Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
magpiemaniac

Covid 19 virus inpacts sports, NHL,Season Tix other impacts

Recommended Posts

I just don't know how we got this way as a society.   I just read this on NHL Morning Coffee "the U.S. Acting Director of Homeland Security has signed an order indicating professional athletes are considered essential workers."  I wonder if while they were unemployed if they were able to get an unemployment check or were they eligible for the stimulus checks?   It never ceases to amaze me how my government controls the narrative.  We had a restaurant where I live that was fined $100 last week because they opened the restaurant too soon.   The way the seating area was set up was far safer than any of the athletes getting together to play any sport.  The owners reason for opening was that he could not financially wait any longer or else he would go belly up.  This really bothers me the way this is playing out.   It really is about the money and how much influence those that have it control much of the decision making process.   Like an old buddy of mine told me once.   That we live by the "golden rule".   He who has the gold make the rules.  Anyway....stay safe and yes I will be watching every game regardless.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got a ticket for staying 5.99' away from someone.  Broke the barrier.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, snuffy72 said:

I just don't know how we got this way as a society.   I just read this on NHL Morning Coffee "the U.S. Acting Director of Homeland Security has signed an order indicating professional athletes are considered essential workers."  I wonder if while they were unemployed if they were able to get an unemployment check or were they eligible for the stimulus checks?

I can definitively answer: their high wage disqualified them for the check, unless this is their rookie year in which case last year's wage may be low enough to qualify them.

 

As for "essential."  Well, that's an interesting issue, isn't it?  In past crisis, there has been value placed on playing sports to lift spirits of the population.  Then again, many of those crisis were not due to disease.  Baseball had issues with this in 1918, along with the other sports compared to other crisis such as 9/11.

 

I *do* think we need to look after the SANITY and mental health of our population.  As to whether sports is part of it, I'll leave that open.  But man, people are losing their minds.  They need something that seems normal.

 

Finally, this may be a play against Canada.  Read the statement from the NHL, and they are basically saying: We have some cities in Canada designated for hub play, but they are currently a NO-GO due to the 14 day quarantine requirement.  I make no comment on the political-behavioral aspect of that possibility by the Homeland director.  I'm just pointing it out as a possibility.

Edited by wxray1
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, slapshot02 said:

Georgia Tech fans felt football was essential during the 1918 Spanish Flu.

TSRAHIRX7ZGAXCPU3WY7PUI6UY.jpg

One of the few times they could watch good football 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, slapshot02 said:

Not sure how they Played wearing the masks. Spitting and baseball are hand in hand.

0083a460-96d1-11ea-98c7-f27f0a31a151.jpeg

That's a mistake you only make once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cc said:

And this is EXACTLY as it should be.

Freedom does not include the right to harm or put others at risk. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2020 at 9:06 PM, caniac-1-1 said:

We've just had the two highest days of hospitalization for COVID-19 in the state, an upward trend that started right at phase 1. 

 

A trend, not a blip.

Screenshot_20200527-124955.png

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, cc said:

So.....what do we do about it.   Return to the Stone Age? Huddle in our houses like scared rabbits?   Not me. Everyone can make their own informed decision. 

 

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

Edited by LakeLivin
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No surprise here... I got my antibody test back (from when I donated platelets last week) and I am negative.  I never had any symptoms, so not a surprise.  It will be interesting to see what numbers The Blood Connection get in aggregate.  I doubt we'll be privy to it, but the health authorities likely will get a head's up on this kind of mass testing result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile my wife wants an antibody test because she was sick with a hacking cough in February and her doctors response is whats the point? Doesn't change anything, doesn't change needing to be vigilant, said theres no proof theres immunity and said it doesn't change how he cares for her going forward.

 

Whether theres proof of immunity or not knowing you have antibodies would raise confidence to get back to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, legend-1 said:

Meanwhile my wife wants an antibody test because she was sick with a hacking cough in February and her doctors response is whats the point? Doesn't change anything, doesn't change needing to be vigilant, said theres no proof theres immunity and said it doesn't change how he cares for her going forward.

 

Whether theres proof of immunity or not knowing you have antibodies would raise confidence to get back to it.

Agree.  And my test results page mentions the above in strong language.  I think some people are hoping for a Carte Blanche. 

 

Although a COVID positive is possible from February here, it is very unlikely.  The hotspots are more likely, it wasn't wide spread enough here yet.  What your wife had describes what many of our church friends had in February.  Something was going around, and it wasn't COVID.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2020 at 10:34 AM, remkin said:

 

First, if we can all get Covid again, after all antibodies have formed, then welcome to the apocalypse

Legend, I dug this up 3 pages back and am once again bringing it to the forefront because rem so eloquently phrased it with all his many other rems of details. 1st, in response to the statement you attributed to your wife's doctor, I cannot believe any physician would actually say that "there's no proof of immunity" with this virus? Admittedly, as I'm often reminded and have tried to remind many with whom I've personally spoken as well as have posted on here, the word NOVEL was aptly appended to this coronavirus when it  was first KNOWN to have emerged. Failure of adequate testing then, and still, has left scientists WORLDWIDE in the dark in critical characterization of this disease, Much of this confusion has to be laid in the lap of the rapidity of dissemination of truths, half truths and frank lies. Added to that, the chameleon known only to well to hockey fans as "statistics", which can be twisted to any shape desired by the investigator, adds numbers that in many circles takes on the status of a god, thus making further "experts", and now one has total chaos with regard to true knowledge. The concept of Scientific Proof so critical to understanding, has been eroded by journalistic license to get one nugget of fact, then embellish it for mass consumption of one's readers.

 

Back to your wife's physician after that "soapbox stand", UNLESS she is anergic (unable to form antibodies to a challenge of a foreign substance), I would be shocked if she contracted this virus and had no subsequent immunity.  The use of "convalescent sera" in some of the critical COVID-19 patients, and their eventual salvage says that antibodies are effective, and if so, demonstrates immunity. I suppose one could point to a disease like the common cold sore (a herpes virus), or shingles ( the V-Z virus of chickenpox, another herpesvirus family member), and say that those are examples of immunity failure, but those viruses undergo a dormancy period where the virus "hides out" in nerve cells, thus not exposed to the immune system. But once reactivated, the disease flares, then subsides due to immunity. 

 

So, technically is their "proof of immunity", probably not yet because we're still in this virus' infantile stage, but if there is none, then the End Of Times is upon us.  

Edited by KJUNKANE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KJUN, I think they are just using an "abundance of caution" with regard to immunity claims.  I do think it is wise for anyone anti-body positive to not take their guard down, if anything just in case the mutation issue is in play (like the flu).   Also, there is true pure immunity, and also "strong response" where some symptoms may occur but the body gets ahead of it quickly.   It is postulated that the 1918 flu hit the young adults so bad because they didn't have at least a partial response like their parents did, apparently from some flu around the civil war time.

 

But I'm just blabbing here.  Let me quote the warning from The Blood Connection, which is basically the standard warning going around until more studies are out on this.

 

Quote

Please note, a positive COVID-19 Antibody Test does not mean that you are immune from COVID-19 or any other virus. However, it does mean that you may be eligible to donate convalescent plasma and help those who are still recovering from the virus.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

 

 

Edited by LakeLivin
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, LakeLivin said:

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. 

 

 

I think the warning in the previous post pretty much covers that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NHL is thinking about next season.  Not sure if ya'll got this survey.  Here's what I got.

covidsurvey.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, legend-1 said:

Whether theres proof of immunity or not knowing you have antibodies would raise confidence to get back to it.

Yeah, false confidence. If there's no proof of immunity, having antibodies would be meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, hockeynjune said:

I think the warning in the previous post pretty much covers that. 

Except that to be effective that warning must be (1) read, and (2) believed. And reading and believing known facts (let alone acting on them) is something that part of the population seems incapable of. A small part, but in a pandemic, that's all it takes to infect many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the idea of a problem with the antibody test indicating full immunity is different from the idea that people who have tested positive for the virus and recovered don't have immunity. They almost certainly do, at least for a while. But could the test be indicating a false positive that is picking up something from another corona virus? Possible. The solution is fairly simple. Follow a huge numbers of patients with the positive antibody test and see if any of them get Covid. In high density covid areas, maybe even serially Covid test a subgroup to see if they can carry it. 

 

The idea that total immunity is unproven being such a point of contention is odd. So many things that are so far from proven (actually dead wrong as it turns out) have been declared truth, enough to make unprecedentedly dramatic public policy, but in this case we have to scientifically prove immunity to say that you're probably protected when that's what the overwhelming body of evidence is saying? Recall how long the tobacco companies were able to say that there was no scientific proof that smoking caused lung cancer. Decades. I get the abundance of caution thing. But really what we need is to be honest about the rough degree of certainty there is, convey the actual best estimate of risk, and let people decide. There are some things we really don't know. Is 6 feet the right distance? How many asymptomatic cases are there? What is the level of exposure in the population needed for herd immunity? What will be the long term effect of these lock downs and massive spending? 

 

But there are some things we do know. This is a coronavirus. The incubation period is up to 14 days, but 97.5% who will get symptoms do so by day 11.5. Up to 40% of the deaths in some locations and around 30% of all deaths have occurred in long term care patients. People who contract Covid don't get it again, at least not right away. Yes, as well as we can know something, we know that. 

 

There is a false choice here. In order to "prove" that a person with antibodies is "completely" immune, you'd have to study massive numbers of people and follow them for months. And technically, you'd have to follow every person, which is impossible (in part because huge numbers of covid patients were never even tested), and you couldn't have any exceptions or there wouldn't be complete immunity in everyone. As Kjun points out there are people who don't generate much immune response at all. There are exceptions to nearly everything. Therefore, it can never be proven to an absolute certainty. When you set an unachievable bar, it can never be reached.

 

The actual risk of becoming re-infected with Covid (at least in a window of several months) HAS to be vanishingly small. If there were a significant number of those cases, we'd know. Trust me it would be instantly story #1. And for good reason. Places like NYC have up to 20% infection rate with 200K confirmed cases and probably millions of actual cases. There have to have been large numbers of people who had covid who were seriously re-exposed in NYC alone let alone the entire rest of the entire world. Where are these repeat cases? Why would the incidence of this disease not keep going up up up? What would stop it as more and more people are infected and can then be re infected and thus able to infect and re-infect others, and so on and so on and so on.

 

It is kind of ironic that Blood Connection Statement Xray posted. I paraphrase: Please note that your plasma's antibodies can save a covid patient from near death, but don't think you're safe if you go out there. I understand why they make that statement. But they shouldn't really need to because they are not making a claim that your antibodies protect you. Probably their lawyers trying to protect them from an imagined lawsuit. 

 

I get that people are scared. There is an instinct to tell people what we want them to think for the greater good. I see a lot of that lately. But it ends up backfiring as people eventually figure out that they were deceived, then they overcompensate the other way, and don't trust the next thing you tell them that could be even more important. Tell them the best available information. Let them decide what do do with it.  If I were forced to pick a person to cough in my face while I breath deep, I'd pick someone who had recovered from Covid 100% of the time.

 

At least for now, all of the evidence points to near complete immunity if a person has had the disease and recovered. Another prediction, this will be more and more "proven" over time. In the end, it's another problem with an unknown denominator. If there are exceptions, ideally we'd know then all so we can give a percentage chance of being reinfected. Like .00000003%. But I've got news for you. Even in far more contained diseases these "proven" numbers have a range, and sometimes a big range. It's frustrating, but it's medical science as it stands. But I digress. Whatever the number is, even if it's not zero, it's pretty close to zero.

 

But there is an actual important question still on the table. One that still lends itself to plenty of fear:

 

The actual remaining question is not are you immune if you've recovered? The real question, and it's answer is it's own kind of scary, is: "How long does your immunity last?". It's pretty obvious that it's at least 6 months. But after that speculation is wide. Some corona viruses immunity seems to last about one season or around a year give or take. Others appear to be a few years. This leads to the idea put out there that Covid will always be with us as it can flair up later after immunity may have faded. Most likely this is in pockets though as some will still have immunity. Also, there might be some attenuation from a vaccine, and there is a tenancy of long lasting viruses to mutate to a less virulent form.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, remkin said:

I think that the idea of a problem with the antibody test indicating full immunity is different from the idea that people who have tested positive for the virus and recovered don't have immunity.

Yes.  There is work to be done here, including following those who were never sick, but have antibodies, and those who were tested positive for COVID-19.

 

Quote

It is kind of ironic that Blood Connection Statement Xray posted. I paraphrase: Please note that your plasma's antibodies can save a covid patient from near death, but don't think you're safe if you go out there. I understand why they make that statement. But they shouldn't really need to because they are not making a claim that your antibodies protect you. Probably their lawyers trying to protect them from an imagined lawsuit. 

Yes, I posted their latest statement.  It has undergone change over the last two weeks.  Lawyers at work for sure!  It is written somewhat comically, though, isn't it?

 

BTW, based on earlier language, I think they are tentative based on the unstudied effect of anti-body only people (never tested positive for active disease).  They are using a university based test from SC that supposedly is good and doesn't have a false positive issue.  But, like all antibody tests, none are fully FDA approved (by the old standards) yet.

 

 

Quote

 

The actual remaining question is not are you immune if you've recovered? The real question, and it's answer is it's own kind of scary, is: "How long does your immunity last?". It's pretty obvious that it's at least 6 months. But after that speculation is wide. Some corona viruses immunity seems to last about one season or around a year give or take. Others appear to be a few years. This leads to the idea put out there that Covid will always be with us as it can flair up later after immunity may have faded. Most likely this is in pockets though as some will still have immunity. Also, there might be some attenuation from a vaccine, and there is a tenancy of long lasting viruses to mutate to a less virulent form.

 

I think this is the key and whether we could be going through cycles until we get a vaccine.  But it is unfolding before our eyes.

 

My biggest fear right now is whether there are lingering effects from this beast.  My cousin who had polio in '52 got weird issues in recent years before his death.  We all know about chickenpox and shingles.  Etc.  What kind of havoc can this beast wreck on our bodies that pops up decades later?  I don't like the nerve involvement (loss of taste, brain fog, etc.)  That could have later effects.

 

On a personal note, I have cold sores, a form of herpes.  I know all the ways to coax it out of its hiding, and have learned to avoid them.  Hope this beast doesn't decide to take up residence anywhere.

Edited by wxray1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, remkin said:

. . .

But could the test be indicating a false positive that is picking up something from another corona virus? Possible. The solution is fairly simple. Follow a huge numbers of patients with the positive antibody test and see if any of them get Covid. In high density covid areas, maybe even serially Covid test a subgroup to see if they can carry it. 

. . .

The actual remaining question is not are you immune if you've recovered? The real question, and it's answer is it's own kind of scary, is: "How long does your immunity last?". It's pretty obvious that it's at least 6 months. But after that speculation is wide. Some corona viruses immunity seems to last about one season or around a year give or take. Others appear to be a few years. This leads to the idea put out there that Covid will always be with us as it can flair up later after immunity may have faded. Most likely this is in pockets though as some will still have immunity. Also, there might be some attenuation from a vaccine, and there is a tenancy of long lasting viruses to mutate to a less virulent form.

 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/28/2020 at 11:15 AM, wxray1 said:

KJUN, I think they are just using an "abundance of caution" with regard to immunity claims.  I do think it is wise for anyone anti-body positive to not take their guard down, if anything just in case the mutation issue is in play (like the flu).   Also, there is true pure immunity, and also "strong response" where some symptoms may occur but the body gets ahead of it quickly.   It is postulated that the 1918 flu hit the young adults so bad because they didn't have at least a partial response like their parents did, apparently from some flu around the civil war time.

 

But I'm just blabbing here.  Let me quote the warning from The Blood Connection, which is basically the standard warning going around until more studies are out on this.

 

 

Okay, wxray and others on this issue of antibody "accuracy", soundness or whatever thoughts on this matter, let me 1st apologize for my part in the continued confusion, then retry to give you all a laboratorians' perspective. 1st, let me hasten to explain that the vast majority of the clinicians with whom I deal don't think in these terms, but simply "sensitivity" and "specificity" of a test. While those 2 dynamics are critical for any test, "sensitivity" referring to if a disease is present, no matter at what minimal response a person manifests, you'd want to detect it; while "specificity" refers to the fact that we want the test to be discriminatory enough that it won't cross react with other similar diseases. As one can see with these 2 test characteristics, they are a tradeoff, thus if a test is too sensitive, one loses specificity(increased False Positives), and the opposite if too specific, than one loses sensitivity(increased FALSE NEGATIVE). 

 

Be those parameters as they may, the real crux of the issue goes one step further, and its related to PREVALENCE of the disease being tested for by "antibody assessment", thus the higher the prevalence of the disease in question, the more "accurate" the test result(likelihood there is immunity). To give an example of this to clarify, let's use a population of 100,000 for ease of numbers. Then lets say that the prevalence of COVID-19 in this 100K town is 5% (5% of population has the disease), so that means in this town, 5K have/had this disease, survived and thus have protective antibody. By extrapolation, 95K are non-infected, thus no protective antibody.  Now lets take a test claimed to be performing (and note, this is the manufacture's claim) at 95% specificity, which is relatively good. Take this 1 step further, multiply the 95K by 95% and you arrive at 4750 who by the very noted performance of the test broadcast by the manufacturer are "falsely positive". Thus, if the prevalence of the disease is low in a population (we used 5%), then the so called "accuracy" (in laboratorian jargon known as Positive Predictive Value) for this theoretical test is 4750/9750(4750 false positive and 5000 true=9750), or only 49% accuracy!!!  This is about the equivalence of a coin flip!!! For this reason, this is why some are saying that "just because one tests positive for this protective antibody, that you should be "precautious". 

 

So in conclusion, my mistake when I read that an antibody might not be "protective", was to interpret that to mean that someone is questioning the protective ability of a LEGITIMATE antibody (one that is truly an antibody), which I believe it is, rather than the some flawed test result for the reason I've discussed above. Also I note that one of you talks of mutation and possible loss of protection, but as yet, I've not seen this but rather what is referred to as "genetic drift", meaning MINOR CHANGE in genomic makeup. This does not mean enough change to thwart the antibody like occurs with influenza at present.

 

Now, the next question one should ask is, How do we improve on predictive value, and the answer to that is when the prevalence of a disease becomes more widespread in a given community? That is, more people are exposed and survive, a somewhat scary proposition in this very confusing coronavirus scourge.

 

One further comment, recall above that I interjected a comment "manufacturer's claim", and I did so for one purpose. This comment should not be viewed as my trying to impugn any manufacturer's honesty, but rather to emphasize that when all else is said and done, they want to sell a product, thus often times take the most favorable results to broadcast. From my reading, many claims of sensitivity and specificity are not holding up under more intensive investigations? Imagine that?

 

PS- I had not read rem's response above as I took several hours typing, but hope mine further clarifies his from my laboratorian viewpoint.   

Edited by KJUNKANE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, LakeLivin said:

 

From what I'm reading, false positives could be as high as 50%, depending on the disease prevalence in the population.

EDIT: KJUN in his post (parallel with mine) explained why PREVALENCE matters when looking at whole populations versus one test.  Thank you guys!

 

Then there is the actual TEST.  There is no "one" test for antibodies.  There are something like over 200 tests developed for antibodies.  These all fall under an emergency measure by the FDA to allow them to be used.  I.E., there is no efficacy study on these.  It is the wild west! 

 

The Blood Connection's test is done in partnership with MUSC.  Is this a good test?  I don't know.  They seem to take some care.  There are details at the link.  It is a two stage test in that they know of the false positive problem of identifying just about every type of coronavirus out there.  So, after they get a positive, they do further vetting.  I'm sure it is important for the blood connection to have a decent one so that they don't start drawing a bunch of useless convalescent plasma.  As for false negatives?  Who knows.  I keep hearing it can run around 15%.

 

EDIT: the "two stage" testing is interesting in light of KJUN's post regarding specificity and sensitivity.

Edited by wxray1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...