www.aol.com
Yeah.
If you're not old or if you don't have preexisting conditions that warrant it ... you really need to stay home, if you get it.
Really an interesting chart. Thanks for sharing. Unfortunately, it makes sense. People aren't flying around the country, but they are talking with neighbors, and so it spreads from the epi-center of NY where they did a miserable job containing it (e.g., didn't even bother cleaning the subway trains). Looks like Cuomo's failures could be impacting everyone across the country.
Couple of the many worms in the can.
Does Casey O’Brien have pre-existing conditions? How would you recommend the Gophers handle an infection on the team?
So let’s assume that this is a viable option, and that players can choose whether they re-join team activities. That ignores a ton of grey area, competing forces, potential stigma and repercussions if they disagree with coaches; but let’s assume they can work out how to make that happen.
If you're testing every player every day, maybe multiple times in the days before/during a game, it should be physically impossible for a "oh whoops! we think a player might've been on the field with cv19, sorry lol"
My issue is the fact that this data includes the lock downs which definitely slows the virus. No one knows what the death toll would be like now if everyone had just gone about their business since march. One of the hallmarks of successfully flattening the curve is people saying "what was the big deal". I'm not for keeping shut down at this level until we get a vaccine, but all of these numbers need an asterix and we need to methodically open back up and monitor hospital capacity.
The issue here is whether or not the test is sensitive enough to turn positive before someone is shedding enough virus to be contagious...you test negative until you don't, there's no "Maybe" option, so we'd need to be confident that a negative meant that even if they were in the beginnings of an infection that they could not spread it.
If a test can detect inactive "dead" virus, via amplifying any virus genetic material that could be there, it will lean on the side of the false positive, rather than the false negative.
That is assuming that many tests are even available, which is unlikely. And then it ignores the accuracy. Dr. Osterholm said many of the tests out there are at best 90% accurate. One false negative could infect the whole team. I don't think counting on testing is a viable solution.
False negative doesn't quite catch what I meant though. There is a certain threshold at which the test can detect the virus, as you have pointed out. What we don't know is if that threshold is lower than the point of viral load needed to be contagious. If it is, then yes, no problem, but if it isn't, that means someone could test negative and still be contagious. This can be categorized as a false negative yes, but my point is a bit more nuanced.
