Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Cap'n Piranha

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,719

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

 Content Type 

Profiles

News

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospects Ranking

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

Minnesota Twins Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Pick Tracker

2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Pick Tracker

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by Cap'n Piranha

  1. Cap'n Piranha
    Fascinating choice of sources--your first is a study done among VA patients; how many people 17 and under do you think are in the VA system, which is of course what I was correcting you on. This source is also almost a year old (it's from July 2021), and as such predates the Omicron and other subsequent variants. Given the increased transmissibility of those strains, this source seems out-of-date at best, incorrect at worst. Here's a quotation pulled directly from your second source 'Most papers to date (notably, many are preprints and have yet to be peer reviewed) indicate vaccines are holding up against admission to hospital and mortality, says Linda Bauld, professor of public health at the University of Edinburgh, “but not so much against transmission.”' So what I can gather here is that you have no response to the contention that shots are largely unnecessary and ineffective in youth age groups (due to the fact that there's very little Covid occurring in those groups--it's hard to reduce something that barely exists), and you agree that the shots do not reduce transmission.
  2. Cap'n Piranha
    This seems to not be getting through to people. Getting the Covid shot does not reduce the risk of contracting or spreading Covid. While it will reduce the likelihood of needing medical care, both routine and life-saving, if the goal is to reduce the number of people with Covid, and to minimize the spread of Covid, a policy that completely bars healthy but non-jabbed people, while fully welcoming jabbed but potentially infected people is inane. Unless of course, the goal is something else.
  3. Cap'n Piranha
    This is just not rooted in reality. According to the CDC, there have been 1,086 Covid deaths in those 17 and under since the beginning the pandemic (for the sake of this, we'll assume that all of those were actually caused by Covid, even though it's entirely possible Covid was simply a comorbidity, and not the cause of death); that is in a population of 73M (according to Statista), which imputes a risk of death of 0.0014%--that's 14 in 1 Million--there's really not a whole lot of substantial room for reduction. When you add in that VAERS has recorded 863 records of serious reactions to the shot, including 14 deaths, and that this data only covers the 12-17 age group, and only for the 12/14/20 to 7/16/21 timeframe, it is unclear how much better Covid shots are than just letting children get and recover from Covid, which they do extraordinarily well (and gain enhanced future infection protection to boot). In contrast, there have been 81,532 all-cause deaths in the 17 and under age group since the beginning of the pandemic, which means a child 17 or under is 74 times as likely to die from something other than Covid as they are to die from Covid. Further, while risk of death from Covid does increase in the twenties and thirties, even that is very low--there have been 39,649 deaths attributed to Covid since the beginning of the pandemic among the 39 and under group, which represents less than 4% of all Covid deaths, in a group that comprises 170.8M people; that is a 0.0023% chance, or 23 in 1 Million. The all cause deaths in that group is 645,384, which means you are 15 times as likely to die from something other than Covid if under 40. If you are under 40, are not immune compromised, and do not have underlying medical issues, I'm not saying don't get a shot. I'm saying the odds are that you will be fine, and it is extremely likely you are engaging in other activity that is more likely to kill you than Covid. https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-by-Sex-and-Age/9bhg-hcku/data https://www.statista.com/statistics/241488/population-of-the-us-by-sex-and-age/ https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e1.htm
  4. Cap'n Piranha
    This is inaccurate. See my post directly above yours. As the Covid shot does not actually preclude one from contracting or spreading Covid, it is more accurately described as a preventative therapeutic (and a pretty effective one, at that). Accordingly, assuming people who have received the Covid shot are less likely to contract or spread Covid is erroneous, and unscientific. If the goal is truly to reduce the population of individuals with Covid in the country, screening for active cases at the border is a far more robust measure than denying entry to those without a shot, but by and large letting everyone with a shot in without examination.
  5. Cap'n Piranha
    I don't know, but again, why does that prevent me from calling out a logical inconsistency in a governmental decision? If Canada required that all people entering the country go through the process of bleeding by having leeches attached, would you accept that, since you weren't in parliament or Trudeau's office? Canada has enacted a policy which allows people into the country without checking to see if they have Covid--I know because I visited Canada just last weekend. Because I received a shot and was not selected for random testing, I was simply waved through. For all Canada knows, I was positive for Covid, and spread it to multiple people. That is a change from last year when Canada required you to prove you didn't have Covid before they would let you enter without a quarantine phase. If Canada's goal is to reduce the amount of individuals entering the country with Covid, using shot status as opposed to testing is a poor way to do that. As such, denying entry to a person who has tested negative for Covid, but has not received a shot (which in no way precludes them from contracting or indeed spreading Covid) is entirely illogical, unless the goal is not to reduce the spread of Covid. The amount to which our society has become willing to abandon logical thought and rational decision-making is staggering.
  6. Cap'n Piranha
    Viral load in people who have received the shot is not meaningfully reduced compared to those who have not--here's a quote from the Lancet (full article link below). "Nonetheless, fully vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections have peak viral load similar to unvaccinated cases and can efficiently transmit infection in household settings, including to fully vaccinated contacts" As such, the greater good vis a vis reducing transmissibility of Covid is not improved by compelling shots. Your shot does not protect me from getting Covid from you. Your shot improves your chances of a better outcome should you contract Covid. (sorry for the font change, it happened when I pasted the quotation). https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext#:~:text=Vaccination reduces the risk of,including to fully vaccinated contacts.
  7. Cap'n Piranha
    Saying it's medical fact is a bit of a stretch, as long-term consequences (if there are any) are unknown. The data clearly shows that Covid is not a serious risk to young, healthy people without any underlying medical conditions. I would imagine most doctors would recommend against taking medication that is not needed, and the fact is that for millions under the age of 30, or even 40, Covid is far less concerning than multiple other activities engaged in with regularity. Now, if you want to amend to say that unless you've had a severe allergic reaction to the mRNA shot, every person who is elderly, immune compromised, or has comorbidities should get the shot, I would wholeheartedly agree.
  8. Cap'n Piranha
    Your argument is that their rationale for not getting the shot, namely personal choice, is invalid. I'm saying it is a dangerous step to invalidate the personal choices of others when those personal choices do not impact you.
  9. Cap'n Piranha
    Of course Canada is free to do whatever they want. That doesn't mean inconsistencies in the logic can't be pointed out. If the goal is to prevent the spread of Covid in Canada initiated by incoming people, requiring a negative test from everyone is a far stronger process than (in all likelihood) minimal testing for those who have received a shot. A person who has not gotten the shot, but is also negative for Covid, is much less of a risk to spread Covid than a person who has gotten the shot, but is also positive for Covid. That's in no way debatable.
  10. Cap'n Piranha
    Anyone who wants the Covid shot should get it. It is certainly helpful in improving potential outcomes, particularly for the elderly, those with comorbidities, or the immune compromised. But the argument that everyone should get it in the name of public health essentially boils down to "I got the shot so I'm protected from Covid, but you also must get the shot to protect me from getting Covid from you, even though I'm totally protected from Covid, because I got the shot".
  11. Cap'n Piranha
    How can you possibly claim to know what the impacts of 2 year old medicines are 10, 20, or 30 years down the road. The hubristic arrogance here is simply astounding.
  12. Cap'n Piranha
    And of course taking away individual choice has never led to anything bad in all of human history.
  13. Cap'n Piranha
    Thielbar actually made some excellent points (there is another post on this site that shows them). He pointed out that everyone was allowed into Canada last year, so long as they tested negative, and players who hadn't received the shot stayed in their rooms when not engaged in baseball activities. This year, Canada is completely unconcerned about whether or not people entering the country have Covid or not, as long as they have received a shot. While Max did not frame his opinion very well, his point is valid, as Thielbar demonstrated in his comments.
  14. Cap'n Piranha
    So you are fully in support of athletes potentially playing games with their long-term health, all for your entertainment? Says a lot about you, tbh.
  15. Cap'n Piranha
    Jose Berrios is a textbook example of how the Twins need to operate to maintain success year after year. Identify and acquire talent in the draft. Develop it in the minors and majors. Trade it for more talent when the amount needed to keep it becomes excessive.
  16. Cap'n Piranha
    Challenge time for Rodriguez, imo. Send him up to Iowa, and see how he does. If he's the prospect we hope, having him hold his own (say a .750 OPS or better) as a 19 year old would be massive in validating that.
  17. Cap'n Piranha
    Yeah, I agree with this. I've never understood why it would somehow be different to hit 1st v 3rd v 5th v 8th. You're still facing the pitcher, it's still 4 balls and 3 strikes. The only difference is that since the best hitters tend to be grouped in the first half of the lineup, hitting in the first half of the lineup means it's more likely there will be runners on base. That's literally the only difference. I do think there is something to be said for having a consistent defensive alignment, and letting players play more days in a row to get in a bit of a rhythm. I haven't done the analysis to see if that's happening or not, just a general thought.
  18. Cap'n Piranha
    Because Royce's future is at SS, not 3B or DH. In all likelihood, that future starts next year, and it makes no sense to take reps away from him when he's missed the last 2 seasons, and wasn't considered a lock to stick at short before that. Now, if the Saints are going to move him around, then yes, he may as well do that for the Twins, and start 1x at short, 2x at 3B, and 2x at DH a week. But in my opinion that is a disservice to both Royce and the future of the organization--Royce should be playing SS 6x a week, whether that's in MLB because Correa is out, or in AAA because Correa is in. Let's also stop assuming that just because Royce had a good first 40 PAs, he's now a guaranteed top half of the order hitter for an aspiring division champion team. It's still quite possible that Royce could take the Trevor Larnach 2021 path, and have a miserable couple of months before getting demoted for cause. That would be bad for the Twins, and potentially bad for Royce. So let the process play out, and prioritize years 2-6 of Royce's career, as opposed to year 1.
  19. Cap'n Piranha
    A few things for me here. If you're going to point out that Rocco was saddled with Colome, Happ, and Shoemaker last year, you certainly have to point out that he was given Gray, Paddack, Archer, Smith, and Duran (Falvine could quite easily have kept him as a starter in AAA) this year, to say nothing of Correa. How well would the pitching staff look with those 5 gone from the MLB roster (albeit Rogers added back)? We have no idea how Archer would have performed in a hypothetical 5th innning last night. Maybe the first 4 runners reach against him, it's a 3-run inning in total, and the Twins lose 4-3. Maybe Archer gets the side out on 11 pitches, and you can get the bullpen more rest. After all, the 3 batters due up in the 5th (Smith, Pache, Kemp) have OPS' of .523, .431, and .570--not SLG, OPS. The fact that the Twins pen is throwing a ton of innings is an issue, one that could haunt the team later in the year against much tougher competition than Oakland. Count me in the camp that is not thrilled with the handling of Buxton--not because he's not playing, but because he's playing too much while clearly hurt. If Buxton (or any player for that matter) is not healthy enough to play 5 out of every 6 games, then he needs to be on the IL. Buxton has already missed 12 games, 5 after the injury, and 1 from each of the 7 series that have happened since his return. If they had just put Buxton on the IL immediately after the Boston game, perhaps he would be fully healed, and able to play every day. If this injury is a chronic thing that would need months to fully heal, then why are we risking a long-term serious injury in a season we're long shots to win the WS anyways? I don 't think Rocco deserves all the blame he gets, and I think he's Ling's Palace as a manager (for fans of Brooklyn 99--he's fine. He's just fine), but nor do I think he's a great manager. I'm not advocating for his dismissal, but I would be not at all upset if we went in a different direction at the helm.
  20. Cap'n Piranha
    Are we saying that this is just at this point a chronic thing, and Buxton will always be injured, and never fully healthy? For a guy who gets a fair bit of his value from speed, that seems alarming. When you say you nursed your balky knees through 10 seasons, is it possible that had you taken a month off with full rest, they would have gotten better? Or did you just assume they would never get better, but mitigated them getting worse by reducing your activity?
  21. Cap'n Piranha
    The goal should absolutely not be 100 games for Buxton--I find acceptance of that concept asinine. If Buxton is healthy, he should certainly be able to play 5 out of every 6 games, at a bare minimum--that correlates to 135 games, which means he could have 3 stints on the 10 day IL, and still play 105 games (more if the 10 day stint comes during a 10 day stretch where the Twins have at least one day off--not exactly rare). As such, if the Twins are not willing to play Buxton at that rate, he should be on the IL getting nothing but rest and recovery, especially given the big step forward Celestino has taken this year, providing a legitimate option at CF if Buxton is not there. In fact, part of me wonders if perhaps Buxton should be moved to LF full time, with Celestino the everyday CF even if Buxton is healthy. When Larnach comes back, he can play 2-3 times a week in LF, and 2-3 times at DH.
  22. Cap'n Piranha
    And according to Fangraphs, have now pulled even with the White Sox in odds to win the division (pending the result of the KC-CWS game, tied at 2 in the 10th as I type this).
  23. Cap'n Piranha
    One of the benefits of a 6 man staff (especially when you get an off day) is that it's fairly easy to extend to a 5 man rotation for an extra week to ensure everything is 100% ok for the injured player. My guess is that Gray will be back against Baltimore, either in Ober's place (next Tuesday), or on Monday if they want to keep Ryan on 5 days rest in between starts. If they want to keep everyone on 5 days rest, they can have Winder/Jax piggyback on Wednesday against the Orioles, while putting Ober on the IL as one of the two guys they cut to get to 26 players.
  24. Cap'n Piranha
    This team just doesn't seem to have any spark or fire to it. The performance of Morrison, Lynn, and Correa is making me question the wisdom of waiting out the market to sign bargain deals on FAs who hoped for a big payday. If what we're seeing right now is what the Twins are, there needs to be a major house-cleaning. Falvine gone, the entire coaching staff gone, and the current core (other than Buxton) blown up. If you get a can't-say-no offer for Buxton, you might have to do that too.
  25. Cap'n Piranha
    Problem is, the Dodgers were also swinging in 30 degree weather, and they scored 14 runs in two games.
×
×
  • Create New...