Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

(WTF?) MLB player tests positive for COVID, but celebrates with team anyway

Rate this topic


Dazzle
 Share

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, Gaudette Celly said:

PCR test inventor Kary Mullis:

 


 

He didn't quote any figures, or even provide a range.

 

I'm still inclined to believe a peer-reviewed journal over this video snippet that is very likely taken out of context and not even relevant to the discussion at hand.

  • Like 2
  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CanuckinEdm said:

Just my opinion and probably alot of you disagree but he has already interacted with the team without any precautions so they have all been exposed already.  What is the difference if he quarantines right then or an hour later, the entire team will need to isolate anyways. 

 

But will they?

 

Conventional wisdom suggests they should, but practical experience and human nature will point towards an incomplete seal, and the likelihood of some "leakage" into the greater community, intentionally or otherwise.

  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CanuckinEdm said:

Just my opinion and probably alot of you disagree but he has already interacted with the team without any precautions so they have all been exposed already.  What is the difference if he quarantines right then or an hour later, the entire team will need to isolate anyways. 

 

While this may make sense, limiting your exposure to other is still a sensible thing to do, IN CASE that you didn't transfer the virus to someone else (there is a chance that you didn't give it to people).

 

But now, you are possibly maximizing the transmission of the virus by joining your teammates.

  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

He didn't quote any figures, or even provide a range.

 

I'm still inclined to believe a peer-reviewed journal over this video snippet that is very likely taken out of context and not even relevant to the discussion at hand.

This is exactly it.

This video talks NOTHING about COVID. Dr. Mullis died in August 2019, so he couldn't have been talking about COVID. Furthermore, the PCR test is used to detect SAR viruses, as per the Reuters link I linked. Thus, this INVALIDATES @Gaudette Celly's claim that PCR is "PROVEN" to be useless. It sounds to me like he doesn't actually know how the PCR test works, and he's taken this video out of context to explain his gaps of knowledge. Very dangerous.

  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CanuckinEdm said:

That is another story.

Actually, it's kind of the same story.  

 

If I were a betting man, I'd buy heavily into the outcome that there will be an incomplete quarantine of the teams (yes, even the Rays) and their close contacts.

 

None of my business though, really.  As long as they don't come north, I really dgaf about the cesspool down south and their ignorant/irresponsible ways.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

While this may make sense, limiting your exposure to other is still a sensible thing to do, IN CASE that you didn't transfer the virus to someone else (there is a chance that you didn't give it to people).

 

But now, you are possibly maximizing the transmission of the virus by joining your teammates.

I would assume that MLB, the Dodgers, and the Rays will all need to extend their visit in the bubble until it is safe to leave.

 

  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's no surprise that the people who claimed to "do their own research" on COVID, namely @Gaudette Celly, are unable to defend their viewpoints based on scientific conjecture. It's indefensible in any position to take sources out of context to validate their own point, WITHOUT yourself having any scientific familiarity with COVID, which I highly doubt he has.

  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, CanuckinEdm said:

Just my opinion and probably alot of you disagree but he has already interacted with the team without any precautions so they have all been exposed already.  What is the difference if he quarantines right then or an hour later, the entire team will need to isolate anyways. 

 

 

29 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

While this may make sense, limiting your exposure to other is still a sensible thing to do, IN CASE that you didn't transfer the virus to someone else (there is a chance that you didn't give it to people).

 

But now, you are possibly maximizing the transmission of the virus by joining your teammates.

He was interacting with his teammates, and to an extent the opposing players, during the game.

however during the celebration family members, and some media were around. More people getting exposed, needlessly.

  • Hydration 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dazzle said:

It's no surprise that the people who claimed to "do their own research" on COVID, namely @Gaudette Celly, are unable to defend their viewpoints based on scientific conjecture. It's indefensible in any position to take sources out of context to validate their own point, WITHOUT yourself having any scientific familiarity with COVID, which I highly doubt he has.

If there's a silver lining to this whole pandemic fiasco is that a lot of people have exposed themselves as ignorant, selfish and, in some cases, batsh!t crazy.

 

Like, if you think it's a hoax that's your prerogative but if you're like "I'M NOT WEARING A MASK BECAUSE THIS IS TYRANNY" you should relax a bit. Self-isolating or wearing a mask isn't trampling on your rights, it's just being safe and logical.

 

People need to get a grip lol

Edited by kanucks25
  • Hydration 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, gurn said:

 

He was interacting with his teammates, and to an extent the opposing players, during the game.

however during the celebration family members, and some media were around. More people getting exposed, needlessly.

That is assuming he has enough of the virus in his system that he would be able to spread anything.

The test they use will test positive for a very small amount of the virus even if it hasn't actually infected the person being tested. just the presence of the virus at a detectable level does not mean it was successfully able to infect the body beyond the nasal cavity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, surtur said:

That is assuming he has enough of the virus in his system that he would be able to spread anything.

The test they use will test positive for a very small amount of the virus even if it hasn't actually infected the person being tested. just the presence of the virus at a detectable level does not mean it was successfully able to infect the body beyond the nasal cavity. 

Source?

 

This is where making statements like this require citation. People are throwing stuff out there like this as fact, when really it's conjecture.

Edited by Dazzle
  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Source?

 

This is where making statements like this require citation. People are throwing stuff out there like this as fact, when really it's conjecture.

Funny thing is one poster saying "test is nfg" other saying "test so good, gets results from almost no virus at all"

 

Irony?

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, gurn said:

Funny thing is one poster saying "test is nfg" other saying "test so good, gets results from almost no virus at all"

 

Irony?

because it was never designed to test like this. hence the false positives. they are not testing if you are infected by the virus they are testing if you have the virus inside you. same results would happen if they took samples from your hands. it would test positive but you would not necessarily be infected.

Edited by surtur
  • Wat 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, surtur said:

because it was never designed to test like this. hence the false positives. they are not testing if you are infected by the virus they are testing if you have the virus inside you. same results would happen if they took samples from your hands. it would test positive but you would not necessarily be infected.

Again, source?

 

PCR is used to test the SAR virus. This contradicts your claim "it was never designed to test like this". https://in.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-pcr/fact-check-inventor-of-method-used-to-test-for-covid-19-didnt-say-it-cant-be-used-in-virus-detection-idUSKBN24420X

  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TNucks1 said:

how is it a hoax?, someone i know caught it.

Because for some reason, it's some kind of a sick joke that many of the covidiots don't catch the virus and, thus, they never get a chance to reflect on their idiocy, though it's very possible that they wouldn't have changed their ways anyway.

Edited by Dazzle
  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...