Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes

LakeLivin

Full Member
  • Content Count

    6,866
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    43

About LakeLivin

  • Rank
    Armchair Quarterback

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

3,886 profile views
  1. Prevalence aside, any idea if the issue with false positives could be solved by serial testing? Seems to me like that would depend on how much the false positives are a function of the test vs. how much they're a function of the person being tested. Here's the principle I'm trying to get at (and probably not very well, lol). If the false positives are related mostly to the person being tested, it wouldn't matter how many times you retested a false-positive case; that person would show up as a false positive most of the time. But if they were related mostly to the test, you could re-sample a person who tested positive multiple times, and with each iteration the probability of getting a false positive would go down and you would eventually end up with however much confidence you wanted that the person truly had the disease and was immune (let's ignore the length of immunity issue for now). The number of iterations required to get to the confidence level you wanted would of course depend on the prevalence of the disease in the population at that time. Not sure if that makes sense; if not, don't spend much time on trying to figure out what I'm saying. I just re-read the post and I'm not sure it's 100% clear to me, lol.
  2. Let me double check my understanding of antibody testing. Even if the inferior tests are completely eliminated, the inverse relationship of disease prevalence to false positives means that antibody testing won't likely be a useful tool to identify those that are "safe" from the disease until a relatively large proportion of the population has actually had the disease. Obviously, if tests with a higher degree of specificity were developed that would help, but is that take more or less correct?
  3. My sense is to accept that short term immunity for those who've actually contracted covid-19 isn't a huge concern. But it seems like we still don't have a good enough sense about the accuracy of antibody testing to make it a useful tool in managing covid-19 at this time. From what I'm reading, false positives could be as high as 50%, depending on the disease prevalence in the population. That's particularly disconcerting to me, as I was hoping (maybe naively?) that antibody testing might be one of the more effective tools in mitigating the impact of the disease right now. And yeah, the question of long term immunity is very scary one.
  4. Ok, thanks Rem. I suspect Pesce will still be tricky if he lags much behind the time others can start getting back into game shape. Clearly a 100% Pesce plays. But as gocanes said, it might come down to how well the rest of the D corps are doing. How would a 70% game shape Pesce compare to a 100% TVR or Fleury (he has effectively been playing his off side, hasn't he?)? Any chance a Chex right shot D (Kaskie, McKeown) might get enough of a look to factor into the playoffs? (seems doubtful to me given how Brindy has used young players)
  5. Do you have a feel if that applies not just to contracting the disease, but also to potential long term lung damage if an asthmatic does contract covid-19?
  6. I know Waddell said that Pesce will be close to being ready, but when it comes right down to it, I wonder if the fact that he has asthma, combined with our new found depth, might lead to him not coming back this summer.
  7. Sorry it came across that way to you Jon. The "oops!" emoji was actually meant to make the post a bit more lighthearted. That's one of the problems with online communication, it's often open to different interpretations.
  8. We had a couple conspiracy theorists around here that were more or less convinced Dundon would be moving the team to Houston as soon as he could. Anyone want to own up?
  9. My concern when it comes to positive antibody tests wouldn't be as much with lack of immunity as it would be with accuracy. Do they definitively know the false positive rate for those tests? I hate to think about people going out there thinking they have immunity when in actuality they don't.
  10. Congrats to Bean; that's a pretty substantial honor. Gotta believe that's another nail in Jake Gardiner's coffin with respect to him being on the Canes roster next season. How do you not give Bean a shot, especially still on his ELC?
  11. Agree, and a field of 22 would have been no more a scheduling problem than a field of 24. Including Montreal and Chicago grates against my sense of fairness as well, but it's in the best interest of the players as well as the teams to recoup as much revenue as possible, so given the size of those 2 markets, I've grudgingly accepted the 24 team format. Inclusion in the play-in rounds does lower the lottery odds for Montreal and Chicago with respect to this years draft, so it's not a completely free ride.
  12. I'm guessing that Pesce coming back might take away more time from TVR, another R shot D. If not for "politics", I'd consider starting Fleury on the 3rd pair ahead of Gardiner and Edmundson.
  13. Right D: Hamilton, Pesce, Vatanen, TVR Left D: Slavin, Skjei, Fleury, Gardiner, Edmundson Talk about depth on D, lol.
  14. Return to the stone age, lol? Black or white, all or nothing, eh? We live in a society, and everyone making their own "informed decision" does have certain limitations with respect to our laws. I'm not going to get into an argument as to where that line is with respect to current circumstances; I haven't even resolved that question in my own mind. But I do think all but the most partisan zealots will agree that there is a line somewhere. https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantineisolation.html
×
×
  • Create New...