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

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


Dazzle

Recommended Posts

Just now, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

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.

That is another story.

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.

 

  • Cheers 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.

  • Cheers 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.

  • Cheers 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
  • Cheers 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
  • Cheers 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

  • Cheers 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
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Dazzle said:

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

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/pcr-positives-what-do-they-mean/

“PCR detection of viruses is helpful so long as its accuracy can be understood: it offers the capacity to detect RNA in minute quantities, but whether that RNA represents infectious virus may not be clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, surtur said:

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/pcr-positives-what-do-they-mean/

“PCR detection of viruses is helpful so long as its accuracy can be understood: it offers the capacity to detect RNA in minute quantities, but whether that RNA represents infectious virus may not be clear.

So, I acknowledge this University of Oxford source, yet Turner had full KNOWLEDGE that he was positive (according to the PCR test) and STILL went out anyway. Thus, he has left it to chance whether or not he was truly infectious (No one has the definitive answer).

 

He has thus demonstrated that he is reckless and selfish. Much of the COVID spreading has been due to lack of due diligence. Turner did NOT demonstrate due diligence.

 

On one hand, rejecting the PCR test means we have one less test to detect COVID. On the other hand, we also CANNOT guarantee that he is NOT an infectious vector either.

 

Your point is thus nullified. Stay the &^@# away from people if you're PCR positive.

 

 

Edited by Dazzle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dazzle said:

So, I acknowledge this University of Oxford source, yet Turner had full KNOWLEDGE that he was positive (according to the PCR test) and STILL went out anyway. Thus, he has left it to chance whether or not he was truly infectious (No one has the definitive answer).

 

He has thus demonstrated that he is reckless and selfish. Much of the COVID spreading has been due to lack of due diligence. Turner did NOT demonstrate due diligence.

 

On one hand, rejecting the PCR test means we have one less test to detect COVID. On the other hand, we also CANNOT guarantee that he is NOT an infectious vector either.

 

Your point is thus nullified. Stay the &^@# away from people if you're PCR positive.

 

 

I think it was the team that said he should go out and celebrate wasn't it? And to be fair to the guy the chances of him exposing everyone else on the team while in the locker room, or going for lunch etc is extremely high so if he did spread it, chances are it was spread long before this interaction. It doesn't just become more contagious once your test comes back positive. 

 

I am in no way dismissing the PCR test completely because when done correctly it does detect the virus but it needs to be used in conjunction with a list of symptoms and or additional lab testing completed to have any sort of value. 

What would be the point of testing for something that if you have no symptoms and the virus has not been able to replicate and actually infect you?

it still remains to be seen if you can spread these inactive viruses to other people and if they can still infect others or if they are just testing positive to the same inactive virus as the host did. 

This is why symptoms matter. 

 

So my point is not nullified in any way.

 

How many of these positive cases are from people breathing in a dead virus and then testing positive because they were forced to take a test for work? 

That is the issue with the PCR test as a stand alone for determining positive cases.

Edited by surtur
Spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, surtur said:

I think it was the team that said he should go out and celebrate wasn't it? And to be fair to the guy the chances of him exposing everyone else on the team while in the locker room, or going for lunch etc is extremely high so if he did spread it, chances are it was spread long before this interaction. It doesn't just become more contagious once your test comes back positive. 

 

I am in no way dismissing the PCR test completely because when done correctly it does detect the virus but it needs to be used in conjunction with a list of symptoms and or additional lab testing completed to have any sort of value. 

What would be the point of testing for something that if you have no symptoms and the virus has not been able to replicate and actually infect you?

it still remains to be seen if you can spread these inactive viruses to other people and if they can still infect others or if they are just testing positive to the same inactive virus as the host did. 

This is why symptoms matter. 

 

So my point is not nullified in any way.

 

How many of these positive cases are from people breathing in a dead virus and then testing positive because they were forced to take a test for work? 

That is the issue with the PCR test as a stand alone for determining positive cases.

Nope, he defied protocol, which MLB is investigating btw. https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/30211683/mlb-justin-turner-disregarded-coronavirus-protocols

 

"...it is clear that Turner chose to disregard the agreed-upon joint protocols and the instructions he was given regarding the safety and protection of others. While a desire to celebrate is understandable, Turner's decision to leave isolation and enter the field was wrong and put everyone he came in contact with at risk. When MLB Security raised the matter of being on the field with Turner, he emphatically refused to comply."

 

So, the problem is, if the PCR test says you are positive, you are positive, for intents and purposes. The fact that he violated this idea, regardless of what you think the accuracy of the PCR test fares when testing corona, is the big point.

Assuming "well, the team was probably gonna get it anyway" is not scientific. In fact, assuming that corona virus will go away ala Trump isn't going to fix the problem. Thus, we have the mantra "assume makes an ass out of u and me".

 

He shouldn't have gone onto the field regardless if the PCR test is accurate or not - bottom line. As for your bolded sentence - do you have a better way of testing COVID? The problem is that people like Turner didn't give a crap about whether he was infectious or not. Stop making excuses for these people.

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Nope, he defied protocol, which MLB is investigating btw. https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/30211683/mlb-justin-turner-disregarded-coronavirus-protocols

 

"...it is clear that Turner chose to disregard the agreed-upon joint protocols and the instructions he was given regarding the safety and protection of others. While a desire to celebrate is understandable, Turner's decision to leave isolation and enter the field was wrong and put everyone he came in contact with at risk. When MLB Security raised the matter of being on the field with Turner, he emphatically refused to comply."

 

So, the problem is, if the PCR test says you are positive, you are positive, for intents and purposes. The fact that he violated this idea, regardless of what you think the accuracy of the PCR test fares when testing corona, is the big point.

Assuming "well, the team was probably gonna get it anyway" is not scientific. In fact, assuming that corona virus will go away ala Trump isn't going to fix the problem. Thus, we have the mantra "assume makes an ass out of u and me".

 

He shouldn't have gone onto the field regardless if the PCR test is accurate or not - bottom line. As for your bolded sentence - do you have a better way of testing COVID? The problem is that people like Turner didn't give a crap about whether he was infectious or not. Stop making excuses for these people.

 

 

 

 

 

I am not saying he didn't break protocol.

 

Actually it is more science than what all the fears are based on.

And you dont seem to get it a positive test doesn't mean active virus.

Read a virology text book if you have some time it is rather interesting.

 

The assumption is that prior to the positive test these players interact in very close proximity and if the virus is so  contagious they have all been exposed to it already.

 

 

 

Edited by surtur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, surtur said:

 

I am not saying he didn't break protocol.

 

Actually it is more science than what all the fears are based on.

And you dont seem to get it a positive test doesn't mean active virus.

Read a virology text book if you have some time it is rather interesting.

 

The assumption is that prior to the positive test these players interact in very close proximity and if the virus is so  contagious they have all been exposed to it already.

 

 

 

It doesn't MATTER if it means the virus is active or not for a PCR positive result, because there ISN'T any guarantee that the subject is infectious or not at this point in time. Thus, he should be considered infectious for the sake of safety. Unless a PCR test fails to detect a COVID negative person from having COVID, this isn't the time to make a point about a PCR test being reliable or not.

 

Furthermore, even if we were to take this assumption, he has spread it to his wife (she was going to get it any way, let's face it), and likely members of the media who DID come into close contact with him. He was very reckless in his behaviour. No one asked for him to spread his germs, but he didn't give a rat's ass.

 

So I re-iterated, the PCR test did its job. It's up to people to follow the science or not. And it seems like people would rather take the chance of infecting others, and would rather squabble about the PCR test POSSIBLY detecting COVID fragments that may or may not infect other people.

COVID is still not well understood and affects people differently, it seems. Most/many people have recovered, but a lot of people have also died and/or living with crippling side effects. Some of those people are presumably young healthy people. And no one knows WHY. So why is it so hard to stay cautious?

Edited by Dazzle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...