Mr. WEO Posted July 13, 2020 Posted July 13, 2020 9 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: The first step in the standard RT-PCR test is RNA extraction from the intact virus particles. The RNA is not bopping around the saliva solution on its own; it’s wrapped up in a lipoprotein coat. So the salivary enzymes really should not be a factor. I believe there are also RNAses in the nasopharynx as well - there are RNAses pretty much everywhere else in mucus and in serum. I know for DNA sampling from saliva or cheek swabs, there’s usually a nuclease cocktail added to stabilize it. I also know RNA purification from saliva samples has been done successfully by a number of research groups (but again, we’re not going after salivary RNA here but RNA packed up in a virus) It’s appropriate to have concerns about lower sensitivity and sample degradation but if reputable groups have worked out the protocol and shown that it’s as sensitive (using their techniques) at some point one needs to adapt. It will be available as a testing "supply chain" alternative. It won't replace swabbing as neither are adequately scaleable for the current and future demands of massive testing. It won't offer accuracy advantages.
Mr. WEO Posted July 13, 2020 Posted July 13, 2020 9 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: I got nothin’, @SirAndrew. Inertia, maybe? There was a study published from a group in Yale back in April that said saliva testing was certainly as good, and might be more accurate than nasopharyngeal swabs. It’s not a one-off, there was a small study in Japan that confirmed. There’s a Chinese study from early on, one of the first reports of high false negative rate from the RT-PCR testing, that found a saliva test a bit less sensitive than a nasopharyngeal swab but it was a few percent as I recall (can’t find the study quickly, will look later) It’s potentially a huge advantage for PPE since in terms of best practice, a HCW getting into a patient’s face to swab them should be wearing high quality PPE vs just handing the patient a collection device, and when we run low on specialized swabs, it could help. So I really don’t know what the barrier is. I agree with you completely that proper nasopharyngeal swab technique may be influencing false negatives. Recent testing from Hopkins shows that a major source of false negatives is testing too early in the course of the infection. This is obviously eliminated with repeated testing of the same individual.
Captain Hindsight Posted July 13, 2020 Posted July 13, 2020 On 7/10/2020 at 6:33 PM, Limeaid said: What about players already paid to play with huge signing bonuses? I have not heard 1 player say "I do not think it is safe to play. I will give back portion of signing bonus for this year and will pay premium for benefits out of my own pocket." The players are talking about risks, uncertainties, worries, etc but none are talking about absorbing costs themselves in season when teams will be getting less money. If they were holding out they would be required to pay it back. Teams are counting on players to play and if someone is now willing to play they should tell team now so they can adjust plans not wait to season to start hoping it to be cancelled and hoping laywers will somehow be able to get NFL to pay them most if not all they would have gotten if they played. Thats fair, We havent seen anyone opting out or the NFL really giving guidelines to players yet, so I'll reserve judgement until one of those two things happen
C.Biscuit97 Posted July 13, 2020 Posted July 13, 2020 Sadly Diggs, you are a piece of meat to teams and a bunch of fans. You are dollars to them and then second you are less valuable, they get rid of you. 1
JoshAllenHasBigHands Posted July 13, 2020 Posted July 13, 2020 4 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said: Sadly Diggs, you are a piece of meat to teams and a bunch of fans. You are dollars to them and then second you are less valuable, they get rid of you. 1. He can opt out. 2. It will earn him millions of dollars. 3. What is worse? Earning millions of dollars while fans adore you for your ephemeral talents or a life of obscurity? Describing these guys as "meat" because they are only temporarily placed on their pedestal is a garbage take. 2
C.Biscuit97 Posted July 13, 2020 Posted July 13, 2020 46 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said: 1. He can opt out. 2. It will earn him millions of dollars. 3. What is worse? Earning millions of dollars while fans adore you for your ephemeral talents or a life of obscurity? Describing these guys as "meat" because they are only temporarily placed on their pedestal is a garbage take. BS. They get paid a lot of money because they are super talented in a field that makes billions of dollars because of them. No one is crying for them but read some of the BS they get on social media or hear some of the things fans say in the stands. A lot of fans don’t care if these guys have severe brain damage. There was a thread about Mario Williams getting in trouble and some fans just laughing at him when it sounds like it could be a much more serious issue. no one should feel sorry for players because they get paid well and know the risk. But they should also look out for what’s best for them and get every penny they can. Sports loyalty is such a joke. 1
JoshAllenHasBigHands Posted July 13, 2020 Posted July 13, 2020 8 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said: BS. They get paid a lot of money because they are super talented in a field that makes billions of dollars because of them. No one is crying for them but read some of the BS they get on social media or hear some of the things fans say in the stands. A lot of fans don’t care if these guys have severe brain damage. There was a thread about Mario Williams getting in trouble and some fans just laughing at him when it sounds like it could be a much more serious issue. no one should feel sorry for players because they get paid well and know the risk. But they should also look out for what’s best for them and get every penny they can. Sports loyalty is such a joke. This got weird. See, I 100% agree with this, but my point is that this is what they sign up for. They are not meat. Nor do they lose their subjectivity because they are idolized.
bobblehead Posted July 13, 2020 Posted July 13, 2020 On 7/7/2020 at 9:40 PM, LabattBlue said: I agree with him 100% and have no problem with him saying it. If it wasn’t him saying it, then someone else would have
SirAndrew Posted July 13, 2020 Posted July 13, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, C.Biscuit97 said: BS. They get paid a lot of money because they are super talented in a field that makes billions of dollars because of them. No one is crying for them but read some of the BS they get on social media or hear some of the things fans say in the stands. A lot of fans don’t care if these guys have severe brain damage. There was a thread about Mario Williams getting in trouble and some fans just laughing at him when it sounds like it could be a much more serious issue. no one should feel sorry for players because they get paid well and know the risk. But they should also look out for what’s best for them and get every penny they can. Sports loyalty is such a joke. I could play devils advocate, and say anyone genuinely worried about brain damage wouldn’t watch/support the league. Edited July 13, 2020 by SirAndrew 1
C.Biscuit97 Posted July 13, 2020 Posted July 13, 2020 7 minutes ago, SirAndrew said: I could play devils advocate, and say anyone genuinely worried about brain damage wouldn’t watch/support the league. I agree 100%. On a smaller scale, it’s like the gladiators in Roman. Except these guys are paid well and know of the risks. I think the same way when I watch UFC. It feels dirty but I love people getting destroyed.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted July 13, 2020 Posted July 13, 2020 5 hours ago, Mr. WEO said: Recent testing from Hopkins shows that a major source of false negatives is testing too early in the course of the infection. This is obviously eliminated with repeated testing of the same individual. I just posted a Science News article on this study in the OTW “Facts” thread. Those results show that the probability of a “negative” declines from 67% in the first 4 days, to 38% 5 days post infection (first day of symptoms for many) to 20% at 8 days post infection. But it’s still 20%. Reduced, yes. Eliminated, no. I didn’t see data on how a totally asymptomatic infection influences these, beyond the scope I expect. 1
Doc Posted July 19, 2020 Posted July 19, 2020 On 7/13/2020 at 9:47 AM, C.Biscuit97 said: Sadly Diggs, you are a piece of meat to teams and a bunch of fans. You are dollars to them and then second you are less valuable, they get rid of you. You think you're any different to your employer?
Buffalo Barbarian Posted July 19, 2020 Posted July 19, 2020 most of us have been working the whole time, you will be fine .
T master Posted July 21, 2020 Posted July 21, 2020 I think we will wind up seeing a lot of the "Prima Donna" players holding out due to the virus this year will be a CF .
C.Biscuit97 Posted July 21, 2020 Posted July 21, 2020 On 7/19/2020 at 2:41 PM, Doc said: You think you're any different to your employer? I got tenure so I have to do something really bad. Which I can’t fully rule out. But I’m very important.
Doc Posted July 21, 2020 Posted July 21, 2020 2 hours ago, C.Biscuit97 said: I got tenure so I have to do something really bad. Which I can’t fully rule out. But I’m very important. True, there are different rules for some...
Recommended Posts