Is Conor still elegible for the Brownlow?
1 Like
Alright, here’s what happened.
He only had the virus in 1 nostril!
Previously they have been testing the non-covid nostril, and it was getting sore, so he told them to use the other nostril, but they only got a little bit of covid so the results were inconclusive.
Then when they came back the next day they did such a big swab on the covid-nostril, that they got ALL of it, and they next time he was tested he was clean.
Makes sense when you think about it.
2 Likes
People who use these medical tests as proof, are talking rubbish. My daughter had several parts of her liver removed because tests showed they were cancerous. After the operation they tested the sections removed which showed they had never been cancerous.
2 Likes
Sounds like a terrible experience
1 Like
As a diseaseographer ( diseaseologists are a profession with low entry standards IMO) the results are basically binary.
They can show disease load, but inaccurately - it depends too much on how much snot you manage to collect.
The PCR tests are pretty accurate IN LAB CONDITIONS - one thing they’re good at is not misreading an infected person as a negative.
However they can still give false positives - around 4%.
Real world testing is another matter, as many others have posted about.
The only way to make sense of it all is to remember we’re dealing with biology- human & viral - and there’s a shitload we don’t fully understand.
Which reduces most things to probabilities, rather than certainties.
Exceptional cases can and will happen far outside the norm.
But you can’t plan for them.
Eg - not every drafted forward will be Coleman.
Nor every Pick 79 James Hird. They’re more probably going to be Balraj Singh, Adelaide’s pick 79 in 1999.
1 Like
You can tell hadders was just performing for his rabid NSW league diehards when he was slaggin off at typical covid-infected-in-denial-victorians. This NSW v Victoria thing is embarrassing. Anyone who suggests NSWelshmen are better or different to Victorians is an obvious bonehead.
From our view up here in the sunshine state we know for a fact all you southerners are a swarm of similar sickos from the same swamp.
Can you tell Swan and Sutton that?
So confused.
Pfft.
Even the diseaseographer admits he doesn’t know.
All science is bunk.
I think he was saying that it’s perfectly normal to be negative when you first get it because the viral load is too low. then the tests were positive because the load was increased and now it’s low again. According to him Essendon want it declared a false positive so they can shorten the quarantine. As I say, he was quite snide about essendon - almost ASADAish.
2 Likes
Which is all very good if this had occurred over the typical 7 to 14 days.
That it was such a compressed timeline is the interesting issue, that doesn’t really fit the narrative.
He could explain it by admitting Conor may be a statistical outlier, but medical professionals don’t like discussing probabilities in public - we’re obviously too stupid to understand those, so shut up and accept my authority as Cartman would say.
3 Likes
Which probably is what happens in younger people.
The only circumstances a positive result like this is likely to be captured, i.e.: young person, no symptoms, hasn’t infected anybody, is in circumstances like Conor’s.
Not many young healthy people have been tested constantly for Covid 19, and we know that younger people mostly barely get sick, if at all.
Don’t forget, there has been question marks if teenagers and younger even get Covid 19. We now know they do, albeit rarely, but there is every likelihood they do often get infected briefly, but their young immune system/less susceptible physiology usually fights it off easily.
1 Like
I think Dr Swan needs to revise the effect low prevalence of a disease in a tested cohort has on positive predictive value (proportion of positive tests that truely have the disease)
Eg. test is 99% specificity only false positive in 1% or 10 in 1000
if the true positive is 1 in 1000 in the AFL players
then positive predictive value of the test is 1/11 = 9%.
ie. for every 1 true positive player test there will be 10 false positives.
The problem is the AFL is using the test as a screening test in a low prevalence population which I suspect has never been scientifically validated.
Sutton is a public health officer (usually happier with statistics than patients) who just wants to isolate anyone who could have the slightest chance of having Covid19.
5 Likes
If we assume that Conor now has antibodies and is also a medical miracle who can destroy covid within 2 days shouldn’t we be encouraging him to keep spitting and snotting so that he can share his saliva superpowers with others?
Yes. If the grass becomes immune it will gradually pass that onto everyone else.
2 Likes
So no News then?
1 Like
Oh dear its my old mate Norman Swan…
Based on what was said, all the negative test results prior to the Friday one could have been false negatives because false positives are very uncommon. It is more likely that the virus was not detected than it being detected incorrectly (Actually makes sense).
False negatives…thats interesting…
so does this apply to conor only because if the 1000000 of people testing coming back negative are actually positive because the next test they dont have because they are negative would be positive as the negative previous test is unreliable then how do you know you actually have it…because you could but seeing you didnt have a second test you wouldnt know lol
4 Likes
Well these two statements are contradictory. Who is right - Normal Swan or WindsockBoy?
(Money on WSB because I have also heard Norman Swan say previously there was a very low false negative rate, but a relatively high false positive - he seems to have got himself a bit jumbled somewhere.)
if it was 2 horse race
WSB 2,s on
Norman swan…no one willing to even ride him…lol
False negatives may make sense but surely the virus doesn’t just become prevalent enough to test + for what, 2 days, then disappear again?
1 Like
Brett Kirk is that you?
1 Like