All-Star Covid-19 / Varsity Response

Welcome to our Cheerleading Community

Members see FEWER ads... join today!

I would agree if the certificate states "flu or flu like causes," but reread my statement above. The CDC has no reason to investigate a certificate where flu like causes aren't listed at all. According to my neighbor, Dr's have no reason to speculate or guess a secondary illness they weren't told about or didn't test for. Most elderly patients (65+) are coding en route to the hospital or in critical condition, so those deaths are generally documented based on their history of underlying condition and cause of death. Example: Hypertension/Stroke. Now they are documenting all as possible COVID19 on older patients that die and it is a logical possibility but, it is also providing the hospital with a 20% more medicare payment if it's COVID19. There's no conspiracy theory, there was just never money tied to "speculating" a secondary cause such as flu, virus, or pneumonia and putting it down on a death certificate unless it was information specifically given to them by family or through testing. Now they have 20% more reason. Money always skews data.

ETA: Here's a 2017 US Census article about our elderly and the historic rise in death rates:
As Population Ages, U.S. Nears Historic Increase in Deaths
I understand what you are saying, and am not saying there isn’t some impact. But I’m pointing out that CDC does go back, and look for evidence of flu symptoms retroactively, and routinely adds numbers to their annual counts, and that pneumonia etc are very routinely included on death certificates, and in autopsy reports etc. they don’t have to test for the flu for it to be included. I think you are overestimating the impact of your statement, and undervaluing to purpose of real-time statistics in active epidemiological management. There will be a number of rates, etc, that will have been incorrectly estimated. That doesn’t devalue the significance of using the available data to the best of our ability to manage disease spread and resources.

That being said, yes death rates are expected, and have been expected to raise. So excess deaths may or may not end up being significant. But currently they can and should be examined.
 
I understand what you are saying, and am not saying there isn’t some impact. But I’m pointing out that CDC does go back, and look for evidence of flu symptoms retroactively, and routinely adds numbers to their annual counts, and that pneumonia etc are very routinely included on death certificates, and in autopsy reports etc. they don’t have to test for the flu for it to be included. I think you are overestimating the impact of your statement, and undervaluing to purpose of real-time statistics in active epidemiological management. There will be a number of rates, etc, that will have been incorrectly estimated. That doesn’t devalue the significance of using the available data to the best of our ability to manage disease spread and resources.

That being said, yes death rates are expected, and have been expected to raise. So excess deaths may or may not end up being significant. But currently they can and should be examined.
News changes by the day. The CDC just released new data and the total deaths are much less than they had originally published - by almost half.
 
I understand what you are saying, and am not saying there isn’t some impact. But I’m pointing out that CDC does go back, and look for evidence of flu symptoms retroactively, and routinely adds numbers to their annual counts, and that pneumonia etc are very routinely included on death certificates, and in autopsy reports etc. they don’t have to test for the flu for it to be included. I think you are overestimating the impact of your statement, and undervaluing to purpose of real-time statistics in active epidemiological management. There will be a number of rates, etc, that will have been incorrectly estimated. That doesn’t devalue the significance of using the available data to the best of our ability to manage disease spread and resources.

That being said, yes death rates are expected, and have been expected to raise. So excess deaths may or may not end up being significant. But currently they can and should be examined.

Again, read what I said. I'm well aware they don't have to test for the flu to be included on the death certificate and said that. Doctors had no reason to put it down, however, if no one suggested they had flu/virus/pneumonia or it wasn't specifically tested for. If a person died of hypertension/stroke, that's what they put down, not hypertension/stroke and possibly the flu. Now they put down hypertension/stroke and possibly COVID19. That can create some very distorted data.
 
Those numbers are unfortunately hazy at best - in both directions. Even "deaths caused by COVID19" is somewhat debatable, as there are often other contributing factors. In theory, do you count someone who was already suffering from a myriad of issues and COVID19 pushed them the last bit over the edge? Probably? But if they hadn't had the other issues, they may have beaten COVID? Does COVID19 get 100% of the blame? Do you count someone who died of an unrelated problems because they were afraid to go the hospital because of COVID19? Probably not? It isn't always clear under the best circumstances - and different areas use different standards.

Also, there are likely HUGE numbers of unreported, untested cases. This could mean there is undercount of COVID19 deaths (which would make things seem scarier) and/or there could be a massive undercount of those who contracted the disease, but showed few to no symptoms and recovered (which would make things seem less scary.) It is hard to know what numbers to trust.

That isn't an indictment of the CDC or the doctors/coroners, that is just the reality.
 
Last edited:
I saw a post on instagram with a screenshot of a letter supposedly Varsity sent terminating DJ from their media department and forcing him to turn over control of the Cheerupdates account to two other individuals named but were blacked out. I have no idea he had a contract with Varsity but it’s not surprising.

I want to believe it, but I don’t think it’s true mostly because I don’t think he’s ever had a contract with Varsity to begin with. He’s been way too problematic and cruel in the past for them to formally acknowledge him as any kind of official extension for a brand that caters almost exclusively to children.

Plus everything about his Twitter account reads hanger-on. He just retweets a bunch of stuff that you could find anywhere. No exclusive info or insight. His most valuable service was his ability to offer sneak peeks of score sheets, but now that scores are public he’s been mad redundant.

IDK how he got his hands on the Worlds announcement — if Varsity trusted him enough to bring him into the inner circle or someone spilled the beans to him and he took advantage — but I’m guessing he’ll never trusted with sensitive info again after this. Basically, back to anon status for him.
 
I want to believe it, but I don’t think it’s true mostly because I don’t think he’s ever had a contract with Varsity to begin with. He’s been way too problematic and cruel in the past for them to formally acknowledge him as any kind of official extension for a brand that caters almost exclusively to children.

Plus everything about his Twitter account reads hanger-on. He just retweets a bunch of stuff that you could find anywhere. No exclusive info or insight. His most valuable service was his ability to offer sneak peeks of score sheets, but now that scores are public he’s been mad redundant.

IDK how he got his hands on the Worlds announcement — if Varsity trusted him enough to bring him into the inner circle or someone spilled the beans to him and he took advantage — but I’m guessing he’ll never trusted with sensitive info again after this. Basically, back to anon status for him.




He is a coach so the email was sent to him
 
Those numbers are unfortunately hazy at best - in both directions. Even "deaths caused by COVID19" is somewhat debatable, as there are often other contributing factors. In theory, do you count someone who was already suffering from a myriad of issues and COVID19 pushed them the last bit over the edge? Probably? But if they hadn't had the other issues, they may have beaten COVID? Does COVID19 get 100% of the blame? Do you count someone who died of an unrelated problems because they were afraid to go the hospital because of COVID19? Probably not? It isn't always clear under the best circumstances - and different areas use different standards.

Also, there are likely HUGE numbers of unreported, untested cases. This could mean there is undercount of COVID19 deaths (which would make things seem scarier) and/or there could be a massive undercount of those who contracted the disease, but showed few to no symptoms and recovered (which would make things seem less scary.) It is hard to know what numbers to trust.

That isn't an indictment of the CDC or the doctors/coroners, that is just the reality.
That is the point, that I’m actually trying to make. Epidemic numbers at the outset are not accurate. They can’t be. The best that can be done is to construct models based on known data. The real figures will flush themselves out. Policy needs to be fluid, but also utilize fluctuations that are probable. That’s the best that can be done. There will be a lot to consider over time. And I have hope that we will come to more optimistic numbers. We just have to work with what we do have in real-time.
 


Stingrays protocol for their reopening.

My state (Missouri) is reopening next week. My county has stricter guidelines than the rest of the state (which seems to be... essentially no guidelines?) and from what I’ve seen, it sounds like gyms are reopening for private lessons only for now. No gatherings >10 people, everyone still needs to stay 6 feet apart, and no more than 25% of the capacity for a building can be inside (10% for buildings > 10,000 sqft). There are more specific guidelines for restaurants and salons, but that’s the general idea.
 
My state (Missouri) is reopening next week. My county has stricter guidelines than the rest of the state (which seems to be... essentially no guidelines?) and from what I’ve seen, it sounds like gyms are reopening for private lessons only for now. No gatherings >10 people, everyone still needs to stay 6 feet apart, and no more than 25% of the capacity for a building can be inside (10% for buildings > 10,000 sqft). There are more specific guidelines for restaurants and salons, but that’s the general idea.

Similar situation here in NC. Barring another extension, our order lifts Friday and we begin a "phased" reopening. I'm very happy we are taking it slow as a state. We are still a long ways away from mass gatherings. I'm not sure where cheer gyms stand on their reopening schedule but I'd imagine it's similar to what you're seeing.
 
I saw a post on instagram with a screenshot of a letter supposedly Varsity sent terminating DJ from their media department and forcing him to turn over control of the Cheerupdates account to two other individuals named but were blacked out. I have no idea he had a contract with Varsity but it’s not surprising.
CheerUpdates is owned by DJ and not varsity. He has publicly said it is not part of varsity, so they would not be able to terminate him from his own business. They could I guess stop his media access at their events, but even then he could enter as a spectator and I don't think they could stop him from tweeting updates.
 
im surprised the gym he works for isnt more pissed. I mean where does his loyalty lie, his twitter or his employer....
I could be wrong but I swear I remember something about being related to the gym somehow. Maybe his sister? Someone tell me I’m not crazy lol
 
Back