RugbyRebels

6 nations start date must be on dodgy ground too, you'd think.

If you’re not ready for a two week detox:

Think it's a mistake not to bring the games forward and then have a domestic break in the 6 Nations. Also frustrating for those about the lose their internationals for a long period. I don't buy the "player welfare" argument given they were willing to flog the players through a season with no break.

Do we really think the 6N is definitely happening?

twitchy wrote:Do we really think the 6N is definitely happening?

Good question. There are significant rugby events/competitions in the near/medium future. IMO, the RFU and all associated English associations need to prioritise. Then, the period from now until the 21/22 premiership season starts needs to be reorganised, accepting that other countries' priorities might not match. England should say categorically that the Lions tour and the European competitions should be scrapped for 2021, leaving 8 months to fit in this season's premiership and 6N. It would be a good excuse to finish, once and for all, top club competition clashes with internationals and finally/fully join professionalism.

Bath v Bristol game now is doubt due to CoVid cases at Bath: https://www.premiershiprugby.com/news/b ... t-covid-19

jimKRFC wrote:Bath v Bristol game now is doubt due to CoVid cases at Bath: https://www.premiershiprugby.com/news/b ... t-covid-19

Yay - 2 points, when 1 would have been optimistic.


This season really is one to enjoy whatever matches get played, and completely ignore the table - practice for ring-fencing I guess

Which Tyler wrote:

jimKRFC wrote:Bath v Bristol game now is doubt due to CoVid cases at Bath: https://www.premiershiprugby.com/news/b ... t-covid-19

Yay - 2 points, when 1 would have been optimistic.


This season really is one to enjoy whatever matches get played, and completely ignore the table - practice for ring-fencing I guess

Surely there's enough time to get a XXIII out, given the game's not gonna be for 11 days?

Puja

Puja wrote:Surely there's enough time to get a XXIII out, given the game's not gonna be for 11 days?

I would imagine so, it'd beyond the 10-day self-isolation period, after all (seems to have been testing whilst symptom-free)

Either way, my comment was heavily laced with facetiousness

Doorzetbornandbred wrote:

Puja wrote:

Doorzetbornandbred wrote:I can see a complete shambles at the end with sides potentially missing out on Europe because they genuinely lost a played game and someone picked up 6 or 8 points from not playing because of Covid and getting 2 points as the loser.

Hells, Skivington's just been interviewed talking about how his side have had heightened COVID protections and discipline and that's why they haven't had a game cancelled yet, and that discipline is arguably why they're bottom of the table!

It's not just England - Bayonne have pulled out of the ECC because of COVID cases, so Leicester are now due to have a two week rest before their next game.

Puja

I can genuinely see Pro sport being stopped in a fortnight or so's time. I reckon we'll up round 1800 to 2000 deaths a day around the 20th sadly.

Feels a bit wierd quoting myself but I wish Id been way out with my prediction...

Bristol-Bath should be fine....https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/ ... ovid-tests

fivepointer wrote:Bristol-Bath should be fine....https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/ ... ovid-tests

There is no way the comp should have been kept going, regardless of false positives. What about false negatives?

morepork wrote:

fivepointer wrote:Bristol-Bath should be fine....https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/ ... ovid-tests

There is no way the comp should have been kept going, regardless of false positives. What about false negatives?

False negatives are very small, and when you consider how low the positive rate is, false negatives are even less of an issue.

Raggs wrote:

morepork wrote:

fivepointer wrote:Bristol-Bath should be fine....https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/ ... ovid-tests

There is no way the comp should have been kept going, regardless of false positives. What about false negatives?

False negatives are very small, and when you consider how low the positive rate is, false negatives are even less of an issue.

You won't be offended if I seek a second opinion on that before sending out young men to breathe, spit, and bleed over each other before being released out into the public.

Raggs wrote:False negatives are very small, and when you consider how low the positive rate is, false negatives are even less of an issue.

Have you got a source for that one? Last I read, the false negative rate was about 30%, it's the false positives that were virtually unheard of.


Either way, Morepork is right, we shouldn't be playing.


ETA: OK, had a look around, and it looks like I'm just out of date, sensitivity and specificity are both around 97% for the current tests.

Which Tyler wrote:

Raggs wrote:False negatives are very small, and when you consider how low the positive rate is, false negatives are even less of an issue.

Have you got a source for that one? Last I read, the false negative rate was about 30%, it's the false positives that were virtually unheard of.


Either way, Morepork is right, we shouldn't be playing.


ETA: OK, had a look around, and it looks like I'm just out of date, sensitivity and specificity are both around 97% for the current tests.

I think the 30% is for the serology test mate, not the PCR one.

Which Tyler wrote:

Raggs wrote:False negatives are very small, and when you consider how low the positive rate is, false negatives are even less of an issue.

Have you got a source for that one? Last I read, the false negative rate was about 30%, it's the false positives that were virtually unheard of.


Either way, Morepork is right, we shouldn't be playing.


ETA: OK, had a look around, and it looks like I'm just out of date, sensitivity and specificity are both around 97% for the current tests.

Yeah. And I suspect that 97% is worst case to be honest. Just look at the summer as a whole. Millions of tests, with positivity of less than 1%. The only way that can happen is if false positives are lower than 3% (otherwse the minimum you'd realistically expect would be 3%).

Lateral flow etc are less accurate, but I strongly suspect that Prem rugby are using PCR, especially considering they're paying so much and receiving results back, whereas lateral flow are do it your self jobs.

Per The Times, due to some simpleton at the testing company, it turns out that there was actually only 1 positive at Bath and 2 positives across the whole league in the last round of tests.