Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Pac-12 announces ‘groundbreaking’ rapid-results COVID-19 testing partnership

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    7,436

    Default Pac-12 announces ‘groundbreaking’ rapid-results COVID-19 testing partnership

    It's not funny.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Spokane / Goodyear, AZ
    Posts
    1,988

    Default

    Abbot Laboratories had a toaster sized test unit that gave results in five minutes months ago. There's several saliva tests that are quick too in the US, UK and somewhere else I can't remember. This looks doable.
    To Fish & Game: Keep streams stocked well for Mr. Few!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,476

    Default

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/h...s-testing.html

    The company that developed this rapid test also developed the first PCR test. Read the NYT story I linked, then see if your optimism wanes just a bit.

    I really want college sports back. I refuse to watch the pros for various reasons. I remain skeptical that all the powers that be can come to some kind of consensus regarding resumption of play. Once again, the most significant question in Will’s article is about getting California and Oregon on board with easing restrictions.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    San Diego, Ca.
    Posts
    7,727

    Default

    That was fast.



    Maybe Gonzaga can pick 2 of the 3 with Arizona, USC and UW. With Baylor on the schedule, GU would only have room for 2.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    seattle, spokane
    Posts
    3,381

    Default

    i am so happy to receive a little more hope of any kind

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    5,093

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Markburn1 View Post
    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/h...s-testing.html

    The company that developed this rapid test also developed the first PCR test. Read the NYT story I linked, then see if your optimism wanes just a bit.

    I really want college sports back. I refuse to watch the pros for various reasons. I remain skeptical that all the powers that be can come to some kind of consensus regarding resumption of play. Once again, the most significant question in Will’s article is about getting California and Oregon on board with easing restrictions.
    I came across this article previously and I think that everyone should read it. However, I don't understand what conclusion I am supposed to draw from your post, because it appears that the other test is an antigen test (not PCR) and is probably the type of tests that the scientists in the article are advocating for.

    Edit: I guessing that the first PCR test was terribly non-specific?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,476

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JPtheBeasta View Post
    I came across this article previously and I think that everyone should read it. However, I don't understand what conclusion I am supposed to draw from your post, because it appears that the other test is an antigen test (not PCR) and is probably the type of tests that the scientists in the article are advocating for.

    Edit: I guessing that the first PCR test was terribly non-specific?
    Just trying to get folks to think. False positives are a real problem. PCR tests are hugely flawed and even if this new test reduces the percentage of false positives dramatically there will still be an issue. Just a couple percentage points of false positives will cause some states, leagues, schools, etc. to shut things down. In other words, if this test reduces false positives to 2% of people tested that's a couple of players or coaches per football team. Will the resulting numbers allow the leagues to move forward? Some will and some won't. That's really the crux of my skepticism. Washington might find it acceptable, but the league won't be complete without USC and UCLA, two schools in a state with more restrictive policies.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    5,093

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Markburn1 View Post
    Just trying to get folks to think. False positives are a real problem. PCR tests are hugely flawed and even if this new test reduces the percentage of false positives dramatically there will still be an issue. Just a couple percentage points of false positives will cause some states, leagues, schools, etc. to shut things down. In other words, if this test reduces false positives to 2% of people tested that's a couple of players or coaches per football team. Will the resulting numbers allow the leagues to move forward? Some will and some won't. That's really the crux of my skepticism. Washington might find it acceptable, but the league won't be complete without USC and UCLA, two schools in a state with more restrictive policies.
    I'd be more than annoyed if my team had to forfeit their game in the tournament due to a false positive, for sure. It was counter intuitive that a less sensitive test would be better but the article made a good case for it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •