[CardinalSagehen]

A daily, immediate test that misses 1 in 8 would be way more useful than a weekly test that is perfect. I am not medically trained, so I'm speaking out of turn. But I'm just thinking about the practical realities and the math of the situation.

If every team in the PAC-12 has a single player that wakes up on game day with COVID-19, the test will let one or two of them play.  How many teammates and opponents would be infected?

I mean the point more generally than in football. A rapid test with an immediate result, even if it misses some cases or catches them in the next couple days upon retesting, is mathematically more useful in containing spread than a more accurate test with less frequency and significant delays.  

Personally, I remain against the idea of college football being played in 2020, but I’m open to improvements that could make it safer and more reasonable.  And even if 2020 doesn’t happen, those improvements might be applicable in 2021.

[CardinalSagehen]

A daily, immediate test that misses 1 in 8 would be way more useful than a weekly test that is perfect. I am not medically trained, so I'm speaking out of turn. But I'm just thinking about the practical realities and the math of the situation.

If every team in the PAC-12 has a single player that wakes up on game day with COVID-19, the test will let one or two of them play.  How many teammates and opponents would be infected?

I mean the point more generally than in football. A rapid test with an immediate result, even if it misses some cases or catches them in the next couple days upon retesting, is mathematically more useful in containing spread than a more accurate test with less frequency and significant delays.  

Personally, I remain against the idea of college football being played in 2020, but I’m open to improvements that could make it safer and more reasonable.  And even if 2020 doesn’t happen, those improvements might be applicable in 2021.