Could New Covid Testing News Be A Boost For Fall Football?

[SU DOG]

It looks to me like this is research findings that could really help with positive cases that are not actually positive cases. Maybe teams are currently having to isolate players that are actually no threat at all - with this stuff who knows?

From the New York Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html

[walliver]

Interesting that the New York times now seems to believe that Coronavirus is less common than previously reported. It does bother me that all the experts they interviewed talk like middle school kids.

I doubt this development really applies to groups, such as football players, who are routinely screened. In a person with previous negative tests, a positive test, even with high sensitivity tests, still represents a new infection that needs to be worked up.

On the other hand, this new test may make a spring season more likely. The real test will be basketball season. Densely packed crowds in closed indoor spaces may yield a COVID spike this winter.

[SU DOG]

Theoretically, if a player has been testing negative now shows positive with the overly sensitive test, he could have possibly shown a negative with the less(but more accurate) sensitive one. The viral load might not be substantial enough to infect others or cause symptoms. The player would not be out for the immediate 2 week quarantine that is now required. A possible example would be obtaining a few microns of the virus from touching a surface as opposed to direct infection from close contact with a person's cough. Positive on one test, but negative on the other is a hard concept to grasp, but that is what I gather from this article.

[JacksFan40]

This won’t change much of fall sports, the teams who postponed to spring or cancelled will stay that way. It could allow teams who want to play in the fall to still be able to play. This could be a boost for winter sports though.

[walliver]

Theoretically, if a player has been testing negative now shows positive with the overly sensitive test, he could have possibly shown a negative with the less(but more accurate) sensitive one. The viral load might not be substantial enough to infect others or cause symptoms. The player would not be out for the immediate 2 week quarantine that is now required. A possible example would be obtaining a few microns of the virus from touching a surface as opposed to direct infection from close contact with a person's cough. Positive on one test, but negative on the other is a hard concept to grasp, but that is what I gather from this article.

A player who previously tested negative but now tests positive could easily have an early infection. People are likely to be most infectious before or shortly after symptoms develop. The lower sensitivity test would not pick up early disease, but the player could potentially be infectious within a day or so.

It may be years before we find out what really works in COVID contanment.

[SU DOG]

A player who previously tested negative but now tests positive could easily have an early infection. People are likely to be most infectious before or shortly after symptoms develop. The lower sensitivity test would not pick up early disease, but the player could potentially be infectious within a day or so.

It may be years before we find out what really works in COVID contanment.

Multiple testing would take care of that situation, and many of these possibly unnecessary quarantines could be eliminated. It is hard for me to believe that a coach like Nick Saban won't find some way to take advantage of this new information. This overly sensitive testing is not without precedent. A whooping cough epidemic was declared in the state of NH after overly sensitive testing was quickly done. Vaccinations, hospitalizations, and healthcare worker layoffs went on for months(NY Times article 1/22/2007), only to later be found that those positives were absolutely wrong.

In a related issue, students at the University of Alabama here in my home state, have been nationally scolded(and rightfully so as they could infect older relatives) for being careless. What the news hasn't stated, however, is that their hospitalization number(as of today-article link if desired) is ZERO!

I have a daughter, with a PhD who works in the Infectious Disease Clinic at UAB. She has told me horror stories and, at my age I'm a high risk for bad results if I get infected. I DO NOT take the threat lightly, and I am trying to be VERY careful. While doing so, however, I like to see at least some media info that isn't all gloom and doom. Example: So many negative comments about dire consequences of playing football this fall. While I admit that the jury is still out, I love it that two tests since Saturday and the UCA Bears have ZERO positives. GOOD LUCK tonight UCA.