University of Alabama COVID-19 outbreak not great news for college football season

[alchemy2u]

Saw a tweet today - (disclaimer - I have not personally verified this)

"The University of Alabama had more positive Covid-19 tests today than the entire nation of Canada."

If that's accurate, it certainly says something.

Just checked, Canada has 4,829 active cases of covid. I think Alabama is in the 500-600 range.

 

[Block M]

It is total chaos ... so how on earth do you conclude to them play??

“The house is on fire!” “Good!! Guess dinner will cook faster then!”

Yes, that's the gist of it. Let 'em play. If bad stuff happens the lawyers can take care of it.

 

[Ogee Ogilthorpe]

The B1G's decision, however poorly communicated it may have been, was the right one.

So you know this already, the book is closed on the topic? Well, I guess if that makes you feel better.

One thing I know about the current state of affairs, regardless of how well the fall goes for the conferences/teams playing football this year (if it does), there will be nothing that will convince you that they made the right decision. You have made that decision already, and there's no budging. You'll find something to point to, some small factoid, tidbit, morsel of information, because your mind has been made up, nothing will move you from that. And you won't be alone. There will be plenty of people/MSM, et al framing things just that way right along with you. Because the issue isn't about health, and it hasn't been for a long time.

 

[WAGopher]

Rare? How in the world could anyone possibly know? You are asymptomatic, you go and get tested once, it says positive but who knows if that's accurate; you wait a week, self quarantine, whatever, the go and get tested and it is negative. Sooooo, you would bet your life that the first test was accurate? How in the world do you know?

You can't possibly know if the occurrence of false positives is rare or not really that rare at all.

Yes, each testing methodology undergoes numerous tests and has a known margin of error. False positives are rare and are usually from cross contamination, and that usually involves the robotic or multi open tube tests. This is what happened to the NFL.

Using a single test system like the Genxpert vastly reduces the false positives because cross contamination is much more difficult to happen.

If the testing system has a higher than acceptable false positive rate, the FDA will issue a warning, like it did in July when the BD SARS-CoV-2 Reagents caused up to a 3% false positive rate.

So yes, false positives happen, but even with incidents like the 77 NFL players, it is still a rare occurrence. False negatives are still higher, possibly due to incorrect nasal swabbing. The saliva tests may be promising, but the covid-19 seems more concentrated in the nasal passages.

With anything medical, always ask questions and read to make an informed decision.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

You keep bringing up the large number of false positive test results, which in fact are rare. False negatives are much more common. It’s the nature of medical testing for fairly accurate methodology. Most false negatives occur before the actual test is conducted. Examples are: Either a sample doesn’t include the virus or the virus is killed during transportation.

Rare, but not that rare. In a perfect world the specificity is very high ~100% but as you noted the potential for contamination and other errors is possible. There are humans involved, or human designed systems. A false positive rate of even, say, 1% across 700k daily PCRs is clearly significant in absolute terms. As positive test rate approaches the real false positive rate obviously that introduces some noise.



Preprint synopsis

Diagnosing COVID-19 infection: the danger of over-reliance on positive test results

Unlike previous epidemics, in addressing COVID-19 nearly all international health organizations and national health ministries have treated a single positive result from a PCR-based test as confirmation of infection, even in asymptomatic persons without any history of exposure. This is based on...

www.medrxiv.org

 

[fmlizard]

If there's a false positive rate of 1% and there's ~150-200 people in a CFB team's circle (scholarship players, walk ons, coaches, staff), that means it's likely that at any given time, every team is going to have an active case that doesn't exist.

 

[MplsGopher]

Yes, that's the gist of it. Let 'em play. If bad stuff happens the lawyers can take care of it.

Well that's irresponsible and certainly won't happen.

 

[MplsGopher]

Just checked, Canada has 4,829 active cases of covid. I think Alabama is in the 500-600 range.

I think the point was new cases on that day. Serves a pretty powerful message about how out of control the situation is.

 

[MplsGopher]

Yes, each testing methodology undergoes numerous tests and has a known margin of error. False positives are rare and are usually from cross contamination, and that usually involves the robotic or multi open tube tests. This is what happened to the NFL.

Using a single test system like the Genxpert vastly reduces the false positives because cross contamination is much more difficult to happen.

If the testing system has a higher than acceptable false positive rate, the FDA will issue a warning, like it did in July when the BD SARS-CoV-2 Reagents caused up to a 3% false positive rate.

So yes, false positives happen, but even with incidents like the 77 NFL players, it is still a rare occurrence. False negatives are still higher, possibly due to incorrect nasal swabbing. The saliva tests may be promising, but the covid-19 seems more concentrated in the nasal passages.

With anything medical, always ask questions and read to make an informed decision.

Excellent post, thank you! Please post more often.

 

[MplsGopher]

Rare, but not that rare. In a perfect world the specificity is very high ~100% but as you noted the potential for contamination and other errors is possible. There are humans involved, or human designed systems. A false positive rate of even, say, 1% across 700k daily PCRs is clearly significant in absolute terms. As positive test rate approaches the real false positive rate obviously that introduces some noise.



Preprint synopsis

Diagnosing COVID-19 infection: the danger of over-reliance on positive test results

Unlike previous epidemics, in addressing COVID-19 nearly all international health organizations and national health ministries have treated a single positive result from a PCR-based test as confirmation of infection, even in asymptomatic persons without any history of exposure. This is based on...

www.medrxiv.org

View attachment 9192

SARS-CoV is the old SARS epidemic, from 2003 I believe.

Your table above doesn't appear to include anything for the current global pandemic SARS-CoV-2.

 

[MplsGopher]

If there's a false positive rate of 1% and there's ~150-200 people in a CFB team's circle (scholarship players, walk ons, coaches, staff), that means it's likely that at any given time, every team is going to have an active case that doesn't exist.

Better safe than sorry.

 

[MplsGopher]

https://www.startribune.com/covid-is-spreading-on-college-campuses/572221202/

COVID is spreading on college campuses
The U, other colleges and universities should cut risk in first semester and go online-only.
Delaying students from returning to three University of Minnesota campuses, including the flagship Twin Cities location, by two weeks will accomplish little. U leadership should move classes online for the semester and keep students at home at least until the end of 2020.

 

[Ogee Ogilthorpe]

If there's a false positive rate of 1% and there's ~150-200 people in a CFB team's circle (scholarship players, walk ons, coaches, staff), that means it's likely that at any given time, every team is going to have an active case that doesn't exist.

There's also the fact that this is a virus that is completely new to us, which brings new testing metrics and procedures. We are THAT confident that we have the testing accuracy and infallibility nailed down that we can proclaim that false positives are rare at all? We know THAT much about this virus and how to test for it? That's a bold statement, to say the least.

 

[MplsGopher]

^^^ proud, in your face ignorance. It's ugly, and scary, up close.

SARS-CoV has been known for 17-18 years now. This virus is so similar to that one, that we simply appended -2 as a suffix.

Just shut up with your fake takes.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

SARS-CoV is the old SARS epidemic, from 2003 I believe.

Your table above doesn't appear to include anything for the current global pandemic SARS-CoV-2.

You must have missed the 77 false positives on several different NFL teams, only caught because of the watchful eye of the NFL and the significant implications on their business.

Does it stand to reason there may be other instances of similar problems, never picked up on by the general public? Clearly the technology and people involved at each lab may be a factor, and clearly that’s true some small percent of the time over numerous PCR testing regimens with many different pathogens. Yes, newer tech may be close to zero but not zero, obviously. We don’t know.

 

[MplsGopher]

You must have missed the 77 false positives on several different NFL teams, only caught because of the watchful eye of the NFL and the significant implications on their business.

Does it stand to reason there may be other instances of similar problems, never picked up on by the general public? Clearly the technology and people involved at leach lab may be a factor, and clearly that’s true some small percent of the time over numerous PCR testing regimens.

As aptly described by WA, it depends on the testing methodology and the risk for cross-contamination.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

As aptly described by WA, it depends on the testing methodology and the risk for cross-contamination.

You can’t be this obtuse. WAgopher will agree with me, because he seems to understand the inherent problems. What part are you struggling with?

 

[forever a gopher]

So if I understand this correctly:

Students came back to campus at Alabama, with a student/staff population of about 50,000. They tested all individuals upon returning (whether symptomatic or not) finding 1% positive. Then, since opening, they’ve tested like the general public has (when you have a reason to believe you’ve been infected) and found between 4-7% positive in a much more selective pool. This is alarming why? Here in MN in the general public, the positive rate has varied roughly around 4-6%. So when kids go back to the U, would you not assume those same rates will occur there? Is campus some magical place where it’s not supposed to spread? Of course it will, and everybody knows that. But for some reason we see these positive tests and treat them with higher scrutiny, even though all these reports of “outbreaks” at schools are either on par with the general public or less.

 

[MplsGopher]

You can’t be this obtuse. WAgopher will agree with me, because he seems to understand the inherent problems. What part are you struggling with?

Non-response, to both him and me. You have none. He won this round.

Your quest for a cash grab for unproven testers continues.

 

[MplsGopher]

So if I understand this correctly:

Students came back to campus at Alabama, with a student/staff population of about 50,000. They tested all individuals upon returning (whether symptomatic or not) finding 1% positive. Then, since opening, they’ve tested like the general public has (when you have a reason to believe you’ve been infected) and found between 4-7% positive in a much more selective pool. This is alarming why? Here in MN in the general public, the positive rate has varied roughly around 4-6%. So when kids go back to the U, would you not assume those same rates will occur there? Is campus some magical place where it’s not supposed to spread? Of course it will, and everybody knows that. But for some reason we see these positive tests and treat them with higher scrutiny, even though all these reports of “outbreaks” at schools are either on par with the general public or less.

“6% of the houses in most neighborhoods are on fire, so it is perfectly reasonable that 6% of the houses in our neighborhood are on fire.”

If this country wasn’t led by trash, then such a poor condition wouldn’t be the “norm”.

 

[forever a gopher]

“6% of the houses in most neighborhoods are on fire, so it is perfectly reasonable that 6% of the houses in our neighborhood are on fire.”

If this country wasn’t led by trash, then such a poor condition wouldn’t be the “norm”.

This doesn’t make any sense. Is there some impenetrable wall surrounding campuses that prevents the fire from spreading? Because that’s what people are acting like. Ignoring the surrounding context around these campuses is disingenuous and intentionally naive. You can disagree with the president or whomever you like- that isn’t going to change the fact that there will be cases on campuses that largely reflect the general public that exists around those campuses. So is the answer to shut down school (I know your answer, so that is rhetorical)? If kids weren’t in school, it is highly likely their positive test rate would mimic the averages whether they are in school or not, so what are you gaining by shutting down other than financial destruction and political points?

 

[MplsGopher]

This doesn’t make any sense. Is there some impenetrable wall surrounding campuses that prevents the fire from spreading? Because that’s what people are acting like. Ignoring the surrounding context around these campuses is disingenuous and intentionally naive. You can disagree with the president or whomever you like- that isn’t going to change the fact that there will be cases on campuses that largely reflect the general public that exists around those campuses. So is the answer to shut down school (I know your answer, so that is rhetorical)? If kids weren’t in school, it is highly likely their positive test rate would mimic the averages whether they are in school or not, so what are you gaining by shutting down other than financial destruction and political points?

My point went right over your head, I see.

My point is that the general population shouldn’t be testing that high either. That’s not some “acceptable” standard in a global pandemic. It’s merelt because this country sucks right now.

 

[forever a gopher]

My point went right over your head, I see.

My point is that the general population shouldn’t be testing that high either. That’s not some “acceptable” standard in a global pandemic. It’s merelt because this country sucks right now.

Understood. But that is the state we’re in, and the hand we currently hold. So to ignore the current situation is silly when examining a specific situation.

 

[MplsGopher]

Understood. But that is the state we’re in, and the hand we currently hold. So to ignore the current situation is silly when examining a specific situation.

That goes back to my analogy. Just because everyone else is in a bad situation, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to do better in your own situation, when you have he power to do so.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

So if I understand this correctly:

Students came back to campus at Alabama, with a student/staff population of about 50,000. They tested all individuals upon returning (whether symptomatic or not) finding 1% positive. Then, since opening, they’ve tested like the general public has (when you have a reason to believe you’ve been infected) and found between 4-7% positive in a much more selective pool. This is alarming why? Here in MN in the general public, the positive rate has varied roughly around 4-6%. So when kids go back to the U, would you not assume those same rates will occur there? Is campus some magical place where it’s not supposed to spread? Of course it will, and everybody knows that. But for some reason we see these positive tests and treat them with higher scrutiny, even though all these reports of “outbreaks” at schools are either on par with the general public or less.

The point is that this is taking place in the context of schools trying to play college football this fall.
if there are outbreaks taking place on college campuses, then that increases the likelihood that there will be football players testing positive.

then, the question becomes: how many positive cases can a football program handle before it has to shut down? And, how will programs deal with positive cases, and try to prevent community spread among teammates?

the P3 conferences are trying to walk a tightrope in order to play FB this fall. Ask Karl Wallenda about the inherent risks of walking a tightrope.

 

[forever a gopher]

The point is that this is taking place in the context of schools trying to play college football this fall.
if there are outbreaks taking place on college campuses, then that increases the likelihood that there will be football players testing positive.

then, the question becomes: how many positive cases can a football program handle before it has to shut down? And, how will programs deal with positive cases, and try to prevent community spread among teammates?

the P3 conferences are trying to walk a tightrope in order to play FB this fall. Ask Karl Wallenda about the inherent risks of walking a tightrope.

Yes, the point is understood. But the point I am making is that these aren’t “outbreaks”, as they are mimicking the overall case trends of the area. If you bring kids back, of course you’ll have positives. And yes, players will probably get it as well. But with all of the headlines, there hasn’t been too much fuss over the the severity of cases, which leads me to believe they are almost exclusively mild cases or asymptomatic, as the fear porn people would be all over it if a bunch of students or players were hospitalized. So if a player gets it, they quarantine, and move on when done. Just like baseball. Not all the players will be able to play all games. But that doesn’t mean you can’t try and make it work.

 

[Ogee Ogilthorpe]

Yes, the point is understood. But the point I am making is that these aren’t “outbreaks”, as they are mimicking the overall case trends of the area. If you bring kids back, of course you’ll have positives. And yes, players will probably get it as well. But with all of the headlines, there hasn’t been too much fuss over the the severity of cases, which leads me to believe they are almost exclusively mild cases or asymptomatic, as the fear porn people would be all over it if a bunch of students or players were hospitalized. So if a player gets it, they quarantine, and move on when done. Just like baseball. Not all the players will be able to play all games. But that doesn’t mean you can’t try and make it work.

I do believe you are valiantly wasting your time. These are goalposts that are going to be constantly on the move, at the very least until the election in November. Flatten the curve, don't over load the hospitals, has now progressed all the way to, positive tests are still a reason to keep everything locked down, even if it's just a handful of positive tests, which may or may not be accurate.

I can already tell you, regardless of how many games get played this fall, even if they manage to play almost every game that's currently scheduled, there will be some that will still find a way to label this attempt at a fall football season as a "failure" or a mistake. Mark it down, absolutely guaranteed.

 

[MplsGopher]

Yes, the point is understood. But the point I am making is that these aren’t “outbreaks”, as they are mimicking the overall case trends of the area. If you bring kids back, of course you’ll have positives. And yes, players will probably get it as well. But with all of the headlines, there hasn’t been too much fuss over the the severity of cases, which leads me to believe they are almost exclusively mild cases or asymptomatic, as the fear porn people would be all over it if a bunch of students or players were hospitalized. So if a player gets it, they quarantine, and move on when done. Just like baseball. Not all the players will be able to play all games. But that doesn’t mean you can’t try and make it work.

The whole country is an outbreak. So yes, it is an outbreak.

I get your idea: try to pretend like it's just a normal occurrence, because it seems to be like everywhere else. But you've been shot down.


The rest of your post is just the same ol, trying to hand-waive the pandemic away so long as the cases are asymptomatic. The problem has always been, that there are people more susceptible to severe disease and death, and the more people are spreading the disease around, the more likely those people are to catch it.

 

[Taji34]

I do believe you are valiantly wasting your time. These are goalposts that are going to be constantly on the move, at the very least until the election in November. Flatten the curve, don't over load the hospitals, has now progressed all the way to, positive tests are still a reason to keep everything locked down, even if it's just a handful of positive tests, which may or may not be accurate.

I can already tell you, regardless of how many games get played this fall, even if they manage to play almost every game that's currently scheduled, there will be some that will still find a way to label this attempt at a fall football season as a "failure" or a mistake. Mark it down, absolutely guaranteed.

This is the dumbest conspiracy theory I keep seeing. No matter who wins COVID will not magically go away nor will democrats suddenly relax their stance. It's a GLOBAL pandemic, not just the US.

 

[howeda7]

This is the dumbest conspiracy theory I keep seeing. No matter who wins COVID will not magically go away nor will democrats suddenly relax their stance. It's a GLOBAL pandemic, not just the US.

And there will be a wave along with flu season regardless. It's just a question of how bad.