co-authored by another UM professor.
August 15th, 2020 at 12:26 PM ^
Another problem with the paper that doesn't get talked about is the sample. It's not at all representative of covid patients. A third were hospitalized. That's many, many, many times more than the average. The rest had to know somehow that they had the disease when we know that an estimated 90% of those with the disease have it so mildly that they don't even know or weren't tested.
So their sample suffers from extreme availability bias.
The foremost expert on this is quoted heavily in the SI article and he says it's rare and that “It can be done. You can play football,” he says, “but resources must be utilized.” That is the correct take.
When this is properly put in context, it's really not meaningfully more dangerous than any of the many other viruses that cause the same disease. It's just that a high volumen of guys are getting this one virus at the very same time so you might have a couple dozen guys with some heart issues that otherwise might be more like a few in any given season. So give them MRI's, be cautious, and the risk will be plenty low enough.
European soccer is going on just fine despite a whole bunch of guys getting the disease back in Feb and March.
One could probably argue that sports are safer in this environment if they're using the right caution and resources. Already 2-5% of sports related deaths are caused by myocardial inflammation, which again, is caused by a ton of different viruses. But we've never given MRIs after common colds so those have gone undetected previously. If we're now giving a bunch of players MRIs and being cautious with having them sit out, they're probably safer than in season past.
August 15th, 2020 at 12:47 PM ^
it's too late. the narrative is already firmly established.
August 15th, 2020 at 2:07 PM ^
State your credentials. The person who wrote the paper has spent their lives working on and honing these skills. You've got 5 minutes experience as far as I can tell.
August 15th, 2020 at 3:08 PM ^
I have a degree in Mathematics from UofM and have been practicing as a statistician in research for various parts of my career. I understand the statistics behind the research better than the author. Also, the author does not claim this to be a representative sample of covid patients. It suffers from severe availability bias. The author knows this. The purpose of the paper is to say, hey, there are some heart issues in some patients and this should be explored further. That's it.
Do you have any legitimate arguments against any of this or are you just interested in ad hominem attacks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
August 15th, 2020 at 3:30 PM ^
It doesn’t really matter. Based on the SI article and other available research the paper you are questioning is irrelevant to the BIG10 decision.
August 16th, 2020 at 3:24 PM ^
I dind't say anything about the B1G decision. I merely quoted the foremost sport cardiologist on this issue that said football could be played if the right resources are utilized. It's fine if the B1G doesn't/can't do that. That's their decision.
I'm just saying that a study that found 60% of subjects to have heart issues didn't use a representative sample and everyone is taking it way out of context. That's it.
August 15th, 2020 at 5:30 PM ^
In case you haven't noticed, a certain tweet of mine has kind of blown up.
— Venk Murthy (@venkmurthy) August 15, 2020
I find replies on this related blog interesting.
Tons of non-scientists who don't understand the issues weaponize "science denial" against anyone who questions papers they like.https://t.co/udZ4AmLdWQ pic.twitter.com/FLjBOmpWlT
August 15th, 2020 at 1:16 AM ^
yikes, no one tell woke Ace
let's just continue to panic and call anyone who disagrees with us bootlicking science deniers...
EDIT: all individuals who 'weaponized science denial' may ask for forgiveness in this thread. thank you.
August 15th, 2020 at 6:39 AM ^
Maybe we can all wear helmets to protect ourselves from ourselves.
This whole thing is stupid. Playing football without fans isn’t less safe than not.
This whole thing is dumb completely dumb. The group of players should have the right to determine their own destiny not have someone choose it for them.
August 15th, 2020 at 10:11 AM ^
Hey wait a second there, why should the players, who in all other topics we at mgoblog totally advocate for, be listened to on this issue? We should ignore them, even though the science and facts show that they are at minuscule risk and in fact at higher risk from the flu (yes, this is a fact, look up the CDC data). And even though socially distancing them from those who are at greater risk is quite easy and has been demonstrated in for example England, a country with worse Covid stats than us, with the Premier league season recently ending with no spread and no problems. Even though ALL the current science supports the players playing with some rules in place. We should ignore that because reasons. Said reasons which quite literally NEVER get bolstered with facts. Endless what if scenarios and emotions unvalidated by one single thing.
August 15th, 2020 at 11:55 AM ^
Could you walk me trough the CDC data, I’m not sure it says what you think it does. Here is some data from Michigan. 7 deaths from Covid between ages of 15 and 24, 2 from the flu.
https://www.mdch.state.mi.us/pha/osr/Provisional/CvdTable2.asp
With regards to England (which has a population roughly 1/5 of the US. Yesterday they had 11 deaths as compared to 1440 in the US. They had 1440 new cases as compared to 60,600 in the US. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ The Premier League restarted on June 17. At that point, the UK had seen about 42,000 of its 46,000 Covid deaths (e.g. the UK had Covid more under control than the US currently does). https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109595/coronavirus-mortality-in-the-uk/
Before you claim others are using dubious facts, maybe you should check your own.
August 15th, 2020 at 12:50 PM ^
You might want to think a little more before you reflexively hit the respond button next time. First, if you seriously think that 7 vs. 2 deaths counters my point even mildly, again, think a bit more because that shows the risk is comparable--meaning quite low. Second, let's have the argument based on US data, because we are making the decisions (well you are) for far more people outside of Michigan. Here is the US data. Also the CDC itself has literally said the risk to kids is one in a million.
https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Counts-by-Sex-Age-and-S/9bhg-hcku
Second, you've heard of a thing called "per capita" obviously. It allows us to compare countries of different size populations. England was far worse than the US on Covid per capita-in June too. Fact. So again, think a bit more and then criticize.
Even if England was comparable, once again, they show that you can successfully run a league without additional spread. And additional spread is the concern. Since that is true, it's also true that where we are in the situation has little meaning. We just don't want to make it worse.
Having said all that, I do appreciate that you came to the discussion with rationale and a link, even if you are mistaken.
August 15th, 2020 at 2:08 PM ^
Let’s start with the Premier league
1. Have you heard about a thing called per capita - that is why I noted that the population of the UK is roughly 1/5 of the US. UK 66.65 million, US 328.2 million. Do the math. On a per capita basis: 1120 deaths is about 100 times more than 11. On a cases basis, the US number is 42 times more than the current UK number. On a per capita basis, that is 20 times higher on a mortality basis and 8 times more on a cases per capita basis. I figured providing the 1/5 value was enough. Obviously not.
2. The Premier league started after the UK had the virus largely under control (e.g. after they had suffered over 90 percent of their current deaths). The US was at about 72% of its current deaths at that point.
Your argument that the UK is worse than the US is based on the full length of the pandemic not conditions in the UK when the Premier league restarted vs conditions in the US now, where I think most reasonable people would agree that the US is in demonstrably a worse place.
With regards to your flu point: You said, with a vague reference to CDC data that “in fact at higher risk from the flu“. I showed you mortality data from Michigan that shows this is not true. You have now countered with CDC covid data that shows 242 deaths from covid compared to 52 from the flu. Clearly that data also shows Covid is worse from a mortality point. I’d also love to see the 1 in a million quote from the CDC. Even if the only statistic you focus on is mortality, more than 1 in 1 million under 16 have died. That doesn’t include kids in the ICU who survived or any long term impacts.
Maybe take your own advice and think before reflexively replying.
August 15th, 2020 at 2:34 PM ^
1. The decision the EPL made was in May/June. The UK had demonstrably worse stats than the US. That point remains true. They had no idea at the time where their deaths would end up. 2. Your point about where we are now compared to where they were is irrelevant because again, the fear you have is about increasing the spread. They didn't increase the spread. Neither has anyone else. If they didn't increase the spread, there is little reason to conclude we would. Is it possible? Sure! But we make decisions, or should, based upon what we know at the time, and experience in other places, which all point in one direction. 3. Here's more CDC, telling us more kids have died from flu or pneumonia, and comparing Covid to past influenza outbreaks (more kids died during them):
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/reopening-schools.html
Even taking your offered numbers, statistically there is little difference between the flu and Covid deaths for kids. Once again, this means that every fact you've offered and the ones I stated means that people under 24's risk for Covid is minuscule. That is an objective, statistical fact confirmed by both sides of this conversation. And we already know we can keep athletes from at risk people, to say we can't is absurd and countered by experience.
August 15th, 2020 at 3:49 PM ^
I’m mostly arguing with you not because I’m advocating for a specific position, but because you keep making claims that you don’t support.
From your first post
1. We should ignore them, even though the science and facts show that they are at minuscule risk and in fact at higher risk from the flu. - the very data you’ve cited shows that for either kids 14 and for people from the age of 15 to 24 (much more relevant to college football) more have died from Covid. That doesn’t sound to me like the risk is higher from the flu.
2. And even though socially distancing them from those who are at greater risk is quite easy and has been demonstrated in for example England, a country with worse Covid stats than us, with the Premier league season recently ending with no spread and no problems. - I have pointed out with data that the spread is worse in the US now then during the time the Premier league played. So your point about England having worse covid data is clearly not relevant to the timeframe we are discussing.
3. ‘Even though ALL the current science supports the players playing with some rules in place. We should ignore that because reasons. Said reasons which quite literally NEVER get bolstered with facts.‘ - this is the statement I most took issue with. You keep citing “‘facts”, but many of them are in fact misrepresentations of facts. As to “ALL the current science” - since a number of drs snd other scientists have differing opinions than you, I think once sgain you’ve overstated your case.
From your second post:
1. ‘First, if you seriously think that 7 vs. 2 deaths counters my point even mildly, again, think a bit more because that shows the risk is comparable--meaning quite low. Second, let's have the argument based on US data, because we are making the decisions (well you are) for far more people outside of Michigan. Here is the US data‘ As I’ve noted (and explained above), I was taking issue with your flu vs covid assertion. The data you provided is once sgain consistent with more covid deaths than flu deaths this year.
2. ‘Also the CDC itself has literally said the risk to kids is one in a million.” - still waiting for your cite. CDC data shows more than 1 in a million deaths for those age 0 to 14, so demonstrably false.
3. Second, you've heard of a thing called "per capita" obviously. It allows us to compare countries of different size populations. England was far worse than the US on Covid per capita-in June too. Fact. - I addressed per capita in my first post (but clearly in a way that was too difficult for you to understand - I apologize for that). Still waiting for the data in June. Since so much else of what you’ve asserted is wrong, not going to waste my time looking this one up until I see some from you.
From your third post:
1. The decision the EPL made was in May/June. The UK had demonstrably worse stats than the US. That point remains true. They had no idea at the time where their deaths would end up. You keep asserting, without proof, that the UK had worse stats. I agree for the length of the pandemic, but you’ve shown no data for the relevant time period. It is however quite clear that in the May/June timeframe that you say is relevant, the UK was getting much better.
https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/united-kingdom?country=~GBR
2. Your point about where we are now compared to where they were is irrelevant because again, the fear you have is about increasing the spread. - please show me in any of my replies to you where I’ve mentioned increasing the spread as my reason for responding to you.
3. Here's more CDC, telling us more kids have died from flu or pneumonia, and comparing Covid to past influenza outbreaks (more kids died during them): - refers to kids 18 and under, of limited relevance to college football players. Also of limited relevance because if we’d been taking the same steps we are now, less kids would have died. When same measures in place, more deaths from covid.
4. ‘Even taking your offered numbers, statistically there is little difference between the flu and Covid deaths for kids. Once again, this means that every fact you've offered and the ones I stated means that people under 24's risk for Covid is minuscule. That is an objective, statistical fact confirmed by both sides of this conversation.‘ I’m not going to debate with you what “minuscule” is. I’ll focus instead on your objective assertion (from your first post) that the risk from covid is less than the flu. Based on both data I’ve cited and you’ve cited, that is objectively wrong this year.
Looking forward to more of your misstatement of facts, stating things are facts without backing them up and just plain making shit up that isn’t true (e.g. quotes from CDC).
August 15th, 2020 at 4:33 PM ^
You win. I've argued with you fairly, but clearly there's an insurmountable impasse. Walking away now. I do want to correct an unintentional error first though: I've been debating school openings for weeks now, and relying on the CDC data, which as I stated does confirm more children dying from flu than Covid. But when you add in up to age 24, the numbers change so that slightly more under 24's have died of Covid than flu. That doesn't change the overall point about low risk, very low risk, but for accuracy's sake I want to be clear.
August 15th, 2020 at 5:03 PM ^
I appreciate you noting the difference as you move to college age. If we were talking about returning kids to elementary school, the data you cited and arguments you’ve made would have gotten much less push back from me. I think there is significant data to support sending younger kids back to school. As you move up to middle, school, high school and then college both health risks and risks of spread increase.
As the data you cited shows, this year, 5 to 14 year olds, 23 covid deaths, 51 flu deaths. But the next age bracket, 15 to 24 year olds: 242 covid deaths and only 52 flu deaths.
August 15th, 2020 at 2:17 PM ^
You're not as smart as you think you are.
1) It does not show the risk is low. It shows that already with 100k cases (with serology reports, maybe 5-10x more have been infected). That would mean we've got 5%-10% have been infected. The would mean 100 or so children at risk of death. 2 die from the flu with little to know effort to control it except for flu vaccines. That 7 suggests more like 100 would die from covid with little to no restrictions.
2) The per capita one is easy. He mentioned per capita in his post and it shows UK is far lower. In June even they were at roughly 1k cases/day and has maintained that. PER CAPITA that is 10x lower than what the US is currently at.
I don't appreciate anything about your post. You think you're smart. You're not.
August 15th, 2020 at 3:15 PM ^
Gotcha. The fact that 300 people under 24 have died of Covid, out of 160,000 deaths, does NOT mean the risk is low.
I can't argue with a person of your obvious brilliance. I've been schooled
August 15th, 2020 at 2:17 PM ^
You're not as smart as you think you are.
1) It does not show the risk is low. It shows that already with 100k cases (with serology reports, maybe 5-10x more have been infected). That would mean we've got 5%-10% have been infected. The would mean 100 or so children at risk of death. 2 die from the flu with little to know effort to control it except for flu vaccines. That 7 suggests more like 100 would die from covid with little to no restrictions.
2) The per capita one is easy. He mentioned per capita in his post and it shows UK is far lower. In June even they were at roughly 1k cases/day and has maintained that. PER CAPITA that is 10x lower than what the US is currently at.
I don't appreciate anything about your post. You think you're smart. You're not.
August 15th, 2020 at 10:33 AM ^
The group of players should have the right to determine their own destiny not have someone choose it for them.
No. Because the decisions each of us makes about how to behave in a pandemic likely affects MANY others. By your logic, drunks in a bar should have the right to determine their own destiny about driving home unfettered.
I'm sick of the morons and their damn fascism of absolute personal freedom and to hell with everyone who isn't me. Screw you.
August 15th, 2020 at 10:37 AM ^
Ahh, so now that player safety isn't an issue we should instead ban football because you're worried that by playing football they will spread it to the general populace?
August 15th, 2020 at 10:52 AM ^
Both of those reasons.
August 15th, 2020 at 12:21 PM ^
Ummm... yeah. Exactly that. We are talking about stopping a pandemic that is impacting all of society and has killed nearly two Michigan Stadiums full of people.
What made you think that this debate was about whether it was safe for 19 year olds to entertain you?
August 15th, 2020 at 12:53 PM ^
'has killed two michigan stadiums full of people'
I agree that that is a terrible visual image but it is also clearly done to manipulate people.
cigarettes kill 500k americans every year, are you out campaigning against those as well?
we can use science to mitigate a lot of risk and still go about some semblance of a normal life.
or it seems a lot of people would prefer to live at the extremes and vilify anyone who dares question them.
August 15th, 2020 at 3:05 PM ^
Manipulate?! It’s called reality. When people try to say that the flu is worse I think it’s valid to point out that the flu doesn’t kill170,000 people in 6 months.
August 17th, 2020 at 9:03 AM ^
No, influenza only kills 16k-30k every year and infects 16million in the US year in year out with a vaccine for the last 20 years. So imo the risk of getting covid will not change much even after the initial round of vaccinations in 2021. So we "COULD" be @ this same risk level for atleast another18 months,no? So might as well get on with it. I don't how long society can operate @ our present situation without irreversible damage. The hospitality sector will never be the same I'm afraid. What good is mitigation if it destroys the economies and you starve to death?
August 15th, 2020 at 10:53 AM ^
Underlying your emotional non-fact based point is the premise that we can't possibly socially distance the at minuscule risk groups of players from the higher risk members of society. That premise is both absurd on its face, and demonstrably false based on the recent experience of sports leagues around the world. But keep beating the emotional, accusatory drum of bad faith responses.
August 15th, 2020 at 12:38 PM ^
This is a semi-false equivalence. I’ve seen it a few times now. Consider..
A person choosing to over consume at a bar and drive home drunk is equivalent to a player choosing to play and recklessly engaging with others and putting them at risk of contracting Covid. Risky behavior with a high likelihood of harming others.
Similarly.. A person choosing to over consume at a bar and take an Uber at home is equivalent to a player choosing to play and taking the proper precautions to prevent possibly spreading Covid to others. Risky behavior with a lower, but non-zero, risk of harming others.
Will some play and be reckless? Yeah I think so, but that’s not the whole population. My guess is that if taking precautions were necessary to play, most would do it. Others would opt-out from playing and that’s okay too.
There is middle ground on these things. Not every player playing will put others at risk.
August 15th, 2020 at 4:02 PM ^
assuming that you're in favor of lowering speed limit to 10 miles an hour EVERYWHERE considering it would greatly reduce deaths for everyone and affects everyone in a big way?
Willing to bet that has NEVER concerned you before so wondering why are stopping the discussion just on this topic and not all the others effected by your example.
Not to mention how concerned about all the other issues going on with these restrictions like financial, mental, even physical health? At what point do these things add up to be more important than a virus with a 99.73 pct survival rate
August 15th, 2020 at 10:17 AM ^
I mean, the crux of this post is science denial, under the thinly veiled guise of a doctors vague tweet with 0 substance
Science isn’t a “choose your own adventure book”
August 15th, 2020 at 10:40 AM ^
The best thing about this OP is the irony that a dude who names himself Bigfoot used a single, now questioned, sighting of a statistical anomaly to create a new hoax.
August 15th, 2020 at 10:56 AM ^
What are you complaining about? Your side - the science deniers - 'won.' You convinced many to stop wearing masks, to open up bars, and to pretend that this was all a made up disaster. The scientists said it would lead to a spike and more death. And now here we are with 2x more fatalities/day than in June. You are the science deniers. You won. We are suffering more because of it. Own it.
August 15th, 2020 at 11:02 AM ^
I went through the thread and can't find one person who is advocating to not wear masks and open all of the bars.
Just because it's possible to have a football season, doesn't mean that people think we should end all preventative measures.
It's also disingenuous to cherry pick data. Daily deaths are up from June but also still down from April when the virus was much less pervasive.
It helps no one when you think in extremes.
August 15th, 2020 at 2:03 PM ^
You went through this thread... Do a modicum of research of past threads.
Thanks for the logical distinction. It's just that generally both of those ideas exist in the same people, and the fact that you're nitpicking mortality data suggests you're one of those people. There are many reasons to believe playing college football is considerably more dangerous for the players' health and future careers. That is a good reason to postpone a season. End of story. In any event, you've got your peeps in the SEC who think like you, so we can experiment with their players lives, watch how it unfolds, and you can get a nice "I told you so" in if it all works out.
To your cherry picking accusation:
We opened up in June, so it's not a disingenuous data point to pick. It's an incredibly sensical data point to pick. If I wanted to be extreme, I'd compare our rates to Europe, then it gets really sad.
Europe: Initial Spike; Protective Measures; Decrease in mortality; Trust in health experts; currently mostly even lower than June lows.
US: Initial Spike; Protective Measures; Decrease in mortality; Anti-science open it up movement; Premature opening; currently more than double June mortality levels (which are were several times higher than Europe's).
August 15th, 2020 at 2:13 PM ^
Well at least you don't hide the fact that you make sweeping generalizations about people's beliefs.
To be clear, you believe that you already know my stances and beliefs on everything and have already refuted all of those beliefs in your head. Discourse is no longer a two way street and is now unnecessary.
This is exactly where nuance disappears and everything becomes black and white.
Good luck to you.
August 15th, 2020 at 2:24 PM ^
I make the unfortunately wrong generalization that people have internally consistent opinions. "I believe scientists and covid is serious and we should take drastic measures to slow it, but I don't believe the scientists who suggest college football during a pandemic puts more lives at risk."
August 15th, 2020 at 2:27 PM ^
I edited my above comment but I do not see any benefit in furthering this discussion.