Coronavirus

[Timothy A]

Vaccine in the 3rd level of testing....so you are telling me there is a chance.....

[robertearle]

This is not good....

https://sports.yahoo.com/rutgers-put...212842218.html

[Timothy A]

Good to hear.

Thanks. They both were hospitalized for pneumonia over Christmas last year, so we definitely want to avoid Mr. Covid.

[robertearle]

My parents tested negative as well, so we're all good there.

Good to hear.

[Timothy A]

My parents tested negative as well, so we're all good there.

[Timothy A]

New virus, new test, less than perfect.

The inaccuracy comes from the timing of when the test sample is taken - too soon and there isn't 'enough' virus to be sure you got some on the swab, too late and the virus may have 'moved' from the sinus down into the lungs, or elsewhere; and from the actual administration of the swab - getting it way in to the 'right' part of the sinus cavity is difficult. If the sample has virus RNA on it, the lab will find it. That is, the chemistry of test itself is not the problem.

There are other test mechanisms being developed that are easier to administer (and faster results) but with even lower overall accuracy. Over the last couple weeks, I've seen news stories about simple saliva tests having been developed at U of Illinois and at Arizona State.

Test speed and inaccuracy are certainly problems, but they're hardly the only problems we all have right now.

Wow, you are da MAN! What great insight. I' m glad you are on my team. Smileyface.

[robertearle]

Her test came back negative. I still can't believe the test is only 75% accurate per her Dr.

New virus, new test, less than perfect.

The inaccuracy comes from the timing of when the test sample is taken - too soon and there isn't 'enough' virus to be sure you got some on the swab, too late and the virus may have 'moved' from the sinus down into the lungs, or elsewhere; and from the actual administration of the swab - getting it way in to the 'right' part of the sinus cavity is difficult. If the sample has virus RNA on it, the lab will find it. That is, the chemistry of test itself is not the problem.

There are other test mechanisms being developed that are easier to administer (and faster results) but with even lower overall accuracy. Over the last couple weeks, I've seen news stories about simple saliva tests having been developed at U of Illinois and at Arizona State.

Test speed and inaccuracy are certainly problems, but they're hardly the only problems we all have right now.

[Timothy A]

(As best I understand it)

"14 days" is the time period from a potential expose to the time when one can be confident that exposure has not resulted in infection. Your sister's "ten days" might be because by the time she had seen the doctor, she was already four days into her "14 day" period. Your parents' "14 day" clock would start at the point they were with your sister. So if they saw her six days she maybe developed symptoms and now some number of days have passed (assuming they didn't see here at all again since), they are well into their particular "14 day" period.

You "14 days" would start when you last saw either your sister or your parents. So you have four more days (?) to go, and should be isolating for that time.

Had your sister tested positive, the "rules" for when someone is "cleared" of being contagious are different, and have to do with how long since they had a fever, or had gotten a subsequent 'negative' result of test for active virus, etc.

Her test came back negative. I still can't believe the test is only 75% accurate per her Dr.

[Reddington]

That coach should reassess as should all coaches - the smart play is to save the year for all athletes that aren't going pro. Getting a year of work in in a job you can't stand and ground you for the rest of your life. You might come back to school and sports with an appreciative outlook and the earnestness to strive even more.

[Sieve1]

Rumor - I heard over the weekend - A slew of Ivy League players are taking a year off since the Ivies do not allow grad school students to play. That should tell everyone what the real deal is.

As far as youth sports - I think they should continue in a smaller group model. The kids do need to do something besides video games.

I’ve heard that one Ivy League team told athletes if anyone decided to defer the school year then she gives up her spot on the team.

[robertearle]

My sister thought she had it. She went to the Dr, the test came back negative. The Dr. said she still could have it, the test is only 75% accurate, so she is to quarantine 10 days, which apparently has replaced the 14 day time period. My parents got tested today, they saw her 6 days before she started feeling bad. I have not seen her or my parents in over 10 days, I should be ok.

(As best I understand it)

"14 days" is the time period from a potential expose to the time when one can be confident that exposure has not resulted in infection. Your sister's "ten days" might be because by the time she had seen the doctor, she was already four days into her "14 day" period. Your parents' "14 day" clock would start at the point they were with your sister. So if they saw her six days she maybe developed symptoms and now some number of days have passed (assuming they didn't see here at all again since), they are well into their particular "14 day" period.

You "14 days" would start when you last saw either your sister or your parents. So you have four more days (?) to go, and should be isolating for that time.

Had your sister tested positive, the "rules" for when someone is "cleared" of being contagious are different, and have to do with how long since they had a fever, or had gotten a subsequent 'negative' result of test for active virus, etc.

[Timothy A]

My sister thought she had it. She went to the Dr, the test came back negative. The Dr. said she still could have it, the test is only 75% accurate, so she is to quarantine 10 days, which apparently has replaced the 14 day time period. My parents got tested today, they saw her 6 days before she started feeling bad. I have not seen her or my parents in over 10 days, I should be ok.

[Reddington]

Rumor - I heard over the weekend - A slew of Ivy League players are taking a year off since the Ivies do not allow grad school students to play. That should tell everyone what the real deal is.

As far as youth sports - I think they should continue in a smaller group model. The kids do need to do something besides video games.

[Lindsay]

So does anyone think we’re going to get a season at this point? Driving me a little nuts that kids sports is continuing right now, putting a lot of other things and lives at risk. Local high school football player just tested positive for the virus and they shut practice down for two weeks. Anyone know what the various women’s college leagues have said so far?

Hope you are all staying well. These are not easy times.

[Offsides Guy]

"Is forcing women to wear tops unconstitutional?"

No. That's the point.

"What is the constructional right that relates to face coverings?"

"No shirt, no shoes, no service" is not unconstitutional because we have decided that wearing shoes in a public store or restaurant, etc. is in the interest of public safety and public health. You don't have to go into the store, but if you do, you gotta wear shoes.

"Put on a mask" is VERY MUCH the same thing.

The right to not "wear tops" would be an individual freedom of expression - aka. "freedom of speech" - in what clothes we wear, or choose to not wear. But - like ALL Constitutional rights - that freedom of expression can be limited when it collides with what we'll call 'public modesty' or 'public decorum', etc.; courts have decided that we can't walk around with our boobs out or our junk out on display. (And obviously, there are situations - strip clubs, etc., - where the restriction does not apply, where 'speech' of that kind is allowed.) Now, you can disagree with that decision and that restriction. But that's the way it goes; disagreeing does not equate to a right to ignore the restriction or defy the restriction.

"Put on a mask" is VERY MUCH the same thing.

I am in total agreement with you. I raised the constitutional question because I keep hearing people talk about how being forced to wear masks violates some right and I wanted to hear your reasoning against that argument as I’ve had trouble articulating it myself. Excellent!