Valhalla Villager: News, Rumors and Gossip

[swede700]

8 minutes ago, wcblack34 said:

We just can't have nice things.

Well, if he can get back in shape, then they can pick him up for nothing after Vegas releases him.

[swede700]

FWIW, at least Jefferson and Cole now can officially sign their deals after being activated off the COVID list.

[SteelKing728]

53 minutes ago, RpMc said:

PJ Hall fails his physical and reverts back to LV

Never forget. 8/3/20-8/4/20

A purple and gold legend.

[Krauser]

PJ Hall failing the physical is no surprise. I like taking the chance and rolling the dice for basically nothing, but a starter being released at the beginning of training camp is Bryant McKinnie territory.

Jefferson being activated is great news.

Watts being added to the list is worrisome -- Vikings can't afford to lose him. Hopefully they're just adding anyone with symptoms even if they haven't tested positive.

Edited August 4, 2020 by Krauser

[swede700]

15 hours ago, Krauser said:

PJ Hall failing the physical is no surprise. I like taking the chance and rolling the dice for basically nothing, but a starter being released at the beginning of training camp is Bryant McKinnie territory.

Jefferson being activated is great news.

Watts being added to the list is worrisome -- Vikings can't afford to lose him. Hopefully they're just adding anyone with symptoms even if they haven't tested positive.

Or that it's just another false positive, which was the case with another player.  If we know anything about the testing in this country...there may be a lot done (at least according to the guy in the White House), but the accuracy of them is far from acceptable.  

[Krauser]

30 minutes ago, swede700 said:

Or that it's just another false positive, which was the case with another player.  If we know anything about the testing in this country...there may be a lot done (at least according to the guy in the White House), but the accuracy of them is far from acceptable.  

PCR tests like the Covid swab aren’t often false positive, but even a low rate does produce some false positive results, if enough tests are done. NFL is testing a few thousand people per day, so a 0.1% false positive rate would still lead to a few positives every day that are false. 

[Cearbhall]

52 minutes ago, swede700 said:

Or that it's just another false positive, which was the case with another player.  If we know anything about the testing in this country...there may be a lot done (at least according to the guy in the White House), but the accuracy of them is far from acceptable.  

What do you consider acceptable for the false positive rate? false negative?  What do you think we should do until there is a test that is "acceptable"?

[wcblack34]

1. The rate of false positives are very low and NO test is 100% accurate

2. False negatives are a much bigger concern, and there’s been little evidence to show the testing is producing false negatives

3. If we refuse to test until we have a 100% accurate test, we will never test. 
 

[swede700]

1 hour ago, Cearbhall said:

What do you consider acceptable for the false positive rate? false negative?  What do you think we should do until there is a test that is "acceptable"?

Well, the last I've heard is that some tests out there are basically 50-50.  That's not acceptable. Scientific standards suggest that they should be 90% accurate, and I'm not sure there is a test out there that is that accurate.  I've heard it's basically around 70-75%.  That's not great.

[Krauser]

6 minutes ago, swede700 said:

Well, the last I've heard is that some tests out there are basically 50-50.  That's not acceptable. Scientific standards suggest that they should be 90% accurate, and I'm not sure there is a test out there that is that accurate.  I've heard it's basically around 70-75%.  That's not great.

You're thinking of the sensitivity.

For swab tests, the main limitation on sensitivity is with sample collection -- if the swab isn't done correctly, or the virus isn't being expressed in the area swabbed (some patients have virus more in other areas of the body, not the upper respiratory tract where the swab is placed, and it takes time for the virus to replicate, so patients who've only recently caught the virus might not be sick from it yet or expressing enough virus for the swab to pick up), the test can be a false negative. With perfect sample collection, PCR tests are very sensitive (but not perfectly, nothing's perfect), but in real life, the results are usually estimated around 75% or 90%, depending on the details. Again, a less than perfectly sensitive test leads to a false negative (a true case with an inaccurately negative test result). So good medical care will require 2 negative tests if there's a high enough pre-test probability (clinical suspicion that this is a true case). 

The specificity of PCR tests is very high. They're often considered gold standard tests, meaning the most accurate available. I don't know the details, but I think the specificity must be well over 99%, though of course not perfect. It's probably at least as likely that a false positive reflects an error in the record keeping (swab results mixed up between 2 patients) than the test itself actually showing a positive result when it shouldn't. 

There have been some substandard tests used during the pandemic, especially in the spring. And there have been other limitations, like shortages of reactants and swabs, and huge delays. And testing has been inaccessible for many people (not the NFL, hmm), and the US is still under-testing, not over-testing, given its test positivity rate. 

But the Covid PCR tests, as medical tests, are pretty good, and not really the problem. 

[swede700]

I appreciate the information.  I like to listen to actual experts (or at least people who know where to get the information) like you, not the the high school kids who got C's in science class.   

[swede700]

 

[SemperFeist]

Cleveland at guard isn’t surprising in the slightest. Especially with no on field work this summer. 

And, again, with no on field work earlier this summer it’s also not surprising to see Elflein at left guard over Samia. For now. 

[Vikes_Bolts1228]

3 hours ago, SemperFeist said:

Cleveland at guard isn’t surprising in the slightest. Especially with no on field work this summer. 

And, again, with no on field work earlier this summer it’s also not surprising to see Elflein at left guard over Samia. For now. 

I think of it as an "intern" season.

Guard is a more forgiving position than OT and this will allow him to get the hang of the NFL game speed/strength until he's ready to slide over to the right and O'Neil takes over for Reiff at LT who hasn't been nearly bad enough to lose his job to a rookie this season especially, like you said, during a weird off-season.

[SemperFeist]

Guard isn’t easier to play than tackle, and I certainly wouldn’t say it’s more forgiving, especially on the rights side. It simply takes a different set of skills.