deanox

I didn't take any issue with your post LH, nor did I criticise what you had said. I just (quoted your post and) added extra context for anyone who may misinterpret you and accidentally reinforce their existing misunderstanding that "the vaccine is meant to prevent infection but because some people still get infected it clearly isn't effective". I also share your concern about the numbers and stats being thrown around in the media. These often have very specific academic or clinical definitions but are being misinterpreted in lay terms.

Just to be clear for anyone reading this, despite many people thinking it is the case, the vaccine does not in any way stop you getting infected. It isn't a physical barrier that prevents the virus from getting into your body (like a mask or physical distance). What the vaccine does is prepares our bodies immune system so that we can effectively fight it off, once infected. So for many vaccinated people, when exposed to the virus, their immune system will fight it off super quickly and they might not test positive or show symptoms. In other people the virus will take hold a bit more and they'll test positive but only have mild to no symptoms. In all these vaccinated people because the infection is fought off faster and easier, they have less viral load and are less contagious.

I recall it was because Maloney chose to bump, and while taking evasive action to avoid being bumped, he hit his head on the ground and was knocked out, which they claimed was therefore Maloney's fault.

Finish 3rd and get an away final against the Cats but at Marvel for the larger capacity.

Joeboy - Late to party ? Pretty good summary. Appreciate your recognition of Brayshaw. Was a big part of our early dominance.

Did we look tired, or did we take foot off pedal in the last? I've got no worries if we did. We iced Salem up. Rested TMac. Rested Gawn forward. Let Jordan run almost the whole last quarter to take load off the other mids. With the draw, percentage is effectively irrelevant for us, so managing fatigue between long flight days is always welcome. That being said, we scored 1.6 in the 4th quarter. If it had been 4.3 we'd be praising how hard we went until the end.

Let's see how we go under the roof at Marvel tomorrow!

14 days has been set by governments because it is a risk approach: >95% of people who are infected will test positive within 14 days of exposure. But symptom onset can happen as soon as 1 day, and in the majority of cases it happens between 2-5 days. So 7 days will still probably allow 80% of infections that were going to appear to appear. And if they are playing then leaving, the chance of being negative in the morning of day 7 and positive in the arvo of day 7 is very very low.

As long as it is within the official medical advice. ie a 25 year old should not be making a health risk assessment with their doctor RE the risk of the AZ with the "you need this to go to footy finals" over their head.

Yeah, just screen shots out of the AFL app, stats tab. My position on rucks at stoppages is that they are useless but necessary to stop the other ruck having an advantage. I'm not convinced that any ruck has a substantially positive hit out to advantage vs hit out to disadvantage ratio, so their value comes in neutralising the ruck contest then assisting with body position in the contested ball situation. This is why Grundy is good, imo. But Max's value is his around the ground aerial threat, reading the play, intercepting, marking rebounding from 50. Combined with Lever and May, at its best it makes our defence impenetrable. But he has been off his clean marking game recently. It hurts us. I haven't checked heat maps to see if this has been a positional thing. Our forward line has been underperforming, and Jackson is down on ourput, has Max been spending more the forward to try to counter this (and thus less time back intercepting)?

And at the same time Jackson's involvement has dropped off a bit.

I can correlate these numbers to what I've noticed, and in Max's case I think it has been his around the ground work and defensive work rather then his stoppage work that has gone off the boil from the opening rounds. Some stats below show how he has dropped off slightly in key areas. He is marking less, finding less ground ball and his DE% has dropped right off.

I do like the idea of access to Optus for training though.

I think ANB going at 48% DE has setting to do with it. He got involved a lot and generally played ok (7 clearances and 4 SIs) but also had 7 turnovers from his 25 disposals.

6 Oliver 5 Viney 4 Hunt 3 May 2 Lever 1 Brown Gawn unlucky for 1 vote. Petracca was very sloppy and turned it over too much to get a vote.

No I'm not saying that at all. I have explained it. Bing has explained it. At this point you are either sealioning, or you're really just incapable of understanding something quite simple. Either way that means I'm out. I'm sorry if you really just don't understand, in thatI'm not meaning to be disrespectful, but I've explained it as best I could.

Again, you are being dishonest on your interpretation. I have never claimed that if the Grand final was held with crowd tomorrow 3000 would die. That's ridiculous. My example was demonstrating that the death rate is not hyperbole. The example puts it in context to numbers people understand. Victoria has had about 21000 cases.and over 800 deaths, which is on line with that ratio. Similar mortality rates have been observed around the world. If covid was allowed to freely circulate in the community, then everyone would catch it, then that would be the death rate. Stop downplaying how dangerous it is.

This is a ridiculous statement. The mortality rate is about 3.5%. If covid is allowed to circulate freely, that is the mortality rate we will have, which is the equivalent of about 3,500 people per 100,000 people. I'm not saying that 3000 people will die at the Grand Final, I'm using that example as a way of demonstrating just how dangerous covid is on average. The reason we are doing lockdowns are to stop the case numbers from getting high enough to cause those sort of deaths. Allow the crowds and the case numbers will get so high that those deaths will happen. Right now you've lost the benefit of the doubt I gave you before. You are deliberately misunderstanding.

It doesn't assume that at all. It is an example of the actual mortality rate for the disease if it got out widespread on the population before vaccination. It is the actual death rate, not hyperbole.

Again, 1000 to 5000 of the Grand final crowd is not hyperbole it's a significant risk.

Thanks for clarifying! I hope we can all get through this together. There are going to be some tough times on the other side, but it will be worth it.

No, I can understand. I understand the damage caused by lockdown quite personally, I feel for everyone affected, and think the governments need to do more to help. So if you are empathising with their position, but understand it is dangerous, then say that. At the moment it feels like you might be advocating for them, but obviously that just could be the problem with interpreting text on the internet.

"Almost zero"? Fatality rate of covid seems to be 1-5% which is pretty high. Imagine 1,000-5,000 people dying at the MCG on grand final day. One thing that is very clear is that the fatality rate increases when hospitals are overloaded, which is why we are trying to keep cases low. But if you only look at fatality rates you are underestimating the issue. The personal (and economic) costs of covid is more than just the thousands who would die. It is the tens of thousands who would suffer covid symptoms for months, perhaps permanently, with "long covid". People in their 30s might not die, but there is a high chance they'll have long term respiratory system damage. https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/news/coronavirus-and-your-health/long-covid This is why most people aren't being selfish, and are staying home as asked.

So it's clear we are big game players? :P

It's an excellent question and I didn't mean to not answer @Lord Nev there. There are a couple of reasons why I don't think it is that important: 1) Teams play their best ruck most of the time, and most team don't have 2 let alone 3 good rucks. The fact we have our 2 rucks in the top 21 of the comp for hit outs to advantage to me is pretty telling. 2) Total ruck contests for each team is going to be pretty similar at the end of the year, +/- scoring more goals or having more stoppages, it will sort of even out. 3) Personally I am more interested in hit out to advantage vs hit out to disadvantage differential, or perhaps hit out advantage vs opposition hit out to advantage differential, rather then "hit out advantage percentage". This is because I think if we get 10 hit outs to advantage per game and our opposition gets only 7, then we are doing better. I don't really care whether they won the % stat as a factor of their total hit outs, we still had more. @Lord Nevis right in saying that these stats may indicate that our midified isn't getting value for dominance (which may be true) but I'm not convinced that we have the right stats here to support that case. no one else has quoted this post from @binman but I think it is describes the missing analysis when looking at this issue: "quality of clearances".