11-09-2021, 05:01 PM
Suppose it could be cancelled. But, at this point they are trying to see if it can be postponed. More Cal FB team tested positive. Yikes! are they all break throughs. Makes ya wanna stay home.
USC at Cal postponed
Suppose it could be cancelled. But, at this point they are trying to see if it can be postponed. More Cal FB team tested positive. Yikes! are they all break throughs. Makes ya wanna stay home.
11-09-2021, 05:53 PM
Uh oh. If they have to cancel Big Game too which would they rather reschedule for CCG week?
USC is a home game for Berkeley.
USC is a home game for Berkeley.
11-09-2021, 05:54 PM
It's a mess. According to Stewart Mandel, this appears to be a situation where Cal is the only team that has mandatory tests for asymtomatic vaccinated players due to Berkeley requirements, and they've gotten some positive tests. This would probably be happening everywhere if every team had that requirement. Chase Garbers has a tweet blaming University Health Services for going back on previous advice that tests were only "highly recommended." Have to think it's pretty unfair to the players.
It's a mess. According to Stewart Mandel, this appears to be a situation where Cal is the only team that has mandatory tests for asymtomatic vaccinated players due to Berkeley requirements, and they've gotten some positive tests. This would probably be happening everywhere if every team had that requirement. Chase Garbers has a tweet blaming University Health Services for going back on previous advice that tests were only "highly recommended." Have to think it's pretty unfair to the players.
11-09-2021, 05:59 PM
(11-09-2021, 05:54 PM)baycommuter Wrote: It's a mess. According to Stewart Mandel, this appears to be a situation where Cal is the only team that has mandatory tests for asymtomatic vaccinated players due to Berkeley requirements, and they've gotten some positive tests. This would probably be happening everywhere if every team had that requirement. Chase Garbers has a tweet blaming University Health Services for going back on previous advice that tests were only "highly recommended." Have to think it's pretty unfair to the players.
The latest information I heard regarding Stanford students is that vaccinated students are still tested once a week and unvaccinated students are tested twice per week if you are asymptomatic. If you are symptomatic, I think that requires additional testing. So, it is not unfair to Berkeley.
Cheers,
Pete F.
(11-09-2021, 05:54 PM)baycommuter Wrote: It's a mess. According to Stewart Mandel, this appears to be a situation where Cal is the only team that has mandatory tests for asymtomatic vaccinated players due to Berkeley requirements, and they've gotten some positive tests. This would probably be happening everywhere if every team had that requirement. Chase Garbers has a tweet blaming University Health Services for going back on previous advice that tests were only "highly recommended." Have to think it's pretty unfair to the players.
The latest information I heard regarding Stanford students is that vaccinated students are still tested once a week and unvaccinated students are tested twice per week if you are asymptomatic. If you are symptomatic, I think that requires additional testing. So, it is not unfair to Berkeley.
Cheers,
Pete F.
(11-09-2021, 05:54 PM)baycommuter Wrote: According to Stewart Mandel, this appears to be a situation where Cal is the only team that has mandatory tests for asymptomatic vaccinated playersI'm pretty sure all Stanford students are tested at least weekly (unvaccinated are tested twice weekly)
Fall quarter protocols
(11-09-2021, 05:54 PM)baycommuter Wrote: According to Stewart Mandel, this appears to be a situation where Cal is the only team that has mandatory tests for asymptomatic vaccinated playersI'm pretty sure all Stanford students are tested at least weekly (unvaccinated are tested twice weekly)
Fall quarter protocols
11-09-2021, 06:12 PM
Bad news for the Cardinal. A week of rest for weenies. They'll be primed for BG (as if they needed it).
Life is too short to waste on crap football.
Softball Fan
Unregistered
Unregistered
11-09-2021, 06:13 PM
(11-09-2021, 05:54 PM)baycommuter Wrote: It's a mess. According to Stewart Mandel, this appears to be a situation where Cal is the only team that has mandatory tests for asymtomatic vaccinated players due to Berkeley requirements, and they've gotten some positive tests. This would probably be happening everywhere if every team had that requirement. Chase Garbers has a tweet blaming University Health Services for going back on previous advice that tests were only "highly recommended." Have to think it's pretty unfair to the players.
If they advised the tests were "highly recommended" how can he criticize them for doing the tests. Hope this isn't an issue where the tests are so sensitive they detect minute amounts of the virus in people who had it many months ago.
(11-09-2021, 05:54 PM)baycommuter Wrote: It's a mess. According to Stewart Mandel, this appears to be a situation where Cal is the only team that has mandatory tests for asymtomatic vaccinated players due to Berkeley requirements, and they've gotten some positive tests. This would probably be happening everywhere if every team had that requirement. Chase Garbers has a tweet blaming University Health Services for going back on previous advice that tests were only "highly recommended." Have to think it's pretty unfair to the players.
If they advised the tests were "highly recommended" how can he criticize them for doing the tests. Hope this isn't an issue where the tests are so sensitive they detect minute amounts of the virus in people who had it many months ago.
11-09-2021, 06:14 PM
(11-09-2021, 05:54 PM)baycommuter Wrote: It's a mess. According to Stewart Mandel, this appears to be a situation where Cal is the only team that has mandatory tests for asymtomatic vaccinated players due to Berkeley requirements, and they've gotten some positive tests. This would probably be happening everywhere if every team had that requirement. Chase Garbers has a tweet blaming University Health Services for going back on previous advice that tests were only "highly recommended." Have to think it's pretty unfair to the players.I don't think testing the players is "unfair". I think they should be glad they got tested. If you are asymptomatic and have COVID you don't want to get on a plane with the rest of the team and spread it further, let alone to the public. However, as I understand it the testing at Kal was an antigen test, not a PCR test. False positives are quite possible with antigen tests. The "rumor" is that several Kal players who tested positive subsequently had negative PCR tests, but the City of Berkeley still insisted on a minimum 10 day quarantine. I don't know for sure this is the case. If indeed the test used originally was an antigen test I would expect that UCB should have immediately done a PCR test for anybody who wanted it, and if it were negative the PCR result would be accepted as the definitive result by CoB.
(11-09-2021, 05:54 PM)baycommuter Wrote: It's a mess. According to Stewart Mandel, this appears to be a situation where Cal is the only team that has mandatory tests for asymtomatic vaccinated players due to Berkeley requirements, and they've gotten some positive tests. This would probably be happening everywhere if every team had that requirement. Chase Garbers has a tweet blaming University Health Services for going back on previous advice that tests were only "highly recommended." Have to think it's pretty unfair to the players.I don't think testing the players is "unfair". I think they should be glad they got tested. If you are asymptomatic and have COVID you don't want to get on a plane with the rest of the team and spread it further, let alone to the public. However, as I understand it the testing at Kal was an antigen test, not a PCR test. False positives are quite possible with antigen tests. The "rumor" is that several Kal players who tested positive subsequently had negative PCR tests, but the City of Berkeley still insisted on a minimum 10 day quarantine. I don't know for sure this is the case. If indeed the test used originally was an antigen test I would expect that UCB should have immediately done a PCR test for anybody who wanted it, and if it were negative the PCR result would be accepted as the definitive result by CoB.
11-09-2021, 07:02 PM
(11-09-2021, 06:14 PM)Goose Wrote:(11-09-2021, 05:54 PM)baycommuter Wrote: It's a mess. According to Stewart Mandel, this appears to be a situation where Cal is the only team that has mandatory tests for asymtomatic vaccinated players due to Berkeley requirements, and they've gotten some positive tests. This would probably be happening everywhere if every team had that requirement. Chase Garbers has a tweet blaming University Health Services for going back on previous advice that tests were only "highly recommended." Have to think it's pretty unfair to the players.I don't think testing the players is "unfair". I think they should be glad they got tested. If you are asymptomatic and have COVID you don't want to get on a plane with the rest of the team and spread it further, let alone to the public. However, as I understand it the testing at Kal was an antigen test, not a PCR test. False positives are quite possible with antigen tests. The "rumor" is that several Kal players who tested positive subsequently had negative PCR tests, but the City of Berkeley still insisted on a minimum 10 day quarantine. I don't know for sure this is the case. If indeed the test used originally was an antigen test I would expect that UCB should have immediately done a PCR test for anybody who wanted it, and if it were negative the PCR result would be accepted as the definitive result by CoB.
As usual your post makes a lot of sense.
(11-09-2021, 06:14 PM)Goose Wrote:(11-09-2021, 05:54 PM)baycommuter Wrote: It's a mess. According to Stewart Mandel, this appears to be a situation where Cal is the only team that has mandatory tests for asymtomatic vaccinated players due to Berkeley requirements, and they've gotten some positive tests. This would probably be happening everywhere if every team had that requirement. Chase Garbers has a tweet blaming University Health Services for going back on previous advice that tests were only "highly recommended." Have to think it's pretty unfair to the players.I don't think testing the players is "unfair". I think they should be glad they got tested. If you are asymptomatic and have COVID you don't want to get on a plane with the rest of the team and spread it further, let alone to the public. However, as I understand it the testing at Kal was an antigen test, not a PCR test. False positives are quite possible with antigen tests. The "rumor" is that several Kal players who tested positive subsequently had negative PCR tests, but the City of Berkeley still insisted on a minimum 10 day quarantine. I don't know for sure this is the case. If indeed the test used originally was an antigen test I would expect that UCB should have immediately done a PCR test for anybody who wanted it, and if it were negative the PCR result would be accepted as the definitive result by CoB.
As usual your post makes a lot of sense.
11-09-2021, 09:09 PM
(11-09-2021, 06:14 PM)Goose Wrote:(11-09-2021, 05:54 PM)baycommuter Wrote: It's a mess. According to Stewart Mandel, this appears to be a situation where Cal is the only team that has mandatory tests for asymtomatic vaccinated players due to Berkeley requirements, and they've gotten some positive tests. This would probably be happening everywhere if every team had that requirement. Chase Garbers has a tweet blaming University Health Services for going back on previous advice that tests were only "highly recommended." Have to think it's pretty unfair to the players.I don't think testing the players is "unfair". I think they should be glad they got tested. If you are asymptomatic and have COVID you don't want to get on a plane with the rest of the team and spread it further, let alone to the public. However, as I understand it the testing at Kal was an antigen test, not a PCR test. False positives are quite possible with antigen tests. The "rumor" is that several Kal players who tested positive subsequently had negative PCR tests, but the City of Berkeley still insisted on a minimum 10 day quarantine. I don't know for sure this is the case. If indeed the test used originally was an antigen test I would expect that UCB should have immediately done a PCR test for anybody who wanted it, and if it were negative the PCR result would be accepted as the definitive result by CoB.
Cal, like the rest of the PAC-12 minus Stanford, does not do routine testing on vaccinated asymptomatic athletes. However, if an athlete is symptomatic, they get COVID tested. From what I've gathered online, they had multiple symptomatic positives, which triggered testing on the whole team, which led to the 20-25 positives last week (a lot of whom were actually symptomatic but didn't admit it until after their test). When you have that many positives, you need to keep testing as those more recent positives very well could have spread the virus to other teammates. The most recent round of testing today likely yielded more positives, eliminating a position group and thus postponing the game. I would be shocked if Cal is relying only on an antigen test, but even if so, the likelihood of getting that many false positives even using antigen testing in a symptomatic cohort is extremely low. This is a true outbreak. I don't understand why COB is taking so much heat for this. These are real positive cases!
(11-09-2021, 06:14 PM)Goose Wrote:(11-09-2021, 05:54 PM)baycommuter Wrote: It's a mess. According to Stewart Mandel, this appears to be a situation where Cal is the only team that has mandatory tests for asymtomatic vaccinated players due to Berkeley requirements, and they've gotten some positive tests. This would probably be happening everywhere if every team had that requirement. Chase Garbers has a tweet blaming University Health Services for going back on previous advice that tests were only "highly recommended." Have to think it's pretty unfair to the players.I don't think testing the players is "unfair". I think they should be glad they got tested. If you are asymptomatic and have COVID you don't want to get on a plane with the rest of the team and spread it further, let alone to the public. However, as I understand it the testing at Kal was an antigen test, not a PCR test. False positives are quite possible with antigen tests. The "rumor" is that several Kal players who tested positive subsequently had negative PCR tests, but the City of Berkeley still insisted on a minimum 10 day quarantine. I don't know for sure this is the case. If indeed the test used originally was an antigen test I would expect that UCB should have immediately done a PCR test for anybody who wanted it, and if it were negative the PCR result would be accepted as the definitive result by CoB.
Cal, like the rest of the PAC-12 minus Stanford, does not do routine testing on vaccinated asymptomatic athletes. However, if an athlete is symptomatic, they get COVID tested. From what I've gathered online, they had multiple symptomatic positives, which triggered testing on the whole team, which led to the 20-25 positives last week (a lot of whom were actually symptomatic but didn't admit it until after their test). When you have that many positives, you need to keep testing as those more recent positives very well could have spread the virus to other teammates. The most recent round of testing today likely yielded more positives, eliminating a position group and thus postponing the game. I would be shocked if Cal is relying only on an antigen test, but even if so, the likelihood of getting that many false positives even using antigen testing in a symptomatic cohort is extremely low. This is a true outbreak. I don't understand why COB is taking so much heat for this. These are real positive cases!
11-09-2021, 09:21 PM
11-09-2021, 09:40 PM
(11-09-2021, 09:09 PM)Jamesy Wrote: Cal, like the rest of the PAC-12 minus Stanford, does not do routine testing on vaccinated asymptomatic athletes. However, if an athlete is symptomatic, they get COVID tested. From what I've gathered online, they had multiple symptomatic positives, which triggered testing on the whole team, which led to the 20-25 positives last week (a lot of whom were actually symptomatic but didn't admit it until after their test). When you have that many positives, you need to keep testing as those more recent positives very well could have spread the virus to other teammates. The most recent round of testing today likely yielded more positives, eliminating a position group and thus postponing the game. I would be shocked if Cal is relying only on an antigen test, but even if so, the likelihood of getting that many false positives even using antigen testing in a symptomatic cohort is extremely low. This is a true outbreak. I don't understand why COB is taking so much heat for this. These are real positive cases!For sure it was a real outbreak. From what is on the Bear Growls forum the test they gave the whole team last week was an antigen test. Some players subsequently got PCR tests that were negative. How many, I have no idea, but it wasn't 20 or so. Supposedly the City wouldn't count that as the "real" test. While that is an issue, it is a side issue. There has been a lot of confusion at Kal about who required what and when. That is part of the problem. Unfortunately some of the athletes seem to think they had a choice in the matter when in reality their choices were get tested when asked to do so or don't play. That should have been made clear to all PAC-12 athletes from the start. Unfortunately it appears it was not.
(11-09-2021, 09:09 PM)Jamesy Wrote: Cal, like the rest of the PAC-12 minus Stanford, does not do routine testing on vaccinated asymptomatic athletes. However, if an athlete is symptomatic, they get COVID tested. From what I've gathered online, they had multiple symptomatic positives, which triggered testing on the whole team, which led to the 20-25 positives last week (a lot of whom were actually symptomatic but didn't admit it until after their test). When you have that many positives, you need to keep testing as those more recent positives very well could have spread the virus to other teammates. The most recent round of testing today likely yielded more positives, eliminating a position group and thus postponing the game. I would be shocked if Cal is relying only on an antigen test, but even if so, the likelihood of getting that many false positives even using antigen testing in a symptomatic cohort is extremely low. This is a true outbreak. I don't understand why COB is taking so much heat for this. These are real positive cases!For sure it was a real outbreak. From what is on the Bear Growls forum the test they gave the whole team last week was an antigen test. Some players subsequently got PCR tests that were negative. How many, I have no idea, but it wasn't 20 or so. Supposedly the City wouldn't count that as the "real" test. While that is an issue, it is a side issue. There has been a lot of confusion at Kal about who required what and when. That is part of the problem. Unfortunately some of the athletes seem to think they had a choice in the matter when in reality their choices were get tested when asked to do so or don't play. That should have been made clear to all PAC-12 athletes from the start. Unfortunately it appears it was not.
11-09-2021, 09:49 PM
(11-09-2021, 09:40 PM)Goose Wrote:(11-09-2021, 09:09 PM)Jamesy Wrote: Cal, like the rest of the PAC-12 minus Stanford, does not do routine testing on vaccinated asymptomatic athletes. However, if an athlete is symptomatic, they get COVID tested. From what I've gathered online, they had multiple symptomatic positives, which triggered testing on the whole team, which led to the 20-25 positives last week (a lot of whom were actually symptomatic but didn't admit it until after their test). When you have that many positives, you need to keep testing as those more recent positives very well could have spread the virus to other teammates. The most recent round of testing today likely yielded more positives, eliminating a position group and thus postponing the game. I would be shocked if Cal is relying only on an antigen test, but even if so, the likelihood of getting that many false positives even using antigen testing in a symptomatic cohort is extremely low. This is a true outbreak. I don't understand why COB is taking so much heat for this. These are real positive cases!For sure it was a real outbreak. From what is on the Bear Growls forum the test they gave the whole team last week was an antigen test. Some players subsequently got PCR tests that were negative. How many, I have no idea, but it wasn't 20 or so. Supposedly the City wouldn't count that as the "real" test. While that is an issue, it is a side issue. There has been a lot of confusion at Kal about who required what and when. That is part of the problem. Unfortunately some of the athletes seem to think they had a choice in the matter when in reality their choices were get tested when asked to do so or don't play. That should have been made clear to all PAC-12 athletes from the start. Unfortunately it appears it was not.
If they really did test everyone with antigen, the PAC-12 protocol is to confirm a positive antigen with a PCR and if that PCR is negative, the player is treated as if nothing ever happened. I'm mostly curious why people know it was an antigen test because my sources tell me it was PCR.
That said, if the university/athletic department is telling an athlete to test, it should be quite clear they're not playing until they do the test.
(11-09-2021, 09:40 PM)Goose Wrote:(11-09-2021, 09:09 PM)Jamesy Wrote: Cal, like the rest of the PAC-12 minus Stanford, does not do routine testing on vaccinated asymptomatic athletes. However, if an athlete is symptomatic, they get COVID tested. From what I've gathered online, they had multiple symptomatic positives, which triggered testing on the whole team, which led to the 20-25 positives last week (a lot of whom were actually symptomatic but didn't admit it until after their test). When you have that many positives, you need to keep testing as those more recent positives very well could have spread the virus to other teammates. The most recent round of testing today likely yielded more positives, eliminating a position group and thus postponing the game. I would be shocked if Cal is relying only on an antigen test, but even if so, the likelihood of getting that many false positives even using antigen testing in a symptomatic cohort is extremely low. This is a true outbreak. I don't understand why COB is taking so much heat for this. These are real positive cases!For sure it was a real outbreak. From what is on the Bear Growls forum the test they gave the whole team last week was an antigen test. Some players subsequently got PCR tests that were negative. How many, I have no idea, but it wasn't 20 or so. Supposedly the City wouldn't count that as the "real" test. While that is an issue, it is a side issue. There has been a lot of confusion at Kal about who required what and when. That is part of the problem. Unfortunately some of the athletes seem to think they had a choice in the matter when in reality their choices were get tested when asked to do so or don't play. That should have been made clear to all PAC-12 athletes from the start. Unfortunately it appears it was not.
If they really did test everyone with antigen, the PAC-12 protocol is to confirm a positive antigen with a PCR and if that PCR is negative, the player is treated as if nothing ever happened. I'm mostly curious why people know it was an antigen test because my sources tell me it was PCR.
That said, if the university/athletic department is telling an athlete to test, it should be quite clear they're not playing until they do the test.
11-09-2021, 10:00 PM
CDC guideline is for 10 days of isolation following a positive test if asymptomatic.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nco...ation.html
There is no guidance for taking another COVID-19 test to shorten the isolation period.
Also, while a positive antigen test for screening purposes in an asymptomatic individual has a reasonable chance of being a false positive, that is not the case if you are doing the test in a close contact of a positive case or in someone who is symptomatic. In that case, a positive test is much more likely to be a true positive, so confirmation with a PCR test is unnecessary.
I get the frustration. We’ve been living through this for 20 months. If vaccinated, their risk of severe disease is very very low. At some point, as Lex notes, we are just going to have to bite the bullet and call this an endemic virus, accept that people will catch COVID-19 in the way that they catch a cold, and in most cases have people take it easy for a few days until they recover. But that will mean that seasonally, Vulnerable patients will die from COVID at rates hopefully no higher than influenza.
BC
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nco...ation.html
There is no guidance for taking another COVID-19 test to shorten the isolation period.
Also, while a positive antigen test for screening purposes in an asymptomatic individual has a reasonable chance of being a false positive, that is not the case if you are doing the test in a close contact of a positive case or in someone who is symptomatic. In that case, a positive test is much more likely to be a true positive, so confirmation with a PCR test is unnecessary.
I get the frustration. We’ve been living through this for 20 months. If vaccinated, their risk of severe disease is very very low. At some point, as Lex notes, we are just going to have to bite the bullet and call this an endemic virus, accept that people will catch COVID-19 in the way that they catch a cold, and in most cases have people take it easy for a few days until they recover. But that will mean that seasonally, Vulnerable patients will die from COVID at rates hopefully no higher than influenza.
BC
CDC guideline is for 10 days of isolation following a positive test if asymptomatic.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nco...ation.html
There is no guidance for taking another COVID-19 test to shorten the isolation period.
Also, while a positive antigen test for screening purposes in an asymptomatic individual has a reasonable chance of being a false positive, that is not the case if you are doing the test in a close contact of a positive case or in someone who is symptomatic. In that case, a positive test is much more likely to be a true positive, so confirmation with a PCR test is unnecessary.
I get the frustration. We’ve been living through this for 20 months. If vaccinated, their risk of severe disease is very very low. At some point, as Lex notes, we are just going to have to bite the bullet and call this an endemic virus, accept that people will catch COVID-19 in the way that they catch a cold, and in most cases have people take it easy for a few days until they recover. But that will mean that seasonally, Vulnerable patients will die from COVID at rates hopefully no higher than influenza.
BC
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nco...ation.html
There is no guidance for taking another COVID-19 test to shorten the isolation period.
Also, while a positive antigen test for screening purposes in an asymptomatic individual has a reasonable chance of being a false positive, that is not the case if you are doing the test in a close contact of a positive case or in someone who is symptomatic. In that case, a positive test is much more likely to be a true positive, so confirmation with a PCR test is unnecessary.
I get the frustration. We’ve been living through this for 20 months. If vaccinated, their risk of severe disease is very very low. At some point, as Lex notes, we are just going to have to bite the bullet and call this an endemic virus, accept that people will catch COVID-19 in the way that they catch a cold, and in most cases have people take it easy for a few days until they recover. But that will mean that seasonally, Vulnerable patients will die from COVID at rates hopefully no higher than influenza.
BC
11-09-2021, 10:16 PM
(11-09-2021, 10:00 PM)BostonCard Wrote: CDC guideline is for 10 days of isolation following a positive test if asymptomatic.I think the parents of the kids involved believe that a negative PCR test after a positive antigen test should be governing in vaccinated individuals who are asymptomatic, independent of the close contact with a positive case. They view it not as a second text but rather part of the first one. I can see their reasoning, but OTOH if you have been in close contact with somebody who has for certain COVID isolating seems like a prudent course of action. This situation is not typical of the athletes who are/were impacted.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nco...ation.html
There is no guidance for taking another COVID-19 test to shorten the isolation period.
Also, while a positive antigen test for screening purposes in an asymptomatic individual has a reasonable chance of being a false positive, that is not the case if you are doing the test in a close contact of a positive case or in someone who is symptomatic. In that case, a positive test is much more likely to be a true positive, so confirmation with a PCR test is unnecessary.
BC
The real problem IMHO is it wasn't made clear to the athletes that they were subject to testing requirements from day 1. The fact they weren't being routinely tested (apparently) doesn't exempt them from the requirement.
(11-09-2021, 10:00 PM)BostonCard Wrote: CDC guideline is for 10 days of isolation following a positive test if asymptomatic.I think the parents of the kids involved believe that a negative PCR test after a positive antigen test should be governing in vaccinated individuals who are asymptomatic, independent of the close contact with a positive case. They view it not as a second text but rather part of the first one. I can see their reasoning, but OTOH if you have been in close contact with somebody who has for certain COVID isolating seems like a prudent course of action. This situation is not typical of the athletes who are/were impacted.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nco...ation.html
There is no guidance for taking another COVID-19 test to shorten the isolation period.
Also, while a positive antigen test for screening purposes in an asymptomatic individual has a reasonable chance of being a false positive, that is not the case if you are doing the test in a close contact of a positive case or in someone who is symptomatic. In that case, a positive test is much more likely to be a true positive, so confirmation with a PCR test is unnecessary.
BC
The real problem IMHO is it wasn't made clear to the athletes that they were subject to testing requirements from day 1. The fact they weren't being routinely tested (apparently) doesn't exempt them from the requirement.
USC needs to play UCB because the USC fans are restless. A good thumping of UCB would help calm the masses for a few weeks. A team that has not several key players at practice during the week is an ideal opponent for USC at this stage.
And, while we are at it. A team that has not practiced together for most of the prior 2 weeks would be a good opponent for Stanford.
Beyond football, getting the students tested regularly is rather important IMHO as it is just too easy for a school to have a big campus wide outbreak. Then that will spread to other communities once those kids go back home for Thanksgiving. While most of those in the SF Bay Area are vaccinated, there are a number of CA counties with less than impressive vaccination rates.
I hope the USA doesn't get a mini-wave of COVID-19 after Thanksgiving, but it seems inevitable. Hopefully the two Stanford hoops teams will get their booster doses soon.
And, while we are at it. A team that has not practiced together for most of the prior 2 weeks would be a good opponent for Stanford.
Beyond football, getting the students tested regularly is rather important IMHO as it is just too easy for a school to have a big campus wide outbreak. Then that will spread to other communities once those kids go back home for Thanksgiving. While most of those in the SF Bay Area are vaccinated, there are a number of CA counties with less than impressive vaccination rates.
I hope the USA doesn't get a mini-wave of COVID-19 after Thanksgiving, but it seems inevitable. Hopefully the two Stanford hoops teams will get their booster doses soon.
USC needs to play UCB because the USC fans are restless. A good thumping of UCB would help calm the masses for a few weeks. A team that has not several key players at practice during the week is an ideal opponent for USC at this stage.
And, while we are at it. A team that has not practiced together for most of the prior 2 weeks would be a good opponent for Stanford.
Beyond football, getting the students tested regularly is rather important IMHO as it is just too easy for a school to have a big campus wide outbreak. Then that will spread to other communities once those kids go back home for Thanksgiving. While most of those in the SF Bay Area are vaccinated, there are a number of CA counties with less than impressive vaccination rates.
I hope the USA doesn't get a mini-wave of COVID-19 after Thanksgiving, but it seems inevitable. Hopefully the two Stanford hoops teams will get their booster doses soon.
And, while we are at it. A team that has not practiced together for most of the prior 2 weeks would be a good opponent for Stanford.
Beyond football, getting the students tested regularly is rather important IMHO as it is just too easy for a school to have a big campus wide outbreak. Then that will spread to other communities once those kids go back home for Thanksgiving. While most of those in the SF Bay Area are vaccinated, there are a number of CA counties with less than impressive vaccination rates.
I hope the USA doesn't get a mini-wave of COVID-19 after Thanksgiving, but it seems inevitable. Hopefully the two Stanford hoops teams will get their booster doses soon.
11-09-2021, 10:26 PM
I can understand the confusion and I agree with you, Goose, but the fact of the matter is that when interpreting an imperfect test, the priors matter. An asymptomatic, vaccinated individual with no close COVID-19 contacts in a part of the country where COVID is under control with a positive antigen test a decent chance of having had a false positive test. That same individual with a bunch of teammates who have COVID-19 who tests positive is likely to be a true positive. It might be reasonable to re-test the first person with a PCR to confirm the positive test, but it doesn’t make sense to re-test the second person, and a negative test under those circumstances should not be used as justification to suggest the first test was a false positive and should therefore be ignored.
Agree that communication of this is challenging, but communication of all things COVID is challenging. None of this is straightforward, there’s a lot we don’t know, and the evidence is constantly changing. It’s easy to dunk on our public health experts, and they’ve dropped the ball to be sure, but they’ve probably done about as well as can reasonably be expected given all the challenges.
BC
Agree that communication of this is challenging, but communication of all things COVID is challenging. None of this is straightforward, there’s a lot we don’t know, and the evidence is constantly changing. It’s easy to dunk on our public health experts, and they’ve dropped the ball to be sure, but they’ve probably done about as well as can reasonably be expected given all the challenges.
BC
I can understand the confusion and I agree with you, Goose, but the fact of the matter is that when interpreting an imperfect test, the priors matter. An asymptomatic, vaccinated individual with no close COVID-19 contacts in a part of the country where COVID is under control with a positive antigen test a decent chance of having had a false positive test. That same individual with a bunch of teammates who have COVID-19 who tests positive is likely to be a true positive. It might be reasonable to re-test the first person with a PCR to confirm the positive test, but it doesn’t make sense to re-test the second person, and a negative test under those circumstances should not be used as justification to suggest the first test was a false positive and should therefore be ignored.
Agree that communication of this is challenging, but communication of all things COVID is challenging. None of this is straightforward, there’s a lot we don’t know, and the evidence is constantly changing. It’s easy to dunk on our public health experts, and they’ve dropped the ball to be sure, but they’ve probably done about as well as can reasonably be expected given all the challenges.
BC
Agree that communication of this is challenging, but communication of all things COVID is challenging. None of this is straightforward, there’s a lot we don’t know, and the evidence is constantly changing. It’s easy to dunk on our public health experts, and they’ve dropped the ball to be sure, but they’ve probably done about as well as can reasonably be expected given all the challenges.
BC
11-09-2021, 10:41 PM
(11-09-2021, 10:26 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I can understand the confusion and I agree with you, Goose, but the fact of the matter is that when interpreting an imperfect test, the priors matter. An asymptomatic, vaccinated individual with no close COVID-19 contacts in a part of the country where COVID is under control with a positive antigen test a decent chance of having had a false positive test. That same individual with a bunch of teammates who have COVID-19 who tests positive is likely to be a true positive. It might be reasonable to re-test the first person with a PCR to confirm the positive test, but it doesn’t make sense to re-test the second person, and a negative test under those circumstances should not be used as justification to suggest the first test was a false positive and should therefore be ignored.I agree BC. There is no reason for the University to retest the athletes under those conditions. In fact, they didn't. The PCR tests were apparently done by the players themselves (with unknown prodding by the parents). It would have been better if somebody had told the players it wouldn't matter, but as you say there is lots of uncertainty even among the administrators as to what the "rules" actually are.
Agree that communication of this is challenging, but communication of all things COVID is challenging. None of this is straightforward, there’s a lot we don’t know, and the evidence is constantly changing. It’s easy to dunk on our public health experts, and they’ve dropped the ball to be sure, but they’ve probably done about as well as can reasonably be expected given all the challenges.
BC
(11-09-2021, 10:26 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I can understand the confusion and I agree with you, Goose, but the fact of the matter is that when interpreting an imperfect test, the priors matter. An asymptomatic, vaccinated individual with no close COVID-19 contacts in a part of the country where COVID is under control with a positive antigen test a decent chance of having had a false positive test. That same individual with a bunch of teammates who have COVID-19 who tests positive is likely to be a true positive. It might be reasonable to re-test the first person with a PCR to confirm the positive test, but it doesn’t make sense to re-test the second person, and a negative test under those circumstances should not be used as justification to suggest the first test was a false positive and should therefore be ignored.I agree BC. There is no reason for the University to retest the athletes under those conditions. In fact, they didn't. The PCR tests were apparently done by the players themselves (with unknown prodding by the parents). It would have been better if somebody had told the players it wouldn't matter, but as you say there is lots of uncertainty even among the administrators as to what the "rules" actually are.
Agree that communication of this is challenging, but communication of all things COVID is challenging. None of this is straightforward, there’s a lot we don’t know, and the evidence is constantly changing. It’s easy to dunk on our public health experts, and they’ve dropped the ball to be sure, but they’ve probably done about as well as can reasonably be expected given all the challenges.
BC
11-09-2021, 10:53 PM
Some additional info in this sf gate article: https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/colle...606485.php
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »