Football is back!
High school football is officially back and the Big Ten announcement of a return is right around the corner. For all you mambee pampees that want to sit around and cower and neg anyone with the believe that football will be played, you might want to just continue hiding in your basements watching cornhole tournament reruns.
September 3rd, 2020 at 8:03 PM ^
Although the article is clear that more rapid tests must be used, it does suggest that many who who have had "positive" test results, should probably not be considered "positive" in that they are not sick nor are they likely contagious.
In fact, the title of the article is "Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe IT SHOULDN'T BE." From the article:
"Some of the nation's leading public health experts are raising new concerns in the endless debate over coronavirus testing in the United States: The standard tests are diagnosing huge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus."
"Most of these people ARE NOT LIKELY TO BE CONTAGIOUS, and identifying them may contribute to bottlenecks that prevent those WHO ARE CONTAGIOUS from being found in time."
"In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by official in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, UP TO 90% OF PEOPLE TESTING POSITIVE CARRIED BARELY ANY VIRUS, a review by the Times found."
"On Thursday, the United States recorded 45,604 new coronavirus cases, according to a database maintained by the Times. IF THE RATE OF CONTAGIOUSNESS in MA and NY were to apply nationwide, THEN PERHAPS ONLY 4,500 OF THOSE PEOPLE MAY ACTUALLY NEED TO ISOLATE AND SUBMIT TO CONTACT TRACING."
"One solution would be to adjust the cycle threshold used now to decide that a patient is infected. Most tests set the limit at 40, a few at 37. This means that you are positive for the coronavirus if the test process required up to 40 cycles, or 37, to detect the virus. "
"Tests with thresholds so high may detect not just the live virus but also genetic fragments, LEFTOVERS FROM INFECTION THAT POSE NO PARTICULAR RISK -- akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left, Dr. Mina said."
"I am shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive," she said.
"With a cutoff of 35, about half of those tests would no longer qualify as positive. About 70% percent would not longer be judged positive if the cycles were limited to 30."
"In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles, Dr. Mina said. 'I would say that none of those people should be contact-traced."
What was that you were saying about the article not "suggesting" that the majority of "positive" results should not be counted as such?
September 3rd, 2020 at 8:54 PM ^
If 90% of tests should really be negative, as suggested at one point by your understanding of the article, the mortality rate would be in the range of 33%. You really think that is realistic?
The point remains that they are talking about infectiousness at the point the test was taken.
September 3rd, 2020 at 9:31 PM ^
You are not getting it.
If someone has a positive COVID test and they die -- with obvious exceptions -- they are counted as a COVID death. If they didn't have a positive COVID test, they would not be a COVID death. The COVID fatality rate is as inflated as the number of confirmed cases.
September 3rd, 2020 at 9:53 PM ^
This makes absolutely no sense. I'm not even sure what you're trying to say.
If 90% of the 6M cases should not have been considered positive, and thus not really a case, there would only be 600,000 tests leading to 200,000 deaths. Almost all of those deaths are connected to a positive test. Those that aren't were because of a lack of tests during the spring. There is no rational way to say the number of deaths is inflated. In fact, all the experts will tell you that the number of deaths is an under count because a bunch of southern states had a ton of excess pneumonia deaths that they refuse to tally because there never was an associated death.
September 3rd, 2020 at 9:18 PM ^
All that text and you still don't get it.
Once again, at no point does this article question whether a positive test means you were previously infected. So if you are insinuating infection totals are over-counted and this article supports that claim, which it seems you are, you are flat out wrong.
This article is concerned with infectiousness and the amount of viral content in your body at the time of the test. The whole point is that reporting a binary result (pos/neg) does not account for your current viral load and infectiousness. But it does not suggest that someone with small viral load never had the virus.
September 3rd, 2020 at 9:39 PM ^
The article is not saying that someone with a small viral load never had the virus and I have never taken that position.
The article clearly says that the tests are too sensitive and are marking as "positive" people with small viral loads even though those people are not sick and are almost certainly not contagious. In addition, the article cites to experts who are "shocked" that the tests are counting people with such small viral loads as "positive" and if the tests were refined to not count people as "positive" with such small viral loads . . . then the number of cases would be 70% to 90% less than they currently appear.
I read all this and conclude that the number of cases -- if we really are counting people who are not sick nor contagious -- is not the metric that matters all that much. That's just me.
September 3rd, 2020 at 9:56 PM ^
This is only true at the time of the test! The entire point is to quash the spread we should be capturing people who are or about to be infectious. They are suggesting repeated tests would determine when that is true, not that a one time test will say that those with low viral counts at the time of the test will not become infectious later or were not infectious at an earlier date.
September 3rd, 2020 at 4:08 PM ^
Okay tough guy
September 3rd, 2020 at 4:16 PM ^
I stand corrected, thanks.
September 3rd, 2020 at 6:57 PM ^
You’re a douche is spelled-Y O U ‘ R E. A. D O U C H E.
September 3rd, 2020 at 4:20 PM ^
I suppose it's possible you could be a more ignorant dick.
September 3rd, 2020 at 4:22 PM ^
Thank God!
Tired of chasing the wind. Lets get on with life!
September 3rd, 2020 at 4:22 PM ^
always fun to watch someone take a victory lap for something when they had absolutely nothing to do with the outcome. congrats tough guy.
September 3rd, 2020 at 4:24 PM ^
for the record I've been watching Cobra Kia and it's bad ass!
Ok, so it is cheesy, just like the 80's
But Jonny Lawrence is my Coors drinking hero
He's got a mean muscle car with a chrome Cobra and he likes chicks and takes no bullshit
#hash browns
September 3rd, 2020 at 4:34 PM ^
Send that to the internet!
September 3rd, 2020 at 4:43 PM ^
Seems like you may be missing some of the nuance in the good and bad elements of Johnny’s character. The show is great though and he his fun to watch. Also note he does not give a shit how you wash the windows and internet bullies are pussies
September 3rd, 2020 at 4:53 PM ^
that's freaking right.... I think Jonny Lawrence is more bad ass than Chuck Norris
Danny is a pussy and that was an illegal kick back in 84
Hash brown Iron Eagle 1 and 2
September 3rd, 2020 at 4:42 PM ^
What a fucking dipshit post on every level.
September 3rd, 2020 at 4:50 PM ^
I read a few of this guys old posts. This dude sucks.
September 3rd, 2020 at 6:19 PM ^
I didn't need to read his old posts to arrive at that conclusion.
September 3rd, 2020 at 4:51 PM ^
You have a ton of thumbs down. I would have worded my comment differently and less offensive. One thing missing here is the CDC survival numbers on students/people 25 years and younger is on the order of 99.999%. That's 1 in 100,000 death rate. Yes, one is too many and I'll be curious to see how many college students die from COVID this coming school year.
September 3rd, 2020 at 5:01 PM ^
It will be interesting to see how much Covid affects the campus considering they canceled the entire football season to protect students and coaches from it.
September 3rd, 2020 at 8:45 PM ^
Actually could not care less about thumbs one way or another. I am amazed and a little amused how easily people get their feelings hurt over a simple post of glee about football being back. Call me old school, but I doubt Bo could have ever coached in an era where people can't take being called a namby pampy. Too funny and folks can neg away if it makes them feel better.
September 3rd, 2020 at 11:03 PM ^
You still can't get it right...priceless.
September 3rd, 2020 at 6:49 PM ^
I was OK with everything OP said, but I will never accept being called a mambee pampee!
September 3rd, 2020 at 7:51 PM ^
Shows what you know. We are not watching reruns. Cornhole tournaments have been played in person for weeks and have been fantastic!
September 3rd, 2020 at 10:47 PM ^
Can we just lock this yokel from posting a topic ever again? He clearly is attempting to incite divisiveness under the deceptive guise of a normal news headline.
September 4th, 2020 at 12:42 PM ^
The truth is that we won't know what the "right" decision is for years, and maybe never. There are so many complex human variables that it's hard to say what's best for all parties.
But what I know for sure is that the kind of language and discourse in the OP is what's wrong with our country and world. The dehumanizing and delegitimizing of others who disagree with you is a cancer. And that goes the same for the people who are pretending they are certain the "right" thing to do is to cancel sports.
What if we agreed to the honest truth that there are strong, legitimate arguments on both sides? What if we celebrated opposing viewpoints for the perspective and value they bring to helping to create solutions that, even if we do not like, attempt to provide the best outcomes for everyone involved?
Americans have been manipulated by their leaders, news sources, and even themselves into an addiction to self-righteousness and vitriol that gets politicians reelected and generates clicks for media outlets, but leaves us spittle-flecked mess of arguing assholes. Outrage is celebrated as if it proves you care more about the world than everyone else. People on both sides use and manipulate studies to validate the perfection of their position even when we know that our understanding of the world is constantly evolving.
No matter what you believe is right, if you're not leading with empathy and compassion, you're making the world a worse place to live.