|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Oct 19, 2021 14:58:37 GMT -8
He certainly lost the battle. Methinks that the War is only beginning. I have to imagine that there is a lawyer somewhere who is already putting something together for Rolo and the rest of the staff. Alternatively he may end up spending the rest of whatever money he has socked away on lawyers and end up flat broke. The old term I remember from working in the shipyards is, “Down the road talking to his lunch bucket“ He’s already spending on lawyers. I doubt the University is at all inclined (or obligated) to assist him on this: ”Rolovich also is facing a federal lawsuit from a former Washington State player who opted out of the 2020 season because of health concerns related to the pandemic. But according to the suit, Rolovich told him to clear out his locker if he became involved with a social justice movement that was permeating college sports last year.” |
|
|
|
Post by ag87 on Oct 19, 2021 16:27:25 GMT -8
I hear Giuliani works cheap. Or Saul Goodman/Jimmy McGill. Jimmy is a friend of the cartel. He probably wouldn't lower himself to represent Rolo. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Oct 19, 2021 20:27:47 GMT -8
Or Saul Goodman/Jimmy McGill. Jimmy is a friend of the cartel. He probably wouldn't lower himself to represent Rolo.  |
|
|
|
Post by beaverstever on Oct 19, 2021 20:44:57 GMT -8
My two cents: I get that public health mandates could be abused by nefarious purposes, but I have simply found that those in opposition of public health efforts against covid that are common to most countries to be of the following categories: - Evidence of poor math and statistical skills. Often the sources offered for their argument actually doesn’t support the position stated. - Evidence of poor logic skills - often combined with the previous point - Evidence of poor research skills - crawling the web until you find something that supports your position is not research. When I was a grad student at OSU, my lab results often were not in support of how I wanted my thesis conclusion to look. Turns out my hypothesis was wrong, not the test results. - Evidence of just not liking being told what to do - some people are just perpetual teenagers. The evidence I’ve seen suggests this is where Rolo fits. In the end, we are a terribly flawed species - that ultimately is what this evidence is proving for me. This made me smile while I was reading it! Ironic as it is, I feel exactly the same way about people on the other side of the issue, except of course the last point. Those people seem to like to be told and to tell others what to do. Thank You! Fair enough - for sure I've seen the same list apply across the political spectrum. If you'll indulge me though, a little test (this was shared on the "Pure Orange FB" by an alleged OSU STEM graduate) - it is a test to see if one can exclude themselves from being included in the first two bullets. ---------- From poster on Pure Orange, who claims to be an OSU STEM graduate: "According to the Oregon Health authority numbers recently released.. someone did the math. You know what the difference between vax and no vax is running right now in Oregon for hospitalization? 0.9% that's right, it (vaccines) might keep you out by 1% difference." This person's data comes from this article and this state report on vaccine breakthrough rates: Important from the article mainly is this: To date, 4.5% of all known breakthrough (vaccinated) cases have been hospitalized, compared to 5.4% overall, and 0.9% breakthrough cases have died compared to 1.1% overall. And from the report: "The rate of COVID-19 cases among unvaccinated individuals in the most recent week was approximately 4 times the rate of COVID-19 cases among those who are fully vaccinated." So, did someone indeed do the math correctly? That is, is the 0.9% the correct answer for the percent chance of being hospitalized between vaccinated vs. unvaccinated individuals in Oregon? If not, what is the correct answer? |
|
|
|
Post by killerbeavs on Oct 19, 2021 21:09:05 GMT -8
This made me smile while I was reading it! Ironic as it is, I feel exactly the same way about people on the other side of the issue, except of course the last point. Those people seem to like to be told and to tell others what to do. Thank You! Fair enough - for sure I've seen the same list apply across the political spectrum. If you'll indulge me though, a little test (this was shared on the "Pure Orange FB" by an alleged OSU STEM graduate) - it is a test to see if one can exclude themselves from being included in the first two bullets. ---------- From poster on Pure Orange, who claims to be an OSU STEM graduate: "According to the Oregon Health authority numbers recently released.. someone did the math. You know what the difference between vax and no vax is running right now in Oregon for hospitalization? 0.9% that's right, it (vaccines) might keep you out by 1% difference." This person's data comes from this article and this state report on vaccine breakthrough rates: Important from the article mainly is this: To date, 4.5% of all known breakthrough (vaccinated) cases have been hospitalized, compared to 5.4% overall, and 0.9% breakthrough cases have died compared to 1.1% overall. And from the report: "The rate of COVID-19 cases among unvaccinated individuals in the most recent week was approximately 4 times the rate of COVID-19 cases among those who are fully vaccinated." So, did someone indeed do the math correctly? That is, is the 0.9% the correct answer for the percent chance of being hospitalized between vaccinated vs. unvaccinated individuals in Oregon? If not, what is the correct answer? The "math" there is complete garbage. 1) 4.5% is 16% less than 5.4%, 0.9% is 18% less than 1.1%. So that guy either doesn't understand how percentages work or is deliberately misrepresenting them. 2) He is ignoring that breakthrough cases are less likely than cases among unvaccinated. So the 4.5%/0.9% represent less people than the 5.4%/1.1% percent numbers. The data he links does not support his argument. |
|
|
|
Post by beaverstever on Oct 20, 2021 8:19:57 GMT -8
Fair enough - for sure I've seen the same list apply across the political spectrum. If you'll indulge me though, a little test (this was shared on the "Pure Orange FB" by an alleged OSU STEM graduate) - it is a test to see if one can exclude themselves from being included in the first two bullets. ---------- From poster on Pure Orange, who claims to be an OSU STEM graduate: "According to the Oregon Health authority numbers recently released.. someone did the math. You know what the difference between vax and no vax is running right now in Oregon for hospitalization? 0.9% that's right, it (vaccines) might keep you out by 1% difference." This person's data comes from this article and this state report on vaccine breakthrough rates: Important from the article mainly is this: To date, 4.5% of all known breakthrough (vaccinated) cases have been hospitalized, compared to 5.4% overall, and 0.9% breakthrough cases have died compared to 1.1% overall. And from the report: "The rate of COVID-19 cases among unvaccinated individuals in the most recent week was approximately 4 times the rate of COVID-19 cases among those who are fully vaccinated." So, did someone indeed do the math correctly? That is, is the 0.9% the correct answer for the percent chance of being hospitalized between vaccinated vs. unvaccinated individuals in Oregon? If not, what is the correct answer? The "math" there is complete garbage. 1) 4.5% is 16% less than 5.4%, 0.9% is 18% less than 1.1%. So that guy either doesn't understand how percentages work or is deliberately misrepresenting them. 2) He is ignoring that breakthrough cases are less likely than cases among unvaccinated. So the 4.5%/0.9% represent less people than the 5.4%/1.1% percent numbers. The data he links does not support his argument. Yep, that was my conclusion. How I interpret this data: First, since you can't be hospitalized with an infection if you don't get it. So the probability of hospitalization is the probability of getting an infection multiplied by the probability of getting hospitalized if infected. So, per this data, the rate of hospitalization = (4 cases unvaccinated/1 case unvaccinated) * (5.4% hospitalization rate for infected unvaccinated/4.5% for infected unvaccinated) = 4.8 unvaccinated: infected & hospitalized/ 1 (vaccinated: infected + hospitalized) So my math with this data says you are 4.8 times more likely to end up hospitalized as an unvaccinated person, or 480% more likely. That's quite a different conclusion to the OP's interpretation of the same data saying that the hospitalization delta is 1%. I can understand seeing a 1% benefit insufficient to be worth the statistical risks of the vaccines themselves. 480% is a wildly different story. Two different OSU STEM graduates should at least be in the same ballpark when interpreting the same data. It's pretty troubling. When people say "do your research", I have zero confidence that most people actually can do this, and this is the a case in point. Even worse, they should at least be able to trust those who have sufficient education to interpret data correctly. |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Oct 20, 2021 9:13:58 GMT -8
The "math" there is complete garbage. 1) 4.5% is 16% less than 5.4%, 0.9% is 18% less than 1.1%. So that guy either doesn't understand how percentages work or is deliberately misrepresenting them. 2) He is ignoring that breakthrough cases are less likely than cases among unvaccinated. So the 4.5%/0.9% represent less people than the 5.4%/1.1% percent numbers. The data he links does not support his argument. Yep, that was my conclusion. How I interpret this data: First, since you can't be hospitalized with an infection if you don't get it. So the probability of hospitalization is the probability of getting an infection multiplied by the probability of getting hospitalized if infected. So, per this data, the rate of hospitalization = (4 cases unvaccinated/1 case unvaccinated) * (5.4% hospitalization rate for infected unvaccinated/4.5% for infected unvaccinated) = 4.8 unvaccinated: infected & hospitalized/ 1 (vaccinated: infected + hospitalized) So my math with this data says you are 4.8 times more likely to end up hospitalized as an unvaccinated person, or 480% more likely. That's quite a different conclusion to the OP's interpretation of the same data saying that the hospitalization delta is 1%. I can understand seeing a 1% benefit insufficient to be worth the statistical risks of the vaccines themselves. 480% is a wildly different story. Two different OSU STEM graduates should at least be in the same ballpark when interpreting the same data. It's pretty troubling. When people say "do your research", I have zero confidence that most people actually can do this, and this is the a case in point. Even worse, they should at least be able to trust those who have sufficient education to interpret data correctly. "The rate of COVID-19 cases among unvaccinated individuals in the most recent week was approximately 4 times the rate of COVID-19 cases among those who are fully vaccinated" It's amazing that people who claim to be able to do math can omit the 4X rate from their calculations. It really skews things. |
|
|
|
Post by greshambeaver on Oct 20, 2021 14:23:31 GMT -8
Alternatively he may end up spending the rest of whatever money he has socked away on lawyers and end up flat broke. The old term I remember from working in the shipyards is, “Down the road talking to his lunch bucket“ He’s already spending on lawyers. I doubt the University is at all inclined (or obligated) to assist him on this: ”Rolovich also is facing a federal lawsuit from a former Washington State player who opted out of the 2020 season because of health concerns related to the pandemic. But according to the suit, Rolovich told him to clear out his locker if he became involved with a social justice movement that was permeating college sports last year.”Rolo, is a complete ignoramous. He will end up deservingly with ZERO!!! |
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Oct 21, 2021 6:07:40 GMT -8
He’s already spending on lawyers. I doubt the University is at all inclined (or obligated) to assist him on this: ”Rolovich also is facing a federal lawsuit from a former Washington State player who opted out of the 2020 season because of health concerns related to the pandemic. But according to the suit, Rolovich told him to clear out his locker if he became involved with a social justice movement that was permeating college sports last year.”Rolo, is a complete ignoramous. He will end up deservingly with ZERO!!! Poor Rolo. Getting canceled pretty hard. What’s that John Wayne quote? Something about life being harder if you’re stupid…. |
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Oct 21, 2021 9:18:18 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Oct 21, 2021 11:43:44 GMT -8
Nice quote tucked in the piece…. “In our view, the Cougars (4-3/3-2 Pac-12) have a better chance to win the Pac-12 championship than Rolovich has to win the lawsuit” And Rolo must’ve cheaped out on his lawyer since the guy can’t get the word “vindictive” right and doesn’t bother to notice the red squiggly lines under the word. |
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Oct 21, 2021 11:46:17 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Oct 21, 2021 12:08:36 GMT -8
Well, there’s Catholic and then there’s Catholic. I should add a note of explanation. There are Catholics who are hardcore, return to the Latin mass, keep women in line, only wear dresses and neckties to Mass, the Pope is wrong…..and so on. I’m not saying that Rolo was one of these, but there are definitely varying degrees of Catholic out there. |
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Oct 21, 2021 12:25:12 GMT -8
Well, there’s Catholic and then there’s Catholic. I should add a note of explanation. There are Catholics who are hardcore, return to the Latin mass, keep women in line, only wear dresses and neckties to Mass, the Pope is wrong…..and so on. I’m not saying that Rolo was one of these, but there are definitely varying degrees of Catholic out there. So you’re saying that some Catholics are “Sanctior est tibi” |
|
|
|
Post by mbabeav on Oct 21, 2021 12:53:35 GMT -8
There is nothing in Catholic teachings that forbids or denigrates getting a vaccination. That type of rationale loses me.
|
|
