Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Several individuals within Colts organization test positive for Covid


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 131
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

TY is safe, he can’t catch anything this year.     j/k 

Assume the virus is everywhere and make sure you wash your hands.  Corona Virus can live on your hands for 9 hours.  Imagine all the people out there touching things......and then you touch the same t

Seems premature and frankly just ridiculous to point the finger for Colts positive tests at OBJ. But it is what I expect from you

Posted Images

1 minute ago, danlhart87 said:

I picked us to get WC at beginning of year 6th seed 

Yeah I picked AFCS champions with a four seed. I had KC at 1, Baltimore at 2, Buffalo at 3, us at 4, Titans at 5, Pittsburgh at 6, and Houston at 7. I'd take a 6 seed this year for sure. With BOB gone, Houston could still make a run at the 7 seed; Watson is still very good.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NFLUp said:

An NBA team has 10-12 players.

an NFL team has at least 53.

NBA teams have 4-5 coaches.

NFL teams have over a dozen.

 

You can’t create such a bubble without the NFLPA signing off on it, and I doubt it would happen. 

 

Also you would need lots more 'Bubble Material' for all the additional people in it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, coming on strong said:

The browns had covid obj tested I heard it could be our defense 

The browns should be fined letting obj play with covid against the colts 

 

Nobody has shown on the field transmission between players.  If it become proven and prevalent that happens and easily, then and only then, might the season be in jeopardy, IMO.

 

4 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Hopefully they turn out to be false positives. All I got at this point.

 

Would be nice, but do not count on it.  Specificity of the tests (detecting true negatives) are much higher than the sensitivity (detecting true positives).  Getting a false negative result has a much higher chance of happening than getting a false positive.

 

3 hours ago, Nadine said:

Assume the virus is everywhere and make sure you wash your hands.  Corona Virus can live on your hands for 9 hours.  Imagine all the people out there touching things......and then you touch the same thing.

 

Exactly. Though primary transmission is droplets and aerosols, it's not the only method. And we love to touch our faces (eyes, nose, mouth) subconsciously, and potentially let the virus in.

 

3 hours ago, Nadine said:

Respect the virus, it is very good at what it does

 

True, thus such massive worldwide infection in such a short time, even taking strides to slow/stop it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

Would be nice, but do not count on it.  Specificity of the tests (detecting true negatives) are much higher than the sensitivity (detecting true positives).  Getting a false negative result has a much higher chance of happening than getting a false positive

This is my biggest concerns with false positives, the negative showing it was false positive could of been a false negative. Which is more likely.

 

Good thing is there is ample testing to cover both false results.

 

Saying that I think they need to be doing game day testing as well. Not sure why they don't test on game day? I know they did for a couple outbreaks, but should be everyone on game day also.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, w87r said:

This is my biggest concerns with false positives, the negative showing it was false positive could of been a false negative. Which is more likely.

 

Good thing is there is ample testing to cover both false results.

 

Saying that I think they need to be doing game day testing as well. Not sure why they don't test on game day? I know they did for a couple outbreaks, but should be everyone on game day also.

I could have sworn I saw somewhere where 100 percent of players and coaches will be tested before each game starting last Sunday?

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, csmopar said:

I could have sworn I saw somewhere where 100 percent of players and coaches will be tested before each game starting last Sunday?

Could be with the new protocols put out last week. Didn't pay to close attention to them. Should've been that way from the jump if that is the case though 

 

Thanks.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

.Would be nice, but do not count on it.  Specificity of the tests (detecting true negatives) are much higher than the sensitivity (detecting true positives).  Getting a false negative result has a much higher chance of happening than getting a false positive.


Indianapolis Colts: After retesting, COVID-19 test are confirmed negative

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbc12.com/2020/10/16/colts-close-practice-facility-after-positive-tests-virus/%3foutputType=amp

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Exactly. Though primary transmission is droplets and aerosols, it's not the only method. And we love to touch our faces (eyes, nose, mouth) subconsciously, and potentially let the virus in.

I've been feeling lately that people wear a mask but don't wash their hands.

I read a case study of contact tracing where they traced back to a garbage can lid that had covid. A guy touched it and then pressed an elevator button

It went on infecting people from the button

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, w87r said:

This is my biggest concerns with false positives, the negative showing it was false positive could of been a false negative. Which is more likely.

 

Good thing is there is ample testing to cover both false results.

 

Saying that I think they need to be doing game day testing as well. Not sure why they don't test on game day? I know they did for a couple outbreaks, but should be everyone on game day also.

Not only do they re run the test they also get a 15 minute rapid test. They did change and now will be tested on game day also.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Nadine said:

I've been feeling lately that people wear a mask but don't wash their hands.

I read a case study of contact tracing where they traced back to a garbage can lid that had covid. A guy touched it and then pressed an elevator button

It went on infecting people from the button

Wow

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Nadine said:

I've been feeling lately that people wear a mask but don't wash their hands.

I read a case study of contact tracing where they traced back to a garbage can lid that had covid. A guy touched it and then pressed an elevator button

It went on infecting people from the button

And that, is why I always use something else to touch "public" surfaces such as door handles and keypads. And this stems from my phobia against the stomach flu, years and years before all of this stuff happened. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Nadine said:

I've been feeling lately that people wear a mask but don't wash their hands.

I read a case study of contact tracing where they traced back to a garbage can lid that had covid. A guy touched it and then pressed an elevator button

It went on infecting people from the button

What I find interesting is that since Indiana mandated a mask, cases have sky rocketed. Along similar levels to other states when they implemented their mask mandates. So I’m wondering if it’s a combination of people getting a false sense of security by wearing a mask and then engaging in normal, non social distancing activities and not washing the masks properly

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, csmopar said:

I’ve seen some articles quoted as saying the false positive rate is between 1 in 7 and 1 in 3. 

 

It is reasonable to ask though if the same burden of proof needs to be placed on Covid positives as on Covid negatives. 2 positives in a row before it is considered a positive and any news is released, 2 negatives in a row before it is considered a negative. I know they do the 2 negatives in a row to get a player off a Covid reserve list, I feel they should do the same on the positive side as well. :2c:

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, csmopar said:

What I find interesting is that since Indiana mandated a mask, cases have sky rocketed. Along similar levels to other states when they implemented their mask mandates. So I’m wondering if it’s a combination of people getting a false sense of security by wearing a mask and then engaging in normal, non social distancing activities and not washing the masks properly

This just in:

 

Science doesn't know. 

 

Not sure why so much "Faith" is put into it, especially since the fundamental pillar of science is that the conclusions change as you add more information.  I don't why anybody would ever quote science as the reason to make any decision pertaining to such a fluid thing as covid.

 

Common sense > science.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, danlhart87 said:

Colts are 8th in AFC currently and the only teams close at 9 and 10 are Patriots 2 - 2 and Dolphins 2 - 3 who just so happen to play each other twice. 

 

Colts still have a good chance at playoffs but just take it one week at a time and don't be so upset if they lose a game.

The problem is the titans they are really good.we have to play them twice ,the ravens ,packers Steelers.  I am not worried about the Bengals or the lions I think we end up 5.2 like last year . After that the real test comes . I hope phillip makes me eat crow well see .

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, csmopar said:

What I find interesting is that since Indiana mandated a mask, cases have sky rocketed. Along similar levels to other states when they implemented their mask mandates. So I’m wondering if it’s a combination of people getting a false sense of security by wearing a mask and then engaging in normal, non social distancing activities and not washing the masks properly

Many factors.

 

1. People being told to wear masks by the government has caused a lot of people to ignore the mandate out of anger for being told what to do. 

 

2. A sizeable portion of the mask wearers are not properly washing hands in a high enough frequency. Washing them just once or twice a day is not going to stop the spread of the virus, when we touch a lot of surfaces. 

 

3. Going off of factor 1, people are still holding large gatherings within the state. This includes festivals, weddings and parties. 

 

4. People are misunderstanding that wearing a mask slows the virus coming out of the mask wearer's face, not the other way around. 

 

5. It is now a social norm for a major portion of the state's population, that wearing a mask is seen as being weak and afraid. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, DougDew said:

This just in:

 

Science doesn't know. 

 

Not sure why so much "Faith" is put into it, especially since the fundamental pillar of science is that the conclusions change as you add more information.  I don't why anybody would ever quote science as the reason to make any decision pertaining to such a fluid thing as covid.

 

Common sense > science.

How do you achieve common sense while ignoring science? 

 

Isn't rational collaboration how we reach common sense? Or are you portraying that common sense is more of an inherent trait that we already have, essentially the "will to survive"? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, coming on strong said:

The problem is the titans they are really good.we have to play them twice ,the ravens ,packers Steelers.  I am not worried about the Bengals or the lions I think we end up 5.2 like last year . After that the real test comes . I hope phillip makes me eat crow well see .

I think we split Titans and win one of three Ravens Steelers Packers

 

Finish 9 - 7

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Nobody has shown on the field transmission between players.  If it become proven and prevalent that happens and easily, then and only then, might the season be in jeopardy, IMO.

 

 

Would be nice, but do not count on it.  Specificity of the tests (detecting true negatives) are much higher than the sensitivity (detecting true positives).  Getting a false negative result has a much higher chance of happening than getting a false positive.

 

 

Exactly. Though primary transmission is droplets and aerosols, it's not the only method. And we love to touch our faces (eyes, nose, mouth) subconsciously, and potentially let the virus in.

 

 

True, thus such massive worldwide infection in such a short time, even taking strides to slow/stop it.

 

Seems i heard all 4 that tested positivelater received now received a negative test done later (been on errands).  This tells me their earlier test product is either defective, or person that administered it messed up.   While having a false positive is rare but can happen, there is something seriously up when 4 do.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

How do you achieve common sense while ignoring science? 

 

Isn't rational collaboration how we reach common sense? Or are you portraying that common sense is more of an inherent trait that we already have, essentially the "will to survive"? 

Regarding this specific topic, not an acedemic/philisophical discussion...common sense understands that a virus floats in the air and there is not much that can be done to contain it.  Short of what China did, lock people in their houses.

 

Why did we ever think there was a way to contain it?  Who came up with the narrative that it could be?  The people who fooled everybody into thinking that containing a virus is a legitimate government function and a possibility did so simply as a way to create a standard that they knew our current President could not meet.   Then send the message that he failed.

 

That's what most of the conversation is really about.

 

The science comes into play when it comes to treating it....not preventing the spread of it.

 

Does it take a scientist to conclude that a virus will spread easier at an indoor funeral?

 

As a country, we're talking about the wrong thing when it comes to science and covid.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Valpo2004 said:

All 4 are false positives?  That's weird.  

 

I agree.  False negative is up to 30% chance, false positive < 5% and that's being generous.

 

1 hour ago, pgt_rob said:

Tests are human made and labs are tested by humans. We make mistakes. Glad to see they were false positives! 

 

Very true. Now, what do the Colts have to change, test product, how/who collects the samples, the testing lab? All?

 

1 hour ago, HOZER said:

 

Thanks, I heard on radio while out running errands.  I'll read it but does the article point out why?  Teams can't afford multiple false positives on a test designed to give a false negative rather than false positives.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Seems i heard all 4 that tested positivelater received now received a negative test done later (been on errands).  This tells me their earlier test product is either defective, or person that administered it messed up.   While having a false positive is rare but can happen, there is something seriously up when 4 do.

 

I have my doubts about these instant testing mechanisms being used by the NFL, especially given the high rate of false positives compared to the ones used outside the NFL. 

 

Darned if you do, darned if you don't, w.r.t player safety. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Seems i heard all 4 that tested positivelater received now received a negative test done later (been on errands).  This tells me their earlier test product is either defective, or person that administered it messed up.   While having a false positive is rare but can happen, there is something seriously up when 4 do.

But good news regardless.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

I have my doubts about these instant testing mechanisms being used by the NFL, especially given the high rate of false positives compared to the ones used outside the NFL. 

 

Darned if you do, darned if you don't, w.r.t player safety. 

I agree, and truly do not know what POC (and by who, there are different brands) test they use.  But a RT-PCR is the gold standard.  This hints they may have got false results from some type of rapid test and a STATS results RT-PCR came up negative.

 

Tests are supposed to be as accurate as possible, but lean towards getting a false negative instead of a false positive. For us people 'out there'.

 

Let me set this hypothetical scenario-

 

Person gets a test like Colts did. They get a positive result.  They must now isolate from everyone, including family, for 14 days.  (Maybe can't even work)  Say they stay asymptomatic (because they truly were not positive).  They come out of isolation with the belief they have 1-3 months of immunity at least.  They are complacent following guidelines because they feel 'they already had it' and then 'get it' again (which is really the first time) within days or weeks.  Possibly with bad symptoms where their 1st supposed infection (which was really not) had none.  This a situation nobody wants. No doctor, test provider, patient wants.  Thus general public tests are slanted away from false positives as much as possible, even if that enlarges the false negative window.

 

But since testing is so easy and plentiful in the NFL, maybe a test slanted to higher sensitivity (and lower specificity)  might lead to high positives, but can be checked again in short order (unlike many of us). In the NFL, missing a positive is a worse case than flagging one when they aren't.  I see how NFL feels testing is different than general public.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Seems i heard all 4 that tested positivelater received now received a negative test done later (been on errands).  This tells me their earlier test product is either defective, or person that administered it messed up.   While having a false positive is rare but can happen, there is something seriously up when 4 do.

They are done in batches so it is very conceivable a machine got contaminated. The nfl has good protocol to find false positives. They rerun the sample plus give a rapid test.  The protocols are all working.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chloe6124 said:

They are done in batches so it is very conceivable a machine got contaminated. The nfl has good protocol to find false positives. They rerun the sample plus give a rapid test.  The protocols are all working.

 

I guess I agree It's better to false positive flag players, which can quickly be rechecked, where it is less desirable for the general public.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

I guess I agree It's better to false positive flag players, which can quickly be rechecked, where it is less desirable for the general public.

Think of all the asymtematic people who don’t have it but don’t get retested. This is why I don’t believe the numbers are showing high as they are. The normal citizen doesn’t get their test redone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, csmopar said:

What I find interesting is that since Indiana mandated a mask, cases have sky rocketed. Along similar levels to other states when they implemented their mask mandates. So I’m wondering if it’s a combination of people getting a false sense of security by wearing a mask and then engaging in normal, non social distancing activities and not washing the masks properly

Here in Oregon (Portland Metro area), I have not seen a person in a store without a mask in almost 3 months. I go out a lot. Also, we closed all hiking trails, most parks, and you cannot hold large gatherings. that is why our numbers are lower than a lot of states. That said, I find myself touching my face ten times more than before I began wearing a mask. that has to increase exposure. My face itches all the time, the mask makes me want to cough and sneeze. I still have mixed feelings about it.........

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Valpo2004 said:

All 4 are false positives?  That's weird.  

 

I studied Statistics in college and have some knowledge of how medical tests are conducted; long story short, it is much easier to have a false positive compared to a false negative, especially if a person gets back several consecutive negative tests.

 

e.g. the following is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

http://mathcenter.oxford.emory.edu/site/math117/bayesTheorem/

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

They are done in batches so it is very conceivable a machine got contaminated. The nfl has good protocol to find false positives. They rerun the sample plus give a rapid test.  The protocols are all working.

 

Good point, pooled testing. positive result, retest all separately.  {Potential reagent contamination. etc...} I'm sure they would rather have a false + and retest rather than get infected players testing negative.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

Think of all the asymtematic people who don’t have it but don’t get retested. This is why I don’t believe the numbers are showing high as they are. The normal citizen doesn’t get their test redone.

Exactly.  The number of people who have covid, the spread of it, the mortality rate, is simply the result of looking at a narrow universe of data....confirmed cases.

 

Until we get to the day where every person in the country is tested every three days, regardless of symptoms or not, we have no idea the extent of the virus.

 

Its amazing how much the number of cases or level of spread is dominating the conversation for the past 6 months.  Since nobody knows the amount of people walking around with it who have never been tested, the percentages being quoted are completely ignorant.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

Think of all the asymtematic people who don’t have it but don’t get retested. This is why I don’t believe the numbers are showing high as they are. The normal citizen doesn’t get their test redone.

 

This is why people in the medical field follow a principle - Universal Precautions.  You have to treat everyone's body fluids (blood, urine, feces, mucous/spittle/sputum, etc... , whether in the air or on the things it lands on and is touched, as if they have a disease, even if they may have tested negative.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Carson Wentz for a $1 doesn't even look appealing.
    • https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/all/cornerback/   I get what you're saying and tend to agree.  There may be some cuts so the list in the link above may not be 100% complete... but we have a pretty good idea of who is available in FA (another factor is if any of those guys get franchise tagged).     On the list above Xavier Rhodes, most of the guys are 29 or older (the exceptions being Mike Hilton 27, Michael Davis 26 and Mackensie Alexander 28).  So, not exactly a lot of quality 'young' guys out there (as of now anyway).  Several of the guys above Rhodes who are 29 are older also missed time in 2020 to injury (Josh Norman, Richard Sherman, DJ Hayden, Hilton, Alexander, Kevin Johnson, Brian Poole).  Then, Patrick Peterson is same age as Xavier, but he made >$11 mil more than him last year.   Ballard definitely seems to prefer taller guys on the outside CB spots... Hilton at 5'9" doesn't really fit Ballard's prototype... Davis at 6'2" seems to, and Alexander at 5'10" is kind of border line.  Ronald Darby (27) right below Rhodes is 5'11" so another borderline guy.     Obviously, Rhodes will have some ability to test the market... but I doubt he's going to be getting any offers which are significantly more than what we paid him last year.     Rhodes has familiarity with our DB coach from prior to Indy.  He fits our scheme well.  He played well here in 2020 and we likely won't have to break the bank on him.  I don't know we'll find a better option in FA based on who is available now.   CB is definitely a position where we need help (especially if we lose Rhodes)... but we also need to do something to address the QB issue, the OT void left by AC's retirement, overall OL depth, and DL (especially with Houston and Autry both being FAs and both being on the wrong side of 30).  More likely than not, we need to do something to address the WR position and TE position (could be as easy as resigning MAC and Burton).  We only have so many draft picks, and my guess is we'll go OT early... plus, CB is one of the toughest positions to thrive at as a rookie.     Ideally, we'd get younger across the board.. but we probably won't be able to do that... I could be wrong, but my guess it that we'll bring Rhodes back on another short term deal (maybe 2 years this time).    
    • This is awesome  2 of the best ever 
  • Members

    • Shadow_Creek

      Shadow_Creek 666

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Iron Colt

      Iron Colt 52

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • ColtsGermany

      ColtsGermany 274

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • danlhart87

      danlhart87 6,067

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • BillCoslosky87

      BillCoslosky87 1,123

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • GoColts8818

      GoColts8818 4,257

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • CR91

      CR91 5,922

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • IinD

      IinD 2,099

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Hoose

      Hoose 1,025

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • coltsfan_canada

      coltsfan_canada 240

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...