Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
Note: This thread is 1132 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Posted

Michigan reported 3,579 new cases of Covid-19 yesterday, 3/23/2021.    

From the land of perpetual cloudiness.   I'm Denny

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Replies 3.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
19 minutes ago, Elmer said:

Other countries have returned to some form of normalcy because they all bought into the effort and saw it through to the goal.

That is not entirely accurate.  See below

ea173e4e9aa1e6da2f5fd79995cb3b97

Suspensions of the most readily available vaccine, along with new variants spreading fast and Europeans letting their guard down, are all prolonging the agony in Europe.

 

18 minutes ago, dennyjones said:

Michigan reported 3,579 new cases of Covid-19 yesterday, 3/23/2021.    

Yup, definitely going the wrong way.  The recent increases really look to track closely with the improved weather and perceived "COVID Fatigue".  Vaccinations are available, just need time for more to get vaccinated.  I've had my 1st shot, 2nd is on April 16th.

Stuart M.
 

I am a "SCRATCH GOLFER".  I hit ball, Ball hits Tree, I scratch my head. 😜

Driver: Ping G410 Plus 10.5* +1* / 3 Hybrid: Cleveland HIBORE XLS / 4,5 & 6 Hybrids: Mizuno JP FLI-HI / Irons/Wedges 7-8-9-P-G: Mizuno JPX800 HD / Sand Wedge: Mizuno JPX 800 / Lob Wedge: Cleveland CBX 60* / Putter: Odyssey White Hot OG 7S / Balls: Srixon Soft / Beer: Labatt Blue (or anything nice & cold) 

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
Posted
3 hours ago, Billy Z said:

While I agree with a lot of points in your post, and this is only a small portion of that post, but I am guessing this may not be an appropriate part of that post. It is hedging on politics.

Please let moderators moderate.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
1 hour ago, iacas said:

Please let moderators moderate.

Sorry, thanks for the info!

Thomas Gralinski, 2458080

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
Posted
YQPWCCUL2MI6XJZQDNHNSZLCLA.jpg&w=1440

The company and Oxford University had announced Monday that a clinical trial in the United States, Chile and Peru showed 79 percent efficacy.

In an extraordinary turn of events, an independent panel that safeguards the integrity of clinical trials wrote to AstraZeneca and U.S. government officials late Monday expressing concern and disappointment that the drugmaker presented “outdated and potentially misleading” data on its coronavirus vaccine making the shots appear more effective than shown by fuller data.

The letter, from 11 leading statisticians, infectious-disease physicians and ethics experts appointed by the National Institutes of Health to review the trial data for all the major coronavirus vaccines supported by the federal government, says the company’s decision puts the vaccine in the most favorable light — a grave scientific misstep that could erode trust in the vaccine.

The letter is a rare window into the typically confidential interactions between a company and the Data and Safety Monitoring Board that polices the integrity of the data.

“The DSMB is concerned that AstraZeneca chose to use data that was already outdated and potentially misleading in their press release,” the letter states. “The point that is clear to the board is that the [vaccine efficacy number] . . . they chose to release was the most favorable for the study as opposed to the most recent and most complete. Decisions like this are what erode public trust in the scientific process.”

The letter goes on to explain that while the company announced its vaccine was 79 percent effective on Monday, the panel had been meeting with the company through February and March and had seen data showing the vaccine may be 69 to 74 percent effective, and had “strongly recommended” that information should be included in the news release.

Federal officials were taken aback by the letter from the board. One said the AstraZeneca results were the equivalent of “telling your mother you got an A in a course, when you got an A in the first quiz but a C in the overall course.” Another said the disclosure by the board would inevitably hurt the company’s credibility with U.S. regulators.

The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk publicly about the issue.

Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said in an interview that he was “shocked” by the letter and the serious concerns it brought to light. On Monday, before receiving news of the letter, Fauci had said “numbers don’t lie” and that the vaccine looked good.

“The irony of this is that it’s very likely a very good vaccine, and this sort of thing does nothing but cloud the picture. I don’t think it reflects on the vaccine,” Fauci said. “I think it reflects on how the data has rolled out.”

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
48 minutes ago, iacas said:
YQPWCCUL2MI6XJZQDNHNSZLCLA.jpg&w=1440

The company and Oxford University had announced Monday that a clinical trial in the United States, Chile and Peru showed 79 percent efficacy.

The letter goes on to explain that while the company announced its vaccine was 79 percent effective on Monday, the panel had been meeting with the company through February and March and had seen data showing the vaccine may be 69 to 74 percent effective, and had “strongly recommended” that information should be included in the news release.

I don’t think it reflects on the vaccine,” Fauci said. “I think it reflects on how the data has rolled out.”

I don't really care for Fauci, or his assessment here: I don’t think it reflects on the vaccine,” Fauci said. Really? The vaccine is portrayed as 79% effective but really is only 69-74% effective?

Thomas Gralinski, 2458080

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
13 hours ago, dennyjones said:

Michigan reported 3,579 new cases of Covid-19 yesterday, 3/23/2021.    

3500.jpg?width=1200&height=630&quality=8

State recorded nearly 17,000 new cases last week as numbers underscore the need for a speedier vaccine rollout, experts say
Quote

The data on who is being vaccinated may offer some clues as to why hospitalizations are up despite the rollout. While about 25% of the state’s population has received a first dose, only 15% of Detroit residents have. The city’s residents on the whole suffer from a higher rate of underlying health issues that are often behind the more serious cases.

I am hearing there's a lot of skepticism about the vaccine in the city of Detroit. 

What this article says echoes @iacas stance that we can't Leon Lett this. Seems the most important metric right now is shots in arms. 

Quote

Outside of reinstating stricter orders and renewed vigilance, the only measure that can slow the new surge is boosting the number of vaccinations, Chopra said. She expects that the state will have vaccinated about 70-80% of the population by July, at which time “we can slowly phase out restrictions”.

 

- Mark

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
24 minutes ago, Braivo said:

What this article says echoes @iacas stance that we can't Leon Lett this. Seems the most important metric right now is shots in arms. 

Yeah, I agree with you and @iacas. Although, I might ask if we could just wear our masks a little bit longer? At least until the majority have been vaccinated?

My in-laws told me that where they live the folks that have been vaccinated (about 20% of the population) have stopped wearing their masks for the last few weeks. There have been all kinds of complaints about "Why should we all wear masks when they aren't?" Wal-mart and other places in their neck of the woods have been unable to enforce their masks policies so THEY DROPPED THEM.

Yeah, Wal-mart down by them literally said "F**k it, we can't figure out who's been vaccinated and who hasn't so we'll just drop our mask policy." They even took down the sign on their door. Where they live Wal-Mart is kind of the big fish in their small pond. So, now all the other places have followed suit. Because they had to deal with "We don't have to wear masks in Wal-Mart, why do we have to wear them here?" 

So, where they live is now a totally mask free zone. All I can think about is Leon Lett.  

My bag is an ever-changing combination of clubs. 

A mix I am forever tinkering with. 

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
39 minutes ago, Braivo said:

I am hearing there's a lot of skepticism about the vaccine in the city of Detroit. 

I think the concern with the vaccine in Detroit was the Mayor said he wants the "Good" vaccines, not the JNJ that is less effective.  I personally agree with him.  Why would I want a vaccine that is less than 70% effective (JNJ) vs either Pfizer or Moderna that are roughly 95% effective?   I understand there may be justification for the JNJ lower rate (timing of trial and impact of mutated strains) but I am going with the 95% regime.

Stuart M.
 

I am a "SCRATCH GOLFER".  I hit ball, Ball hits Tree, I scratch my head. 😜

Driver: Ping G410 Plus 10.5* +1* / 3 Hybrid: Cleveland HIBORE XLS / 4,5 & 6 Hybrids: Mizuno JP FLI-HI / Irons/Wedges 7-8-9-P-G: Mizuno JPX800 HD / Sand Wedge: Mizuno JPX 800 / Lob Wedge: Cleveland CBX 60* / Putter: Odyssey White Hot OG 7S / Balls: Srixon Soft / Beer: Labatt Blue (or anything nice & cold) 

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
Posted
10 hours ago, Billy Z said:

I don't really care for Fauci, or his assessment here: I don’t think it reflects on the vaccine,” Fauci said. Really? The vaccine is portrayed as 79% effective but really is only 69-74% effective?

Yes and no.  If I remember correctly, 9 months ago the conventional wisdom was that a vaccine that was 70% effective would be considered highly effective, a near-miracle if developed reasonably quickly.  This one fits that requirement, using the "better" (less efficacious) data.  But over-ambitious claims in press releases DO reflect on the company, which in turn reflects on the vaccine and public confidence in it.

Dave

:callaway: Rogue SubZero Driver

:titleist: 915F 15 Fairway, 816 H1 19 Hybrid, AP2 4 iron to PW, Vokey 52, 56, and 60 wedges, ProV1 balls 
:ping: G5i putter, B60 version
 :ping:Hoofer Bag, complete with Newport Cup logo
:footjoy::true_linkswear:, and Ashworth shoes

the only thing wrong with this car is the nut behind the wheel.

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
Posted
16 minutes ago, StuM said:

I think the concern with the vaccine in Detroit was the Mayor said he wants the "Good" vaccines, not the JNJ that is less effective.  I personally agree with him.  Why would I want a vaccine that is less than 70% effective (JNJ) vs either Pfizer or Moderna that are roughly 95% effective?   I understand there may be justification for the JNJ lower rate (timing of trial and impact of mutated strains) but I am going with the 95% regime.

70% is still highly effective. Plus it’s if exposed to the virus to begin with. More vaccinations of any type reduce the odds of that happening for everyone.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, StuM said:

I think the concern with the vaccine in Detroit was the Mayor said he wants the "Good" vaccines, not the JNJ that is less effective.  I personally agree with him.  Why would I want a vaccine that is less than 70% effective (JNJ) vs either Pfizer or Moderna that are roughly 95% effective?   I understand there may be justification for the JNJ lower rate (timing of trial and impact of mutated strains) but I am going with the 95% regime.

It reduces the chance of death to ZERO. All of the vaccines do. The JNJ leaves a little more chance for you to still get sick (mild in most cases), but it works. And it only requires one dose, which might help with compliance. No reason to shy away from the JNJ. 

COVID19-J%26JVaccine-vial-syringe-Ramire

We asked UCSF infectious disease expert Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, to unpack some of the big questions around vaccine science, such as how the Johnson & Johnson vaccine differs, how well it works against the new...
Quote

In the J&J trial, the placebo group had 16 hospitalizations and seven deaths from COVID-19, whereas the vaccine group had none, which means the vaccine provided 100 percent efficacy against hospitalizations and deaths.

 

Edited by Braivo

- Mark

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
Posted
34 minutes ago, StuM said:

I think the concern with the vaccine in Detroit was the Mayor said he wants the "Good" vaccines, not the JNJ that is less effective.  I personally agree with him.  Why would I want a vaccine that is less than 70% effective (JNJ) vs either Pfizer or Moderna that are roughly 95% effective?   I understand there may be justification for the JNJ lower rate (timing of trial and impact of mutated strains) but I am going with the 95% regime.

As I understand it, the trials were conducted differently. You can’t compare the numbers the way people are generally doing.

Bill

“By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest.” - Confucius

My Swing Thread

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

Great video share @The Flush

I highly recommend watching it all the way through. All three vaccines are 100% effective against hospitalization and death. Get one. Any one. 

- Mark

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
Posted

Those efficacy numbers may drop as variants grow in number.

No Leon Letting.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
1 hour ago, The Flush said:

 

Great information, Not sure why but I can't give it a "Reaction" but it is very informative.

Stuart M.
 

I am a "SCRATCH GOLFER".  I hit ball, Ball hits Tree, I scratch my head. 😜

Driver: Ping G410 Plus 10.5* +1* / 3 Hybrid: Cleveland HIBORE XLS / 4,5 & 6 Hybrids: Mizuno JP FLI-HI / Irons/Wedges 7-8-9-P-G: Mizuno JPX800 HD / Sand Wedge: Mizuno JPX 800 / Lob Wedge: Cleveland CBX 60* / Putter: Odyssey White Hot OG 7S / Balls: Srixon Soft / Beer: Labatt Blue (or anything nice & cold) 

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

Thought this was funny!
I had to teach my  wife and kids about Leon Lett!!!

 

In my Grom:

Driver-Taylormade 10.5 Woods- Taylomade 3 wood, taylormade 4 Hybrid
Irons- Callaway Big Berthas 5i - GW Wedges- Titles Volkey  Putter- Odyssey protype #9
Ball- Bridgestone E6
All grips Golf Pride

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 1132 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    Carl's Place
    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Posts

    • Day 41, June 14.  I spent 10 minutes, half hitting W half hitting 6-iron, practice shots (indoors, off a mat, into a net)
    • Day 620 - 2026-06-14 Got some work in before and after lessons. Definitely didn't adduct my arms 130° in doing so.
    • Day 79: played 18. Shot a +5 76. Iron play was much better - 11 GIR. Hit a drive 380. Normal day. 
    • Day 14 (14 Jun 26) - Continued work with irons (8i-Pw), hard foam balls and getting consistent impact - same as previous drills - using gates for 1/2 and “simulated” course conditions on the second half.  
    • I like discussing the golf swing. Whether you call it "swing theory" or what, I like to talk about things that can expand the potential for what I know and understand. As a scientist, I like being shown that I'm wrong, too, because as I've said a bunch of times… "you're wrong and here's why" is an instant opportunity to upgrade my knowledge. I also like to help golfers, and one of the things I'm most glad to have moved away from from 15 years ago was the "Hands In" idea from S&T. Jim Waldron is often credited (probably rightly so) with explaining why so many Tour players and good players talk about "keeping their hands in front of themselves" while it appears that they're moving their arms around their bodies. From over 30 years ago: I've also got videos like… this (Instagram link here😞 I'm happy to say that I've become friends with Shaun and Mike at Athletic Motion Golf (AMG), too. I tend to get along with other smart folks who measure things, who look critically at information, who don't assume that what they thought 20 years ago holds true today. I get along with folks who look for chances to instantly upgrade their knowledge. Andy Plummer remains one of the people who does not look for these opportunities. He didn't care in early 2013 when we had evidence that the information in their S&T 2.0 DVDs was bogus, and they seemingly don't care now. They've been attacking (it's their favorite pastime) AMG in particular for the better part of a year now. There have been a few shots back at them from AMG (like… this), no doubt. But as is typical of the AMG fellas, it's with measured data. Well, recently, Andy took yet another shot at AMG: https://www.instagram.com/p/DZfHe0DuPXC/. Andy demonstrates that true power in the golf swing comes from doing stuff like this: Andy claims that the idea that the arms mostly lift and lower, while the body turns, is bogus. What golfers should be doing is using "angular velocity" to abduct and adduct their shoulders to move the club fast like this (above). Then he makes a ridiculous example of what AMG supposedly teaches, but misses by a mile. Now, it doesn't take a biomechanist to know that you can't possibly swing as Andy demonstrates. His right arm is so far around and behind him that his left arm would have to grow several feet to reach the grip of the club (or alignment stick), and a follow-through with the right arm position like that would be absolutely silly. But, it's a demonstration, so let's not read too much into it. However, I find ideas like this dangerous. Again, I like to help golfers, and in my opinion, the idea that you should abduct and adduct your arms a lot is a dangerous one. There's some adduction and abduction going on, but… it's not much. Anyway, this statement was posted: 130 degrees of dynamic range of horizontal abduction and adduction is quite the claim! I posted some comments to Andy and others, and was issued a challenge: Well, okay then. Here's Bryson's lead shoulder adduction: This measures the angle between the "virtual spine," the left shoulder, and the elbow. Bryson has a 97.34° "adduction angle" at P1, a 62.53° angle at P4, and returns to an 89.21° angle at impact. Rounding, that's a change of 34° from address to the top, and then a change (back toward the angle at address) of about 26° from the top to impact. If we want to worry about only horizontal abduction and adduction (where D = adduction and B = abduction): Left shoulder: 8.33° D, 38.74° D, 14.67° D Right shoulder: 1.03° D, 55.75° B, 14.04° B If we call moving the arms farther around you as negative, those are changes of -30.41° from P1 to P4 for the left shoulder and +24.07° from P4 to P7 for the left shoulder and -56.78° and +41.71° for the right shoulder. I have no idea on earth where he gets 130°. From the last frame of Bryson's swing where he's at 126.98°? But the lowest that number gets is 62.53°, for a range of 64.45, or less than half of the 130° claimed (plus it includes part of the swing, post-impact, that has no bearing on what the ball does). For good measure, another pretty good player: Left: 22.55° D ➡️ 33.35° D (∆ 10.8°) ➡️ 17.36° D (∆ 15.99° from P4, 5.19° from P1) Right: 15.03° D ➡️ 24.29° B (∆ 39.32°) ➡️ 1.93° D (∆ 26.22° from P4, 13.1° from P1) Of the biomechanists and experienced 3D users (on any platform), none of them have seen anything like 130° of dynamic adduction/abduction from a good player P1 to P7. And, like my little joke above, even if you go to the end of the swing, you rarely get much more than a little over halfway there. Maybe Andy is adding them? He does say in the video "and then add it to that with the lead arm." (I think that's what he says, but this isn't an additive type system.) I regularly coach golfers out of positions with a lot of adduction and abduction. I regularly work golfers away from moving their arms around their bodies. Even my juniors (the ones who have paid attention anyway! 🤣) can recite "arms = up/down, body = around." Like this: So, I don't know where this leaves us. Andy claims to have seen something on GEARS that shows 130° of dynamic adduction/abduction. I'm open to being wrong, but… I don't think I am here on this one. And, until that comes to be, I will continue to stand up for what I think is the best information, and do my best to work with golfers toward simpler, easier moves that don't get them stuck. Simpler, easier moves like the moves Tour players and great players tend to make, not complicated, difficult moves. Shaun and Mike said it in a video once where they demonstrated that the average Tour player adducts their lead arm 20° across their chest from the top to impact (P4 to P7), while the amateur often tries to go 40°. They said something like "the amateur is trying to move their arm TWICE the distance in the same amount of time as the professional athlete." Yep. The swings of great players are often easier and simpler. They are not abducting and adducting their arms much in comparison to average golfers. As a smart man once said: "Why would you teach something (abduction in this case) that bad golfers already do?" On a related note… the S&T crowd continues to be… well, who they've been as long as I've known them. Take this comment for example: I mean… I would think that this is pretty self-explanatory, but then again… I didn't think it needed explaining to begin with. P.S. As I was finishing up this article, another biomechanist replied with something so simple I hadn't even thought of it as I had immediately jumped into looking at the actual measurements: "90 doesn’t even seem physically possible.“ No, sir. It doesn't.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.