DRC: UNT sees spike in coronavirus cases in athletics

[Brett Vito]

 

[SteaminWillieBeamin]

This is the thing about testing - a person with a negative test doesn't mean they don't have COVID. It could mean there isn't enough viral load on that day to register a positive result. It takes a few days after exposure to register a positive result.  This is something that is easily misunderstood... and why contact tracing and strict quarantine is important. 

[drex]

You can always count on Vito for good news.

 

[UNT 90 Grad]

Article says most are NOT football related.  I don’t know where the cases lie, but got me to thinking that it sure wouldn’t take much to wipe out the basketball team. 

[Withers940]

On 11/2/2020 at 10:47 AM, SteaminWillieBeamin said:

This is the thing about testing - a person with a negative test doesn't mean they don't have COVID. It could mean there isn't enough viral load on that day to register a positive result. It takes a few days after exposure to register a positive result.  This is something that is easily misunderstood... and why contact tracing and strict quarantine is important. 

You can also get a false positive 

[UNT Mean Green]

1 hour ago, Withers940 said:

You can also get a false positive 

Exactly. This blanket testing protocol is unnecessary and out of control. Healthy 18-23 year olds without symptoms should not be subject to testing that has sketchy (at best) results. 

[SteaminWillieBeamin]

4 hours ago, Withers940 said:

You can also get a false positive 

False positives are very rare. False negatives are more common. 

[SteaminWillieBeamin]

2 hours ago, UNT Mean Green said:

be subject to testing that has sketchy (at best) results. 

Bruh. What? This is not the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. This is standard testing... The results are anything but "sketchy".  

For the safety of their hearts and lungs - they should know before going out there for our entertainment if they are at risk of putting themselves in harm's way. Same way they get a physical to play. Or need to pass the concussion protocol. 

[Withers940]

14 minutes ago, SteaminWillieBeamin said:

False positives are very rare. False negatives are more common. 

Rare but they do happen. Just proves that these tests aren't always accurate. False Positives, False Negatives, it happens

[Hunter Green]

3 hours ago, UNT Mean Green said:

Exactly. This blanket testing protocol is unnecessary and out of control. Healthy 18-23 year olds without symptoms should not be subject to testing that has sketchy (at best) results. 

I can tell you that we healthcare workers who take care of Covid patients everyday are not required to be tested unless we become symptomatic. I, personally have been taking care of these folks since February and have had both the antibody test and the nasal swab (both routine tests)with both being negative. I have been provided with adequate PPE during that time as well. I believe this testing at our institution and others is because of the hysteria being generated and because it's the PC thing to do. Our student athletes, statistically speaking, are not in the high risk category.

Edited November 3, 2020 by Hunter Green

[SteaminWillieBeamin]

2 minutes ago, Hunter Green said:

I believe this testing at our institution and others is because of the hysteria being generated and because it's the PC thing to do.

You, being in the industry, should know that they don't test because you guys *are* wearing masks all the time, washing  hands and have PPE. You are by that very nature limiting transmission if you were positive. Also, you do not quarantine because there are not enough people to step in to take your place... unlike a bartender or gas station worker. If a health care worker had to go into a 14 day quarantine when they come into contact with a positive person, there would be no one to work. Period. Also - tests are still in a backlog. You are not showing symptoms, you are not doing an activity at work that would cause transition, so you do not need a test. It isn't hard. 

Football players *do* exchange air and sweat. They are not masked up... nor healthcare professionals that will use PPE properly. Come on.

[Hunter Green]

8 minutes ago, SteaminWillieBeamin said:

You, being in the industry, should know that they don't test because you guys *are* wearing masks all the time, washing  hands and have PPE. You are by that very nature limiting transmission if you were positive. Also, you do not quarantine because there are not enough people to step in to take your place... unlike a bartender or gas station worker. If a health care worker had to go into a 14 day quarantine when they come into contact with a positive person, there would be no one to work. Period. Also - tests are still in a backlog. You are not showing symptoms, you are not doing an activity at work that would cause transition, so you do not need a test. It isn't hard. 

Football players *do* exchange air and sweat. They are not masked up... nor healthcare professionals that will use PPE properly. Come on.

That's not to say that some of "us" didn't get it. Some of "us" did. Now, did we contract it in spite of using PPE? Are some of us more immune than others? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it was contracted outside of work. It still is a fact that people in those same demographic as student athletes, are not a high risk group. It will be interesting to hear Treavor Lawrence's story when he returns from quarantine. Chances are, he remains asymptomatic. And there is still hysteria about this disease.

Edited November 3, 2020 by Hunter Green

[SteaminWillieBeamin]

22 minutes ago, Hunter Green said:

That's not to say that some of "us" didn't get it. Some of "us" did. Now, did we contract it in spite of using PPE? Are some of us more immune than others? Maybe, maybe not. It still is a fact that people in those same demographic as student athletes, are not a high risk group. It will be interesting to hear Treavor Lawrence's story when he returns from quarantine. Chances are, he remains asymptomatic. And there is still hysteria about this disease.

I would say that >300,000 excess deaths in less than a year would lead to some leeway on precaution. I don't think testing athletes is "hysteria." You should really find a new word though. 

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6942e2.htm

Also - you should be keenly aware that more than likely you don't get it at your work - the "us" that get it. If you had PPE the whole time, you more than likely got it at the grocery store, restaurant or your kid coming home from college. Using a mask makes the 'viral load' you get from transmission way less... and you are more likely to be asymptomatic.

Just because someone is asymptomatic, doesn't mean they don't incur internal damage. You, being in healthcare, should know that too. 

https://www.heart.org/en/news/2020/09/03/what-covid-19-is-doing-to-the-heart-even-after-recovery

https://www.mdlinx.com/article/covid-19-damage-found-in-multiple-organ-systems/7aEtHY8SPWz1Nutsg7nhrf

But.. let's throw caution to the wind for these young guys out there for my entertainment.  Or ... we can just do simple reliable tests and do the best we can. 
 

Edited November 3, 2020 by SteaminWillieBeamin

[El Paso Eagle]

7 minutes ago, Hunter Green said:

That's not to say that some of "us" didn't get it. Some of "us" did. Now, did we contract it in spite of using PPE? Are some of us more immune than others? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it was contracted outside of work. It still is a fact that people in those same demographic as student athletes, are not a high risk group. It will be interesting to hear Treavor Lawrence's story when he returns from quarantine. Chances are, he remains asymptomatic. And there is still hysteria about this disease.

@Hunter Green  you will never win this discussion. Be careful or this thread will be locked down

 

[SteaminWillieBeamin]

24 minutes ago, El Paso Eagle said:

@Hunter Green  you will never win this discussion. Be careful or this thread will be locked down

 

There's no "winning" against  facts. There is no harm in testing athletes. There are knowns and known unknown (to quote your guy) ... we can be cautious against the unknowns. Or  we can get locked down when our hospitals are overrun. 

His argument is about how since he is fully in PPE at his work and has not caught COVID and they don't have required tests, means that these guys at their work with NO PPE should not have tests either - since they are not in a high risk group. That doesn't even make sense. It is about community spread - not fully about their symptoms or not. You don't want to go to out of state and spread to other communities, when you can avoid it. 

My friend (who was on CNN begging people to take this seriously) is in Montana right now, working the ER, says they are at 100% capacity... and people are acting shocked. When they just ignored this for the last 8 months. 

https://covidactnow.org/us/montana-mt?s=1279305

Edited November 3, 2020 by SteaminWillieBeamin

[UNT Mean Green]

22 hours ago, SteaminWillieBeamin said:

Bruh. What? This is not the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. This is standard testing... The results are anything but "sketchy".  

For the safety of their hearts and lungs - they should know before going out there for our entertainment if they are at risk of putting themselves in harm's way. Same way they get a physical to play. Or need to pass the concussion protocol. 

A couple of routine fundamental questions for you:

1) Are you suggesting that all COVID testing is accurate?

2) Are you aware how many of these athletes who are tested regularly are getting a "positive" result in between multiple "negative" results?

[UNT Mean Green]

22 hours ago, Withers940 said:

Rare but they do happen. Just proves that these tests aren't always accurate. False Positives, False Negatives, it happens

Absolutely it happens both ways. Just more of the reason why excessive testing of athletes with zero symptoms is entirely overkill, and frankly unnecessary. 

[MeanGreenTexan]

1 hour ago, UNT Mean Green said:

Absolutely it happens both ways. Just more of the reason why excessive testing of athletes with zero symptoms is entirely overkill, and frankly unnecessary. 

The University is asking these guys to go out and compete against other dudes from other schools.   Testing them is one of the easiest things they can do to help keep them safe.

And, you don't have to be showing symptoms to be contagious.

Also, the issues of false positives/negatives are mitigated by testing so often.

[keith]

Are all these tests (and results) going into the general population of tests for positivity calculations?  For example if 100 athletes are tested twice a week and they are all negative, do those 200 tests go into the same formula as the one guy that goes in for one test because he has symptoms and tests positive?  If so, all these multiple precautionary tests may be artifically skewing overall test results.

I was thinking about this because my son and his fiancé live in NYC have to be tested multiple times a week for their jobs regardless of symptoms and have always tested negative.  Multiply that over several months plus others in the same situation along with the worried well that take multiple tests and that's got to affect the over all positivity rates that get published, right? 

 

[keith]

1 hour ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

The University is asking these guys to go out and compete against other dudes from other schools.   Testing them is one of the easiest things they can do to help keep them safe.

And, you don't have to be showing symptoms to be contagious.

Also, the issues of false positives/negatives are mitigated by testing so often.

I get the sentiment and have no problem with testing, but The University is not asking these guys to do anything.  These guys choose to play football.  The University is providing them an opportunity to play football at the highest level if choose to and have the athletic ability to compete, but let's be clear...no one is forcing anyone to play football.

[MeanGreenTexan]

3 hours ago, keith said:

I get the sentiment and have no problem with testing, but The University is not asking these guys to do anything.  These guys choose to play football.  The University is providing them an opportunity to play football at the highest level if choose to and have the athletic ability to compete, but let's be clear...no one is forcing anyone to play football.

Of course the University is!   It’s part of the agreement.   Come here & play football... we’ll cover tuition/fees/room&board/+.  

I know there’s an out for this year, but these guys are some of the most talented & driven football players in America.  They want to play & would likely walk maskless through an El Paso ER if there was an opponent ready to play on the other side.

So they deserve 3-4 tests per week if it helps keep them safe.

[SteaminWillieBeamin]

7 hours ago, keith said:

Multiply that over several months plus others in the same situation along with the worried well that take multiple tests and that's got to affect the over all positivity rates that get published, right? 

No - this is exactly what you want. When you positivity rate is over 5%, it means you are not NOT testing enough. You want to be testing the general population as much as possible to detect and react to outbreaks in areas. Then you can trace and isolate to make sure it does not spread.  Dallas is sitting at 15% for the past week. 

..and yes - the testing goes into the overall testing statistics. The is reported by the labs that do the testing.

Edited November 5, 2020 by SteaminWillieBeamin

[SteaminWillieBeamin]

11 hours ago, UNT Mean Green said:

1) Are you suggesting that all COVID testing is accurate?

2) Are you aware how many of these athletes who are tested regularly are getting a "positive" result in between multiple "negative" results?

1. Of course not. That is why I said there are higher false negatives than false positives. The test is uniquely specific (rarely false positives) but not as sensitive (more false negatives). 
2. Do tell - do you have the statistics? I am all ears. 

Edited November 5, 2020 by SteaminWillieBeamin

[keith]

16 hours ago, SteaminWillieBeamin said:

No - this is exactly what you want. When you positivity rate is over 5%, it means you are not NOT testing enough. You want to be testing the general population as much as possible to detect and react to outbreaks in areas. Then you can trace and isolate to make sure it does not spread.  Dallas is sitting at 15% for the past week. 

..and yes - the testing goes into the overall testing statistics. The is reported by the labs that do the testing.

I think maybe my point wasn't clear.  In NY for every 100,000 of population they are conducting 131,499 tests.  This is for the state and is by far the most aggressive testing rate in the country.  Based on what's going on in NYC, my guess is the number of tests per 100,000 is actually much higher.  NYC is reporting relatively low positivity rates.  It seems that is just a simple function of the math.  If the same 50,000 healthy/negative people are getting tested 2-3 times a week, that's 100K-150K negative tests a week compared to the 6,000 or so that suspect they may be infected and get a single test that week that comes back positive.  If you test positive, I guess you may take another test, but usually it's after a 14-day quaranteen period to confirm you know longer have an active infection. 

It seems that the positivity calculation should not be on the raw number of tests, but the number of unique individuals taking the test.  The way it is now, positivity is something like (number of positive tests / total number of tests).  Using the numbers above for a typical week of testing that would be 6,000 / 156,000 = 3.84%.  If it was based on the number of unique individuals, it would be 6,000 / 56,000 = 10.7%.  Maybe it's too difficult to track based on unique individuals, but if the same people are taking multiple tests a week each and every week and they are mostly negative, then the positivity numbers are actually much higher than being reported in areas where significant number of repeat/multiple tests are conducted a week that come back negative.  Maybe my logic is wrong, but it's not clear (to me anyway), if NY (NYC in particular) is doing good or just flooding the system with negative test results.

 

Edited November 5, 2020 by keith