Fear The Chorizo

So we are forgetting the 25 yr old guy in the j&j trial that had a stroke/thrombosis that actually led to the trial itself pausing for a period of time last summer?

And my appointment got cancelled since it was indeed going to be J&J...silver lining is now I'm getting Pfizer #1 tomorrow at a location much closer to my home. Saving gas is always a good thing, I guess. But, the Astrazeneca vaccine was eventually approved, as the clotting cases were no more prevalent among the study participants than the general rate of blood clotting in the typical populace. When you factor in all clotting issues among the general populace, many of which are minor in comparison to these apparent vaccine-induced events and much more predictable in terms of who may have/develop them and how to treat them to avoid a severe health event, this is correct (and why Astrazeneca was eventually approved). However, the combination of the age group/demographic that appears even remotely susceptible to this vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (which is a rare but severe clotting event that has killed perfectly healthy people), and the fact that same age group/demographic also has an extremely low to essentially zero statistical risk of dying from COVID....these issues have to be factored in when recommending whether a certain vaccine should be distributed or not to that particular demographic - this specific example appearing to be women under 50. And as far as I can tell, Astrazeneca distribution has been paused in quite a few countries for quite some time where it was initially intended to be the primary jab. Approved for emergency use is one thing, distributed en masse is quite another.

It might be semantics, but the CDC is suggesting administration of the vaccine be paused. Nothing has been officially suspended. Of the 6.8 million doses of the J&J vaccine administered so far in the U.S., there have been six confirmed cases of blood clots in women ages 18 to 49. I have absolutely no doubt that this likely case of extreme caution is going to cause overblown paranoia. True, but this clotting issue is similar to concerns with Astozeneca across Europe and many other countries, the other adenovirus vaccine... VAERS reporting significantly lags vaccine dosing, and a clotting issue isn't something that is like an allergic reaction to a dose that would either happen very soon after getting jabbed or not at all. 6 cases in 7 million doesnt really mean much at this stage, because not enough time has elapsed for even mid term side effects to present themselves with any level of confidence (if there are any...joys of emergency use authorizations i guess). Hoping it is just a temporary pause, but there sure seems to be quite a bit of smoke with this issue coming from many different angles - not just antivax hysteria or contrarianism. I was set to get my vaccine today and was likely going to get the j&j because the local provider i have an appointment with seemed to be administering that...will see what happens with my jab, but needless to say my mid 30s wife is shaking her head after a rough weekend of side effects since she got her j&j jab last week Friday after this comes out.

J&J jab suspended in the US....yippee

Yep, the move to put Hiura at first to keep his bat in the lineup is pointless if his bat isn't above replacement level at a corner infield position....as of this moment he's got work to do to get above replacement level for a pitcher at the plate.

We are in the same boat - moved into our house in 2016 that was built in 2001, and it was obvious the previous owners didn't know how to run an air exchanger in the winter or do preventative maintenance on the wood-frame windows. We did the best we could over the past 5 years sanding down and sealing over what was left, but the damage was done. While we havent necessarily agreed with the blanket approach of printing money and throwing stimulus dollars at everyone within certain income thresholds regardless of whether COVID has significantly limited earnings, we've banked most of the stimulus for a window and 2 patio door replacement project....1st quote we got was insanely expensive, next two were pricey but more in line with what we were expecting. Not getting top of the line but having to do full replacements (not inserts). Increased costs for these type of projects are a combo of higher material costs due to demand/lack of supply and demand on licensed/bonded contractors. The surge in new construction homes/development is driving window prices steadily up due to that pent up demand - at least temporarily. All in we are looking at $25K for the project, but we have quite a few windows and the pair of patio doors is a big chunk, too.

One thing I just thought of regarding this - the Titans/Ravens, etc. get slammed for not having all their players wearing masks at all times while in their practice facility and coaches get big fines for not wearing their face mask enough during a game despite them all being tested almost daily....has the NFL weighed in yet on what portion of their COVID protocols allows for players to be in close contact with 40-some non-organization personnel while receiving services they should be able to get from within the organization's staff? The COVID stuff pales in comparison to these allegations from basically 2 dozen women and it appears Watson used more than 50 different women for massages over the past year or so....but jeez, so much for the perception of all NFL players "living in their bubble" during the week between gamedays and outside team facilities.

Trust me, I very much don't want to believe it. I am just having a tough time reconciling why someone would make up news like this, even if their only intent is to troll. Check the calendar...might be 1 day early but since Opening Day is indeed on April Fools...

Its spreading everywhere....just like it did last year around this time. A vaccination with a ~90% efficacy isn't going to stop that in its tracks, either as life crawls back to some semblance of normalcy (and it absolutely has to by now, we're already well into round #2 of FLA spring break articles trying to pin college kids for virus spread). There are endless anecdotes of unique COVID infection stories, including those of fresh assisted living facility confirmed case outbreaks, what's going on along the border at present, variant-a-palooza internationally that is creeping into US case totals, etc. that have nothing to do with spring breakers. The difference between this year and last in the US is now a vast majority of the population considered to be the highest risk for significant medical issues or death from COVID has been fully vaccinated and this is no longer a novel virus in terms of immune system response to those most vulnerable - so the percentage of hospitalizations/deaths per confirmed case should plummet during this upcoming spike in cases. Specific to MN in my neck of the woods, new confirmed cases have been steadily climbing over the past couple of weeks despite MN being among the national leaders in percentage of people vaccinated. They're about to open vaccination availability to anyone over 16 this week - although the overall rate of vaccinations will depend on supply coming into the state. Hospitalizations have seen slight increases overall, but are trailing behind previous spikes in terms of how soon hospitalizations jumped with rising case rates. Daily deaths have been pretty stagnant, typically 4-10 per day and split relatively evenly among private residences and assisted living care facilities - still weighted overwhelmingly in that 80+ age bracket. 2,479 people in the study were fully vaccinated. 477 in the study had one shot. the participants were healthcare workers, police, teachers and firefighters and other essential workers. So it was working people who had contact with people in an everyday capacity. Within that study group, do they state how many of them had never had a confirmed COVID case prior to the study starting? It'd be interesting seeing a subset analysis of the infection rates among the unvaccinated group between those previously with COVID who recovered and developed antibodies naturally vs those who never had a confirmed case....and also assessing how many of the vaccinated study group had a prior COVID infection that would be just as likely to protect them from future infections as a vaccine. Overall it's good news, but it's also noteworthy that due to the working age study group in pretty high physical demand jobs, it's not looking specifically at efficacy in the most vulnerable based on age and likely overall health.

Haven't watched a ton of the tourney, but Michigan is an interesting team to me for two reasons: 1.Lone big ten team remaining, and for a conference that's had a horrible tourney they are one win away from putting a team in the final four, but more intriguing, 2. Sportsbooks have a huge liability on their hands in michigan....I believe they were over 100-1 odds to win it all well into the season, and odds remained pretty long until alot of smart money and big ticket wagers bet on that action. If Michigan wins it all, Vegas is taking a huge bath.

To be fair, Jimenez is essentially a DH playing corner outfield too, although he at least has experience in the outfield. Feel bad for Eloy - hopefully he makes a full recovery.

Well, putting him in man coverage without any help was also pretty brutal. As for Sherman...I just can't see it. He's been a guy who's played in a cover 3 scheme or a Tampa 2 most of his career. Both in our scheme last year and the one Berry ran, they rely on a lot of man coverage. I can see Heyward back. Not playing outside, but he was always smart and instinctual in the slot. Not sure they have moved on from him quite yet. I could see a 1 year deal for cheap. 2.5 counts just 950 against the cap this year. I don't know if anyone's offering him more or not. For some reason I had thought King signed somewhere else when I posted above....oops! Now that King is back, I'd imagine they try to bolster the CB room through the draft and not another free agent signing.

Saw that Krispy Kreme is offering a free doughnut every day the rest of this year to people who have documented proof they've gotten the COVID jab... Nothing says changing our ways as a society that made the US so susceptible to COVID-19 like turning its vaccine into a comorbidity for people dying from obesity and related heart/respiratory problems, I guess.

Darnell Savage and Jaire Alexander say hey. Recent history actually says the Packers are very likely to draft for instant impact unless people need a rookie to have a pro bowl season under their belt before they are drafted. Jordan Love was the exception to this - kind of doubt GB picks another quarterback in round 1, and Gute's 1st-2nd round history since he's been GM is looking pretty solid in terms of picking good players capable of playing significant roles right away. 2020 - Love and Dillon, Deguara showed plenty as a 3rd rounder before injury - tough to gauge Love, but Dillon sure looks the part of being a good back 2019 - Gary, Savage, Jenkins - found 3 players all capable of being perennial pro bowlers in the top 44 picks, especially if Gary keeps developing. 2018 - Alexander, Josh Jackson (meh) - found an all pro corner in the middle of round 1 who's been a starter since the day he signed his first contract.

Yeah, I read that speed comment in the article as being related to Markakis, not Mitchell. I think the Brewers have something special in Mitchell - regardless what his swing path currently looks like. When the biggest knock on him is he doesn't hit 450' HRs in games the same way he does in BP because he hits too many line drives and hard hit ground balls, IMO that's much better than wondering if a prospect who displays excellent in-game power can find a way to stop striking out 40% of his ABs so he could project into an 800 OPS player at the major league level.

This was part of the point I wanted to make a few posts earlier about the Packers trying to maintain flexibility with Rodgers down the road by avoiding a restructure this year to improve their short term cap position if they could...but I neglected to include. Particularly with how Rodgers' current deal is structured, if there's a catastrophic injury or unexpected cliffdive in terms of his level of play in 2021, the Packers have a reasonable way out of his contract with a manageable dead cap hit for 2022. Had they chosen to extend Rodgers a week or so ago to reduce his 2021 cap number, that reasonable way out of future cap hell likely vanishes or gets pushed another couple of seasons down the road past the point where Love likely should start playing (in GB or somewhere else if he is traded). I think the decision on what to do with Rodgers as a Packer gets made after this year - if he's still putting up elite-level production, you extend him next offseason and look into potential trade candidates for Love following 2022.

Yeah, people tend to forget King showed up as questionable with a back issue right before the NFCCG her performed so poorly with - the biggest knock on him has been his ability to stay on the field due to injury, and then he likely guts it out to get on the field and gets torched. Wish him the best, and not particularly bummed the Packers moved on - hopefully they find a guy to compliment Alexander on the other side, potentially a veteran who still has some tread on the tires that wants to go to a contender. I still am intrigued by the thought of Richard Sherman over there....Casey Hayward perhaps (despite a decline in his play)?

Or they feel like they've set themselves up to deal with the 2021 cap reduction without having to restructure Rodgers this offseason, which gives them alot more flexibility to explore that next offseason when they'd probably need that extra cap availability to extend Adams, Jenkins, Alexander, Tonyan, etc.

Batting tees posted sub 3 ERA's at Brevard... Awesome to see a guy like Dillard have the run he had and likely continue to have a life in baseball. To me he's the modern day pitcher equivalent to a cross between Uecker and Crash Davis

At present, the answer to the question posed in this thread is most definitely no...

Yes, this seems mostly like a 'get under the cap today without losing anyone else' sort of move while they keep sorting out extension options for key guys to get in a better situation to add more talent...I'd expect extensions in the coming weeks for Adams, Smith, and perhaps Rodgers to get the current roster comfortably under this year's cap to sign their draft picks and also pick up a couple free agents to fill roster needs in this flooded market. There's also the chance the Packers FO looks at Rodgers' current big cap 2021 hit and sees an opportunity to try and get what they need done this year financially without restructuring him until this next offseason. If they restructure Z. Smith and Adams soon, they probably will wind up with enough cap room to get what they need done in 2021 to "go for it", then sort out the longer term cap implications by waiting until next winter to restructure Rodgers (assuming they want him around longterm) and give them more flexibility in their 2022 cap situation to extend Alexander, Tonyan, and Jenkins longterm.

I can't wait for that heated Dalton/Foles camp battle for the starting spot....followed by the firing of the entire front office sometime around Thanksgiving. I'd have to imagine this signing would point to the Bears going after their franchise qb in the draft this season....or tanking badly enough for their next few 1st round picks to look high enough for the Seahawks to trade them Wilson next spring. After their roster has had another year to age past its competitive window without a really good quarterback.

I feel that's far too broad a brush - I personally know of many people who have essentially been done with worrying too much about COVID since last summer who are chomping at the bit to get vaccinated or have already been stuck because they view it as one of the few things they have control over that helps society in general get to the same point mentally they are in terms of living with COVID instead of living in fear from it. Then there is the subset of people who have already had and recovered from COVID and are of the opinion that they'll get vaccinated after a larger number of people who haven't been COVID exposed have been stuck. Anecdotally, I also know of a decent number of people who have largely been hermits since last March despite not being considered anywhere close to high risk - personally they are among the most vocal and critical of people who don't wear masks every time they go out to get their mail or other scenarios that most people would view as being excessive after a full year dealing with COVID mitigation measures. After all that, they don't want to get vaccinated for numerous reasons ranging from always being anti-vax to assuming anything developed under the prior administration isn't worth getting to religious/personal/cultural beliefs. One thing I've been curious about over the past few weeks concerning rates of vaccinations and actual COVID case/hospitalization/death tracking is at what point should we expect to start seeing obvious benefits of the most at risk people being vaccinated in certain countries? I'm curious if people that know more about this than me on this board are anticipating seeing a large dip in the percentage of hospitalizations/deaths with future confirmed COVID cases, or if we will just see new COVID cases plummet altogether despite more public opportunities for viral spread opening up as we move from late winter into spring. It's probably still too early to tell, but it does seem like the US has been in a slide lower overall since mid-January in terms of hospitalizations/deaths related to COVID after the CA and NY case spikes calmed down - but that slide still correlates to the confirmed case trend that would be expected following the last spike before vaccines really were distributed en masse. Daily deaths in particular are on a favorable downward trend, but they are still at levels and ratios comparable to mid November 2020, when the midwest was in the midst of its big fall spike and we were still 2+ months away from anyone being fully vaccinated.

I thought it was obvious, but I was referring to the numerous articles that speculated the cap would be in the 190-200 range with the cap loosely projected to go up to 220-230 next year. That's why I said the MAJORITY of the loss will come from this year. Not the entirety, the majority of it. I was talking about from Cap Floor. The additional 1.5 pct of total revenue that the players get with the 17th game and the new TV deal will more than account for that and the 10 billion in additional revenue that will be spread out among the teams next year. The Cap is ALMOST certainly going to see a huge spike next season....again, there is some new strain of Covid or some other freak scenario takes fans out of the stands. Well check back in a year. I'll put money down the Cap is at LEAST 220 in 2022.[Removed by mods- unnecessarily confrontational- play nice please.] Ok, but $220m is still $20m less than $240m...you agree the pandemic revenue losses are being spread out over multiple years after all. 2021 will be the first season the salary cap actually was reduced from the prior year, aside from 2011 after the uncapped season and contentious labor negotiation. Since the 2012 season, the average annual cap increase has been roughly 8%, however cap increases from 2018-2020 were closer to 6% year over year. With no pandemic losses at all and an assumed 8% annual cap increase, that would project the 2022 cap to have been ~$225M. The added revenue of a 17th game and new TV money could have painted a rosy scenario of a $240-$250M cap in 2022 had there not been a pandemic that knocked things back roughly 3 years in progression ($182.5M is right between where the 2018 and 2019 base caps were set). This is far from a rosy scenario, however - case in point the Chiefs wouldn't typically cut their starting tackles whose absence in the Super Bowl likely cost them any chance of a repeat just one season after backing up the Brinks' truck for Mahomes, then turn around and still have to restructure his contract only one season into it to try and find enough room to sign draft picks and pick up bargain bin veteran FAs to fill in their roster. All these monster QB and player contracts that have been thrown out there over the past few seasons were set up in a way to leave flexibility for organizations to restructure and strategically play the cap game out until the anticipated revenue bumps from new TV deals arrive in 2022 - provided there isn't a year like this one where the cap got significantly reduced and has prompted many cuts that otherwise never would have occurred AND those same teams still need to do a bunch of restructuring that limits their options in future league years. In a way it's like a ponzi scheme that comes unraveled as soon as there's a hiccup in steadily increasing deposits from new clients - it's not necessarily that they don't have the money on hand to pay player payrolls, it's the arbitrary cap hit accounting that nips organizations in the rear who were banking on both steady cap increases every year and a balloon jump in 2022 after the new TV money.

They're not spreading it out over the next couple years. The majority of the lost revenue is coming this year. Yes they are - they've routinely been stating as much ever since they agreed to not drop the 2021 cap below $175M last summer. Based on revenue losses from 2020, the 2021 cap would have dropped to $160M had they not stated they plan on spreading out the pandemic revenue losses over multiple future seasons. Even the NFL owners realized dropping this year's cap down to $160M would have been a complete disaster and not practical, especially knowing there are built in revenue increases coming with more TV money and the larger share going to players with how the CBA is structured. The extra game and additional TV money will definitely lead to increasing caps - it's just that those increases are going to be hampered because of this year's cap being artificially bolstered by ~$22 million dollars per team. So instead of this year's cap being ~$210M and the 2022 cap likely jumping upward to $230-$240M, this year's cap is $182.5M and with a great revenue year and assuming capacity gameday crowd ticket revenue the 2022 cap probably jumps towards $210-215M - a big annual jump but nowhere near what a presumed "normal" 2021 season revenue stream would suggest the cap should be.