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

[surtur]

9 hours ago, Dazzle said:

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?

Testing healthy people when there is zero scientific evidence that asymptomatic hosts even have an active virus is pointless, that is the problem with PCR tests they need to be used in conjunction with symptoms.

The detection of non viable viral loads just tells you that there are trace elements of the virus in the host and that is all.

If he is coughing all over his teammates then its scientifically a problem. 

[Dazzle]

2 hours ago, surtur said:

Testing healthy people when there is zero scientific evidence that asymptomatic hosts even have an active virus is pointless, that is the problem with PCR tests they need to be used in conjunction with symptoms.

The detection of non viable viral loads just tells you that there are trace elements of the virus in the host and that is all.

If he is coughing all over his teammates then its scientifically a problem. 

Wow, are you even hearing yourself? If one test says you are positive (whether this means you are infectious or not is really irrelevant), you are positive. That, in no way, gives you the excuse to go roaming around until the excuse that "well, I might not be infectious, in fact, it's probably a false positive".

 

Trace amounts or not, there is NO GUARANTEE that he is NOT infectious.

 

So the test is so sensitive that it can detect trace amounts of corona, but IN SPITE of this, he goes out and does his thing with his teammates - with no mask, mind you. This shows blatant disregard for other people's safety. Furthermore, you have stayed silent on the fact that the ESPN reporter said that the test was "not a false positive". But of course, you argued that a doctor should have diagnosed it, not him. My point is that, when it's convenient, you will increase/decrease the size of the goalposts to suit your narrative. If you want to reject the reporter, you refer to the doctor. If you want to reject the doctor, you refer to the PCR test. If you want to reject corona, well, it's simple, you reject test results.

 

[surtur]

2 hours ago, Dazzle said:

Wow, are you even hearing yourself? If one test says you are positive (whether this means you are infectious or not is really irrelevant), you are positive. That, in no way, gives you the excuse to go roaming around until the excuse that "well, I might not be infectious, in fact, it's probably a false positive".

 

Trace amounts or not, there is NO GUARANTEE that he is NOT infectious.

 

So the test is so sensitive that it can detect trace amounts of corona, but IN SPITE of this, he goes out and does his thing with his teammates - with no mask, mind you. This shows blatant disregard for other people's safety. Furthermore, you have stayed silent on the fact that the ESPN reporter said that the test was "not a false positive". But of course, you argued that a doctor should have diagnosed it, not him. My point is that, when it's convenient, you will increase/decrease the size of the goalposts to suit your narrative. If you want to reject the reporter, you refer to the doctor. If you want to reject the doctor, you refer to the PCR test. If you want to reject corona, well, it's simple, you reject test results.

 

Oh I hear myself loud and clear. What is so difficult to understand?  

A positive PCR test does not mean active viral load. (PCR can not and will not be able to tell the difference between an active virus vs non active hence its infectibility) but yes they can detect very small amounts of a virus rather well. 

Please prove me wrong with factual science.

here is a link to the Bullard study done in Manitoba, some light reading for you. 

https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa638/5842165

"Reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) has become the primary method to diagnose viral diseases, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). RT-PCR detects RNA, not infectious virus"

 

"Ninety RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2–positive samples were incubated on Vero cells. Twenty-six samples (28.9%) demonstrated viral growth." 

 

If he was having symptoms then he shouldn't have been around the team even prior to a test. 

 

[Dazzle]

1 hour ago, surtur said:

Oh I hear myself loud and clear. What is so difficult to understand?  

A positive PCR test does not mean active viral load. (PCR can not and will not be able to tell the difference between an active virus vs non active hence its infectibility) but yes they can detect very small amounts of a virus rather well. 

Please prove me wrong with factual science.

here is a link to the Bullard study done in Manitoba, some light reading for you. 

https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa638/5842165

"Reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) has become the primary method to diagnose viral diseases, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). RT-PCR detects RNA, not infectious virus"

 

"Ninety RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2–positive samples were incubated on Vero cells. Twenty-six samples (28.9%) demonstrated viral growth." 

 

If he was having symptoms then he shouldn't have been around the team even prior to a test. 

 

And this is exactly it. It is NEITHER a definite indicator that you are an infectious host, NOR does it confirm that you are "healthy". Would it not be reasonable to stay away from people regardless? Don't even get into the factual science part just yet. Just simply answer the question.

 

As for the article, it's a study that primarily looks at SAR, though it attempts to cover COVID as well. I see the point you're trying to make; viral RNA can still be detected which may or may not affect infectivity in patient.

 

While this may be true for a small sample (notice how the article cautions that their observations are from that, and that more studies are required), this isn't the confirmation that you probably were hoping for.

 

Quote

SARS-CoV-2 Vero cell infectivity was only observed for RT-PCR Ct < 24 and STT < 8 days. Infectivity of patients with Ct > 24 and duration of symptoms > 8 days may be low. This information can inform public health policy and guide clinical, infection control, and occupational health decisions. Further studies of larger size are needed.

 

And so... your 'point' that you were trying to make is based on the conclusions of a LIMITED sample. The way that you've been presenting your argument, you are misrepresenting it as FACT. It's not "fact". It's just an observation. There's a distinction between the two, and it's very dangerous to mix up the two. Until there's a more conclusive study that definitely states that the duration of COVID infection is much smaller than the presence of RNA, your point falls flat.

 

During your argument, you have highlighted something important - that Turner violated MLB protocols for distancing, which were in place for a reason. There are multiple layers of failure here. Asymptomatic doesn't necessarily mean he won't spread the virus. I have yet to see any scientific study that can confirm that.

In fact:

 

https://time.com/5905075/justin-turner-dodgers-world-series-covid-19/

 

Cannon, an infectious disease expert, notes that the Dodgers could still escape catastrophe. Turner had already been bubbling with his teammates while he was infected, potentially mitigating the incremental damage he may have inflicted on players during the celebration. Plus, he was outdoors, where the virus doesn’t spread as effectively. Still, there’s evidence that additional cumulative exposure over a small period of time increases overall risk of transmission, so once someone knows they’re positive for COVID-19, the right thing for them to do is to immediately self-isolate.

At the very least, Turner was sending a potentially harmful message. “Thanks to everyone reaching out!” Turner wrote on Twitter early Wednesday morning. “I feel great, no symptoms at all.” That tweet alarmed Cannon, who felt Turner was implying an unfounded view that because he was asymptomatic, he was less likely to spread the disease. “It’s such a red flag for me,” Cannon says. “It’s like, ‘holy crap.’ I’d rather hang out with him a week from now rather than the first day or so of him getting this infection. If there’s a teachable moment in this, it’s to remind people that you are at your most infectious in the 24 hours or so before you may develop symptoms. People who don’t develop symptoms can be fully infectious.”

 

So let me ask you again, are you denying the science and scientists who are studying this disease for a living, or are you going to make stuff up as you go? It certainly seems like you're going for the latter option, whenever something comes up that doesn't support your narrative.

Edited October 30, 2020 by Dazzle

[surtur]

2 hours ago, Dazzle said:

And this is exactly it. It is NEITHER a definite indicator that you are an infectious host, NOR does it confirm that you are "healthy". Would it not be reasonable to stay away from people regardless? Don't even get into the factual science part just yet. Just simply answer the question.

 

As for the article, it's a study that primarily looks at SAR, though it attempts to cover COVID as well. I see the point you're trying to make; viral RNA can still be detected which may or may not affect infectivity in patient.

 

While this may be true for a small sample (notice how the article cautions that their observations are from that, and that more studies are required), this isn't the confirmation that you probably were hoping for.

 

 

And so... your 'point' that you were trying to make is based on the conclusions of a LIMITED sample. The way that you've been presenting your argument, you are misrepresenting it as FACT. It's not "fact". It's just an observation. There's a distinction between the two, and it's very dangerous to mix up the two. Until there's a more conclusive study that definitely states that the duration of COVID infection is much smaller than the presence of RNA, your point falls flat.

 

During your argument, you have highlighted something important - that Turner violated MLB protocols for distancing, which were in place for a reason. There are multiple layers of failure here. Asymptomatic doesn't necessarily mean he won't spread the virus. I have yet to see any scientific study that can confirm that.

In fact:

 

https://time.com/5905075/justin-turner-dodgers-world-series-covid-19/

 

 

 

 

So let me ask you again, are you denying the science and scientists who are studying this disease for a living, or are you going to make stuff up as you go? It certainly seems like you're going for the latter option, whenever something comes up that doesn't support your narrative.

The point I was making was in the effectiveness in the PCR test and why it needs to be cautioned when it is the only result used to determine a positive case. The small sample size was proof enough that what I am saying about the PCR test is correct as far as detecting inactive viral loads. The fact that the study determined that the PCR test will detect both active and inactive versions of a virus.

 

 

 

[Dazzle]

1 hour ago, surtur said:

The point I was making was in the effectiveness in the PCR test and why it needs to be cautioned when it is the only result used to determine a positive case. The small sample size was proof enough that what I am saying about the PCR test is correct as far as detecting inactive viral loads. The fact that the study determined that the PCR test will detect both active and inactive versions of a virus.

 

 

 

No, it's not. Although the research suggests what you said, that an inactive viral load could be detected, it also cautions that the conclusions the authors made were based off limited sample data. Way to cherrypick the article. Like I said, the conclusions aren't exactly what you think they mean. Furthermore, the article doesn't say that positive PCR cases will mean you can treat it like false positives.

As I re-iterated, a positive PCR case does not necessarily mean you will be infectious, but that there's also no guarantee that you are healthy enough to wander around the population without the risk of spreading infections.

[surtur]

On 10/30/2020 at 7:13 PM, Dazzle said:

No, it's not. Although the research suggests what you said, that an inactive viral load could be detected, it also cautions that the conclusions the authors made were based off limited sample data. Way to cherrypick the article. Like I said, the conclusions aren't exactly what you think they mean. Furthermore, the article doesn't say that positive PCR cases will mean you can treat it like false positives.

As I re-iterated, a positive PCR case does not necessarily mean you will be infectious, but that there's also no guarantee that you are healthy enough to wander around the population without the risk of spreading infections.

So you mean that when all this started the "few" cases they determined were the result of a deadly virus was enough to conclude an epidemic was imminent but a small sample size to determine the validity of the test results to detect an active viral load are to be dismissed?  sounds good got it. 

the fact is this is not the first test done to determine if the PCR test is a viable test to know if an active viral load is present.  

[Dazzle]

45 minutes ago, surtur said:

So you mean that when all this started the "few" cases they determined were the result of a deadly virus was enough to conclude an epidemic was imminent but a small sample size to determine the validity of the test results to detect an active viral load are to be dismissed?  sounds good got it. 

the fact is this is not the first test done to determine if the PCR test is a viable test to know if an active viral load is present.  

No, the issue is that you're extrapolating a false conclusion from an article YOU PICKED that suggests that more studies should be undertaken to find the answer.

 

You don't seem to realize that research is never truly "finished". Yet you're going around here spouting the alleged shortcomings of PCR as "fact". This is something you don't seem to realize.

[surtur]

9 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

No, the issue is that you're extrapolating a false conclusion from an article YOU PICKED that suggests that more studies should be undertaken to find the answer.

 

You don't seem to realize that research is never truly "finished". Yet you're going around here spouting the alleged shortcomings of PCR as "fact". This is something you don't seem to realize.

So what you are saying is because they suggest needing more studies that this one doesn't count? you do know that small sample sizes are used to predict large scale results all the time and is a predictive indicator of what a larger sample size would see give or take a few percentage points in either direction. 

also the article I "picked" is a legitimate study based on real science.

sorry it wasn't from the credible first page of a google search that your used to.

Edited November 2, 2020 by surtur

[Dazzle]

5 minutes ago, surtur said:

So what you are saying is because they suggest needing more studies that this one doesn't count? you do know that small sample sizes are used to predict large scale results all the time and is a predictive indicator of what a larger sample size would see give or take a few percentage points in either direction. 

also the article I "picked" is a legitimate study based on real science.

sorry it wasn't from the credible first page of a google search that your used to.

It's not that this article isn't valid - yet false conclusion that you drew from my words. It's the MESSAGE behind it.

 

You claim that PCR is so sensitive that it detects the remnants of viruses in a specimen, even though the virus themselves are gone. Yes, this article supports this theory, but again, it's an ongoing theory, and IN NO WAY does it guarantee that a person who has a positive PCR test is safe nor dangerous to be around. This article doesn't prove anything that you said about how Turner is probably not infectious.

Edited November 2, 2020 by Dazzle

[surtur]

21 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

It's not that this article isn't valid - yet false conclusion that you drew from my words. It's the MESSAGE behind it.

 

You claim that PCR is so sensitive that it detects the remnants of viruses in a specimen, even though the virus themselves are gone. Yes, this article supports this theory, but again, it's an ongoing theory, and IN NO WAY does it guarantee that a person who has a positive PCR test is safe nor dangerous to be around. This article doesn't prove anything that you said about how Turner is probably not infectious.

It shows that 71.1% of the samples taken were of an inactive virus, a non threat. If this exact experiment was expanded to a grander scale the results would be similar give or take a few percentage points.

based on that Turner (depending on if and when he had symptoms) his test results unless it was 2-4 day after onset of symptoms (the highest probability period of having an active virus), means he is most likely not spreading an active virus. 

the Protocols in place are not based on science they are based on the lowest risk factor to being sued if something happens. 

[Dazzle]

16 minutes ago, surtur said:

It shows that 71.1% of the samples taken were of an inactive virus, a non threat. If this exact experiment was expanded to a grander scale the results would be similar give or take a few percentage points.

based on that Turner (depending on if and when he had symptoms) his test results unless it was 2-4 day after onset of symptoms (the highest probability period of having an active virus), means he is most likely not spreading an active virus. 

the Protocols in place are not based on science they are based on the lowest risk factor to being sued if something happens. 

Perfect, you've just proven my point for me. I'm glad you understand it now. My point all along was that research has not finished, and therefore, you CANNOT make guarantees whether someone is infectious or not. Your article has stated this. More studies are needed. Thus, in that case, it would be REASONABLE to take steps to avoid the risk of infecting others. The fact that you pointed out "if something happens" is important.

 

So again, I thank you for validating my point. You said it better than I did.

Edited November 2, 2020 by Dazzle

[surtur]

8 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Perfect, you've just proven my point for me. I'm glad you understand it now. My point all along was that research has not finished, and therefore, you CANNOT make guarantees whether someone is infectious or not. Your article has stated this. More studies are needed. Thus, in that case, it would be REASONABLE to take steps to avoid the risk of infecting others. The fact that you pointed out "if something happens" is important.

 

So again, I thank you for validating my point. You said it better than I did.

Did he have symptoms?

[-DLC-]

"Most likely" doesn't cut it.

[Dazzle]

39 minutes ago, surtur said:

Did he have symptoms?

It doesn't matter whether he has it or not. Asymptomatic doesn't mean he is virus-free. In fact, it's a misleading health state. The article I sent you a few days ago highlights this distinction.

 

You yourself have underscored the reasons for why you OUGHT TO take safety precautions more seriously.  You should be considerate of others (practice due diligence to limit your contact with others). Failing that, the fear of a lawsuit is an extra layer of deterrent.

 

Your article has perfectly stated why Turner should have followed safety protocols. The article did not say that a person with a positive PCR was infectious NOR healthy. More studies were required.

 

PCR positive tests have been a tool to detect COVID. He is positive, therefore he has to take precautions to avoid people because 1) you are not a selfish douche 2) if you recklessly cause infections in people, you should be held responsible.

Edited November 2, 2020 by Dazzle

[surtur]

1 hour ago, Dazzle said:

It doesn't matter whether he has it or not. Asymptomatic doesn't mean he is virus-free. In fact, it's a misleading health state. The article I sent you a few days ago highlights this distinction.

 

You yourself have underscored the reasons for why you OUGHT TO take safety precautions more seriously.  You should be considerate of others (practice due diligence to limit your contact with others). Failing that, the fear of a lawsuit is an extra layer of deterrent.

 

Your article has perfectly stated why Turner should have followed safety protocols. The article did not say that a person with a positive PCR was infectious NOR healthy. More studies were required.

 

PCR positive tests have been a tool to detect COVID. He is positive, therefore he has to take precautions to avoid people because 1) you are not a selfish douche 2) if you recklessly cause infections in people, you should be held responsible.

As per actual science a positive PCR test is not a conclusive result to be able to claim a positive viral infection on its own.

 

[Dazzle]

1 minute ago, surtur said:

As per actual science a positive PCR test is not a conclusive result to be able to claim a positive viral infection on its own.

 

Nor does it say a person is free from the possibility of infecting others, as per actual science.

Your article never makes the above determination, nor should it do so. There is no way to ensure (so far) that someone who has a positive PCR test will not pass on the virus, regardless of symptoms or not (this has already been scientifically debunked). So why are you acting like you know the science when you're the one drawing false conclusions from an article that you picked?

 

Science should never be cherrypicked like the way you're doing. Taking excerpts from a scientific article and perverting the intent of the article is just blasphemous.

Edited November 2, 2020 by Dazzle

[surtur]

1 hour ago, Dazzle said:

Nor does it say a person is free from the possibility of infecting others, as per actual science.

Your article never makes the above determination, nor should it do so. There is no way to ensure (so far) that someone who has a positive PCR test will not pass on the virus, regardless of symptoms or not (this has already been scientifically debunked). So why are you acting like you know the science when you're the one drawing false conclusions from an article that you picked?

 

Science should never be cherrypicked like the way you're doing. Taking excerpts from a scientific article and perverting the intent of the article is just blasphemous.

I am only showing the downfall of the PCR test being used to determine a positive case.

[Dazzle]

1 hour ago, surtur said:

I am only showing the downfall of the PCR test being used to determine a positive case.

I think you are showing a little more than just that. You've used this opinion to build it towards a bigger argument.