Started By
Message
re: Fauci: Test all the players before the game. Infected? Sorry, you’re sidelined.
Posted on 5/11/20 at 11:45 am to TT9
Posted on 5/11/20 at 11:45 am to TT9
If course he’s wrong just like he’s been wrong about pretty much everything. But anyone driving an agenda in the face of facts and reason is going to be wrong a lot.
0
Posted on 5/11/20 at 11:46 am to lsupride87
quote:
This is what makes no sense. If you are going to do this, why would you not test the players for all sort of other viruses and diseases before every game?
It makes no sense we only care about the players getting one specific virus, and not others
Because the coronavirus is new and we still don’t really have any tools to combat it. That, and it spreads very, very easily. Despite what the media tells you, the potential risks of getting sick are also not well researched at this point in the game. We know what we know based on a few months of experience- that’s really not that much.
Flu is bad, but we have vaccines and treatments for it. Getting it at an old age or with underlying conditions is bad, but not necessarily a death sentence either, especially if you get your yearly shot.
Posted on 5/11/20 at 11:47 am to BluegrassBelle
its common knowledge.
well, i guess not common for everyone unfortunately
from the CDC. I put it in easy reading terms
well, i guess not common for everyone unfortunately
quote:
Asymptomatic carriers play an important role.
Asymptomatic patients shed virus and can transmit the disease, but not at the same rate as symptomatic individuals, which creates an invisible “reservoir” for the virus.
quote:
Period of Contagiousness
You may be able to pass on flu to someone else before you know you are sick, as well as while you are sick.
from the CDC. I put it in easy reading terms
This post was edited on 5/11/20 at 11:48 am
Posted on 5/11/20 at 11:48 am to CNB
quote:
Is he wrong?
Sometimes
Posted on 5/11/20 at 11:49 am to paperwasp
Posted on 5/11/20 at 11:49 am to lsupride87
quote:
from the CDC. I put it in easy reading terms
I literally just linked a scientific meta-analysis that says otherwise.
The CDC also recommends testing and contact tracing for COVID-19. So are you cherry picking here or what?
Posted on 5/11/20 at 11:51 am to PlateJohnsonIII
quote:This simply isnt true
That, and it spreads very, very easily.
It is consistent with most other viruses
Studies are showing only a 15% household infection rate. I wouldnt call that spreading "very very easily"
Look, I dont mind if you support testing players. I just cant stand the misinformation constantly touted as fact
Posted on 5/11/20 at 11:53 am to lsupride87
What studies?
Posted on 5/11/20 at 11:56 am to lsupride87
Generally speaking, the CDC
Article from Healthline that links to CDC
Plus 50% of transmission comes from asymptomatic carriers according to what we currently know
The reality is that we're still in the dark on exactly what the r0 of this virus is. It appears to be more contagious than the flu. We can debate about the degree to which it's more contagious, but it is more contagious. It's also way deadlier than the flu, and we don't have any real treatment to combat it
I hope there's football, too, and I'm sure there we'll find a way to have football, even if it means limited capacity and testing for players. But I just don't expect everything to be back to normal by football season unless somehow a vaccine gets released by then, and I think you should mentally prepare for it to be a weird season
Article from Healthline that links to CDC
quote:
The possibility of presymptomatic transmission increases the challenges of containment measures. Public health officials conducting contact tracing should strongly consider including a period before symptom onset to account for the possibility of presymptomatic transmission. The potential for presymptomatic transmission underscores the importance of social distancing, including the avoidance of congregate settings, to reduce COVID-19 spread.
Plus 50% of transmission comes from asymptomatic carriers according to what we currently know
The reality is that we're still in the dark on exactly what the r0 of this virus is. It appears to be more contagious than the flu. We can debate about the degree to which it's more contagious, but it is more contagious. It's also way deadlier than the flu, and we don't have any real treatment to combat it
I hope there's football, too, and I'm sure there we'll find a way to have football, even if it means limited capacity and testing for players. But I just don't expect everything to be back to normal by football season unless somehow a vaccine gets released by then, and I think you should mentally prepare for it to be a weird season
This post was edited on 5/11/20 at 11:58 am
Posted on 5/11/20 at 12:01 pm to CNB
quote:
What studies?
He's citing this Chinese study (who ironically, I'm told all of the time we shouldn't trust their data): The Full PDF of the Study
That said, it fully admits its own shortcomings, so the data may likely not be accurate.
quote:
In Shenzhen, SARS-CoV-2 transmission is most likely between very close contacts, such as
individuals sharing a household. However, even in this group less than 1 in 6 contacts were
infected; and, overall, we observed far less than one (0.4) onward transmission per primary
case. As noted above, low transmission levels may in part be due to the impact of isolation and
surveillance; but it is equally likely unobserved transmission is playing some rule. We also
estimate reasonably high rates of overdispersion in the number of cases each individual causes,
leaving open the possibility that large COVID-19 clusters occur even if surveillance and isolation
are forcing R below one; events that could potentially overwhelm the surveillance system.
quote:
This work has numerous limitations. As in any active outbreak response, the data were
collected by multiple teams under protocols that, by necessity, changed as the situation
developed. Hence, there may be noise and inconsistency in definitions. Of note, the definition of
a confirmed case changed to require symptoms near the end of our analysis period (Feb. 7); but
sensitivity analyses show that truncating the data at this point does not qualitatively impact
results. It is, likewise, impossible to identify every potential contact an individual has, so contact
tracing focuses on those close contacts most likely to be infected; hence our observed R is
assuredly less than the true R in the population. Asymptomatic travellers will be missed by
symptom-based surveillance; and, even if tested, some asymptomatic contacts may be missed
due to the imperfect sensitivity of the PCR test 20
.
Posted on 5/11/20 at 12:01 pm to CNB
here
and here
and here
I could list 100s
This isnt controversal. The experts all agree. People just like to run with "extremely contagious" etc etc
quote:LINK
According to a new study, fear of transmission to household members is realistic, says Yang Yang, PhD, associate professor of biostatistics at the University of Florida, who led the research to evaluate how commonly patients transmit COVID-19 to close contacts.
His team estimates that more than 19% of people in the same household as a COVID-19 patient, or nearly 1 in 5, can expect to develop the infection. An estimated 14% of close contacts who aren't in the same household but see the patient regularly will also develop the infection themselves, Yang says.
and here
quote:LINK
The household secondary attack rate was 11.2% (95% CI 9·1–13·8)
and here
quote:LINK
15% chance to become infected if someone in your household is infected.
I could list 100s
This isnt controversal. The experts all agree. People just like to run with "extremely contagious" etc etc
Posted on 5/11/20 at 12:02 pm to lsupride87
You really just linked a YouTube video as your evidence?
Sigh.
Sigh.
Posted on 5/11/20 at 12:03 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:No, I am not
He's citing this Chinese study
Yall just make shite up in regards to this virus
R0 is around 2.5
Household infection rate is around 15-20%
Those are basically agreed upon from all experts through multiple studies
Posted on 5/11/20 at 12:04 pm to lsupride87
quote:
No, I am not
You cited a fricking YouTube video.
We're over here talking about actual research.
ETA: Your second actual study is the same one I linked where they openly admitted their data is likely not accurately because of issues with collection of data and not accounting for some asymptomatic carriers (the whole point of testing football players BTW).
This post was edited on 5/11/20 at 12:06 pm
Posted on 5/11/20 at 12:06 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:Are you always a dumbass?
You really just linked a YouTube video as your evidence?
Sigh.
It was a study done on an entire town in Germany by some of their top physicians and virologists
Not only did they test for antibodies on everyone, they then took the antibodies and exposed them to covid-19 to ensure they bonded to take out any false positives
Try to find anywhere reputable that supports the notion the household infection rate isnt 15-20%
Ill wait
This post was edited on 5/11/20 at 12:08 pm
Posted on 5/11/20 at 12:07 pm to lsupride87
quote:
Are you always a dumbass?
Are you?
You're not even reading or processing some of the stuff you're posting.
Posted on 5/11/20 at 12:07 pm to atlanta917
quote:
It has a significantly higher mortality rate than the flu.
Doubtful.
It's likely the true mortality rate is only two or three times that of the flu.
Posted on 5/11/20 at 12:10 pm to BluegrassBelle
here is the article since youtube is too much for you to process LINK
This is one of the best antibody studies to date in the entire world due to the scientists actually taking the antibodies and then exposing them to covid-19 to ensure bonding
This is one of the best antibody studies to date in the entire world due to the scientists actually taking the antibodies and then exposing them to covid-19 to ensure bonding
Posted on 5/11/20 at 12:11 pm to Fatboy22
quote:
He's not wrong. It sucks but this will be an issue for at least the first year until we reach herd immunity.
We won’t reach herd immunity with all this isolation.
Posted on 5/11/20 at 12:13 pm to lsupride87
So an article =/= the actual study. Some of us here can actually read research. Anybody can write an article without producing the actual research and frame it as they will.
But the irony of what you posted is this quote in the article:
We do that by testing players so that sports can resume.
But the irony of what you posted is this quote in the article:
quote:
I am convinced that we are not going to get rid of SARS-COV-2, so it is going to become an endemic virus — which means it is going to live in our population, and we have to start living with it and find measures so that people are not dying of it but at the same time we can achieve normality.
We do that by testing players so that sports can resume.
Page 3 of 11
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News