Per Ian Rapoport on Twitter: Adam Thielen has Positive, Negative, follow by another Positive and Negative Test. He is out today
twitter.com/RapSheet/status/1333063165920358400Posted Nov 29, 2020, 3:25 PM UTC
1.2K197
twitter.com
it's a best of 7 series.
567
LMAO. The fight is tie right now. Who you got for game 5?
95
My money is on the Positives
35
Im betting aladeen
15
Positive, negative. Positive, negative. You have no idea the physical toll that 4 covid test has on a person!
556
[removed]
114
That One Night by ^Danielle Hunter
8
Sounds like these tests are legit!!
30
Came here for this comment.
11
The one lady at my work just about touches my brain with the swab so I try to stay away from her.
Then she started swabbing both nostrils. Like one lobotomy wasn’t enough
3
[removed]
1
[removed]
1
[removed]
0
Michael Scott reference??
-3†
I have a lot of questions. Number one, how dare you.
66
Ryan used me as an object
23
Cool beans man. I live by the quarry. We should hang out by the quarry and throw things down there!
11
And two, gimmie the fife.
1
No, Gretzky.
3
[removed]
1
[removed]
1
One nostril negative, one nostril positive.
373
[deleted]
75
Hate to see it
48
[removed]
1
Put on half a mask. Social distance the left nostril from the right!
9
He's in superposition and observation has failed to collapse the Thielen wave.
4
These covid tests seem super reliable
347
The PCr test was never really designed for the way its being used for covid
169
This. It's designed to test people who we think have COVID. Not designed to test huge populations of asymptomatic people.
146
I don’t think I understand. Why would this be “more” useful if Thielen had symptoms?
24
The answer is tied to the idea of a false discovery rate (FDR) which is the fraction of true positives over the total number of positives. For large asymptomatic populations, we can assume that most people do not have COVID, unlike symptomatic populations, where you have a good likelihood someone has COVID. You'll see how this matters in a minute. Say we have a test with a 95% sensitivity (probability of testing positive if you are indeed positive) and a 95% specificity (probability of testing negative if you are indeed negative). For a population of 200 that is 40% COVID-positive, like a symptomatic population, you get:
76 of 80 with COVID test positive
4 of 80 with COVID test negative
114 of 120 without COVID test negative
6 of 120 without COVID test positive
so overall of the 82 that test positive, 76 have COVID. Pretty good. But now say you drop the population to be 5% positive (as if the whole population is asymptomatic). Rounding to whole numbers here:
10 of 10 with COVID test positive
0 of 10 with COVID test negative
180 of 190 without COVID test negative
10 of 190 without COVID test positive
So now if you are of the 20 who test positive, you only have a 50% chance of actually having COVID. This is even more extreme if COVID is at a 1% level:
2 of 2 with COVID test positive
0 of 2 with COVID test negative
188 of 198 without COVID test negative
10 of 190 without COVID test positive
So now if you have a positive test, you only have a 1/6 chance of actually being positive. This is an issue for any screening metric for rare diseases.
214
The tests are not super sensitive (To prevent false positives, partially) so when you're testing people that show no signs of being infected, your results are all over the place. If they have tiny amounts of virus they can do this and test positive and negative back to back. The test is meant for people who have symptoms because presumably if they were infected they would have enough virus in them to consistently test positive.
16
They're not used that way here (you can only get a test when you have symptoms) and they're still unreliable as hell.
1
Wow how is this not downvoted to shit!?
Oh I'm not in r/coronavirus, lol
2
And now you can buy them over the counter for $50 a pop. Hooray!!!
20
Brought to you by Charleston Chew
9
Those aren’t out yet though right?
1
Smh and they say Capitalism doesn't do wonders for innovation when we're 10 months into this thing and now we have an expensive and unreliable test but it's over the counter.
0
[deleted]
-1
Lmao you think China isn't Capitalist hahahahahaha
1
I had symptoms - 100% had it and tested negative. 14 days later post quaratine I go to get re-tested just to make sure (no symptoms) positive. Not very reliable imo.
But apparently you can test positive for months following infection even though you're over it and no longer contaigous/symptomatic.
6
Would suck if you had to travel or had a job/family emergency that required you to fly.
2
Not sure I understand what flying has to do with it ?
0
You have to take a COVID test that shows you're negative a certain amount of time prior to flying or they won't let you fly.
If you no longer have COVID but you can't produce a negative test, you can't fly even if you don't have COVID.
1
They aren’t. But you almost never see a false positive.
The way the rapid tests work, they rely on you actually swabbing up a sizeable amount that you can detect. If your swab just didn’t get very much, you will test negative.
The PCR test amplifies the RNA found in the virus and makes it much more detectable. Even a very small amount can be amplified to a detectable amount with the PCR test.
I think they say the rapid test is 75% accurate while the PCR is closer to 99%. So having 2 false negatives out of 4 tests entirely possible.
Really what they need to be doing is multiple rapid tests if anyone in the organization comes back positive, and for people with known exposure they need to be doing the PCR tests.
My guess is that they aren’t doing the PCR test because they want as few positive tests as possible and they don’t want to wait for test results to come back.
3
Lots of false negatives, hardly any false positives. Over here docs say if you have symptoms, you've got Covid.
-1†
[deleted]
-5
Hidden footage of him found making out with the Baltimore Ravens.
43
$20 to anyone who can un-hide it 😏
5
You’ll have to join OnlyNFLFans .com.
9
[deleted]
1
[deleted]
36
Justin Jefferson a must start no matter what now ?
Edit : HECK YES HE A MUST START :)
35
Yesyesyesyesyesssss
Minnesota’s hottest club is Justin Jefferson. This place has everything, air yards, YAC, the Griddy.
48
Will definitely be absorbing Thielen's coverage. Might not be so great...
8
Could Be bad, he might be getting covered more
4
Yes. I'm a Vikings fan so maybe a bit biased but he's legit. Even as a rookie, he has great route running and ability to make catches. I'm starting him.
2
Over Mike Davis? Half PPR
1
He was a must start anyway, but the offense getting worse might not actually be good for him
1
[deleted]
1
I’m torn between him and Mostert. I have Jefferson in but him getting more coverage worries me
1
According to Mike Clay, he has the best WR match up in the league over the past 4 weeks. Could always be a Cook 3 TD game but you have to start him for the upside that he’ll get some of Thielen’s vacated targets (though I expect some to go to the TE).
1
I’m torn between him and Jrob
1
Does this make Rudolph a viable replacement for Mandrews this week?
27
TE is such a wasteland, it's as good a replacement as any IMO.
10
I went Gesicki when my Mandrews got sicky.
11
Absolutely
8
I’m stuck with reed or rudolph fun week
3
[deleted]
1
I’m risking it on reed cause I need the upside this week
2
[deleted]
4
[deleted]
3
I’m going Dissley
1
False negative rates are around 6-33% depending on circumstance
False positive rates are less than 1%
19
maybe he has it, but doesn't have enough virus.
Which is actually a good thing for his immune system. But yea still have chance of spreading
7
It’s more likely that the nfl is utilizing a shitty testing site for their testing results. It’s pretty hard for a tech to mess up a PCR test. But if the protocol or lab environment they’re using leaves a lot of room for possible contamination, that could explain why we’re seeing so many false positives/negatives.
5
[deleted]
1
[deleted]
1
Look up viral load. The covid virus can be present in his body, but in a small enough quantity to not cause symptoms.
8
viral load is low, so it is possible he did get infected, but with extreme low viral load that it is hard for detection. If that is the case, it is actually good for immune system because they don't have to suddenly produce a lot antibodies to combat the virus.
3
So through bayes theorem, it's almost certain that he has it no? Double Positive confirms it.
5
Oh, for sure. Honestly, even the single positive is enough to confirm that he has it to a pretty high degree.
4
Actually, false positives even with a test at 1% is quite likely. I dont want to bore you with the math but generally, a false positive for rare events are closer to 40-50%. But double false positives is almost a confirmation.
2
I think the difference here is regarding "rare events". The pretest probability of being Covid positive is pretty high, based on the prevalence of Covid, making testing positive not a rare event.
3
Even beyond the stated rates, the rapid antigen and pcr tests have specificity approaching 100%. That means that false positives are exceedingly rare. The sensitivity of these tests are much lower, meaning that false negatives will happen.
On top of all that, the pretest probability of having Covid is related to the prevalence of Covid, which is fairly high, meaning a high pretest probability of having Covid, which again translates to a much higher chance of false negatives than false positives.
Adam Thielen has Covid, and any physician seeing those 4 test results would 99.9% sure that he was positive.
3
Thank you for sharing this - very informative! Super interesting.
2
Yep. Especially on the rapid tests.
It’s really really hard to get a false positive. A false negative could just be a bad swap.
2
[deleted]
19
Get both answers? Also jail. Positive-negative
6
Just taking the test, also jail
1
Ohhhh so he will be positive tmrw...got it. Covid gon come with a BOGO on monday
12
Please God let JEFFERSZN happen. 9/175/2
5
more hot/cold than my high school girlfriend
4
Do these tests even work
4
Rudolph better get some targets after Mandrews went down.
3
Yeah I’m torn between Rudolph, Tonyan and Jonny to replace Andrews. Do we assume he’s out next week too?
1
Go with Jonnu. At this point in his career, there may not be a more TD dependent fantasy player than Rudolph. As a Vikings fan, I've loved the dude for ages but he's really starting to show his age, and even with Theilen/Irv out I just don't see a ton of targets going his way.
3
Thanks man. Jonnu has a good matchup next week too if MAndrews is out again
1
No idea. Seems like a dart throw regardless. I have zero expectations at TE streams this year.
1
[deleted]
3
Science is imperfect, but still very useful & accurate. We can’t forget that, there will always be exceptional cases
1
These tests are 50% imperfect ... that’s pretty inaccurate and sucks ... making this whole “testing” pretty ineffective as a means to contain the issue
1
Where are you getting that number?
1
[deleted]
3
Adam needs to make up his mind.
2
My opponent is still sleeping and hasn’t started his JJ
2
You've tested aladeen
I was hoping he would test aladeen
It's pretty aladeen if you get that many aladeens as a result.
😃...☹️...😃...☹️
[removed]
[removed]