Time to use this title. Pressley Harvin :(

[Deleted member 2897]

That AJC report says that the athletes are tested weekly. It doesn't say how soon the results are available. It doesn't say what day of the week.

It is possible that he became sick on the 23rd, and that he wasn't tested until later in the week. That would mean that on the 25th, when the AJC report was written that no athletes had tested positive.

It is possible that he is referring to a relative or loved one and hasn't tested positive.

People are making too hard of conclusions based on too little evidence.

Either way, it doesn't affect me directly and I don't feel as though I have a right to an explanation. I do hope the Pressley or his loved one recovers well and quickly.

I am guessing he doesn’t have it. If he was really sick and not getting tested, that would be a major faux pas. Either that or the press release was wrong.

 

[SteamWhistle]

well thats good news

He might but I mean I feel like we would know for sure if he did. The way the Media freaks over the Corona stuff everyone writer and Atlanta would want to break the story.

 

[RonJohn]

I am guessing he doesn’t have it. If he was really sick and not getting tested, that would be a major faux pas. Either that or the press release was wrong.

As I said in my post: The article by Ken said that they are testing the athletes weekly. It doesn't say what day they are testing. It doesn't say how long it takes for the results to get back. It is possible that an athlete could have been sick eight days ago and no positive tests had been returned six days ago when Ken published the report.

The timeline could easily line up. An athlete could have been tested on the 20th and not scheduled for another weekly test until the 27th. Started feeling bad on the 23rd. Even if tested as a symptomatic person on the 24th, the result might not have been back when Ken got his information.

I am not suggesting that is how things happened. I don't know any details. I am just pointing out that those are not mutually exclusive. Some people are assuming that Ken's report absolutely means that no athlete had the virus in the two weeks up until the 25th. It doesn't mean that. It only means that the two weekly tests in the two weeks prior to the 25th had no positives. There could have been someone positive after the second weeks test. There could have been someone not on campus during the second week. There are probably other loopholes in the "Nobody positive until the 25th" that I can't think of quickly. Some people are assuming that this athlete has the virus. He didn't directly say so in the message. People shouldn't read more into things than what is actually known.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

As I said in my post: The article by Ken said that they are testing the athletes weekly. It doesn't say what day they are testing. It doesn't say how long it takes for the results to get back. It is possible that an athlete could have been sick eight days ago and no positive tests had been returned six days ago when Ken published the report.

The timeline could easily line up. An athlete could have been tested on the 20th and not scheduled for another weekly test until the 27th. Started feeling bad on the 23rd. Even if tested as a symptomatic person on the 24th, the result might not have been back when Ken got his information.

I am not suggesting that is how things happened. I don't know any details. I am just pointing out that those are not mutually exclusive. Some people are assuming that Ken's report absolutely means that no athlete had the virus in the two weeks up until the 25th. It doesn't mean that. It only means that the two weekly tests in the two weeks prior to the 25th had no positives. There could have been someone positive after the second weeks test. There could have been someone not on campus during the second week. There are probably other loopholes in the "Nobody positive until the 25th" that I can't think of quickly. Some people are assuming that this athlete has the virus. He didn't directly say so in the message. People shouldn't read more into things than what is actually known.

I don’t cate what you said. I wasn’t arguing with you. It doesn’t matter if they test once a week on the same day. If someone’s sick you don’t say “sorry, we test on Wednesdays, so you have to wait 4 days until then before you get tested”. That’s the only way the timeline adds up, but nobody in the entire world would run their program that way.

 

[RonJohn]

I don’t cate what you said. I wasn’t arguing with you. It doesn’t matter if they test once a week on the same day. If someone’s sick you don’t say “sorry, we test on Wednesdays, so you have to wait 4 days until then before you get tested”. That’s the only way the timeline adds up, but nobody in the entire world would run their program that way.

I posted an example of exactly how it could have possibly happened. Feeling ill on Sunday. Tested on Monday. Result on Tuesday afternoon. Ken's story posted on Tuesday based on results through Monday. That provides eight days of symptoms and still no positive results before Tuesday morning when Ken got his information. The timeline could add up. You have to believe that:

From a two-week period starting Aug. 10 through Monday, there were no Yellow Jackets athletes who had tested positive for the coronavirus, ...

means that there was nobody who was positive. It doesn't. It means that through August 24th, no positive results were returned. IF an athlete were to get sick on August 23rd and test on August 24th, it is entirely possible that the result would not be back until Tuesday. It is also possible that there could be a false negative on a test taken on Monday.

You are reading too much into sparse information. No positive tests between August 10th and August 24th does not mean nobody had the virus. Feeling effects of the disease on Sunday and being tested on Monday doesn't mean that they were going to "wait 4 days until then before" ...he got ... "tested". Without more information, there is no evidence of malfeasance or conspiracy.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I posted an example of exactly how it could have possibly happened. Feeling ill on Sunday. Tested on Monday. Result on Tuesday afternoon. Ken's story posted on Tuesday based on results through Monday. That provides eight days of symptoms and still no positive results before Tuesday morning when Ken got his information. The timeline could add up. You have to believe that:means that there was nobody who was positive. It doesn't. It means that through August 24th, no positive results were returned. IF an athlete were to get sick on August 23rd and test on August 24th, it is entirely possible that the result would not be back until Tuesday. It is also possible that there could be a false negative on a test taken on Monday.

You are reading too much into sparse information. No positive tests between August 10th and August 24th does not mean nobody had the virus. Feeling effects of the disease on Sunday and being tested on Monday doesn't mean that they were going to "wait 4 days until then before" ...he got ... "tested". Without more information, there is no evidence of malfeasance or conspiracy.

No it doesn’t add up. You don’t go from nothing at all to being extremely sick in 1 day. It takes 3-10 days to contract the virus and then develop symptoms...even longer to get really sick. For him to have been very sick 8 days before he posted that, he would have had to have contracted the virus 3-10 days before that. The only way the math works if it’s he that has it is if he had multiple false negatives. And even that doesn’t work, because the protocols are if you show symptoms you isolate whether you’ve tested positive or not.

The virus and testing doesn’t work the way you describe.

 

[TooTall]

I wasn't sure if you were trolling or being serious earlier but now I'm leaning towards trolling. Honeycombed lungs, heart damage, etc are all permanent and it doesn't really matter what caused it. I'm sure there is some clever person asking how we can know getting run over by a Tesla Model Y causes permanent death even though the Model Y has been out less than a year.

So I'm a troll because I asked a question. Gee doctor douche, thank you!

 

[RonJohn]

No it doesn’t add up. You don’t go from nothing at all to being extremely sick in 1 day. It takes 3-10 days to contract the virus and then develop symptoms...even longer to get really sick. For him to have been very sick 8 days before he posted that, he would have had to have contracted the virus 3-10 days before that. The only way the math works if it’s he that has it is if he had multiple false negatives. And even that doesn’t work, because the protocols are if you show symptoms you isolate whether you’ve tested positive or not.

The virus and testing doesn’t work the way you describe.

The testing does not work the way you describe.

The diagnostic test, known as a “PCR test,” works by detecting genetic material from SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, in the nose and upper throat. A study that examined false-negative rates post-exposure, found that during the four days of infection prior to symptom onset, the probability of a false negative on the PCR test went from 100 percent on Day 1 to 67 percent on Day 4. And even on the day individuals began showing symptoms, the false negative rate was still 38 percent, dropping to 20 percent three days after symptom onset. Of course, much depends on the sensitivity of the particular test being used.

When should I be tested? | MIT Medical

MIT Medical answers your COVID-19 questions. Got a question about COVID-19? Send it to us at [email protected], and we’ll do our best to provide an answer.

medical.mit.edu

And that is for the more accurate PCR test as opposed to the rapid tests. In general, people in the incubation period do not test positive. During the 3-10 days of incubation it is unlikely that there would be a positive result. When a person has active virus that is ready to be spread from them is when it will show up on the test.

You seem to believe that the test results are accurate as soon as the virus enters someone's body. It isn't.

Someone gets infected on Monday. They won't likely get a positive result until they are either spreading or about to spread the virus. They get tested on Wednesday and it is negative. On Sunday they start feeling ill seven days after exposure. On Monday they get tested and it returns a positive result. What doesn't add up?

 

[TooTall]

I wasn't sure if you were trolling or being serious earlier but now I'm leaning towards trolling. Honeycombed lungs, heart damage, etc are all permanent and it doesn't really matter what caused it. I'm sure there is some clever person asking how we can know getting run over by a Tesla Model Y causes permanent death even though the Model Y has been out less than a year.

And you do realize that you said
"Honeycombed lungs, heart damage, etc are all permanent and it doesn't really matter what caused it."
Which is correct. Yet if you attribute it to covid, I think then it matters a while lot where it came from. I mean heart damage come from that first puff of a cigarette in middle school. A quarter pounder with fries etc.

Don't run around saying the sky is falling underless it is 100% falling.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

The testing does not work the way you describe.

When should I be tested? | MIT Medical

MIT Medical answers your COVID-19 questions. Got a question about COVID-19? Send it to us at [email protected], and we’ll do our best to provide an answer.

medical.mit.edu

And that is for the more accurate PCR test as opposed to the rapid tests. In general, people in the incubation period do not test positive. During the 3-10 days of incubation it is unlikely that there would be a positive result. When a person has active virus that is ready to be spread from them is when it will show up on the test.

You seem to believe that the test results are accurate as soon as the virus enters someone's body. It isn't.

Someone gets infected on Monday. They won't likely get a positive result until they are either spreading or about to spread the virus. They get tested on Wednesday and it is negative. On Sunday they start feeling ill seven days after exposure. On Monday they get tested and it returns a positive result. What doesn't add up?

That proves my point.

 

[RonJohn]

That proves my point.

What point is that? As I understood, your point was that a person would get a positive result before they show symptoms thus making it impossible for him to have negative results and 2 days of symptoms before Ken's story. Ken's story was written about results as of Monday, which would have been 1 day after Sunday, which would have been 8 days before today. Entirely possible to have negative test results until a test collected on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, or Saturday then have a sample collected on Monday after displaying symptoms and the results return on Tuesday. I thought the timing couldn't add up. Apparently it can.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

Everyone should chill about the report dates. The details will come out. I'm confident there will not be a cover-up of any kind by GT. More than I can say about others.

Thoughts are with Pressley. There is a lot we don't know about this virus, but it's no joke. It may have mutated to be less lethal and our treatments are preventing more deaths. But the long term side effects for mild symptom cases aren't and can't be known this quick.

 

[MWBATL]

There is a lot we don't know about this virus, but it's no joke. It may have mutated to be less lethal and our treatments are preventing more deaths. But the long term side effects for mild symptom cases aren't and can't be known this quick.

i haven’t seen any stats on long term impacts, only anecdotal stuff (which is NOT data). Would be curious to see them if anyone else has. In today’s supercharged political environment I find I don’t trust much unless I can see the data. I wouldn’t be shocked to discover these long term effects have been grossly exaggerated.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

i haven’t seen any stats on long term impacts, only anecdotal stuff (which is NOT data). Would be curious to see them if anyone else has. In today’s supercharged political environment I find I don’t trust much unless I can see the data. I wouldn’t be shocked to discover these long term effects have been grossly exaggerated.

Remember the QB from Georgia State who is skipping this season because they found a heart issue related to COVID? They expect him to be fully recovered in 2-3 months and ready to play. That remains to be seen, but so far they don’t have a good definition of what long term means.

 

[plangineer]

Also remember there are false negatives. Back in May I got stick and my symptoms checked the boxes off of nearly everything pointing to COVID, but the test came back negative. When the nurse handed me the results and said it was negative, she said at least 3-4 times that false negatives are possible. Took me about a month to get back to 100%.

 

[jacketup]

Also remember there are false negatives. Back in May I got stick and my symptoms checked the boxes off of nearly everything pointing to COVID, but the test came back negative. When the nurse handed me the results and said it was negative, she said at least 3-4 times that false negatives are possible. Took me about a month to get back to 100%.

And there are false positives. A friend's daughter is a nurse. Her group sent in some unused swabs for testing that came back positive.

 

[iopjacket]

Mods, could all of polictical and Covid 19 stuff be moved to the political thread. With a few exceptions, we don't much about football, but at least this is the place for it. We know even less about the other stuff, but please put it where it belongs.

 

[GT_EE78]

Has there been any press release from the team regarding Harvin? or statement about him practicing?
I'm guessing instant gram must require membership as i couldn't find his post after finding the account ....

 

[YJMD]

And there are false positives. A friend's daughter is a nurse. Her group sent in some unused swabs for testing that came back positive.

Did you hear it directly from her? I don't find that a believable story.

 

[AlabamaBuzz]

Also remember there are false negatives. Back in May I got stick and my symptoms checked the boxes off of nearly everything pointing to COVID, but the test came back negative. When the nurse handed me the results and said it was negative, she said at least 3-4 times that false negatives are possible. Took me about a month to get back to 100%.

Sounds like you had it, and it is true that there are significant numbers of false negatives with the swab testing. In our county for example, we now have (along with over 2800 confirmed positives) over 100 that are shown as "probable" based on their symptoms and issues. I don't know what to believe about false positives, but I guess they are also possible, but I would bet those are more likely human errors of some sort, but not sure.