https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/03/health/penn-state-big-10-myocarditis-covid-spt-trnd/index.html
That number has been revised from 30-35% down to 15%. Just fyi.
Didn't German autopsies of COVID-dead ordinary people also find a lot of heart damage?
Quote from: waterboy on September 04, 2020, 07:22:23 AM
That number has been revised from 30-35% down to 15%. Just fyi.
Thanks. Indiana University has a current player with severe issues after "recovering". Even 15% indicates widespread problems for college students.
Quote from: waterboy on September 04, 2020, 07:22:23 AM
That number has been revised from 30-35% down to 15%. Just fyi.
Citation with evidence for revision?
CNN needs to sort this out a little more.
The specific statement was "When we looked at our COVID-positive athletes 30 to roughly 35 percent of their heart muscles are inflamed"
Whereas the correction is "Penn State says no players have myocarditis." So whose MRIs were they looking at when seeing the inflamed tissue?
Quote from: Hibush on September 04, 2020, 06:29:09 PM
CNN needs to sort this out a little more.
The specific statement was "When we looked at our COVID-positive athletes 30 to roughly 35 percent of their heart muscles are inflamed"
Whereas the correction is "Penn State says no players have myocarditis." So whose MRIs were they looking at when seeing the inflamed tissue?
This is the updated CNN story. I will point out the IU player DEFINITELY has myocarditis.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/03/health/penn-state-big-10-myocarditis-covid-spt-trnd/index.html
And here is a MUCH better analysis of the situation from a cardiologist: https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/skeptical-cardiologist/88446
Quote from: jimbogumbo on September 04, 2020, 06:57:17 PM
And here is a MUCH better analysis of the situation from a cardiologist: https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/skeptical-cardiologist/88446
That article helps describe some of the confusion. And people are clearly spreading confusion. The "correction" was interpreted as correcting "30% of covid-positive college football players have myocarditis" to "15% of covid-positive college football players have myocarditis." Where the actual information seems to have been "30% of the heart tissue of covid-positive patients was inflamed" to 15% of middle-aged Germans have myocarditis." But the reports are vague enoough that I'm not even sure I got that right. I am sure that the two numbers are unrelated to Big 10 college football players.
Given what is at stake, why not do cardiac MRIs on a bunch of the actual players? Sure it is expensive and only available in a few places, but given the relevance of the results it seems well justified. They need a good estimate of the number of players who will drop dead from exertion this season because they have covid-induced myocarditis.
Figuring the top end of the risk using the limited data we have, let's say 1000 players per league and three leagues playing is 3000 players. If they all get infected from exposure during practice and play, and 15% of those get myocarditis that leads to exertion-related death (or permanent disability). That would be 450 dead or disabled players as a result of this decision. I'm pretty sure nobody considers killing 450 students an acceptable outcome.
The actual risk is likely lower, but we don't know how much. It's not that difficult to find out. How common is myocarditis in uninfected college football players? How common is it in those who have had the disease? It is not hard to test whether they have had the disease, so the estimate is not hard to come up with by testing several hundred random players from the relevant leagues.
Quote from: Hibush on September 06, 2020, 07:58:09 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on September 04, 2020, 06:57:17 PM
And here is a MUCH better analysis of the situation from a cardiologist: https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/skeptical-cardiologist/88446
That article helps describe some of the confusion. And people are clearly spreading confusion. The "correction" was interpreted as correcting "30% of covid-positive college football players have myocarditis" to "15% of covid-positive college football players have myocarditis." Where the actual information seems to have been "30% of the heart tissue of covid-positive patients was inflamed" to 15% of middle-aged Germans have myocarditis." But the reports are vague enoough that I'm not even sure I got that right. I am sure that the two numbers are unrelated to Big 10 college football players.
Given what is at stake, why not do cardiac MRIs on a bunch of the actual players? Sure it is expensive and only available in a few places, but given the relevance of the results it seems well justified. They need a good estimate of the number of players who will drop dead from exertion this season because they have covid-induced myocarditis.
Figuring the top end of the risk using the limited data we have, let's say 1000 players per league and three leagues playing is 3000 players. If they all get infected from exposure during practice and play, and 15% of those get myocarditis that leads to exertion-related death (or permanent disability). That would be 450 dead or disabled players as a result of this decision. I'm pretty sure nobody considers killing 450 students an acceptable outcome.
The actual risk is likely lower, but we don't know how much. It's not that difficult to find out. How common is myocarditis in uninfected college football players? How common is it in those who have had the disease? It is not hard to test whether they have had the disease, so the estimate is not hard to come up with by testing several hundred random players from the relevant leagues.
My impression is that part of the problem is that viruses in general have weird effects and often they just aren't extensively studied, so it can be hard to know if this is new, dangerous and worrisome, or something that happens all the time with flu and other viruses, and generally goes away without ill effects.
And if there's any level of concern past a generalized worrisome projection of possible harm, this is an area where the "cancel culture" should definitely be invoked.
Remind me again what's so important about major sports that we have to risk athlete's lives-whether students or professionals--and ongoing health, in order to have a season in which they get to bash each other about on the gridiron?
Do our anxieties and polarized dislikes really need so much ritual representation that our gladiators have to literally fight to the death to relieve them?
No, I didn't think so.
[Transparency: As acknowledged before, I was raised in Columbus, OH, did my BA at OSU, and I hate football....]
M.
Quote from: mamselle on September 06, 2020, 08:45:56 AM
And if there's any level of concern past a generalized worrisome projection of possible harm, this is an area where the "cancel culture" should definitely be invoked.
Remind me again what's so important about major sports that we have to risk athlete's lives-whether students or professionals--and ongoing health, in order to have a season in which they get to bash each other about on the gridiron?
Do our anxieties and polarized dislikes really need so much ritual representation that our gladiators have to literally fight to the death to relieve them?
No, I didn't think so.
[Transparency: As acknowledged before, I was raised in Columbus, OH, did my BA at OSU, and I hate football....]
M.
The OSU football culture is incredibly alienating if you aren't part of it.
Quote from: mamselle on September 06, 2020, 08:45:56 AM
Remind me again what's so important about major sports that we have to risk athlete's lives-whether students or professionals--and ongoing health, in order to have a season in which they get to bash each other about on the gridiron?
iam pridem, ex quo suffragia nulli
uendimus, effudit curas; nam qui dabat olim
imperium, fasces, legiones, omnia, nunc se
continet atque duas tantum res anxius optat
panem et circenses.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 06, 2020, 08:53:41 AM
Quote from: mamselle on September 06, 2020, 08:45:56 AM
Remind me again what's so important about major sports that we have to risk athlete's lives-whether students or professionals--and ongoing health, in order to have a season in which they get to bash each other about on the gridiron?
iam pridem, ex quo suffragia nulli
uendimus, effudit curas; nam qui dabat olim
imperium, fasces, legiones, omnia, nunc se
continet atque duas tantum res anxius optat
panem et circenses.
Dulce et decorum est pro footballo mori.
Quote from: Caracal on September 06, 2020, 08:27:43 AM
My impression is that part of the problem is that viruses in general have weird effects and often they just aren't extensively studied, so it can be hard to know if this is new, dangerous and worrisome, or something that happens all the time with flu and other viruses, and generally goes away without ill effects.
Exactly, that is why the uninfected controls are so important. If you just start screening people for weird things that nobody has screened for previously you will find a lot. Attributing those weird things to whatever caused you to do the screening is a common error of non-science. Claiming that those weird things are bad is also wrong. They could all be benign; you have to prove the illness independently.
Quote from: Hibush on September 06, 2020, 07:58:09 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on September 04, 2020, 06:57:17 PM
And here is a MUCH better analysis of the situation from a cardiologist: https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/skeptical-cardiologist/88446
That article helps describe some of the confusion. And people are clearly spreading confusion. The "correction" was interpreted as correcting "30% of covid-positive college football players have myocarditis" to "15% of covid-positive college football players have myocarditis." Where the actual information seems to have been "30% of the heart tissue of covid-positive patients was inflamed" to 15% of middle-aged Germans have myocarditis." But the reports are vague enoough that I'm not even sure I got that right. I am sure that the two numbers are unrelated to Big 10 college football players.
Given what is at stake, why not do cardiac MRIs on a bunch of the actual players? Sure it is expensive and only available in a few places, but given the relevance of the results it seems well justified. They need a good estimate of the number of players who will drop dead from exertion this season because they have covid-induced myocarditis.
Figuring the top end of the risk using the limited data we have, let's say 1000 players per league and three leagues playing is 3000 players. If they all get infected from exposure during practice and play, and 15% of those get myocarditis that leads to exertion-related death (or permanent disability). That would be 450 dead or disabled players as a result of this decision. I'm pretty sure nobody considers killing 450 students an acceptable outcome.
The actual risk is likely lower, but we don't know how much. It's not that difficult to find out. How common is myocarditis in uninfected college football players? How common is it in those who have had the disease? It is not hard to test whether they have had the disease, so the estimate is not hard to come up with by testing several hundred random players from the relevant leagues.
Cardiac MRIs should be performed on a large set of NFL players. The money is clearly not an issue, and we'd gather some really important baseline data.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 06, 2020, 08:53:41 AM
Quote from: mamselle on September 06, 2020, 08:45:56 AM
Remind me again what's so important about major sports that we have to risk athlete's lives-whether students or professionals--and ongoing health, in order to have a season in which they get to bash each other about on the gridiron?
iam pridem, ex quo suffragia nulli
uendimus, effudit curas; nam qui dabat olim
imperium, fasces, legiones, omnia, nunc se
continet atque duas tantum res anxius optat
panem et circenses.
Exactly.
M.
Quote from: Caracal on September 06, 2020, 08:49:39 AM
Quote from: mamselle on September 06, 2020, 08:45:56 AM
And if there's any level of concern past a generalized worrisome projection of possible harm, this is an area where the "cancel culture" should definitely be invoked.
Remind me again what's so important about major sports that we have to risk athlete's lives-whether students or professionals--and ongoing health, in order to have a season in which they get to bash each other about on the gridiron?
Do our anxieties and polarized dislikes really need so much ritual representation that our gladiators have to literally fight to the death to relieve them?
No, I didn't think so.
[Transparency: As acknowledged before, I was raised in Columbus, OH, did my BA at OSU, and I hate football....]
M.
The OSU football culture is incredibly alienating if you aren't part of it.
Well, actually, I could have aimed for the marching band; two other members of our high school marching band made it.
But I was more interested in medieval art and dance history--even then.
M.
Quote from: Hibush on September 06, 2020, 07:58:09 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on September 04, 2020, 06:57:17 PM
And here is a MUCH better analysis of the situation from a cardiologist: https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/skeptical-cardiologist/88446
That article helps describe some of the confusion. And people are clearly spreading confusion. The "correction" was interpreted as correcting "30% of covid-positive college football players have myocarditis" to "15% of covid-positive college football players have myocarditis." Where the actual information seems to have been "30% of the heart tissue of covid-positive patients was inflamed" to 15% of middle-aged Germans have myocarditis." But the reports are vague enoough that I'm not even sure I got that right. I am sure that the two numbers are unrelated to Big 10 college football players.
The 15% figure is from a study of Big 10 athletes with COVID, not the German study.
Do we have any idea what the "normal" percentage would be without a pandemic? What's the baseline for these athletes? It's possible that 15% is merely typical. Just don't know.