If Current DCI Model Gets Cut Back...

[N.E. Brigand]

30 minutes ago, E3D said:

I take hydroxychloroquine named Plaquenil for rheumatoid arthritis. 

Then this article in the Wall Street Journal about Plaquenil and COVID19 may be of interest.

[year1buick]

So my previous question seems to have been passed by but I’m still really curious about it so I’ll ask again. How much lead time do show sponsors and corps need to set the summer schedule? If the reopening of large spectator sports keeps getting pushed back, what’s the least amount of time DCI needs to put all of those pieces into place? Or, do they just plan away with the hope that it’s all worked out by next June? And, if they do, and it isn’t worked out, wouldn’t that be doubly disastrous? I’m just having a hard time understanding how the offseason planning is going to work in this environment.

[cixelsyd]

2 minutes ago, year1buick said:

So my previous question seems to have been passed by but I’m still really curious about it so I’ll ask again. How much lead time do show sponsors and corps need to set the summer schedule? If the reopening of large spectator sports keeps getting pushed back, what’s the least amount of time DCI needs to put all of those pieces into place? Or, do they just plan away with the hope that it’s all worked out by next June? And, if they do, and it isn’t worked out, wouldn’t that be doubly disastrous? I’m just having a hard time understanding how the offseason planning is going to work in this environment.

That is an interesting question (or four).

On the two "how much time" questions, previous feedback in this thread suggested that activity leaders are already brainstorming about what they can do to alter the "how much time" parameter.  Status quo of having a schedule set the previous September, and lineups published in November, is not going to work as well as in recent seasons.

[year1buick]

9 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:

That is an interesting question (or four).

On the two "how much time" questions, previous feedback in this thread suggested that activity leaders are already brainstorming about what they can do to alter the "how much time" parameter.  Status quo of having a schedule set the previous September, and lineups published in November, is not going to work as well as in recent seasons.

Yeah, it makes sense that they’d start planning that out pretty soon but it seems like you wouldn’t want to put ink to paper until you have a pretty good idea of how it’s going to play out, or risk compounding an already bad situation. I don’t envy them.

[Bob P.]

1 hour ago, cixelsyd said:

Again, the statement you refer to began with this:

"HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE & AZITHROMYCIN, taken together, have a real chance to be... "

Note the qualifying words.

Now, re-read the "hopefully" sentence in its proper context.

 

Now, get back on topic, like you say you want to.

"Have a real chance to be.."  are not qualifying words, but simply a statement of opinion.  The key word in qualifying something is "IF".  When "IF"  appears, then we can have a statement that might be true IF something else is fulfilled or true.  The first statement is qualified by the word IF or other words to that effect.  Hopefully never qualifies anything.  

Now perhaps you can get back to the subject, I hope!

[HockeyDad]

4 hours ago, Cappybara said:

You asked me to show a study, I did. Now you are moving the goalposts, as people who argue without evidence always do. You are not arguing in good faith, I am done responding to you. 
 

(btw, who’s the one getting political now? Mods?)

I was responding to your post which included “words mean things” claims. I agree with that, words do mean things.  That’s why I don’t like it when people take words and twist them with malicious intent. 

Edited April 18, 2020 by HockeyDad

[HockeyDad]

54 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said:

 

I have seen some indications of that, but I can't say for sure.

Didier Raoult

"The founder and director of Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire, or IHU, in Marseille, the 68-year-old Raoult has compiled a sometimes dazzling, sometimes disturbing career that could have been scripted by Marcel Pagnol or Honoré de Balzac. ...

Not only did he become an internationally recognized researcher, but he was also a nationally recognized power player. Cultivating politicians as carefully as he did petri dishes, Raoult overcame the opposition of older research institutions and, with the support of then-President Nicolas Sarkozy, created the IHU 10 years ago. Despite the doubts, Raoult’s work on infectious disease earned him a place on the French government’s COVID-19 commission.

Not surprisingly, Raoult’s rapid rise raised as many eyebrows as huzzahs. While his fans applaud the 3,000 scientific articles Raoult has co-signed, his critics argue that these staggering numbers do not add up. Do the math, they remark, and it turns out the Marseillais researcher publishes more papers in a month than most productive researchers publish in a career. Raoult’s method, according to one critic, is to task a young researcher at IHU with an experiment, then co-sign the piece before it is submitted to publication. 'Raoult is thus able to reach this absolutely insane number of publications every year,' according to one anonymous source quoted by the site Mediapart. More disturbingly, the critic added, 'it is simply impossible for Raoult to verify all of these papers.' ...

Critics argue that not only were there too few subjects in the chloroquine study, but that some of them dropped out during the trial, potentially skewing the results. In addition, Raoult has not released the raw data from the trial, which, remarkably, was not double-blinded. According to Dominique Costagliola, chief epidemiologist at the Pasteur Institute, the trial was so slapdash that 'it is impossible to interpret the described result as being attributable to the hydroxychloroquine treatment.'" ...

"'Dr. Raoult’s study involves 24 people. What kind of health minister would I be if, on the basis of a single study conducted on 24 people, I told French people to take a medicine that could lead to cardiac complications in some people?' said Health Minister Olivier Véran on France 2."

Even so: "Public officials are taking him seriously, up to the highest level. Raoult was officially a member of the first scientific council set up by French President Emmanuel Macron to advise him on the coronavirus epidemic, although he stopped attending meetings after a disagreement over the level of screening and testing."

- - - - - - - - - -
It's a turbulent time. His study may prove to be correct. But nobody else has been able to duplicate his results yet.

And I find it curious that Raoult was dismissing concerns about COVID19 in January: "Three people in China die from a virus, and that sparks a global alert. That is crazy."

TL;DR. I’m assuming it’s a hit piece, though. 

[cixelsyd]

8 minutes ago, Bob P. said:

"Have a real chance to be.."  are not qualifying words, but simply a statement of opinion.  The key word in qualifying something is "IF".  When "IF"  appears, then we can have a statement that might be true IF something else is fulfilled or true.  The first statement is qualified by the word IF or other words to that effect.  Hopefully never qualifies anything.  

Now perhaps you can get back to the subject, I hope!

Per Merriam-Webster, qualify means "to limit or modify the meaning of".  That is what the phrase "have a real chance to be" does.

[HockeyDad]

4 hours ago, JimF-LowBari said:

How about one final word on hydrox....

One side is saying it will do marvelous things before the proof is in. One side is saying we need testing before we can say it will do marvelous things. 
 

Other that that I see people talking over each other and not hearing what is being said...

Back to DCI?

Well, actually, no. Not at all. I said - IF there is a chance it could work and I’m on my death bed with C-19, then I want to be shot up with it!!  That is nowhere close to a claim that “it will do marvelous things.”  Not close. But others (not saying you) have twisted the argument that way in order to discredit the source. 

[N.E. Brigand]

11 minutes ago, HockeyDad said:

TL;DR. I’m assuming it’s a hit piece, though. 

Among other things, the quoted material notes that Pres. Macron put Dr. Raoult on France's coronavirus committee.

So you assume wrong.