09-03-2020, 03:48 PM
A breakthrough in testing
09-03-2020, 05:45 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-03-2020, 05:46 PM by CardinalSagehen.)
More on this - "Pac-12 partnership to allow for daily coronavirus testing for athletes": https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...g-athletes
David Shaw is also quoted in the following article, which suggests that he thinks there's some validity to the scenario where the Pac-12 and the Big Ten begin playing before 2021 (but after the other P5 conferences): https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...ten-pac-12
David Shaw is also quoted in the following article, which suggests that he thinks there's some validity to the scenario where the Pac-12 and the Big Ten begin playing before 2021 (but after the other P5 conferences): https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...ten-pac-12
Quote:"It has to be factored in that these two conferences in particular are major conferences and always deserve an opportunity to win a national championship when they play," Shaw said. "We've all bought into the CFP. If by the end of the winter, if there's someone who has merit, they deserve recognition."
(This post was last modified: 09-03-2020, 05:46 PM by CardinalSagehen.)
More on this - "Pac-12 partnership to allow for daily coronavirus testing for athletes": https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...g-athletes
David Shaw is also quoted in the following article, which suggests that he thinks there's some validity to the scenario where the Pac-12 and the Big Ten begin playing before 2021 (but after the other P5 conferences): https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...ten-pac-12
David Shaw is also quoted in the following article, which suggests that he thinks there's some validity to the scenario where the Pac-12 and the Big Ten begin playing before 2021 (but after the other P5 conferences): https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...ten-pac-12
Quote:"It has to be factored in that these two conferences in particular are major conferences and always deserve an opportunity to win a national championship when they play," Shaw said. "We've all bought into the CFP. If by the end of the winter, if there's someone who has merit, they deserve recognition."
Or, a breakthrough in wishful thinking.... Or in the Larry Scott hype. Any excuse to get the money-making machine rolling ....
FDA: "This test is to be performed only using respiratory specimens collected from individuals who are suspected of COVID-19 by their healthcare provider within the first five days of the onset of symptoms."
FDA: "Indication: Qualitative detection ... from individuals who are suspected of COVID-19 by their healthcare provider.
I interpret that to mean that using this test to screen healthy individuals is not in the EUA granted for this test.
Has anyone here found the sensitivity and specificity for this test? Not very easy to find. Here's an article saying the company reported (some time back) a sensitivity of 87.5% and a specificity of 100%. As I understand it that means it misses 1 out of 8 positive cases it is tested on, reporting a negative result.
From the FDA document: "Antigen tests are known to be less sensitive than molecular tests that detect viral nucleic acids."
"When diagnostic testing is negative, the possibility of a false negative result should be considered in the context of a patient’s recent exposures and the presence of clinical signs and symptoms consistent with COVID-19."
FDA: "This test is to be performed only using respiratory specimens collected from individuals who are suspected of COVID-19 by their healthcare provider within the first five days of the onset of symptoms."
FDA: "Indication: Qualitative detection ... from individuals who are suspected of COVID-19 by their healthcare provider.
I interpret that to mean that using this test to screen healthy individuals is not in the EUA granted for this test.
Has anyone here found the sensitivity and specificity for this test? Not very easy to find. Here's an article saying the company reported (some time back) a sensitivity of 87.5% and a specificity of 100%. As I understand it that means it misses 1 out of 8 positive cases it is tested on, reporting a negative result.
From the FDA document: "Antigen tests are known to be less sensitive than molecular tests that detect viral nucleic acids."
"When diagnostic testing is negative, the possibility of a false negative result should be considered in the context of a patient’s recent exposures and the presence of clinical signs and symptoms consistent with COVID-19."
Or, a breakthrough in wishful thinking.... Or in the Larry Scott hype. Any excuse to get the money-making machine rolling ....
FDA: "This test is to be performed only using respiratory specimens collected from individuals who are suspected of COVID-19 by their healthcare provider within the first five days of the onset of symptoms."
FDA: "Indication: Qualitative detection ... from individuals who are suspected of COVID-19 by their healthcare provider.
I interpret that to mean that using this test to screen healthy individuals is not in the EUA granted for this test.
Has anyone here found the sensitivity and specificity for this test? Not very easy to find. Here's an article saying the company reported (some time back) a sensitivity of 87.5% and a specificity of 100%. As I understand it that means it misses 1 out of 8 positive cases it is tested on, reporting a negative result.
From the FDA document: "Antigen tests are known to be less sensitive than molecular tests that detect viral nucleic acids."
"When diagnostic testing is negative, the possibility of a false negative result should be considered in the context of a patient’s recent exposures and the presence of clinical signs and symptoms consistent with COVID-19."
FDA: "This test is to be performed only using respiratory specimens collected from individuals who are suspected of COVID-19 by their healthcare provider within the first five days of the onset of symptoms."
FDA: "Indication: Qualitative detection ... from individuals who are suspected of COVID-19 by their healthcare provider.
I interpret that to mean that using this test to screen healthy individuals is not in the EUA granted for this test.
Has anyone here found the sensitivity and specificity for this test? Not very easy to find. Here's an article saying the company reported (some time back) a sensitivity of 87.5% and a specificity of 100%. As I understand it that means it misses 1 out of 8 positive cases it is tested on, reporting a negative result.
From the FDA document: "Antigen tests are known to be less sensitive than molecular tests that detect viral nucleic acids."
"When diagnostic testing is negative, the possibility of a false negative result should be considered in the context of a patient’s recent exposures and the presence of clinical signs and symptoms consistent with COVID-19."
09-03-2020, 05:48 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-03-2020, 05:53 PM by CardinalSagehen.)
(09-03-2020, 05:46 PM)M T Wrote: Or, a breakthrough in wishful thinking.... Or in the Larry Scott hype. Any excuse to get the money-making machine rolling ....
[/url]
[url=https://www.fda.gov/media/137884/download]FDA: "This test is to be performed only using respiratory specimens collected from individuals who are suspected of COVID-19 by their healthcare provider within the first five days of the onset of symptoms."
FDA: "Indication: Qualitative detection ... from individuals who are suspected of COVID-19 by their healthcare provider.
I interpret that to mean that using this test to screen healthy individuals is not in the EUA granted for this test.
Has anyone here found the sensitivity and specificity for this test? Not very easy to find. Here's an article saying the company reported (some time back) a sensitivity of 87.5% and a specificity of 100%. As I understand it that means it misses 1 out of 8 positive cases it is tested on, reporting a negative result.
From the FDA document: "Antigen tests are known to be less sensitive than molecular tests that detect viral nucleic acids."
"When diagnostic testing is negative, the possibility of a false negative result should be considered in the context of a patient’s recent exposures and the presence of clinical signs and symptoms consistent with COVID-19."
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.
I’m also assuming that anyone exhibiting symptoms would be quarantined and would receive a normal test.
(This post was last modified: 09-03-2020, 05:53 PM by CardinalSagehen.)
(09-03-2020, 05:46 PM)M T Wrote: Or, a breakthrough in wishful thinking.... Or in the Larry Scott hype. Any excuse to get the money-making machine rolling ....
[/url]
[url=https://www.fda.gov/media/137884/download]FDA: "This test is to be performed only using respiratory specimens collected from individuals who are suspected of COVID-19 by their healthcare provider within the first five days of the onset of symptoms."
FDA: "Indication: Qualitative detection ... from individuals who are suspected of COVID-19 by their healthcare provider.
I interpret that to mean that using this test to screen healthy individuals is not in the EUA granted for this test.
Has anyone here found the sensitivity and specificity for this test? Not very easy to find. Here's an article saying the company reported (some time back) a sensitivity of 87.5% and a specificity of 100%. As I understand it that means it misses 1 out of 8 positive cases it is tested on, reporting a negative result.
From the FDA document: "Antigen tests are known to be less sensitive than molecular tests that detect viral nucleic acids."
"When diagnostic testing is negative, the possibility of a false negative result should be considered in the context of a patient’s recent exposures and the presence of clinical signs and symptoms consistent with COVID-19."
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.
I’m also assuming that anyone exhibiting symptoms would be quarantined and would receive a normal test.
09-03-2020, 05:54 PM
(09-03-2020, 05:48 PM)CardinalSagehen Wrote: 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?
(09-03-2020, 05:48 PM)CardinalSagehen Wrote: 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?
09-03-2020, 06:12 PM
(09-03-2020, 05:54 PM)M T Wrote:(09-03-2020, 05:48 PM)CardinalSagehen Wrote: 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.
(09-03-2020, 05:54 PM)M T Wrote:(09-03-2020, 05:48 PM)CardinalSagehen Wrote: 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.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »