ECAC Schedule

No Harvard until an ECAC final if this is correct.

The ECAC is planning on a 20-game schedule. Teams will be broken into a New England division (Princeton, Yale, Brown, Harvard, Dartmouth and QU) and a New York division (Cornell, Clarkson, Colgate, RPI, Union, SLU). 4 games vs. each division opponent. NO games vs. other division.

— Mike McMahon (@MikeMcMahonCHN) September 25, 2020

?s=21

Chris '03
No Harvard until an ECAC final if this is correct.

The ECAC is planning on a 20-game schedule. Teams will be broken into a New England division (Princeton, Yale, Brown, Harvard, Dartmouth and QU) and a New York division (Cornell, Clarkson, Colgate, RPI, Union, SLU). 4 games vs. each division opponent. NO games vs. other division.

— Mike McMahon (@MikeMcMahonCHN) September 25, 2020

?s=21

So did we just get kicked out of the ivy league, or are they not going to name a champion this year?

[www.collegehockeynews.com]

Cop at Lynah
[www.collegehockeynews.com]

The split divisions make travel easier, especially because many schools may still have travel restrictions for their athletic teams. For example, they may not allow overnight trips. ECAC games may be played home-and-home with one team in the pair coming and going home the same day each night.

LOL Princeton.

Trotsky

ncaa_ice-hockey_ecac-conference_attendance-map_2015-16_12-teams_post_f_.gif

After looking at that map some more, I'm glad we no longer hold our championship weekend at the most logical central point!

Trotsky

Cop at Lynah
[www.collegehockeynews.com]

The split divisions make travel easier, especially because many schools may still have travel restrictions for their athletic teams. For example, they may not allow overnight trips. ECAC games may be played home-and-home with one team in the pair coming and going home the same day each night.

LOL Princeton.

0xxxx and 1xxxx Zip Code Divisions would be more appropriate.

French Rage

Trotsky

ncaa_ice-hockey_ecac-conference_attendance-map_2015-16_12-teams_post_f_.gif

After looking at that map some more, I'm glad we no longer hold our championship weekend at the most logical central point!

Yes, but Atlantic City was too good to last.

Following up - spoke to an ECAC official who said this is one of the scheduling plans, but league admins haven’t voted on anything yet. [t.co]

— Mike McMahon (@MikeMcMahonCHN) September 25, 2020

ursusminor

Following up - spoke to an ECAC official who said this is one of the scheduling plans, but league admins haven’t voted on anything yet. [t.co]

— Mike McMahon (@MikeMcMahonCHN) September 25, 2020

Thank God! Hopefully they come to their senses and this one ends up in the trash can!!

redice

ursusminor

Following up - spoke to an ECAC official who said this is one of the scheduling plans, but league admins haven’t voted on anything yet. [t.co]

— Mike McMahon (@MikeMcMahonCHN) September 25, 2020

Thank God! Hopefully they come to their senses and this one ends up in the trash can!!

Well, if it’s a choice between that set-up and the possibility of no season, is there really any choice?

I'm skeptical that we will have (and that we should have) a season.

The big football schools are expending a lot of resources on testing and whatnot (allegedly). Will hockey schools do the same? Some might. I figure UND and U of M, for instance, would work pretty hard to make hockey happen. But the smaller hockeh programs? Skeptical.

Dafatone
I'm skeptical that we will have (and that we should have) a season.

The big football schools are expending a lot of resources on testing and whatnot (allegedly). Will hockey schools do the same? Some might. I figure UND and U of M, for instance, would work pretty hard to make hockey happen. But the smaller hockeh programs? Skeptical.

By the time January rolls around, there’s a reasonable chance we should have widely available rapid testing across the population that should allow for a more “normal” existence on many levels, including intercollegiate sports.

scoop85

redice

ursusminor

Following up - spoke to an ECAC official who said this is one of the scheduling plans, but league admins haven’t voted on anything yet. [t.co]

— Mike McMahon (@MikeMcMahonCHN) September 25, 2020

Thank God! Hopefully they come to their senses and this one ends up in the trash can!!

Well, if it’s a choice between that set-up and the possibility of no season, is there really any choice?

Completely agree. I certainly realize that Cornell fans would rather play Harvard and the rest of the Ivies rather than Colgate and four D-III schools, but this is just meant as a one-year change which we all will have to live with if it happens. If the main goal is to minimize travel and eliminate overnight trips, this is probably the best solution. I suppose that each school could just play the entire season against their travel partner, but that would be carrying things a bit too far.

One thing, the NY Division probably consists of schools with more alumni interest in hockey on average than the NE Division, mainly due to the fact that it is the only D-I sport at the D-III schools, and it appears to me having followed this forum for many years that it also has the greatest interest among Cornell alums.

ursusminor

scoop85

redice

ursusminor

Following up - spoke to an ECAC official who said this is one of the scheduling plans, but league admins haven’t voted on anything yet. [t.co]

— Mike McMahon (@MikeMcMahonCHN) September 25, 2020

Thank God! Hopefully they come to their senses and this one ends up in the trash can!!

Well, if it’s a choice between that set-up and the possibility of no season, is there really any choice?

Completely agree. I certainly realize that Cornell fans would rather play Harvard and the rest of the Ivies rather than Colgate and four D-III schools, but this is just meant as a one-year change which we all will have to live with if it happens. If the main goal is to minimize travel and eliminate overnight trips, this is probably the best solution. I suppose that each school could just play the entire season against their travel partner, but that would be carrying things a bit too far.

One thing, the NY Division probably consists of schools with more alumni interest in hockey on average than the NE Division, mainly due to the fact that it is the only D-I sport at the D-III schools, and it appears to me having followed this forum for many years that it also has the greatest interest among Cornell alums.

And honestly, while Harvard is the #1 rival, I think it's safe the say the other NY schools would be pretty close to #2-#6. Is anyone really looking forward to the annual Princeton matchups, for example?

French Rage

ursusminor

scoop85

redice

ursusminor

Following up - spoke to an ECAC official who said this is one of the scheduling plans, but league admins haven’t voted on anything yet. [t.co]

— Mike McMahon (@MikeMcMahonCHN) September 25, 2020

Thank God! Hopefully they come to their senses and this one ends up in the trash can!!

Well, if it’s a choice between that set-up and the possibility of no season, is there really any choice?

Completely agree. I certainly realize that Cornell fans would rather play Harvard and the rest of the Ivies rather than Colgate and four D-III schools, but this is just meant as a one-year change which we all will have to live with if it happens. If the main goal is to minimize travel and eliminate overnight trips, this is probably the best solution. I suppose that each school could just play the entire season against their travel partner, but that would be carrying things a bit too far.

One thing, the NY Division probably consists of schools with more alumni interest in hockey on average than the NE Division, mainly due to the fact that it is the only D-I sport at the D-III schools, and it appears to me having followed this forum for many years that it also has the greatest interest among Cornell alums.

And honestly, while Harvard is the #1 rival, I think it's safe the say the other NY schools would be pretty close to #2-#6. Is anyone really looking forward to the annual Princeton matchups, for example?

When I was at RPI, Cornell was by far the biggest opponent among the Ivies. They were probably second to Clarkson as a rival with SLU third. We played Harvard and DC very rarely, and the rest weren't that good. I entered RPI in 1964, so we learned from the upperclassmen about Harkness leaving. Despite CU having a dominating team in those years, the RPI team and fans were always up for them. Witness RPI's victories while I was a grad student in December of 1968 and 1970.

French Rage

ursusminor
One thing, the NY Division probably consists of schools with more alumni interest in hockey on average than the NE Division, mainly due to the fact that it is the only D-I sport at the D-III schools, and it appears to me having followed this forum for many years that it also has the greatest interest among Cornell alums.

And honestly, while Harvard is the #1 rival, I think it's safe the say the other NY schools would be pretty close to #2-#6. Is anyone really looking forward to the annual Princeton matchups, for example?

Matchups with Ivies other than Harvard, save Yale when good, are not highlights.

No Quinnipiac at all? Great! Can that continue in the "after times?" Please?!

scoop85

redice

ursusminor

Following up - spoke to an ECAC official who said this is one of the scheduling plans, but league admins haven’t voted on anything yet. [t.co]

— Mike McMahon (@MikeMcMahonCHN) September 25, 2020

Thank God! Hopefully they come to their senses and this one ends up in the trash can!!

Well, if it’s a choice between that set-up and the possibility of no season, is there really any choice?

No, but not the way one would hope.

Poor decision makers using poor decision-making criteria based on poor priorities will make poor decisions and hurt real human beings. Film at 11.

French Rage
And honestly, while Harvard is the #1 rival, I think it's safe the say the other NY schools would be pretty close to #2-#6. Is anyone really looking forward to the annual Princeton matchups, for example?

1. Harvard
2. Clarkson
3. Flavor-of-the-Month that sucked 5 years ago and will suck in 5 years.

There are only 4 teams in the ECAC, one of which rotates.

scoop85

Dafatone
I'm skeptical that we will have (and that we should have) a season.

The big football schools are expending a lot of resources on testing and whatnot (allegedly). Will hockey schools do the same? Some might. I figure UND and U of M, for instance, would work pretty hard to make hockey happen. But the smaller hockeh programs? Skeptical.

By the time January rolls around, there’s a reasonable chance we should have widely available rapid testing across the population that should allow for a more “normal” existence on many levels, including intercollegiate sports.

I have seen exactly zero credible evidence to support this statement, beyond "things can happen in the future that we could not predict."

We're inside til August. The rest of you enjoy the plague.

French Rage
Is anyone really looking forward to the annual Princeton matchups, for example?

Yes, but only because it's the only game within driving distance for me. This year, it'll be like any other game at Baker...no fans in the stands.

Trotsky

scoop85

Dafatone
I'm skeptical that we will have (and that we should have) a season.

The big football schools are expending a lot of resources on testing and whatnot (allegedly). Will hockey schools do the same? Some might. I figure UND and U of M, for instance, would work pretty hard to make hockey happen. But the smaller hockeh programs? Skeptical.

By the time January rolls around, there’s a reasonable chance we should have widely available rapid testing across the population that should allow for a more “normal” existence on many levels, including intercollegiate sports.

I have seen exactly zero credible evidence to support this statement, beyond "things can happen in the future that we could not predict."

We're inside til August. The rest of you enjoy the plague.

Check out Michael Mina’s Twitter feed. He’s a Harvard epidemiologist who’s been involved with developing rapid home COVID tests.

cornell already has testing they can turn around as fast as they really want if its a priority. Rapid testing done with pooling is pretty cheap and could be done with teams in some kind of bubbles hrs before a game and cost next to nothing.. 2-3 tests would do it per team group

you could almost be down to daily testing of teams by winter if they wanted to make it happen.

upprdeck
cornell already has testing they can turn around as fast as they really want if its a priority. Rapid testing done with pooling is pretty cheap and could be done with teams in some kind of bubbles hrs before a game and cost next to nothing.. 2-3 tests would do it per team group

you could almost be down to daily testing of teams by winter if they wanted to make it happen.

If you look at the school's "dashboard" they're apparently doing >5000 tests per day (half as many on weekends). We should have that everywhere.

That'd be nice. You do realize though that the reason we can do this is because we owned the test euqipment already in the Vet school and re-purposed fir the people instead of the cows?

abmarks
That'd be nice. You do realize though that the reason we can do this is because we owned the test euqipment already in the Vet school and re-purposed fir the people instead of the cows?

Yep, knew that.

But the article linked by Scoop85 makes a critical point: Every medical test in the US with the exception of pregnancy tests is forced to go through the medical establishment. We need to break that paradigm, especially with this virus.

abmarks
That'd be nice. You do realize though that the reason we can do this is because we owned the test euqipment already in the Vet school and re-purposed fir the people instead of the cows?

We did have advantages, but I think some other schools dropped the ball. In particular, Princeton's decision to go full remote seems a bit silly. Dartmouth, on the other hand, seems to have done OK. They were faced with living space capacity constraints and have rejiggered their campus occupancy scheme as best they could.

Considering how isolated and rather small Princeton is, I think they could've achieved similar testing protocols to what Cornell has, making their students safer and helping make their surrounding community safer as well. All they had to do was commandeer some lab space and spend some of their many billions in filthy cash.

How integrated the other Ivies are into their urban environments made things really problematic.

Scersk '97

abmarks
That'd be nice. You do realize though that the reason we can do this is because we owned the test euqipment already in the Vet school and re-purposed fir the people instead of the cows?

We did have advantages, but I think some other schools dropped the ball. In particular, Princeton's decision to go full remote seems a bit silly. Dartmouth, on the other hand, seems to have done OK. They were faced with living space capacity constraints and have rejiggered their campus occupancy scheme as best they could.

Considering how isolated and rather small Princeton is, I think they could've achieved similar testing protocols to what Cornell has, making their students safer and helping make their surrounding community safer as well. All they had to do was commandeer some lab space and spend some of their many billions in filthy cash.

How integrated the other Ivies are into their urban environments made things really problematic.

Are PCR testing setups even available at the moment?

Trotsky

scoop85

We're inside til August. The rest of you enjoy the plague.

More reporting on the progress in in-home rapid tests.

Jeff Hopkins '82

abmarks
That'd be nice. You do realize though that the reason we can do this is because we owned the test euqipment already in the Vet school and re-purposed fir the people instead of the cows?

Yep, knew that.

But the article linked by Scoop85 makes a critical point: Every medical test in the US with the exception of pregnancy tests is forced to go through the medical establishment. We need to break that paradigm, especially with this virus.

That idea has already been broken with this virus.

And that's the main reason why I tell my patients not to get an antibody test.

The PCR to identify the virus did go through it's own testing. However, in order to get antibody tests out quickly, the government allowed virtually any company to put out an antibody test, even before the test itself had been shown by an independent source to be accurate. The obvious happened and there are so many tests out there that you cannot rely upon them to tell you anything useful.

Tests, if they are to be used to make clinical decisions, need to be validated by an independent body. You can say that, because they are too slow, it shouldn't be the government, but it has to be done and done by someone who is not associated with the companies making the tests.

Do you want to be diagnosed with a disease based upon a test that has no independent reliability testing? Do you want to be told that you have immunity to the virus, based upon the same false testing?

I'm willing to wait till someone like the government tells me the test is valid.

ursusminor

French Rage

ursusminor

scoop85

redice

ursusminor

Following up - spoke to an ECAC official who said this is one of the scheduling plans, but league admins haven’t voted on anything yet. [t.co]

— Mike McMahon (@MikeMcMahonCHN) September 25, 2020

Thank God! Hopefully they come to their senses and this one ends up in the trash can!!

Well, if it’s a choice between that set-up and the possibility of no season, is there really any choice?

Completely agree. I certainly realize that Cornell fans would rather play Harvard and the rest of the Ivies rather than Colgate and four D-III schools, but this is just meant as a one-year change which we all will have to live with if it happens. If the main goal is to minimize travel and eliminate overnight trips, this is probably the best solution. I suppose that each school could just play the entire season against their travel partner, but that would be carrying things a bit too far.

One thing, the NY Division probably consists of schools with more alumni interest in hockey on average than the NE Division, mainly due to the fact that it is the only D-I sport at the D-III schools, and it appears to me having followed this forum for many years that it also has the greatest interest among Cornell alums.

And honestly, while Harvard is the #1 rival, I think it's safe the say the other NY schools would be pretty close to #2-#6. Is anyone really looking forward to the annual Princeton matchups, for example?

When I was at RPI, Cornell was by far the biggest opponent among the Ivies. They were probably second to Clarkson as a rival with SLU third. We played Harvard and DC very rarely, and the rest weren't that good. I entered RPI in 1964, so we learned from the upperclassmen about Harkness leaving. Despite CU having a dominating team in those years, the RPI team and fans were always up for them. Witness RPI's victories while I was a grad student in December of 1968 and 1970.

Of course that was also true of most other ECAC teams. Beating Cornell in the late 60s+ was any schools bragging rites. It was when the Cornell game became among the largest attended games for any ECAC school.

And I'm proud to say that it remains essentially true to this day.

Scersk '97

abmarks
Considering how isolated and rather small Princeton is, I think they could've achieved similar testing protocols to what Cornell has, making their students safer and helping make their surrounding community safer as well. All they had to do was commandeer some lab space and spend some of their many billions in filthy cash.

How integrated the other Ivies are into their urban environments made things really problematic.

Are PCR testing setups even available at the moment?

Good point; way beyond my pay grade. I should have written, "One would think all they had to do…"

That does make we wonder whether there has been a national, coordinated effort to make sure there aren't useful machines sitting around idle for some reason. Oh wait, I should have said, "Of course, I would be completely unsurprised to find out that there has been no national, coordinated effort…"

Jim Hyla

Jeff Hopkins '82

abmarks
That'd be nice. You do realize though that the reason we can do this is because we owned the test euqipment already in the Vet school and re-purposed fir the people instead of the cows?

Yep, knew that.

But the article linked by Scoop85 makes a critical point: Every medical test in the US with the exception of pregnancy tests is forced to go through the medical establishment. We need to break that paradigm, especially with this virus.

That idea has already been broken with this virus.

And that's the main reason why I tell my patients not to get an antibody test.

The PCR to identify the virus did go through it's own testing. However, in order to get antibody tests out quickly, the government allowed virtually any company to put out an antibody test, even before the test itself had been shown by an independent source to be accurate. The obvious happened and there are so many tests out there that you cannot rely upon them to tell you anything useful.

Tests, if they are to be used to make clinical decisions, need to be validated by an independent body. You can say that, because they are too slow, it shouldn't be the government, but it has to be done and done by someone who is not associated with the companies making the tests.

Do you want to be diagnosed with a disease based upon a test that has no independent reliability testing? Do you want to be told that you have immunity to the virus, based upon the same false testing?

I'm willing to wait till someone like the government tells me the test is valid.

Except not this government.

See you all in August. Those of you remaining, anyway.

Trotsky

Jim Hyla

Jeff Hopkins '82

abmarks
That'd be nice. You do realize though that the reason we can do this is because we owned the test euqipment already in the Vet school and re-purposed fir the people instead of the cows?

Yep, knew that.

But the article linked by Scoop85 makes a critical point: Every medical test in the US with the exception of pregnancy tests is forced to go through the medical establishment. We need to break that paradigm, especially with this virus.

That idea has already been broken with this virus.

And that's the main reason why I tell my patients not to get an antibody test.

The PCR to identify the virus did go through it's own testing. However, in order to get antibody tests out quickly, the government allowed virtually any company to put out an antibody test, even before the test itself had been shown by an independent source to be accurate. The obvious happened and there are so many tests out there that you cannot rely upon them to tell you anything useful.

Tests, if they are to be used to make clinical decisions, need to be validated by an independent body. You can say that, because they are too slow, it shouldn't be the government, but it has to be done and done by someone who is not associated with the companies making the tests.

Do you want to be diagnosed with a disease based upon a test that has no independent reliability testing? Do you want to be told that you have immunity to the virus, based upon the same false testing?

I'm willing to wait till someone like the government tells me the test is valid.

Except not this government.

See you all in August. Those of you remaining, anyway.

No, I'll still believe parts of and some people in this government. You do have to be very particular, however.

And with any hope, and hope is all I've got, I'll soon feel that I can trust more of it.

Jim Hyla

Jeff Hopkins '82

abmarks
That'd be nice. You do realize though that the reason we can do this is because we owned the test euqipment already in the Vet school and re-purposed fir the people instead of the cows?

Yep, knew that.

But the article linked by Scoop85 makes a critical point: Every medical test in the US with the exception of pregnancy tests is forced to go through the medical establishment. We need to break that paradigm, especially with this virus.

That idea has already been broken with this virus.

And that's the main reason why I tell my patients not to get an antibody test.

The PCR to identify the virus did go through its own testing. However, in order to get antibody tests out quickly, the government allowed virtually any company to put out an antibody test, even before the test itself had been shown by an independent source to be accurate. The obvious happened and there are so many tests out there that you cannot rely upon them to tell you anything useful.

Tests, if they are to be used to make clinical decisions, need to be validated by an independent body. You can say that, because they are too slow, it shouldn't be the government, but it has to be done and done by someone who is not associated with the companies making the tests.

Do you want to be diagnosed with a disease based upon a test that has no independent reliability testing? Do you want to be told that you have immunity to the virus, based upon the same false testing?

I'm willing to wait till someone like the government tells me the test is valid.

I spoke with my GP before getting an antibody test, and also researched the various tests to understand their accuracy (at least as quoted by company that created the test). The local hospital chain here who do the tests actually discloses which test it uses and it was by a reputable manufacturer. From that I was able to learn that the test has roughly a 10% false positive and a 1% false negative. For the cost (free) it seemed a reasonable test to take if only for some degree of peace of mind.

I tested negative, so I'm relatively confident I don't have any measurable antibodies. And yes, I know that doesn't mean for certain that I didn't have covid since they don't know the rate of antibody fading and they don't test for T-cells.

Also, I'd like to think that even if I had tested positive, it wouldn't have changed my ultra-cautious behavior, but of course, that's easy to say.

Jeff Hopkins '82

Jim Hyla

Jeff Hopkins '82

abmarks
That'd be nice. You do realize though that the reason we can do this is because we owned the test euqipment already in the Vet school and re-purposed fir the people instead of the cows?

Yep, knew that.

But the article linked by Scoop85 makes a critical point: Every medical test in the US with the exception of pregnancy tests is forced to go through the medical establishment. We need to break that paradigm, especially with this virus.

That idea has already been broken with this virus.

And that's the main reason why I tell my patients not to get an antibody test.

The PCR to identify the virus did go through its own testing. However, in order to get antibody tests out quickly, the government allowed virtually any company to put out an antibody test, even before the test itself had been shown by an independent source to be accurate. The obvious happened and there are so many tests out there that you cannot rely upon them to tell you anything useful.

Tests, if they are to be used to make clinical decisions, need to be validated by an independent body. You can say that, because they are too slow, it shouldn't be the government, but it has to be done and done by someone who is not associated with the companies making the tests.

Do you want to be diagnosed with a disease based upon a test that has no independent reliability testing? Do you want to be told that you have immunity to the virus, based upon the same false testing?

I'm willing to wait till someone like the government tells me the test is valid.

I spoke with my GP before getting an antibody test, and also researched the various tests to understand their accuracy (#1 at least as quoted by company that created the test). The local hospital chain here who do the tests actually discloses which test it uses and it was by a reputable manufacturer. From that I was able to learn that the test has roughly a 10% false positive and a 1% false negative. For the cost (free) it seemed a reasonable test to take if only for some degree of peace of mind.

I tested negative, so I'm relatively confident I don't have any measurable antibodies. And yes, I know that doesn't mean for certain that I didn't have covid since they don't know the rate of antibody fading and they don't test for T-cells.

Also, #2 I'd like to think that even if I had tested positive, it wouldn't have changed my ultra-cautious behavior, but of course, that's easy to say.

#1 Wouldn't it be nicer if something like the FDA had independently looked at all the tests and approved those that had enough data to prove their accuracy?

#2 This is exactly the reason why these tests should only be used by researchers. 10% false positive & 1% false negative is exactly the wrong way for a test like this to result. The worst that a false negative would do is make you continue to act safely. A false positive however might get you to act unsafely, and that's bad for you and all of us.

Many times the government is needed and useful.

Jim Hyla

Jeff Hopkins '82

Jim Hyla

Jeff Hopkins '82

abmarks
That'd be nice. You do realize though that the reason we can do this is because we owned the test euqipment already in the Vet school and re-purposed fir the people instead of the cows?

Yep, knew that.

But the article linked by Scoop85 makes a critical point: Every medical test in the US with the exception of pregnancy tests is forced to go through the medical establishment. We need to break that paradigm, especially with this virus.

That idea has already been broken with this virus.

And that's the main reason why I tell my patients not to get an antibody test.

The PCR to identify the virus did go through its own testing. However, in order to get antibody tests out quickly, the government allowed virtually any company to put out an antibody test, even before the test itself had been shown by an independent source to be accurate. The obvious happened and there are so many tests out there that you cannot rely upon them to tell you anything useful.

Tests, if they are to be used to make clinical decisions, need to be validated by an independent body. You can say that, because they are too slow, it shouldn't be the government, but it has to be done and done by someone who is not associated with the companies making the tests.

Do you want to be diagnosed with a disease based upon a test that has no independent reliability testing? Do you want to be told that you have immunity to the virus, based upon the same false testing?

I'm willing to wait till someone like the government tells me the test is valid.

I spoke with my GP before getting an antibody test, and also researched the various tests to understand their accuracy (#1 at least as quoted by company that created the test). The local hospital chain here who do the tests actually discloses which test it uses and it was by a reputable manufacturer. From that I was able to learn that the test has roughly a 10% false positive and a 1% false negative. For the cost (free) it seemed a reasonable test to take if only for some degree of peace of mind.

I tested negative, so I'm relatively confident I don't have any measurable antibodies. And yes, I know that doesn't mean for certain that I didn't have covid since they don't know the rate of antibody fading and they don't test for T-cells.

Also, #2 I'd like to think that even if I had tested positive, it wouldn't have changed my ultra-cautious behavior, but of course, that's easy to say.

#1 Wouldn't it be nicer if something like the FDA had independently looked at all the tests and approved those that had enough data to prove their accuracy?

#2 This is exactly the reason why these tests should only be used by researchers. 10% false positive & 1% false negative is exactly the wrong way for a test like this to result. The worst that a false negative would do is make you continue to act safely. A false positive however might get you to act unsafely, and that's bad for you and all of us.

Many times the government is needed and useful.

Agree and agree. Which is why I made the points I did. And to be honest, I hemmed and hawed about getting the test, but once I studied the implications and the accuracy, I only bothered getting it because it was free on my insurance. If I had to pay $100 for it, I wouldn't have been tested.

However, a government reviewed and approved test that is accurate and can be self-administered is the best of both worlds. That's where we need to get to.

And that said, we aren't going to get there with our current government.

Jim Hyla
#2 This is exactly the reason why these tests should only be used by researchers. 10% false positive & 1% false negative is exactly the wrong way for a test like this to result. The worst that a false negative would do is make you continue to act safely. A false positive however might get you to act unsafely, and that's bad for you and all of us.

Wouldn't a false positive make someone do something like quarantine unnecessarily? Or do you reckon it would make them think they were immune and invincible once two weeks had passed? It seems like a false negative would be more dangerous, in that it would make someone miss an infection.

And of course we're one number (the percentage of the general population infected) away from an intro stats Bayes's Theorem problem...

It would make someone feel invincible as they had already had the disease. That would be a problem. Jim can correct me but if someone without symptoms was correctly shown to have the antibodies, then the disease would have been a few weeks past.

You are also correct that they might quarantine based on whatever other factors are present. When I was tested (negative results) I would not have quarantined myself as the supposed (repeated) exposure in NYC was four or five months prior.

It's a cinch to exterminate or even educate the entire human race compared to making the slightest change in one tiny coronavirus - even fathead politicians can't do that. Speculation about resuming large, in person audiences sports events is hubris, not reason.

osorojo
It's a cinch to exterminate or even educate the entire human race compared to making the slightest change in one tiny coronavirus - even fathead politicians can't do that. Speculation about resuming large, in person audiences sports events is commerce, not reason.

Fixed your post.

Thanks, Trotsky, but in Florida NOTHING - faith, honor, reason, even hubris is subservient to quick profit - AKA "commerce". The numbers and the environment speak for themselves.

osorojo
Thanks, Trotsky, but in Florida NOTHING - faith, honor, reason, even hubris is subservient to quick profit - AKA "commerce". The numbers and the environment speak for themselves.

This is the business we've chosen.

For now. Or maybe forever.

osorojo
Thanks, Trotsky, but in Florida NOTHING - faith, honor, reason, even hubris is subservient to quick profit - AKA "commerce". The numbers and the environment speak for themselves.

Osorojo - Florida has to be completely open and ready to welcome the snow birds in 15 days. if (when) there is a spike at the end of October / beginning of November they won't be able to blame that on the kids. it will be courtesy of the president's #1 puppet.

The year-round residents in my parents community (my parents among them) are trying to figure out a way to have returning people quarantine and be unable to use any of the facilities for 2 weeks. Most of the permanent residents have been very careful and they want to keep their community bubble intact.

jtwcornell91

Jim Hyla
#2 This is exactly the reason why these tests should only be used by researchers. 10% false positive & 1% false negative is exactly the wrong way for a test like this to result. The worst that a false negative would do is make you continue to act safely. A false positive however might get you to act unsafely, and that's bad for you and all of us.

Wouldn't a false positive make someone do something like quarantine unnecessarily? Or do you reckon it would make them think they were immune and invincible once two weeks had passed? It seems like a false negative would be more dangerous, in that it would make someone miss an infection.

And of course we're one number (the percentage of the general population infected) away from an intro stats Bayes's Theorem problem...

This was an antibody test, not a PCR test. The presumption of antibodies means you already had the disease. My thinking was a positive would tend to make someone try to resume their life. If it was a false positive, they would be exposing themselves without having presumed immunity.

Jeff Hopkins '82

jtwcornell91

Jim Hyla
#2 This is exactly the reason why these tests should only be used by researchers. 10% false positive & 1% false negative is exactly the wrong way for a test like this to result. The worst that a false negative would do is make you continue to act safely. A false positive however might get you to act unsafely, and that's bad for you and all of us.

Wouldn't a false positive make someone do something like quarantine unnecessarily? Or do you reckon it would make them think they were immune and invincible once two weeks had passed? It seems like a false negative would be more dangerous, in that it would make someone miss an infection.

And of course we're one number (the percentage of the general population infected) away from an intro stats Bayes's Theorem problem...

This was an antibody test, not a PCR test. The presumption of antibodies means you already had the disease. My thinking was a positive would tend to make someone try to resume their life. If it was a false positive, they would be exposing themselves without having presumed immunity.

If someone tests positive, can't they still be a carrier?

Swampy

Jeff Hopkins '82

jtwcornell91

Jim Hyla
#2 This is exactly the reason why these tests should only be used by researchers. 10% false positive & 1% false negative is exactly the wrong way for a test like this to result. The worst that a false negative would do is make you continue to act safely. A false positive however might get you to act unsafely, and that's bad for you and all of us.

Wouldn't a false positive make someone do something like quarantine unnecessarily? Or do you reckon it would make them think they were immune and invincible once two weeks had passed? It seems like a false negative would be more dangerous, in that it would make someone miss an infection.

And of course we're one number (the percentage of the general population infected) away from an intro stats Bayes's Theorem problem...

This was an antibody test, not a PCR test. The presumption of antibodies means you already had the disease. My thinking was a positive would tend to make someone try to resume their life. If it was a false positive, they would be exposing themselves without having presumed immunity.

If someone tests positive, can't they still be a carrier?

Jim would know better than I, but as I understand it, the jury is still out. One question is how long a person is contagious. I've read that if you are actively symptomatic, you won't have built up enough antibodies to test positive for a few weeks. And according to the Abbott Labs page:

Abbott Labs
When your test is positive for the IgG antibodies for the COVID-19 virus, it means that your body is fighting off the infection or has already fought it off. Typically for most viruses, once you have developed the IgG antibodies, you are no longer contagious because the antibodies attack and inactivate the virus. But because the COVID-19 virus is new, more research is needed to determine if this is true for this specific virus. People should always talk to their physician about managing their health.

So...maybe?

Covid 19 trumps* any and all pre-existing schedule arrangements and even the organizations, such as the ECAC, which make them. Collegiate hockey schools all have Athletic Directors and communication equipment. How about we let A.D.'s, just not money-men, schedule hockey games? Let athletes play the game they love, show their stuff, and for the moment at least ignore the profit motive? *the verb- not the @#$%!

In this instance it's not a particular character within the school who is the villain. It is the school. Cornell opened, for whatever asinine reason. Presumably it was money; since 1648 stupid things are money 97% of the time.

So now they're stuck: every subsequent Cornell action has to justify that decision. They can't spike sports for being wildly and unnecessarily dangerous since if they do then why the fuck did they open?

So we'll get sports. Hurrah.

Trotsky
In this instance it's not a particular character within the school who is the villain. It is the school. Cornell opened, for whatever asinine reason. Presumably it was money; since 1648 stupid things are money 97% of the time.

So now they're stuck: every subsequent Cornell action has to justify that decision. They can't spike sports for being wildly and unnecessarily dangerous since if they do then why the fuck did they open?

So we'll get sports. Hurrah.

Cynical as it (arguably) may have been for those colleges that are having students on campus to have opened, I can tell you that my son, a freshman at Colgate, is having a much better experience being on campus then I would've imagined given the strict rules they are enforcing.

osorojo
Covid 19 trumps* any and all pre-existing schedule arrangements and even the organizations, such as the ECAC, which make them. Collegiate hockey schools all have Athletic Directors and communication equipment. How about we let A.D.'s, just not money-men, schedule hockey games? Let athletes play the game they love, show their stuff, and for the moment at least ignore the profit motive? *the verb- not the @#$%!

AD's are the money men.

AD's are money men? I always wondered what they did. Then after an A.D. has negotiated a time and place for a hockey game with another school's Athletic Director the two of them could man the gates and collect admission money.

much better for cornell to not have opened in person and closed for good given the budget issues they faced?

upprdeck
much better for cornell to not have opened in person and closed for good given the budget issues they faced?

Scale it back to the Arts and Ag quads, plow the rest under, replant the elms.

I'm back. Not to arbitrarily pull us back to virus testing, but since I was mentioned, I'll try and explain this as much as I know it.

As noted Jeff got an antibody test, which says nothing about current infection. It just means that you've had exposure to the virus, or part of the virus if you're dealing with immunization, and your immune system has reacted by making antibodies. Those can sometime be made quickly enough to help a current infection, but are most important in fighting subsequent infections.

During this whole process you generally make 2 types of antibodies, IgM and IgG. IgM is made first and usually only stays around for a limited time, months not years. IgG takes longer to make, but can, and that doesn't mean will, stay around for lifetime. Once your body has learned to make the IgG it can gear up quickly to make more. So it is helpful in fighting further infections.

In regarding the test that Jeff was talking about, I'd assumed that it was an IgG test, and he did then say that. Since it takes time to make IgG, it usually means that the infection was in the past and your body has fought it off. An IgM antibody could be found with an infection that you're currently fighting. So knowing that you have IgG present means you've seen this before, usually not now.

The usefulness of knowing you have IgG could be that you don't have to worry about further infection. Unless the virus mutates into something the IgG no longer recognizes. And that is probably how a few people have been shown to get infected twice. The European virus is different in some ways from the Chinese virus.

So that's the first problem with measuring IgG. Like the flu, the virus could mutate and you get sick again. We need more knowledge of the type of IgG our body makes to understand this better.

As I understand most of the vaccines that they talk about, they are directed against part of the virus that if it mutates, it won't cause infection. For example, at least some of the vaccines are against a part of the virus that is needed to attach to a cell. So if that mutates, the virus probably can't infect.

The problem with current antibody testing is that we don't really know what kind of IgG they are measuring. So they may signify prior infection, but they don't tell us that our current antibodies will prevent further infection. However, the fact that pooled serum transfusion seems to help in fighting the infection off, suggests that we do make helpful antibodies. They just don't say if they will fight off a mutated virus. It's for that reason that I suspect that the vaccine will be recommended, even for people who have had an infection.

Time and research will eventually sort this out. For now, and into the foreseeable future, masks will be needed for all.

You'll notice that I've used a lot of unless, usually and probably terms. That's what make biology, and medicine in particular, interesting and fun. Each patient is a little different from the others.

Maybe too long a post for hockey fans, but I hope it helps.

Thank you very much Jim.

Jim Hyla
I'm back. Not to arbitrarily pull us back to virus testing, but since I was mentioned, I'll try and explain this as much as I know it.

As noted Jeff got an antibody test, which says nothing about current infection. It just means that you've had exposure to the virus, or part of the virus if you're dealing with immunization, and your immune system has reacted by making antibodies. Those can sometime be made quickly enough to help a current infection, but are most important in fighting subsequent infections.

During this whole process you generally make 2 types of antibodies, IgM and IgG. IgM is made first and usually only stays around for a limited time, months not years. IgG takes longer to make, but can, and that doesn't mean will, stay around for lifetime. Once your body has learned to make the IgG it can gear up quickly to make more. So it is helpful in fighting further infections.

In regarding the test that Jeff was talking about, I'd assumed that it was an IgG test, and he did then say that. Since it takes time to make IgG, it usually means that the infection was in the past and your body has fought it off. An IgM antibody could be found with an infection that you're currently fighting. So knowing that you have IgG present means you've seen this before, usually not now.

The usefulness of knowing you have IgG could be that you don't have to worry about further infection. Unless the virus mutates into something the IgG no longer recognizes. And that is probably how a few people have been shown to get infected twice. The European virus is different in some ways from the Chinese virus.

So that's the first problem with measuring IgG. Like the flu, the virus could mutate and you get sick again. We need more knowledge of the type of IgG our body makes to understand this better.

As I understand most of the vaccines that they talk about, they are directed against part of the virus that if it mutates, it won't cause infection. For example, at least some of the vaccines are against a part of the virus that is needed to attach to a cell. So if that mutates, the virus probably can't infect.

The problem with current antibody testing is that we don't really know what kind of IgG they are measuring. So they may signify prior infection, but they don't tell us that our current antibodies will prevent further infection. However, the fact that pooled serum transfusion seems to help in fighting the infection off, suggests that we do make helpful antibodies. They just don't say if they will fight off a mutated virus. It's for that reason that I suspect that the vaccine will be recommended, even for people who have had an infection.

Time and research will eventually sort this out. For now, and into the foreseeable future, masks will be needed for all.

You'll notice that I've used a lot of unless, usually and probably terms. That's what make biology, and medicine in particular, interesting and fun. Each patient is a little different from the others.

Maybe too long a post for hockey fans, but I hope it helps.

+1

This is what differentiates an Ivy League hockey forum from most others.

Swampy

Jim Hyla
I'm back. Not to arbitrarily pull us back to virus testing, but since I was mentioned, I'll try and explain this as much as I know it.

As noted Jeff got an antibody test, which says nothing about current infection. It just means that you've had exposure to the virus, or part of the virus if you're dealing with immunization, and your immune system has reacted by making antibodies. Those can sometime be made quickly enough to help a current infection, but are most important in fighting subsequent infections.

During this whole process you generally make 2 types of antibodies, IgM and IgG. IgM is made first and usually only stays around for a limited time, months not years. IgG takes longer to make, but can, and that doesn't mean will, stay around for lifetime. Once your body has learned to make the IgG it can gear up quickly to make more. So it is helpful in fighting further infections.

In regarding the test that Jeff was talking about, I'd assumed that it was an IgG test, and he did then say that. Since it takes time to make IgG, it usually means that the infection was in the past and your body has fought it off. An IgM antibody could be found with an infection that you're currently fighting. So knowing that you have IgG present means you've seen this before, usually not now.

The usefulness of knowing you have IgG could be that you don't have to worry about further infection. Unless the virus mutates into something the IgG no longer recognizes. And that is probably how a few people have been shown to get infected twice. The European virus is different in some ways from the Chinese virus.

So that's the first problem with measuring IgG. Like the flu, the virus could mutate and you get sick again. We need more knowledge of the type of IgG our body makes to understand this better.

As I understand most of the vaccines that they talk about, they are directed against part of the virus that if it mutates, it won't cause infection. For example, at least some of the vaccines are against a part of the virus that is needed to attach to a cell. So if that mutates, the virus probably can't infect.

The problem with current antibody testing is that we don't really know what kind of IgG they are measuring. So they may signify prior infection, but they don't tell us that our current antibodies will prevent further infection. However, the fact that pooled serum transfusion seems to help in fighting the infection off, suggests that we do make helpful antibodies. They just don't say if they will fight off a mutated virus. It's for that reason that I suspect that the vaccine will be recommended, even for people who have had an infection.

Time and research will eventually sort this out. For now, and into the foreseeable future, masks will be needed for all.

You'll notice that I've used a lot of unless, usually and probably terms. That's what make biology, and medicine in particular, interesting and fun. Each patient is a little different from the others.

Maybe too long a post for hockey fans, but I hope it helps.

+1

This is what differentiates an Ivy League hockey forum from most others.

Poopyhead.

Beeeej

Swampy

Jim Hyla
I'm back. Not to arbitrarily pull us back to virus testing, but since I was mentioned, I'll try and explain this as much as I know it.

As noted Jeff got an antibody test, which says nothing about current infection. It just means that you've had exposure to the virus, or part of the virus if you're dealing with immunization, and your immune system has reacted by making antibodies. Those can sometime be made quickly enough to help a current infection, but are most important in fighting subsequent infections.

During this whole process you generally make 2 types of antibodies, IgM and IgG. IgM is made first and usually only stays around for a limited time, months not years. IgG takes longer to make, but can, and that doesn't mean will, stay around for lifetime. Once your body has learned to make the IgG it can gear up quickly to make more. So it is helpful in fighting further infections.

In regarding the test that Jeff was talking about, I'd assumed that it was an IgG test, and he did then say that. Since it takes time to make IgG, it usually means that the infection was in the past and your body has fought it off. An IgM antibody could be found with an infection that you're currently fighting. So knowing that you have IgG present means you've seen this before, usually not now.

The usefulness of knowing you have IgG could be that you don't have to worry about further infection. Unless the virus mutates into something the IgG no longer recognizes. And that is probably how a few people have been shown to get infected twice. The European virus is different in some ways from the Chinese virus.

So that's the first problem with measuring IgG. Like the flu, the virus could mutate and you get sick again. We need more knowledge of the type of IgG our body makes to understand this better.

As I understand most of the vaccines that they talk about, they are directed against part of the virus that if it mutates, it won't cause infection. For example, at least some of the vaccines are against a part of the virus that is needed to attach to a cell. So if that mutates, the virus probably can't infect.

The problem with current antibody testing is that we don't really know what kind of IgG they are measuring. So they may signify prior infection, but they don't tell us that our current antibodies will prevent further infection. However, the fact that pooled serum transfusion seems to help in fighting the infection off, suggests that we do make helpful antibodies. They just don't say if they will fight off a mutated virus. It's for that reason that I suspect that the vaccine will be recommended, even for people who have had an infection.

Time and research will eventually sort this out. For now, and into the foreseeable future, masks will be needed for all.

You'll notice that I've used a lot of unless, usually and probably terms. That's what make biology, and medicine in particular, interesting and fun. Each patient is a little different from the others.

Maybe too long a post for hockey fans, but I hope it helps.

+1

This is what differentiates an Ivy League hockey forum from most others.

Poopyhead.

Boy! Tough crowd. I tried very hard to express appreciation for Jim's explanation and still not sound (too) elitist. And I still get shit!

I for one found your lack of elitism grating.

Swampy

Beeeej

Swampy

Jim Hyla
I'm back. Not to arbitrarily pull us back to virus testing, but since I was mentioned, I'll try and explain this as much as I know it.

As noted Jeff got an antibody test, which says nothing about current infection. It just means that you've had exposure to the virus, or part of the virus if you're dealing with immunization, and your immune system has reacted by making antibodies. Those can sometime be made quickly enough to help a current infection, but are most important in fighting subsequent infections.

During this whole process you generally make 2 types of antibodies, IgM and IgG. IgM is made first and usually only stays around for a limited time, months not years. IgG takes longer to make, but can, and that doesn't mean will, stay around for lifetime. Once your body has learned to make the IgG it can gear up quickly to make more. So it is helpful in fighting further infections.

In regarding the test that Jeff was talking about, I'd assumed that it was an IgG test, and he did then say that. Since it takes time to make IgG, it usually means that the infection was in the past and your body has fought it off. An IgM antibody could be found with an infection that you're currently fighting. So knowing that you have IgG present means you've seen this before, usually not now.

The usefulness of knowing you have IgG could be that you don't have to worry about further infection. Unless the virus mutates into something the IgG no longer recognizes. And that is probably how a few people have been shown to get infected twice. The European virus is different in some ways from the Chinese virus.

So that's the first problem with measuring IgG. Like the flu, the virus could mutate and you get sick again. We need more knowledge of the type of IgG our body makes to understand this better.

As I understand most of the vaccines that they talk about, they are directed against part of the virus that if it mutates, it won't cause infection. For example, at least some of the vaccines are against a part of the virus that is needed to attach to a cell. So if that mutates, the virus probably can't infect.

The problem with current antibody testing is that we don't really know what kind of IgG they are measuring. So they may signify prior infection, but they don't tell us that our current antibodies will prevent further infection. However, the fact that pooled serum transfusion seems to help in fighting the infection off, suggests that we do make helpful antibodies. They just don't say if they will fight off a mutated virus. It's for that reason that I suspect that the vaccine will be recommended, even for people who have had an infection.

Time and research will eventually sort this out. For now, and into the foreseeable future, masks will be needed for all.

You'll notice that I've used a lot of unless, usually and probably terms. That's what make biology, and medicine in particular, interesting and fun. Each patient is a little different from the others.

Maybe too long a post for hockey fans, but I hope it helps.

+1

This is what differentiates an Ivy League hockey forum from most others.

Poopyhead.

Boy! Tough crowd. I tried very hard to express appreciation for Jim's explanation and still not sound (too) elitist. And I still get shit!

Just in case it wasn't clear, I was kidding. I deeply appreciated both Jim's explanation and your point that this wouldn't happen on most sports fora.

Beeeej
Just in case it wasn't clear, I was kidding. I deeply appreciated both Jim's explanation and your point that this wouldn't happen on most sports fora.

We were going with it before you ruined it. Typical.

Thanks, Jim.

Based on the webpage of the hospital network who administered the test, I believe the test I took is a "DiaSorin LIAISON® SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG" test. I got my info on accuracy from this webpage from the FDA.