And just cancel or postpone games when you canât playâŠ
OK, fineâŠmaybe by everyone I really mean our government, or whoever (which could be the masses of individuals) could have shown to the test-manufacturers that there was going to be very significant demand!! So please ramp up production, we promise there will be a market! Whatâs happened instead, with a pathetic supply in the face of incredible demand, is simply wrong, terrible planning, terrible foresight, such a shame to see multi-hour lines, 3-7 day turnaround times at this point, just inexcusable. And I think if someone, everyone, our government, whoever, had demonstrated months ago that the demand would ultimately be there, perhaps the production would have ramped up. So hurray for the early planners! I wouldnât even dream of calling them greedy hoardersâŠjust smart planners!! And everyone should appreciate that they did their part to stimulate demand (and therefore production) at least somewhat!!
ETA:
Also I think thereâs no indication that thatâs why the federal government was slow to orderâŠI think the obvious reason is they were caught flat-footed (ill-prepared, or not being smart planners!). Pretty sure our government wishes they had more tests available immediately. No one thinks itâs a good idea to not have tests available, or force people to wait 5+ hours to get a test, or worse, whatâs happening, get results many days after itâs too late to be useful. That is certainly not the reason our government, or any reasonable person/body, would choose not to order tests.
the postponements earlier in teh year were based on the Leagueâs previous rules: frequent testing of everyone, which meant false positives were forcing players & coaches to quarantine.
The Cleveland Browns game was postponed less than two weeks ago. That was not early in the season. But this is off topicâŠso letâs not go back and forth about this.
A page about durability of immune response from vaccination:
Several symptomatic physicians were testing themselves at 5 days and were rapid antigen positive, meaning still infectious, yet since their symptoms were improving, according to the CDC guidelines, they could return to work. Many felt this violated their âfirst do no harmâ oath. Many have elderly patients and they worried about exposing them. The whole thing is poorly thought out, poorly worded and confusing. Adding the need for testing negative to their guidelines is a step in the right direction for public health.
I agree. The one size fits all approach has repeatedly been an issue. It simplifies the messaging but doesnât adequately address the individual variations.
I agree (to an extent!). But if their symptoms are at least abating (which is part of the protocol), surely their infectiousness is at least diminishing. And so if they then couple their diminishing infectiousness with wearing an N95 mask and their carefulness, it would seem they are not at least a âhighâ risk. Still yes, somewhat of a risk. But that N95 really takes away a lot of the risk they are offering their elderly patients. So overall, they are probably doing their elderly patients a ânet goodâ because otherwise, those elderly patients may have barely existent care at all!!
THis is assuming that people have easy access to rapid tests. Iâm sure that there are thousands of people out there around day 5 of symptoms who have no way to get a test. So those people who can afford them and/or thought ahead to get some, might be out of isolation (and back to work) on day six but SO many people wonât be able to do that because they donât have a test.
â
They canât make guidelines that divide between the haves and have nots. Right now, itâs also not easy to get a rapid when you want through your doctor either in many places in the country and, here anyway, urgent cares arenât taking walk ins and Walgreens/CVS tests arenât available near us (for example) until Jan 8. Would one even be âallowedâ to leave isolation to go out to get a rapid test? Or does it need to be a home test? Lots of questions.
Do you really think this is what people will do? My guess is that those that donât have tests handy are just going to go out anyway.
Ha. Yes. I agree with you to some extent. So are you saying that the rules only apply to those of us playing by the rules anyway so we may as well have guidelines that make the most medical sense? I think part of the point of the five day isolation was to come up with something that more people will agree to actually do. Adding a test to those guidelines again makes it something that most people either will not or canât figure out how to do.
The CDC guidelines do matter though. Companies need some guidance for their employees and colleges/K-12 districts need them for their staff and students.
I thought people continued to test positive well past infectiousness. In fact, my (elderly) mother tested positive (PCR) 95 days after her COVID illness, they tested the strain, and concluded the positive result was still from the original infection.
Can someone please clarify since a requirement for a negative test is being discussed. Are antigen tests different from PCR tests in this regard?
Yes, PCR can be positive long after the infectious period has ended. This is because it is detecting non-infectious particles. Rapid antigen correlates with infectivity. See blue men.
Thanks @TexasTiger2. You would think my motherâs facility would use the antigen test in certain situations. The very elderly test positive by PCR even longer than younger people.
Agree! And and I guess, technically, a hoarder never gets rid of what they have 
(FYI - I too am a planner!) I had 2 kits, gave one away, then gave the other away, someone gave us 2 kits, then 1 replaced to me, I received 4 in the mail, 2 returned to friendâŠhard to keep up with it all
Are we (Creeklanders) the only ones who see no need to have home tests? When I look at the inaccuracy Iâve seen they just arenât worth it to us.
When we fly next month we need PCR, H needs PCR for his colonoscopy. We donât go out regularly to school or anything similar, so have no need there either. I havenât bought one nor do I plan to. Iâm certainly not stocking up on them. Why should I?
I also bought absolutely no hand sanitizer back when it was popular. Hand washing worked fine for us. We rarely use hand sanitizer - mainly when camping and no clean water is around. Maybe weâre just the odd ones out?
The lateral flow tests seem to correlate reasonably well with symptoms and viral load. It was useful for us to know that our sonâs âcoldâ was actually COVID, so he could isolate. If that doesnât matter you could just presume all illness is COVID, isolate until afebrile, and wear a mask for 10 days.
If you felt sick would you try to buy some? This is the main reason we have them. We want to know if we have Covid and local tests outside the house are hard to come by. Sniffles here was Covid for S19 and if I have Covid I need to know to tell work because they are still doing ten day isolation. D21 would need to know to tell Colgate too and then not have to test this semester and my H should know just like anyone else so he can let his doctor know for his medical history. If you live somewhere where itâs easy to get a test in a day or less then thatâs great but we canât!
If any of us caught something that could be Covid I would want a PCR test to know for sure. Iâve seen too many false negatives with the at home versions.
Many sick folks I know are just assuming it is Covid without testing which has two âwrongsâ to it for me. The first is many things arenât, but they are assuming theirs is and could think they later have natural immunity when they donât. The second is if they do have Covid, they are being undercounted in the stats.
I also know one who is assuming hers isnât Covid - and sheâs still out running errands, etc, because sheâs sure itâs just a cold. She doesnât need a test. She knows more than any doctor does about anything anyway. My medical lad wonders why he spent so much time in med school⊠
But thatâs one. Most assume if they are sick, itâs Covid.