Sunday, October 25th, 2020
 
 
 
Updates automatically
Twitter Link
CHN iOS App
 
NCAA
1967 1970

ECAC
1967 1968 1969 1970 1973 1980 1986 1996 1997 2003 2005 2010

IVY
1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1977 1978 1983 1984 1985 1996 1997 2002 2003 2004 2005 2012 2014

Cleary Spittoon
2002 2003 2005

Ned Harkness Cup
2003 2005 2008 2013
 
Brendon
Iles
Pokulok
Schafer
Syphilis

ECAC Schedule

Posted by Chris '03 
ECAC Schedule
Posted by: Chris '03 (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: September 24, 2020 10:10PM

No Harvard until an ECAC final if this is correct.

?s=21

 
___________________________
"Mark Mazzoleni looks like a guy whose dog just died out there..."
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (Moderator)
Date: September 25, 2020 03:50AM

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

?s=21

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

 
___________________________
JTW

Enjoy the latest hockey geek tools at [www.elynah.com]
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: Cop at Lynah (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: September 25, 2020 05:56AM

Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: Trotsky (---.washdc.fios.verizon.net)
Date: September 25, 2020 07:02AM




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.


 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: French Rage (104.129.202.---)
Date: September 25, 2020 12:10PM

Trotsky

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

 
___________________________
03/23/02: Maine 4, Harvard 3
03/28/03: BU 6, Harvard 4
03/26/04: Maine 5, Harvard 4
03/26/05: UNH 3, Harvard 2
03/25/06: Maine 6, Harvard 1

 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: ursusminor (---.washdc.dsl-w.verizon.net)
Date: September 25, 2020 01:15PM

Trotsky



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.:-D
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: Trotsky (---.washdc.fios.verizon.net)
Date: September 25, 2020 04:47PM

French Rage
Trotsky

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.
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: ursusminor (---.washdc.dsl-w.verizon.net)
Date: September 25, 2020 05:15PM

 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: redice (---.stny.res.rr.com)
Date: September 26, 2020 06:26AM

ursusminor

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

 
___________________________
"If a player won't go in the corners, he might as well take up checkers."

-Ned Harkness
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: scoop85 (---.hvc.res.rr.com)
Date: September 26, 2020 08:52AM

redice
ursusminor

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?
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: Dafatone (---.sub-174-219-137.myvzw.com)
Date: September 26, 2020 10:51AM

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.
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: scoop85 (---.hvc.res.rr.com)
Date: September 26, 2020 11:09AM

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.
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: ursusminor (---.washdc.dsl-w.verizon.net)
Date: September 26, 2020 11:41AM

scoop85
redice
ursusminor

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. demented

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.
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: French Rage (---.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
Date: September 26, 2020 12:48PM

ursusminor
scoop85
redice
ursusminor

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. demented

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?

 
___________________________
03/23/02: Maine 4, Harvard 3
03/28/03: BU 6, Harvard 4
03/26/04: Maine 5, Harvard 4
03/26/05: UNH 3, Harvard 2
03/25/06: Maine 6, Harvard 1
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: ursusminor (---.washdc.dsl-w.verizon.net)
Date: September 26, 2020 02:43PM

French Rage
ursusminor
scoop85
redice
ursusminor

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. demented

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.
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: Scersk '97 (---.hsd1.ct.comcast.net)
Date: September 26, 2020 03:56PM

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?!
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: Trotsky (---.washdc.fios.verizon.net)
Date: September 26, 2020 04:06PM

scoop85
redice
ursusminor

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.
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: Trotsky (---.washdc.fios.verizon.net)
Date: September 26, 2020 04:08PM

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.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/26/2020 04:09PM by Trotsky.
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: Trotsky (---.washdc.fios.verizon.net)
Date: September 26, 2020 04:12PM

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.
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: Jeff Hopkins '82 (---.44.98.30.res-cmts.sm.ptd.net)
Date: September 26, 2020 05:13PM

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.
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: scoop85 (---.hvc.res.rr.com)
Date: September 26, 2020 05:41PM

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.
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: upprdeck (38.77.26.---)
Date: September 26, 2020 06:12PM

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.
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: Jeff Hopkins '82 (---.44.98.30.res-cmts.sm.ptd.net)
Date: September 26, 2020 07:13PM

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.
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: abmarks (---.hsd1.vt.comcast.net)
Date: September 27, 2020 02:55AM

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?
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: Jeff Hopkins '82 (---.44.98.30.res-cmts.sm.ptd.net)
Date: September 27, 2020 01:32PM

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.
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: Scersk '97 (---.hsd1.ct.comcast.net)
Date: September 27, 2020 04:55PM

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.
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: abmarks (---.hsd1.vt.comcast.net)
Date: September 27, 2020 07:42PM

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?
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: scoop85 (---.hvc.res.rr.com)
Date: September 27, 2020 10:00PM

Trotsky
scoop85

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

More reporting on the progress in in-home rapid tests.
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.239.191.68.cl.cstel.com)
Date: September 28, 2020 07:56AM

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.

 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.239.191.68.cl.cstel.com)
Date: September 28, 2020 08:05AM

ursusminor
French Rage
ursusminor
scoop85
redice
ursusminor

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. demented

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.

 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: Scersk '97 (---.hsd1.ct.comcast.net)
Date: September 28, 2020 09:33AM

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…"
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: Trotsky (---.washdc.fios.verizon.net)
Date: September 28, 2020 11:02AM

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.
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.239.191.68.cl.cstel.com)
Date: September 28, 2020 03:32PM

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.

 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: Jeff Hopkins '82 (---.44.98.30.res-cmts.sm.ptd.net)
Date: September 28, 2020 05:17PM

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.
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.239.191.68.cl.cstel.com)
Date: September 28, 2020 07:51PM

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.

 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: Jeff Hopkins '82 (---.44.98.30.res-cmts.sm.ptd.net)
Date: September 28, 2020 08:08PM

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.
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (Moderator)
Date: September 29, 2020 08:17AM

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...

 
___________________________
JTW

Enjoy the latest hockey geek tools at [www.elynah.com]
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: marty (---.nycap.res.rr.com)
Date: September 29, 2020 09:17AM

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.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2020 10:53AM by marty.
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: osorojo (---.res.spectrum.com)
Date: September 29, 2020 10:14AM

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.
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: Trotsky (---.washdc.fios.verizon.net)
Date: September 29, 2020 12:46PM

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.
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: osorojo (---.res.spectrum.com)
Date: September 29, 2020 05:05PM

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.
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: Trotsky (---.washdc.fios.verizon.net)
Date: September 29, 2020 06:05PM

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.
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: Rita (---.ftmy.qwest.net)
Date: September 29, 2020 06:25PM

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.
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: Jeff Hopkins '82 (---.44.98.30.res-cmts.sm.ptd.net)
Date: September 29, 2020 09:06PM

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.
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: Swampy (---.ri.ri.cox.net)
Date: September 30, 2020 02:38PM

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?
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: Jeff Hopkins '82 (---.44.98.30.res-cmts.sm.ptd.net)
Date: September 30, 2020 06:28PM

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?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2020 06:29PM by Jeff Hopkins '82.
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: osorojo (---.res.spectrum.com)
Date: October 01, 2020 12:20PM

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 @#$%!
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: Trotsky (---.washdc.fios.verizon.net)
Date: October 01, 2020 01:33PM

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.
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: scoop85 (---.nyc.biz.rr.com)
Date: October 01, 2020 04:18PM

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.
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: Jeff Hopkins '82 (---.44.98.30.res-cmts.sm.ptd.net)
Date: October 01, 2020 09:15PM

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.
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: osorojo (---.res.spectrum.com)
Date: October 01, 2020 10:22PM

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.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/01/2020 10:25PM by osorojo.
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: upprdeck (38.77.26.---)
Date: October 02, 2020 03:42PM

much better for cornell to not have opened in person and closed for good given the budget issues they faced?
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: Trotsky (---.washdc.fios.verizon.net)
Date: October 02, 2020 06:33PM

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.
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.239.191.68.cl.cstel.com)
Date: October 03, 2020 09:48AM

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.

 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: Trotsky (---.washdc.fios.verizon.net)
Date: October 03, 2020 03:08PM

Thank you very much Jim.
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: Swampy (217.138.198.---)
Date: October 03, 2020 07:57PM

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.
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: Beeeej (Moderator)
Date: October 04, 2020 02:27PM

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, Esq.

"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: Swampy (---.ri.ri.cox.net)
Date: October 04, 2020 10:42PM

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!bang
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: Trotsky (---.washdc.fios.verizon.net)
Date: October 05, 2020 01:01AM

I for one found your lack of elitism grating. :-(
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: Beeeej (Moderator)
Date: October 05, 2020 08:08AM

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!bang

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, Esq.

"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: Trotsky (---.washdc.fios.verizon.net)
Date: October 05, 2020 05:17PM

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. wank
 
Re: ECAC Schedule
Posted by: Jeff Hopkins '82 (---.44.98.30.res-cmts.sm.ptd.net)
Date: October 06, 2020 11:39AM

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.
 

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login