Sign in to follow this  
cuporbust

Virtanen showing immaturity once again.

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, gurn said:

That was not the entire quote from Tanev, at least in the tape of the TEAM 1040. Tanev goes on to take the sting out of the above by mentioning it was much like going to a grocery store. So some mixed messaging from Chris.

So not throwing your teammate under the bus in public?  Seems reasonable enough and I'm sure things were sorted out behind closed doors, like they should be.

  • Hydration 1
  • Huggy Bear 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/1/2020 at 8:39 PM, Silky mitts said:

Nothing wrong with this at all. The club is under restrictions, this is the same as going to a cactus club. 

 

Dr.Bonnie Henry says it's ok its ok,

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/canucks-tanev-virtanen-mistake-nightclub

 

Well, I more concerned his own teammates think it was a dumbazz move to be honest.

 

 

Also, to ur comment he will be tested before he plays so sho cares....... 

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/coronavirus-test-false-negative-1.5610114

 

 

And also, exposing urself like that while taking zero precautions makes the likelyhood u wont be available to play higher. I'll stand by my immaturity assessment.  Anyways...  

Edited by cuporbust
  • Upvote 1
  • Vintage 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/1/2020 at 8:39 PM, MoneypuckOverlord said:

he should be able to do whatever he wants in his own private time.  If we continue this, potential UFA's wouldn't even want to play here.  

Yeah well, like that would be anything new, for the longest time we had to overpay to get guys to play here.

However, JV does still need to mature a bit still and he's got leaders around to help with that, meh he'll be fine.

 JV should be paying attention and push himself hard, Hogs n Podz will be here soon and if he wants to make top 6 even he better keep upping his game or if he's topped out (which i hardly think it the case) he'll end up a career 3rd line, he does have 2nd line potential BUT if he makes it, it has to be from a lot more hard work. 

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, guntrix said:

So let me get this straight. The Canucks have already gone out and said that they've addressed the matter privately with Virtanen, which I doubt is a pat on the back.

 

Tanev then comes out and explicitly tells the media that it was a mistake, pointing out that players have to "keep everyone in mind" and that the club wants to "create a safe environment for everyone." 

 

Yet posters still can't grasp the notion that the NHL is attempting to create a bubble tournament. Stress on attempting because 35 NHL players have tested positive as of July 6th. 

 

PS. For those saying that getting tested before joining the team nullifies Jake's adventure, remember that tests are roughly 70% accurate. A 30% chance of a false negative is nothing to scoff at. The Blues, for example, have already shut down their training facilities due to players testing positive, and worries about a greater spread have arisen as the public also uses the Centene Ice Center. 

 

But swagger amiright. 

 

 

So the tests they are using are about 70% accurate? Interesting. I understand that the USA was originally using some extremely inaccurate home grown tests at first, due to politics, but I was under the impression that they were now using more accurate tests. Where did you get that 70% number?

  • Vintage 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, WeneedLumme said:

So the tests they are using are about 70% accurate? Interesting. I understand that the USA was originally using some extremely inaccurate home grown tests at first, due to politics, but I was under the impression that they were now using more accurate tests. Where did you get that 70% number?

Tanev mentions that Jake was tested twice and both tests were negative. Looks like the testing protocol does try to compensate for the inaccuracy of the tests. 

  • Vintage 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Toews said:

Tanev mentions that Jake was tested twice and both tests were negative. Looks like the testing protocol does try to compensate for the inaccuracy of the tests. 

I am sure it does. But I was wondering just how accurate the tests are, since 70% accuracy would only improve to about 90% through 2 tests, which is still pretty poor. So my question is, does that 70% quoted actually have a source, or was it just plucked out of the air?

Share this post


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

I am sure it does. But I was wondering just how accurate the tests are, since 70% accuracy would only improve to about 90% through 2 tests, which is still pretty poor. So my question is, does that 70% quoted actually have a source, or was it just plucked out of the air?

I thought he has taken 2 tests.  I am not sure where I heard this but I think it would be the case.  Does anyone know for sure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, WeneedLumme said:

I am sure it does. But I was wondering just how accurate the tests are, since 70% accuracy would only improve to about 90% through 2 tests, which is still pretty poor. So my question is, does that 70% quoted actually have a source, or was it just plucked out of the air?

Tests for Asymptomatic carriers are the ones that are not accurate (not saying Jake was one).  They need to be tested repeatedly to ensure they aren't positive.  Incubation period is 2 weeks though if they haven't detected anything by 4 or 5 days, he should be in the clear.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, WeneedLumme said:

So the tests they are using are about 70% accurate? Interesting. I understand that the USA was originally using some extremely inaccurate home grown tests at first, due to politics, but I was under the impression that they were now using more accurate tests. Where did you get that 70% number?

Here are some fairly recent sources:

 

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/covid-19-tests-likely-only-accurate-70-per-cent-of-the-time-health-experts-warn

 

https://www.canadianhealthcarenetwork.ca/sensitivity-of-diagnostic-tests-for-covid-19-could-be-as-low-as-70

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/6940871/coronavirus-prince-edward-county-man-testing/

 

There are more.

 

In fact, if you go get yourself tested and you ask whoever's testing you for more information, they'll tell you about the test accuracy and the fact that patients shouldn't use test results as absolutes (this is for the virus test, not sure what the accuracy rate is for the antibody test).

Share this post


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

Here are some fairly recent sources:

 

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/covid-19-tests-likely-only-accurate-70-per-cent-of-the-time-health-experts-warn

 

https://www.canadianhealthcarenetwork.ca/sensitivity-of-diagnostic-tests-for-covid-19-could-be-as-low-as-70

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/6940871/coronavirus-prince-edward-county-man-testing/

 

There are more.

 

In fact, if you go get yourself tested and you ask whoever's testing you for more information, they'll tell you about the test accuracy and the fact that patients shouldn't use test results as absolutes (this is for the virus test, not sure what the accuracy rate is for the antibody test).

The most recent of those stories was 2 months ago, the others were 3 months ago. They mentioned that they were still working on improving sampling procedures and testing methods, and I certainly hope they have improved them since then.

 

Hopefully in Canada we are not making the same boneheaded decision that the USA made early on, choosing to use ineffective homegrown tests rather than the better tests that were available even then. Tossing a coin without even bothering to test is 50% accurate, so 70% accuracy is pathetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, WeneedLumme said:

The most recent of those stories was 2 months ago, the others were 3 months ago. They mentioned that they were still working on improving sampling procedures and testing methods, and I certainly hope they have improved them since then.

 

Hopefully in Canada we are not making the same boneheaded decision that the USA made early on, choosing to use ineffective homegrown tests rather than the better tests that were available even then. Tossing a coin without even bothering to test is 50% accurate, so 70% accuracy is pathetic.

2 months is a minimal period of time in the medical world. 

 

The reason for the $&!#show in the US is not so much the tests' accuracy rate, but the fact that people are refusing to listen to medical advice and are going about life as if the virus didn't exist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, guntrix said:

2 months is a minimal period of time in the medical world. 

 

The reason for the $&!#show in the US is not so much the tests' accuracy rate, but the fact that people are refusing to listen to medical advice and are going about life as if the virus didn't exist. 

Which is all because of the politics down there. People look for guidance from the "leadership" when there is none.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, guntrix said:

2 months is a minimal period of time in the medical world. 

 

The reason for the $&!#show in the US is not so much the tests' accuracy rate, but the fact that people are refusing to listen to medical advice and are going about life as if the virus didn't exist. 

Two of the three articles you posted were from early April, half the Covid pandemic ago. The first Covid tests were developed within days of the genetic sequencing of the virus being available, very early in the year.

 

There are now many different Covid tests in use around the world, with varying degrees of accuracy. Implying that they have not been improved throughout the course of the pandemic and are all equal in effectiveness and accuracy is silly.

 

Part of the reason the pandemic hit the USA so hard is that early in the pandemic, due to political expediency, they were using a homegrown test that was no better than a coin toss, rather than a significantly better test available from the WHO.

 

Consequently, many Americans received false negative tests and went on to spread the virus far and wide.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, WeneedLumme said:

Two of the three articles you posted were from early April, half the Covid pandemic ago. The first Covid tests were developed within days of the genetic sequencing of the virus being available, very early in the year.

 

There are now many different Covid tests in use around the world, with varying degrees of accuracy. Implying that they have not been improved throughout the course of the pandemic and are all equal in effectiveness and accuracy is silly.

 

Part of the reason the pandemic hit the USA so hard is that early in the pandemic, due to political expediency, they were using a homegrown test that was no better than a coin toss, rather than a significantly better test available from the WHO.

 

Consequently, many Americans received false negative tests and went on to spread the virus far and wide.

There's a big difference between creating a test and perfecting its accuracy rate. The test is still 70% effective, you can find out yourself by getting tested (which is much easier to do nowadays than it was 4 months ago) and asking whoever's administering the test to give you more information, which you're entitled to receive. 

 

Sure, part of the reason for USA's troubles are the false negative tests, but that's not even close to the main reason. There's an incredibly sizable portion of the population walking around like nothing's happening. People are mingling in large groups. People are refusing to wear masks. People are now demonizing Governors and medical experts for telling people to stay cautious. 

 

I'm not saying I don't agree with your concerns because I do. They're valid. But it doesn't make the current reality any less true. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spoiler

 

70% accuracy for a  COVID PCR test (nasal pharyngeal) is accurate for the current tests we are using in BC. If you are symptomatic and have a positive test, you need two negative tests to show that you do not have COVID-19. This accuracy has been know for months and is part of the reason why the "just test everyone" narrative in April/May was considered a poor approach to virus isolation. From the BC CDC:

 

http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Professionals-Site/Documents/COVID19_InterpretingTesting_Results_NAT_PCR.pdf

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2020 at 8:49 AM, dpn1 said:

I thought he has taken 2 tests.  I am not sure where I heard this but I think it would be the case.  Does anyone know for sure?

Quoted from Healthline: "The RT-PCR nasopharyngeal tests are more widely used and more familiar. Most involve sticking a 6-inch swab deep into your nose to collect virus samples to test.

However, some more recently approved RT-PCR tests seek to avoid the discomfort associated with the nasopharyngeal swab tests by allowing samples to be collected via a shallow swab of the nose or by testing saliva for the presence of the virus.

If performed correctly, RT-PCR swab tests “would be pretty close to 100 percent accurate,” Volk told Healthline.

“We should be diagnosing people with PCR tests because they are the most accurate,” added Dr. Christina Wojewoda, a pathologist at the University of Vermont and vice chair of CAP’s microbiology committee.

 

(I think the 2 week quarantine is to allow symptoms to emerge or the covid to build up to measurable swabs.

My hypothesis anyways.)

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2020 at 2:54 AM, guntrix said:

Tanev then comes out and explicitly tells the media that it was a mistake, pointing out that players have to "keep everyone in mind" and that the club wants to "create a safe environment for everyone." 

Tanev also said it was like going to the store. 

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/9/2020 at 3:59 PM, guntrix said:

2 months is a minimal period of time in the medical world. 

 

The reason for the $&!#show in the US is not so much the tests' accuracy rate, but the fact that people are refusing to listen to medical advice and are going about life as if the virus didn't exist. 

They elected Mr Donald Rump so that shouldn't surprise anyone,  f'n unspeakably lame as that really is............ 

Brings "stupid' to a whole new level 

Edited by iceman64
  • Confused 1

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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.