Coronavirus!

[AHF]

10 minutes ago, bleachkit said:

Unless you're a player who has been strictly self isolating and avoiding going out entirely, the bubble poses no greater risk, if fact less risk, than other settings. I would venture to guess not many players, not many people period, have been strictly self isolating during the entire course of this pandemic. The bubble is one of the safest, perhaps the safest, workplaces in America. 

One of the safest in terms of screening.

One of the least safe if someone positive slips through the screening net.

[JayBirdHawk]

30 minutes ago, bleachkit said:

. The bubble is one of the safest, perhaps the safest, workplaces in America. 

The Disney staffers working the bubble are not staying in the bubble. So it's a bubble that can pop easily.

[Peoriabird]

27 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

The Disney staffers working the bubble are not staying in the bubble. So it's a bubble that can pop easily.

What he is saying that compared to other work places like grocery stores and hospitals, the bubble concept tries harder to assure safety thru stricter monitoring policies vs other occupations.

[AHF]

2 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

What he is saying that compared to other work places like grocery store and hospitals, the bubble concept tries harder to assure safety thru stricter monitoring policies vs other occupations.

Better monitoring but much worse ppe, social distancing, etc.  

[JayBirdHawk]

1 minute ago, Peoriabird said:

What he is saying that compared to other work places like grocery store and hospitals, the bubble concept tries harder to assure safety thru stricter monitoring policies vs other occupations.

Because, like I pointed out before - once the actual game starts there is no 'safety measure' available for player on player contact. No social distancing, no masks, etc....that's why the testing and isolation is warranted.

[Peoriabird]

So if everyone tested negative before the game, where is the risk during the game?

[AHF]

1 minute ago, Peoriabird said:

So if every tested negative before the game, where is the risk during the game?

Not every positive shows up (there are false positives and false negatives) and there are windows in which someone who has been exposed and is developing the condition won’t show as positive yet.  
 

It is clearly much safer than something like a meat packing plant, imo, but not as safe as some other workplaces that effectively physically isolate employees.

[Peoriabird]

Just now, AHF said:

Not every positive shows up (there are false positives and false negatives) and there are windows in which someone who has been exposed and is developing the condition won’t show as positive yet.  
 

It is clearly much safer than something like a meat packing plant, imo, but not as safe as some other workplaces that effectively physically isolate employees.

So you are saying that people that test negative can transmit the disease?

[bleachkit]

24 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

The Disney staffers working the bubble are not staying in the bubble. So it's a bubble that can pop easily.

I think I read that even many of the staffers will get tested if they are going to be in proximity to the players. Most staffers won't be near players though.

[AHF]

4 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

So you are saying that people that test negative can transmit the disease?

You can read about it but from one article:

Quote

“Negative results do not preclude 2019-nCov infection and should not be used as the sole basis for treatment or other patient management decisions,” the CDC’s instructions for the test state.

Quote

Samples collected from the upper respiratory tract have different rates of testing positive depending on how far into an infection a person is, according to “Variations in False-Negative Rate of Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction-Based SARS-Cov-2 Tests by Time Since Exposure” published May 13 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The literature review found “the probability of a false-negative result in an infected person decreases from 100%” on Day 1 to 67% on Day 4. “On the day of symptom onset, the median false-negative rate was 38%,” decreasing to 20% on Day 8 and then beginning to rise again from 21% on Day 9 to 66% on Day 21, the review states.

That second quote basically suggests that for that type of testing there is a 20% or greater chance of a false negative regardless of the stage of the disease.

The NBA should be using the best available methodology but it isn’t fully understood yet and isn’t risk free.

[Peoriabird]

Am I the only one that thinks people are a little paranoid if they think someone who tested negative can then transmit the virus?

[AHF]

Just now, Peoriabird said:

Am I the only one that thinks people are a little paranoid if they think someone who tested negative can then transmit the virus?

I’d feel more confident if you were quoting peer reviewed studies.

[bleachkit]

7 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

So you are saying that people that test negative can transmit the disease?

It's theoretically possible. If the disease is still in a prodromal phase or the test is faulty. Nothing is 100% full proof 

[Peoriabird]

Just now, AHF said:

I’d feel more confident if you were quoting peer reviewed studies.

so someone totally asymptomatic with a negative test just before contact can transmit the virus then is what you believe to be true.

1 minute ago, bleachkit said:

It's theoretically possible. If the disease is still in a prodromal phase or the test is faulty. Nothing is 100% full proof 

But unlikely otherwise testing is meaningless

[AHF]

Quote

you just got test results back for the novel coronavirus: Negative!

But wait a second. Your doctor may still caution you to act like you could have it. Stay home. Self-isolate. Don’t go visit your parents.

 

What’s going on?

The clamor for long-delayed coronavirus testing is teaching a basic lesson about how all medical tests work: No test is 100 percent accurate. Some test results may incorrectly say that a person has a condition, but they don’t. That’s a false positive. Other tests may incorrectly say someone doesn’t have a condition, but they do. That’s a false negative, and for covid-19, the illness caused by the coronavirus, at this stage of the outbreak, experts are more worried about this type of inaccuracy.

 

[Peoriabird]

The players are apparently being tested twice a day and y'all  still think there is more risk than no testing. Ok

[AHF]

1 minute ago, Peoriabird said:

But unlikely otherwise testing is meaningless

It isn’t meaningless.  I’d suggest doing a deep dive into reading about testing sensitivity, false negatives and appropriate precautions.

One of the good things for NBA players in this context is the number of repeat tests being done.  That should substantially help mitigate against the classic case of someone testing negative who is just early in the infection but who later tests positive as the disease progresses.  
 

And even with its imperfections, testing is incredibly valuable in managing this disease.

[bleachkit]

3 minutes ago, AHF said:

I’d feel more confident if you were quoting peer reviewed studies.

I'm assuming the NBA is using the latest and best tests. Some of the high failure rates previously were from inferior tests. Wouldn't surprise me if the NBA is using more than one manufacturer.

[Peoriabird]

2 minutes ago, AHF said:

 

I'm assuming those patient seeking medical advise have some symptoms

[AHF]

1 minute ago, Peoriabird said:

I'm assuming those patient seeking medical advise have some symptoms

Or may have ridden on a bus with someone who tested positive and are now being flagged through contact tracing, etc.