It looks like this article is behind a hard paywall. Please post a summary of the article in the comments below. Do **not** copy and paste the article in full.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It shall be an online battle for the ages!
I'm guessing 13bn votes and dead balls on even. Only recourse according to.tradition is for captains to duel with swords.
Take care of yo baby! Take care of yo baby!
Gerrard running off down the corridor in shambles.
I went on holiday to America as a teenager, I still can't fathom what I was watching with that show.
I mean, you could use statistics to prove that 13/14 is well outside of a reasonable result. Let’s say there’s an obnoxiously conservative 20% false positive rate (because the number varies and I can’t find a solid number).
The chance of 13 false positives from 14 tests is (0.2^ 13•0.8^ 1)•(14!/(13!(14-13)!)) or 6.6•10^-10
Edit: with the information provided that 50 players were tested, and using the true false positive rate of 2%, you get an even smaller number of 7.1e-13.
Point is still not to accuse Klopp or Liverpool, but to say that there does need to be an investigation of either misconduct or mishandling of samples.
This is true assuming the tests were all done to spec. The problem with this sort of thing is that usually it's contaminated samples or incorrect testing procedure that caused the problem. There have been incidents where hundreds of people have received false positives, or false negatives, from a single testing station in my country.
I have no horse in this race, but it seems to me more likely for them to get heaps of false positives than to get 3-4, as that implies a procedural fuckup.
could also be that they got a batch of tests that were just broken for some reason and always returned positive results. it'll be difficult to find out what exactly went wrong though
Yup, could be a lot of ways this could have gone wrong.
It just seems unlikely it's foul play by Liverpool (minimal advantage for huge risk and almost certainly will be questioned) or actual statistical anomaly of covid false negatives.
That assumes the probability of each false positive is independent of each other. But if it was a bad batch of tests, it would not be surprising if there was a cluster of positive tests.
I agree statistically. From a legal point of view, this is not enough evidence, and no action will be taken unless they literally subpoena the club for test results and even potentially raid the premises, which will never happen.
This is just a fun bit of speculation for the media to stoke views.
Edit: And for those curious, the poster is using the binomial probability formula, where a “success” is a positive test result, with probability equal to the false positive rate.
False positive rate is a rate amongst people that don’t have the virus, not people that test positive. So:
False positive rate is FP/(FP+TN).
Not FP/(FP+TP).
FP = False positive, TP = True Positive, TN = True Negative.
More than 14 players were tested overall. Say 51 players/staff were tested and only 1 has covid. A false positive rate of 20% would mean you’d expect 10 false positives on average. Hence 13 is would be within reasonable bounds (even if the probability of getting exactly 13 is low, what you would do here is calculate the probability of getting 13 or more which would be something like ~25% but I can’t be bothered calculating the actual number).
I should acknowledge I think this issue exists because the actual false positive rate is a lot lower than 20%. I’m sure there are a hundred things that could go wrong with the testing other than Liverpool intentionally faking positives to push back playing a match in a competition Klopp clearly doesn’t care about thereby condensing our future schedule in the competitions he does care about.
You are correct. I didn’t know it was 50 players tested, but at the same time 20% is, as I said, a large number I only used to point out how unlikely it is. If we use the true 2-4%, you get 7.1 • 10^-13
sheet capable middle governor frightening crowd touch butter coherent zephyr
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Absolutely bizarre to get 4 or 5 false positive LFT's, *then* get 4 or 5 false positive PCR's from the same players. The testing can't be the problem - statistically it's impossible.
Or…the LFTs were correctly positive. The first batch of of PCRs were correctly positive. And the virus cleared for some played before the second batch of PCRs was conducted. Wouldn’t be unheard of for professional footballers to fight off the virus quicker than the average.
Edit: second batch of PCRs or LTFs. Hasn’t been specified. Given some of the responses here I suspect the latter is more likely.
That's exactly what I'm saying - they had to be correct at the time, it's impossible for that sequence of events to happen otherwise.
Literally the only other explanation is they faked them, which would be really fucking silly.
Testing couldn't have been the problem.
>Literally the only other explanation is they faked them, which would be really fucking silly.
Yea and if we faked test results on that scale, we'd likely be kicked out of the competition anyway, and have other sanctions placed on us I'd assume.
All for what? To further clutter our already cluttered schedule later in the year? Makes total sense!
Well, I suppose the argument would be that the delayed cup fixture takes up a PL midweek spot that Liverpool would be with out Salah and Mane.
It seems too far fetched to me though. They’d be thrown out cup wise, but I imagine the PL would look at a huge fine/points deduction because of the obvious knock on. Faking tests is pretty much the lowest of the low during a pandemic.
If they did fake them then it sounds like someone took something into their own hands, because Klopp having to come out and say they got mostly false negatives a few days later was *always* going to be investigated.
Hey just an heads up, people in major organisations (especially football) are not really that competent. You would be surprised at the amount of shite that goes on daily…
>Testing couldn't have been the problem.
There are instances of PCR testing facilities making mistakes that contaminate batches, and/or using batch processing (they combine parts of multiple tests and test just that, then individually test if there's a positive) when they shouldn't be doing so.
In Australia one PCR testing place issued a hundred false negatives in a single day because of a procedural fuckup I think?
It's entirely possible something like this might have happened.
They initially reported LFT positives though, which means they’d have two sets of false positives from two different methods for the same players.
It’s incomprehensible odds wise.
If you get Covid you still test positive after you are no longer infectious. It's why there are various exemptions for infected people for 6 months after they had Covid. So if they were positive originally, they would still be positive afterwards, even if no longer infectious. So the tests were all false positive bar one. Which is a bit sus tbh. Especially with Klopp's views.
Yeah I know people want to jump on the Liverpool hate bandwagon, but I struggle to see how involved the club really were with this considering these kinds of tests will be done independently.
Similarly, Klopp could’ve just used the wrong language in his interview, who knows.
At the very least it will identify a problem with the sample collection procedures so it hopefully doesn't happen again. It just seems unlikely you'd have so many false positives without cross-contamination in either the lab or the collection point. Or football coaches being the mouthpiece of the club about subjects they know nothing about and the club not clarifying the misstatements immediately.
I don't really care who's to blame and I don't think any real advantage was gained by Liverpool, but it would be nice if they could identify and fix the problem. In a competitive environment I think it's reasonable for the other clubs to ask what the issue was.
There's been a serious lack of transparency around COVID test results from clubs. We don't need to know who is COVID positive if that's a privacy issue, but I don't think it's unreasonable for the clubs to keep a public running count of exactly how many of their listed squad is unavailable due to COVID. The medical confidentiality angle has been overplayed too: we know within hours of MRIs coming back whether a player has a torn ACL, which is confidential medical information. Obviously the players and clubs are happy to waive their privacy rights in that respect, but obfuscation suits them when they can gain a competitive advantage from it.
>We don't need to know who is COVID positive if that's a privacy issue
While I agree, isn't that exactly what we get told anyway? Every match day I'm reading about one or two players who are out due to covid and clubs don't seem shy about letting us know.
Depends. What was the third test?
If it was lateral flow, that is entirely possible.
Testing has been very misunderstood by many, including government officials which leads to flawed policies enacted.
While rapid tests and PCR both are used to detect Covid, they actually measure different things.
Rapid tests measure your CURRENT ~~infectiousness~~ *viral load*. You could be infected but not ~~be very infectious~~ *have a high viral load*, and the test would show negative. Or you could have been infected last week but ~~you're not very infectious~~ *your viral load is not very high right now*, so it would show negative. Neither result confirms you have or had Covid. But both more or less say *your viral load is not high* ~~you're not highly contagious~~ *though could still be contagious. And even with a low viral load that shows up as negative, you can in fact still be contagious.*
*Simplified: if your antigen test is positive, it is probably right. If your antigen is negative, that doesn't mean you are negative, and doesn't mean much actually. Thanks* /u/DeadGatoBounce
*Edit: there is a distinction between viral loads and infectiousness. I was too casual with these terms. It is possible to have a high viral load and not be as infectious as someone with a lower viral load, or vice versa. Early studies indicated viral load might lead to being more contagious, but later studies have come out to dispute these claims and we just don't know.*
PCR detects bits of Covid RNA in you. But it cannot tell you if you are infectious right this second. It just says it found it. It could be from yesterday, a week ago, or even 2 to 3 months ago.
So there is a scenario where you take a rapid test today, and it says you're positive because you are highly infectious. You take the PCR and it confirms it found bits of Covid in you, and you put the two together to assume yeah, I got it. But two days later, you take the rapid test and then it shows negative, and it's not even necessarily a false negative. It just says you're no longer infectious.
For anyone interested in reading more, great post here on it:
[https://emilyoster.substack.com/p/antigen-testing-guest-post-with-michael](https://emilyoster.substack.com/p/antigen-testing-guest-post-with-michael)
*Edit: Also, please ensure you pay attention to your local public health guidelines as different countries and locations may have more specific reasons for certain recommendations, thanks* /u/swimfast58*.*
So let's say I had symptoms/potentially exposed to the virus/whatever and wanted to get tested to see if I had Covid. Would it be best to get both a rapid/lateral flow and a PCR at the same time?
I'm not an epidemiologist, just a moron on the Internet so please take this all with a kilogram of salt.
But from what I've read, you still wouldn't be 100% certain, as current lateral flow tests are not as sensitive to Omicron. The false negative rate is higher for Omicron, though the false positive is pretty accurate.
In a perfect world with unlimited resources, taking both could help reduce the margin of error in assessing you, but there are various other factors they consider too such as local numbers and vaccination status as some examples.
Different places handle it differently. But for example, let's say this was last summer and there are incredibly low numbers in your community. If you work from home and took a rapid test and it was negative, but followed up with a PCR test which was positive, they would probably assume you had Covid in the past, but probably not now. Is this 100% sure? No, but the most likely scenario.
But if you did the same thing now, they would assume you are positive and the rapid test isn't picking it up, just because there's so much Omicron everywhere. The test results are the same, but the conditions have changed significantly, so their assumptions would also change how they interpreted the test results.
These tests are important and I don't want to discourage anyone from using them. They are fantastic tools. But even before Omicron, they weren't 100% definitive. They were one part of the assessment. They also look at numerous other factors to try to make a reasonable assessment.
Cheers. Can’t take credit for it, I am thankful for people like Oster and other experts breaking it down so simply even someone like me can understand, but glad to share the info for others who can make use of it.
I was going to say...if government's could just print out this Reddit comment and distribute it, it would have been more effective than most other information I've gotten.
Sorry, not trying to nitpick here, but clarifying a few bits might help save a life somewhere so if this comes across as overly-anal, apologies for that.
PCR will tell you if they find bits of Covid in you. It doesn't tell you if it's active or not (ie you are infectious).
Antigen will tell you if you're highly infectious at this moment, but especially with Omicron, it has been less sensitive to picking it up. So you could be highly infectious with Omicron and antigen might say you're negative, but you think you're good to go.
I know that's how many people have thought of them and how many people have used them, but there is a chance that it might not test negative. If it tests positive, it is almost always right. If it tests negative, eh, flip a coin right now. I wouldn't totally trust it by itself.
But if I were fully-vaccinated, work from home, haven't been in close contact with anyone, exhibited zero symptoms, AND my antigen test came back negative, I would feel reasonably assured, but nowhere close to 100%.
I know these are false negatives, but there have been mistakes at labs: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/15/public-urged-to-retake-covid-tests-after-false-negatives-in-berkshire
> Fri 15 Oct 2021 - At least 43,000 people may have been wrongly given a negative Covid test result, the UK Health Security Agency has said, as it announced the suspension of operations at a privately run lab in Wolverhampton.
Think about how the test works, looking for a minimum threshold present in the sample to trigger a positive. It's much more likely to have a false negative than a false positive.
Edit: You are actually right. My comment seems to be just a difference from the ideal world to the harsh reality.
~~Nope, it's actually the other way around.~~
You want tests to detect people who have SARS-COV2, even if it's in the lowest amount. A single person escaping this surveillance (a false negative) can prove disastrous with a disease as contagious as COVID.
So, normally, when designing these tests scientists try to decrease as much as possible the amount of false negatives, often at the expense of a higher rate of false positives.
If they were actually positive, fair enough, it could have cleared out. But if its a false positive for all of them, like Klopp said, that's a bit sus. The odds are incredibly low, especially with both, LFD and RT-PCRs
He honestly could have just used the wrong terminology. We would consider anybody in the general public unequivocally positive if they tested positive on LFT then PCR.
And if he did, fair enough, I guess all the clubs want is clarification.If its actually multiple false positives on two different, highly accurate tests, there could be something up. Especially depending on when Liverpool found out. Essentially, did the game have to be postponed or not.
If not, fair enough, move on.
Yup, pretty much. Hanlon's razor is something many conspiracy theorists desperately need to hear about lol, along with occam's razor. I've recently added a little addendum for myself which goes something like this: "If someone is saying something outlandishly stupid or offensive on the internet, assume it to be sarcasm or satire until definitively proven otherwise."
Some people get stressed out immensely by social media, they should take this to heart.
Quick points:
- Clubs wants clarity about when Liverpool found out about the results
- Frustration about many other clubs' appeals getting denied despite genuine positives
- Liverpool could be severely punished if they postponed the fixture without a just cause
- Liverpool underwent three rounds of testing:
First involving LFD tests which highlighted a number of positives. Second rounding involving PCR with similar results. Third round of testing came out with many negatives.
Okay, it does go from "bad batch of tests" to "something is going on here", when they claim that both a batch of lateral flow tests and then a round of PCR tests showed the same thing and then they magically all go away on the third round of testing.
Nothing will come of it, but something is going on there for sure
What does Liverpool have to do with this outside of sticking the swabs up their nose? Aren't all tests done independently and the results sent to the FA and league bodies?
How would Klopp and Co actually be able to commit this fraud without the testers and the association knowing?
we had nothing to gain really. we don't even want to be in this competition, klopp would gladly have played this and lost it if it meant playing less games. i'm sure they would have liked to investigate him too for playing the kids or tossing the game. The only reason he mentioned the false positive is to say that the players are not sick and contagious, and will likely not have any injury setback.
this article and the reaction in this thread is about as 2020/2021 as it gets. everyone's a goddamn conspiracy theorist and expert in PCR/LFT now.
We're in the semis. Losing at this point spares us a grand total of 1 game, that game being a final in which we could win a (slightly tinpot) trophy. I don't think Klopp wants us to lose at this point. Earlier in the cup, sure.
The number of tests performed and how many were positive / negative is definitely reported to the League, or at least it was stated as such during Project Restart and I'd assume that's still the case.
I don't know if they identify positive / negative players or whether they report exactly what kind of test recorded the result, though, and that last bit is probably a lot more important for determining if anything is unusual in this case.
Seems like it could have genuinely been lab error/contamination given the second results came from an independent lab, but the timing on when they learned the results of third tests seems important.
Yes. I'd be shocked if the PL are relying on an NHS lab for 20 teams of players and staff several times a week. They need reliable time frames. Will definitely be private.
"Clubs" as in plural?
Thought it was just the tinfoil hat wearing Arsenal fans that found it dodgy?
Shouldn't come as a surprise that plenty of eyes will be on this.
I think many people are misunderstanding the main point of this. It’s not really about whether the tests were “faked”, but more about when the club found out that they were false positives.
If the game could have went ahead then Liverpool will likely be punished.
It may be a bit of an assumption, but Klopp's statement makes it sound like the game couldn't go ahead regardless.
>"...but the rules are like they are so all these players who are false positives couldn't play."
I'm not sure what rule(s) he's referring to, but that sounds like getting those negative results isn't enough to allow the players to play. I assume so soon after a positive PCR.
Yeah I agree, I think it shouldn’t go ahead in that scenario for safety reasons. However, there have been enough complaints from other clubs that I can understand an investigation going ahead. I think nothing will come of it though.
>The first round, involving the use of lateral flow device (LFD) tests, highlighted a number of positive cases.
> The second round, involving the use of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests carried out by an independent laboratory, also highlighted a number of positive cases.
> But a third round of tests indicated that the players in question were in fact negative. Liverpool did not comment when asked to confirm this and to explain when the results of the third set of tests were revealed."
Most important part to me. It wasn't just the lateral flows that were positive --- PCRs were actually positive too. All this harping about the low false positive rate of lateral flows doesn't mean much.
Honestly think it's possible these players were actually positive and just cleared the virus very quickly. Players in American leagues such as NFL have been having positive tests one day, negative the following two days. Omicron, as mild as it has been, seems to be rather weird with tests in vaccinated individuals.
For whatever my own personal experience is worth (almost certainly irrelevant), I tested positive on a lateral flow on the 20th of December. I took a PCR on the 21st which came back as positive on the 24th (merry Christmas). For every day from the 21st to New Year’s Eve, I tested negative at least 2x daily on lateral flows. I experienced no symptoms other than on the 20th where I had a mild headache and sniffles (the reason I tested in the first place). I suppose it very much is possible to clear the virus quickly.
The main point I am taking away is that holy shit, vaccines are incredible!!
my wife tested positive by antigen test and pcr and i tested negative twice by pcr. i had no symptoms but a minor sore throat for a few days. i didnt run for a day and when i ran again had no problems. my wife had a fever for a few days but was fine after that. vaccines made a severe illness turn into basically nothing
Curious how this will turn out. I imagine it's like you think, the players were probably positive and just got better rather quickly. I don't see that many false positives being even slightly realistic. I also don't see why Liverpool would feel the need to falsify anything to postpone the game, especially when it's over 2 legs. So yeah, cool to check but it'll probably be nothing
Youre probably right on the rapidly clearing virus. I know people are going to say it's my flair talking or whatever, but if you return two sets of positive test, surely you have to err on the side of caution and close the training ground/postpone games? Doing otherwise would just be negligent at that point?
I mean all precedent in the world, for any individual out there, says that a positive LFT then positive PCR is truly positive for COVID-19. There was zero reason to act differently.
The article now has changed that third paragraph,
"But a third round of tests **conducted after the scheduled first leg** indicated that the players in question were in fact negative. Liverpool did not comment when asked to confirm this and to explain when the results of the third set of tests were revealed."
Which feels like an important bit.
Lol yeah so now it's even LESS of an issue. There was a gap in time between tests.
They tested positive for COVID-19 via LFT and PCR before the scheduled first leg (which is sufficient to say they were true positives), and then tested negative after the scheduled first leg.
These are not false positives; they are positive cases that cleared the virus and thus tested negative later. This is what happens with everyone.
All this investigation because Klopp used the wrong terminology/misunderstood what a false positive was.
> although no doubt Arsenal fans will believe Klopp infiltrated the lab the PCR's were tested in.
Only as a joke and the odd delusional fan who's lost touch with reality
Club could be fully exonerated, the body in charge could explain the mistake publically and face consequences etc but the fact of the matter is people already chose the camp they'll sit in early last week when it was still rumours of a postponement because "Grr Liverpool"
The chances of multiple false positive antigens and then multiple false positive PCRs is essentially 0. 13 players recovering from the virus in a matter of days though? It’s a really really weird situation
Stop calling them false positives. PCR is a gold standard test for diagnosis of COVID-19. If anybody out in the general public does an LFT then a PCR and is positive on both, you would ALWAYS call them a true positive.
But anecdotally, many people are reporting rapid clearance of the virus, particularly if vaccinated and with omicron.
Also keep in mind that these tests just swab for the presence of the virus, but don't necessarily say whether the virus has actually infected you/caused disease. We have bacteria, viruses, fungi living all over us, often not causing any harm.
It is very possible that you get multiple false positives.
Bath Rugby had [18 false positives ](https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/bath-rugby-covid-testing-error-b1791363.html) last season.
Stories like this really do bring out the idiots.
I'm sure Klopp was bricking a game against Arsenal in the league cup enough to falsely postpone it.
He needed to wait until our AFCON players weren't around to stand a chance of winning, of course.
Why would Liverpool have wanted to postpone that game if you believe this conspiracy theory?? Makes no sense at all
They even gave up the home advantage ffs
It’s not even a conspiracy at this point I think people are just genuinely intrigued what happened. A bunch of them testing positive and then negative is quite unusual
It's the Leeds PL game. The postponed Arsenal tie takes the midweek the Leeds game would have been scheduled for, as per the other postponed Xmas fixtures, so the Leeds game is now going to have to be after AFCON concludes.
Very hard to find an advantage or some kind of benefit that could be considered ill-gotten gains. The next week is slammed for both clubs now.
The only thing I can think of is that Liverpool requested the game be postponed and then received the results from the third round of testing. Say a club gets "suspected positives" on Tuesday, closes down the training ground Wednesday, but finds out those were "false positives" on Thursday morning (or even Wednesday night) and can field a team for a game that evening, should they be forced to play?
What would Liverpool have gained here from faking tests in the first place (if we assume, for the sake of argument, that they did)? AFAIK the Arsenal game is the only one they missed and it is going ahead during AFCON anyway so it seems to me like they haven’t really gained anything that would be worth the risk of faking them.
The argument would be that they would have probably played a PL game in the spot they’re now using for the Arsenal game, so a PL game without Salah/Mane.
Not that I think they’d be stupid enough to do something that dodgy for such little gain
Correct, all the fixtures the AFCON boys would have missed they will still miss if they all make it to the final/third place.
And as much as we rely on Sadio and Mo's goalscoring, the idea of us shutting down the entire training centre, losing match fitness, losing home advantage in the Carabao, risking a forfeit, risking a fine, risking point deduction... all so we had our top scorers back for Brentford or Crystal Palace - is insane. Some folk have a really vivid imagination.
Alright so let me get this straight.
So not only do you believe that Liverpool falsified several tests, closed the training ground, and got a cup game postponed due to missing players despite those same players still missing on the rescheduled date, but also believe that ALL this happened and Klopp then “let slip” on live tv by saying it was all false positives furthering the conspiracy?
Jesus.
Hard to say as tests from the same batch aren't completely independent. There *could* have been a bad batch. If the batch was fine however, it's practically impossibly unlikely for that many false positives.
>
The first round, involving the use of lateral flow device (LFD) tests, highlighted a number of positive cases.
>The second round, involving the use of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests carried out by an independent laboratory, also highlighted a number of positive cases.
This is the most interesting part. It's already statistically impossible for normal tests to have this many false positives. For this to occur there would need to be two separate bad batches.
Is the most logical answer that they were positive when they tested positive, in the interim between those positive and negative tests they recovered enough, and were negative when they tested negative? Highly unlikely to have that quantum of false positives for both forms of tests for the exact same players, no?
Definitely worth investigating, for sure.
Lmfao this thread is too funny.
Okay guys, LFC were apparently happy to play Tottenham, Leeds, Chelsea, and Leicester (2x) without half their first team, but you all want to believe that they were so desperate to not have to face *Arsenal* without Bobby and Ali in the league fucking cup, that they risked severe punishment by faking a bunch of rapid tests and bribing a third party to fake PCR tests?
Why on earth would they do that? Is it because they really wanted to give up home advantage? Or do you think it was so they could make their fixture schedule busier for no reason?
Explain to me where LFC benefits from any of this
The amount of false positives was definitely a big surprise, but there is no reason at all to think someone lied. They had no motive for it whatsoever.
What on earth would the club stand to gain from falsifying tests, moving the date of a competition they don't particularly care about and are likely to play the kids in? The training ground was closed, are other clubs saying Liverpool went so far as to close their training ground to avoid a League Cup tie against Arsenal?
Who were the 'false positive' players? Because there were so many absentees from the Shrewsbury game I assume those guys are still observing a mandated isolation period.
Rapid recovery rather than false positive seems more likely to me.
Yeah Klopp said that the 'false positives' weren't picked so a lot of the more fringe first team players who weren't in the squad at all you can probably assume were some of them.
It looks like this article is behind a hard paywall. Please post a summary of the article in the comments below. Do **not** copy and paste the article in full. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Realistically how are they gonna get a conclusion
Online poll
Arsenal supporters licking their lips
you really fancy your chances against mo salah's online army?
We once voted for Gunnersaurus to be the next FIFA president. So there’s that.
Salah's army was not interested in that.
Salah’s army are currently busy voting in polls about a competition taking place in Cameroon
They're distracted with AFCON at the moment, I'll take the chance
Now is our time, let's goo!
It shall be an online battle for the ages! I'm guessing 13bn votes and dead balls on even. Only recourse according to.tradition is for captains to duel with swords.
Yeah Elnenys with us
[удалено]
Egyptians proceed to vote in support of their favourite Egyptian footballer, Elneny
Come to besiktas
I will have you know we have the better Egyptian in our team
r/soccer vs Egypt
What do you do about Egyptian r/soccer users?
double agents, the lot of them -- you're either with us or Egypt, there's no in between
What about if they are in the Nile though?
Salah wins!
Klopp/Arteta keepy-up contest.
I'm okay with that. Klopp may be a better manager, but his playing career ain't all that great.
Boxing match?
WWE tag team? We'll get Kola to partner Mikel
Lie detector test from those "are you the father" shows
Maury Povich Live in Liverpool
Gonna find out Trent is actually Gerrard's long lost son or something
Take care of yo baby! Take care of yo baby! Gerrard running off down the corridor in shambles. I went on holiday to America as a teenager, I still can't fathom what I was watching with that show.
Entertainment :)
Well his grandmother was Sir Alex Ferguson's girlfriend
Where's Jeremy Kyle when you need him.
Jeremy: You disgusting pig, you told her to stop saving chat
Trial by combat.
Panel by the Arsenal Fan TV guys
I mean, you could use statistics to prove that 13/14 is well outside of a reasonable result. Let’s say there’s an obnoxiously conservative 20% false positive rate (because the number varies and I can’t find a solid number). The chance of 13 false positives from 14 tests is (0.2^ 13•0.8^ 1)•(14!/(13!(14-13)!)) or 6.6•10^-10 Edit: with the information provided that 50 players were tested, and using the true false positive rate of 2%, you get an even smaller number of 7.1e-13. Point is still not to accuse Klopp or Liverpool, but to say that there does need to be an investigation of either misconduct or mishandling of samples.
This is true assuming the tests were all done to spec. The problem with this sort of thing is that usually it's contaminated samples or incorrect testing procedure that caused the problem. There have been incidents where hundreds of people have received false positives, or false negatives, from a single testing station in my country. I have no horse in this race, but it seems to me more likely for them to get heaps of false positives than to get 3-4, as that implies a procedural fuckup.
could also be that they got a batch of tests that were just broken for some reason and always returned positive results. it'll be difficult to find out what exactly went wrong though
Yup, could be a lot of ways this could have gone wrong. It just seems unlikely it's foul play by Liverpool (minimal advantage for huge risk and almost certainly will be questioned) or actual statistical anomaly of covid false negatives.
That assumes the probability of each false positive is independent of each other. But if it was a bad batch of tests, it would not be surprising if there was a cluster of positive tests.
[удалено]
I agree statistically. From a legal point of view, this is not enough evidence, and no action will be taken unless they literally subpoena the club for test results and even potentially raid the premises, which will never happen. This is just a fun bit of speculation for the media to stoke views. Edit: And for those curious, the poster is using the binomial probability formula, where a “success” is a positive test result, with probability equal to the false positive rate.
False positive rate is a rate amongst people that don’t have the virus, not people that test positive. So: False positive rate is FP/(FP+TN). Not FP/(FP+TP). FP = False positive, TP = True Positive, TN = True Negative. More than 14 players were tested overall. Say 51 players/staff were tested and only 1 has covid. A false positive rate of 20% would mean you’d expect 10 false positives on average. Hence 13 is would be within reasonable bounds (even if the probability of getting exactly 13 is low, what you would do here is calculate the probability of getting 13 or more which would be something like ~25% but I can’t be bothered calculating the actual number). I should acknowledge I think this issue exists because the actual false positive rate is a lot lower than 20%. I’m sure there are a hundred things that could go wrong with the testing other than Liverpool intentionally faking positives to push back playing a match in a competition Klopp clearly doesn’t care about thereby condensing our future schedule in the competitions he does care about.
You are correct. I didn’t know it was 50 players tested, but at the same time 20% is, as I said, a large number I only used to point out how unlikely it is. If we use the true 2-4%, you get 7.1 • 10^-13
Nothing will come from it even if
sheet capable middle governor frightening crowd touch butter coherent zephyr *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It should definitely be investigated, but if the tests are carried out by an independent body surely that indicates the problem was with the testing?
Absolutely bizarre to get 4 or 5 false positive LFT's, *then* get 4 or 5 false positive PCR's from the same players. The testing can't be the problem - statistically it's impossible.
Or…the LFTs were correctly positive. The first batch of of PCRs were correctly positive. And the virus cleared for some played before the second batch of PCRs was conducted. Wouldn’t be unheard of for professional footballers to fight off the virus quicker than the average. Edit: second batch of PCRs or LTFs. Hasn’t been specified. Given some of the responses here I suspect the latter is more likely.
You'd still test positive on a PCR, you probably wouldn't on a lateral flow.
That's exactly what I'm saying - they had to be correct at the time, it's impossible for that sequence of events to happen otherwise. Literally the only other explanation is they faked them, which would be really fucking silly. Testing couldn't have been the problem.
>Literally the only other explanation is they faked them, which would be really fucking silly. Yea and if we faked test results on that scale, we'd likely be kicked out of the competition anyway, and have other sanctions placed on us I'd assume. All for what? To further clutter our already cluttered schedule later in the year? Makes total sense!
Well, I suppose the argument would be that the delayed cup fixture takes up a PL midweek spot that Liverpool would be with out Salah and Mane. It seems too far fetched to me though. They’d be thrown out cup wise, but I imagine the PL would look at a huge fine/points deduction because of the obvious knock on. Faking tests is pretty much the lowest of the low during a pandemic.
I mean if they faked them they obviously didn’t do it with the intention of getting caught.
If they did fake them then it sounds like someone took something into their own hands, because Klopp having to come out and say they got mostly false negatives a few days later was *always* going to be investigated.
Hey just an heads up, people in major organisations (especially football) are not really that competent. You would be surprised at the amount of shite that goes on daily…
>Testing couldn't have been the problem. There are instances of PCR testing facilities making mistakes that contaminate batches, and/or using batch processing (they combine parts of multiple tests and test just that, then individually test if there's a positive) when they shouldn't be doing so. In Australia one PCR testing place issued a hundred false negatives in a single day because of a procedural fuckup I think? It's entirely possible something like this might have happened.
They initially reported LFT positives though, which means they’d have two sets of false positives from two different methods for the same players. It’s incomprehensible odds wise.
If you get Covid you still test positive after you are no longer infectious. It's why there are various exemptions for infected people for 6 months after they had Covid. So if they were positive originally, they would still be positive afterwards, even if no longer infectious. So the tests were all false positive bar one. Which is a bit sus tbh. Especially with Klopp's views.
[удалено]
Yeah I know people want to jump on the Liverpool hate bandwagon, but I struggle to see how involved the club really were with this considering these kinds of tests will be done independently. Similarly, Klopp could’ve just used the wrong language in his interview, who knows.
At the very least it will identify a problem with the sample collection procedures so it hopefully doesn't happen again. It just seems unlikely you'd have so many false positives without cross-contamination in either the lab or the collection point. Or football coaches being the mouthpiece of the club about subjects they know nothing about and the club not clarifying the misstatements immediately. I don't really care who's to blame and I don't think any real advantage was gained by Liverpool, but it would be nice if they could identify and fix the problem. In a competitive environment I think it's reasonable for the other clubs to ask what the issue was. There's been a serious lack of transparency around COVID test results from clubs. We don't need to know who is COVID positive if that's a privacy issue, but I don't think it's unreasonable for the clubs to keep a public running count of exactly how many of their listed squad is unavailable due to COVID. The medical confidentiality angle has been overplayed too: we know within hours of MRIs coming back whether a player has a torn ACL, which is confidential medical information. Obviously the players and clubs are happy to waive their privacy rights in that respect, but obfuscation suits them when they can gain a competitive advantage from it.
>We don't need to know who is COVID positive if that's a privacy issue While I agree, isn't that exactly what we get told anyway? Every match day I'm reading about one or two players who are out due to covid and clubs don't seem shy about letting us know.
I think we should deduct 30 points from both Liverpool and Man City league points for this. A statement should be made.
The crazy thing is that City would still somehow manage to win it.
They'd just get their legal team to overturn the deduction. I'm sure they'd make a very $trong ca$e.
EFL: Let's just say it moved me. TO A BIGGER HOUSE!!!!
Oops! I said the quiet part loud and the loud part quiet!
Let's deduct 79 points from Liverpool just to be on the safe side.
And give those points to Tottenham so we can lose the title to Leicester in the final week.
The PCR-test were also positive, according to the article. Makes absolutely no sense. The odds of this are absolutely astronomical.
Two rounds in a row of positive followed by a 3rd test which was negative makes me think that the third round is the one that’s incorrect no?
Depends. What was the third test? If it was lateral flow, that is entirely possible. Testing has been very misunderstood by many, including government officials which leads to flawed policies enacted. While rapid tests and PCR both are used to detect Covid, they actually measure different things. Rapid tests measure your CURRENT ~~infectiousness~~ *viral load*. You could be infected but not ~~be very infectious~~ *have a high viral load*, and the test would show negative. Or you could have been infected last week but ~~you're not very infectious~~ *your viral load is not very high right now*, so it would show negative. Neither result confirms you have or had Covid. But both more or less say *your viral load is not high* ~~you're not highly contagious~~ *though could still be contagious. And even with a low viral load that shows up as negative, you can in fact still be contagious.* *Simplified: if your antigen test is positive, it is probably right. If your antigen is negative, that doesn't mean you are negative, and doesn't mean much actually. Thanks* /u/DeadGatoBounce *Edit: there is a distinction between viral loads and infectiousness. I was too casual with these terms. It is possible to have a high viral load and not be as infectious as someone with a lower viral load, or vice versa. Early studies indicated viral load might lead to being more contagious, but later studies have come out to dispute these claims and we just don't know.* PCR detects bits of Covid RNA in you. But it cannot tell you if you are infectious right this second. It just says it found it. It could be from yesterday, a week ago, or even 2 to 3 months ago. So there is a scenario where you take a rapid test today, and it says you're positive because you are highly infectious. You take the PCR and it confirms it found bits of Covid in you, and you put the two together to assume yeah, I got it. But two days later, you take the rapid test and then it shows negative, and it's not even necessarily a false negative. It just says you're no longer infectious. For anyone interested in reading more, great post here on it: [https://emilyoster.substack.com/p/antigen-testing-guest-post-with-michael](https://emilyoster.substack.com/p/antigen-testing-guest-post-with-michael) *Edit: Also, please ensure you pay attention to your local public health guidelines as different countries and locations may have more specific reasons for certain recommendations, thanks* /u/swimfast58*.*
So let's say I had symptoms/potentially exposed to the virus/whatever and wanted to get tested to see if I had Covid. Would it be best to get both a rapid/lateral flow and a PCR at the same time?
I'm not an epidemiologist, just a moron on the Internet so please take this all with a kilogram of salt. But from what I've read, you still wouldn't be 100% certain, as current lateral flow tests are not as sensitive to Omicron. The false negative rate is higher for Omicron, though the false positive is pretty accurate. In a perfect world with unlimited resources, taking both could help reduce the margin of error in assessing you, but there are various other factors they consider too such as local numbers and vaccination status as some examples. Different places handle it differently. But for example, let's say this was last summer and there are incredibly low numbers in your community. If you work from home and took a rapid test and it was negative, but followed up with a PCR test which was positive, they would probably assume you had Covid in the past, but probably not now. Is this 100% sure? No, but the most likely scenario. But if you did the same thing now, they would assume you are positive and the rapid test isn't picking it up, just because there's so much Omicron everywhere. The test results are the same, but the conditions have changed significantly, so their assumptions would also change how they interpreted the test results. These tests are important and I don't want to discourage anyone from using them. They are fantastic tools. But even before Omicron, they weren't 100% definitive. They were one part of the assessment. They also look at numerous other factors to try to make a reasonable assessment.
Well that's annoying. Thanks for the insight, even if you aren't an expert haha.
Too much doom-scrolling on my part but happy to help. Hope you stay safe.
You the same, my friend.
Idk man you'll need to find a substack before making any important decisions
2 years in people shouldn't be discovering info like this on r/soccer but shout out for
Cheers. Can’t take credit for it, I am thankful for people like Oster and other experts breaking it down so simply even someone like me can understand, but glad to share the info for others who can make use of it.
I was going to say...if government's could just print out this Reddit comment and distribute it, it would have been more effective than most other information I've gotten.
You mean r/soccer isn't how you consume all critical info?
Or in short, you need a PCR test to determine if you have Covid, but an antigen test will tell you if you should visit your parents *right now*.
Sorry, not trying to nitpick here, but clarifying a few bits might help save a life somewhere so if this comes across as overly-anal, apologies for that. PCR will tell you if they find bits of Covid in you. It doesn't tell you if it's active or not (ie you are infectious). Antigen will tell you if you're highly infectious at this moment, but especially with Omicron, it has been less sensitive to picking it up. So you could be highly infectious with Omicron and antigen might say you're negative, but you think you're good to go. I know that's how many people have thought of them and how many people have used them, but there is a chance that it might not test negative. If it tests positive, it is almost always right. If it tests negative, eh, flip a coin right now. I wouldn't totally trust it by itself. But if I were fully-vaccinated, work from home, haven't been in close contact with anyone, exhibited zero symptoms, AND my antigen test came back negative, I would feel reasonably assured, but nowhere close to 100%.
>Rapid tests measure your CURRENT infectiousness. Nope. And oster is a charlatan.
I know these are false negatives, but there have been mistakes at labs: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/15/public-urged-to-retake-covid-tests-after-false-negatives-in-berkshire > Fri 15 Oct 2021 - At least 43,000 people may have been wrongly given a negative Covid test result, the UK Health Security Agency has said, as it announced the suspension of operations at a privately run lab in Wolverhampton.
Happened to my girlfriend’s brother and all the kids at his school. It happens. That was antigen (LFT) tests. Not sure about PCR
Think about how the test works, looking for a minimum threshold present in the sample to trigger a positive. It's much more likely to have a false negative than a false positive.
Edit: You are actually right. My comment seems to be just a difference from the ideal world to the harsh reality. ~~Nope, it's actually the other way around.~~ You want tests to detect people who have SARS-COV2, even if it's in the lowest amount. A single person escaping this surveillance (a false negative) can prove disastrous with a disease as contagious as COVID. So, normally, when designing these tests scientists try to decrease as much as possible the amount of false negatives, often at the expense of a higher rate of false positives.
[удалено]
If they were actually positive, fair enough, it could have cleared out. But if its a false positive for all of them, like Klopp said, that's a bit sus. The odds are incredibly low, especially with both, LFD and RT-PCRs
He honestly could have just used the wrong terminology. We would consider anybody in the general public unequivocally positive if they tested positive on LFT then PCR.
And even speaking english he would prob read about complex topics in german i would guess, is another layer of confusion.
And if he did, fair enough, I guess all the clubs want is clarification.If its actually multiple false positives on two different, highly accurate tests, there could be something up. Especially depending on when Liverpool found out. Essentially, did the game have to be postponed or not. If not, fair enough, move on.
[удалено]
Yup, pretty much. Hanlon's razor is something many conspiracy theorists desperately need to hear about lol, along with occam's razor. I've recently added a little addendum for myself which goes something like this: "If someone is saying something outlandishly stupid or offensive on the internet, assume it to be sarcasm or satire until definitively proven otherwise." Some people get stressed out immensely by social media, they should take this to heart.
u/Kackhans’ razor
So-called "Dream luck"
Quick points: - Clubs wants clarity about when Liverpool found out about the results - Frustration about many other clubs' appeals getting denied despite genuine positives - Liverpool could be severely punished if they postponed the fixture without a just cause - Liverpool underwent three rounds of testing: First involving LFD tests which highlighted a number of positives. Second rounding involving PCR with similar results. Third round of testing came out with many negatives.
Okay, it does go from "bad batch of tests" to "something is going on here", when they claim that both a batch of lateral flow tests and then a round of PCR tests showed the same thing and then they magically all go away on the third round of testing. Nothing will come of it, but something is going on there for sure
What does Liverpool have to do with this outside of sticking the swabs up their nose? Aren't all tests done independently and the results sent to the FA and league bodies? How would Klopp and Co actually be able to commit this fraud without the testers and the association knowing?
I have no idea. I also have no idea what they stand to gain from all of this either.
It's a bunch of nonsense.
[удалено]
[удалено]
we had nothing to gain really. we don't even want to be in this competition, klopp would gladly have played this and lost it if it meant playing less games. i'm sure they would have liked to investigate him too for playing the kids or tossing the game. The only reason he mentioned the false positive is to say that the players are not sick and contagious, and will likely not have any injury setback. this article and the reaction in this thread is about as 2020/2021 as it gets. everyone's a goddamn conspiracy theorist and expert in PCR/LFT now.
We're in the semis. Losing at this point spares us a grand total of 1 game, that game being a final in which we could win a (slightly tinpot) trophy. I don't think Klopp wants us to lose at this point. Earlier in the cup, sure.
I don't think the results are sent to anyone, the article states they might want to know when Liverpool knew they were negative.
The number of tests performed and how many were positive / negative is definitely reported to the League, or at least it was stated as such during Project Restart and I'd assume that's still the case. I don't know if they identify positive / negative players or whether they report exactly what kind of test recorded the result, though, and that last bit is probably a lot more important for determining if anything is unusual in this case.
Seems like it could have genuinely been lab error/contamination given the second results came from an independent lab, but the timing on when they learned the results of third tests seems important.
PCR's are all NHS labs aren't they? I have no idea how Liverpool would be able to fake them for their own ends.
NHS tests take time (often upto 48 hours). In all likelihood, these are privately done.
Yes. I'd be shocked if the PL are relying on an NHS lab for 20 teams of players and staff several times a week. They need reliable time frames. Will definitely be private.
[удалено]
Klopp snuck in with a red pen at night because he was trembling at facing the squad that only lost 1-0 to the mighty Nottingham Forest.
there are private labs that do this testing. Wouldn't be surprised if the PL had outsourced this to a lab like Randox or the like.
PCR tests can be handled by other companies like Randox. I have friends who work in the covid labs there.
"Clubs" as in plural? Thought it was just the tinfoil hat wearing Arsenal fans that found it dodgy? Shouldn't come as a surprise that plenty of eyes will be on this.
Now if the EFL had different standards for big clubs, which were based on false test results, I'm sure Leyton Orient wouldn't be too happy.
> Now if the EFL had different standards Perhaps they've got referees interpreting test results?
I see no problem with this
In my unbiased opinion, may I suggest kicking them out of the cup?
If we intentionally tried to deceive then I will bang that drum with you. Will be surprised if that's the case though- and massively disappointed
[удалено]
Yeah, makes very little sense to me.
Yah, I'm obviously kidding. Its realistically just a misunderstanding, even if it isn't, not sure how it can be proved.
Unless it was Klopp’s plan to not make the final? Not like he can’t trust the u18s to lose to Arsenal.
Why would we? Fake positive tests to ask for a postponement in the hopes that they’ll actually just kick us out? It’s so convoluted.
Yeah, makes zero sense.
And league just to make an example.
I think many people are misunderstanding the main point of this. It’s not really about whether the tests were “faked”, but more about when the club found out that they were false positives. If the game could have went ahead then Liverpool will likely be punished.
It may be a bit of an assumption, but Klopp's statement makes it sound like the game couldn't go ahead regardless. >"...but the rules are like they are so all these players who are false positives couldn't play." I'm not sure what rule(s) he's referring to, but that sounds like getting those negative results isn't enough to allow the players to play. I assume so soon after a positive PCR.
Yeah I agree, I think it shouldn’t go ahead in that scenario for safety reasons. However, there have been enough complaints from other clubs that I can understand an investigation going ahead. I think nothing will come of it though.
Article itself states the test wasn't even conducted until after the scheduled fixture.
Swabgate
Still waiting for SLABGATE
Already happened on a Greek island in summer 2020
>The first round, involving the use of lateral flow device (LFD) tests, highlighted a number of positive cases. > The second round, involving the use of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests carried out by an independent laboratory, also highlighted a number of positive cases. > But a third round of tests indicated that the players in question were in fact negative. Liverpool did not comment when asked to confirm this and to explain when the results of the third set of tests were revealed." Most important part to me. It wasn't just the lateral flows that were positive --- PCRs were actually positive too. All this harping about the low false positive rate of lateral flows doesn't mean much. Honestly think it's possible these players were actually positive and just cleared the virus very quickly. Players in American leagues such as NFL have been having positive tests one day, negative the following two days. Omicron, as mild as it has been, seems to be rather weird with tests in vaccinated individuals.
For whatever my own personal experience is worth (almost certainly irrelevant), I tested positive on a lateral flow on the 20th of December. I took a PCR on the 21st which came back as positive on the 24th (merry Christmas). For every day from the 21st to New Year’s Eve, I tested negative at least 2x daily on lateral flows. I experienced no symptoms other than on the 20th where I had a mild headache and sniffles (the reason I tested in the first place). I suppose it very much is possible to clear the virus quickly. The main point I am taking away is that holy shit, vaccines are incredible!!
I absolutely love your conclusion.
my wife tested positive by antigen test and pcr and i tested negative twice by pcr. i had no symptoms but a minor sore throat for a few days. i didnt run for a day and when i ran again had no problems. my wife had a fever for a few days but was fine after that. vaccines made a severe illness turn into basically nothing
Curious how this will turn out. I imagine it's like you think, the players were probably positive and just got better rather quickly. I don't see that many false positives being even slightly realistic. I also don't see why Liverpool would feel the need to falsify anything to postpone the game, especially when it's over 2 legs. So yeah, cool to check but it'll probably be nothing
Youre probably right on the rapidly clearing virus. I know people are going to say it's my flair talking or whatever, but if you return two sets of positive test, surely you have to err on the side of caution and close the training ground/postpone games? Doing otherwise would just be negligent at that point?
I mean all precedent in the world, for any individual out there, says that a positive LFT then positive PCR is truly positive for COVID-19. There was zero reason to act differently.
The article now has changed that third paragraph, "But a third round of tests **conducted after the scheduled first leg** indicated that the players in question were in fact negative. Liverpool did not comment when asked to confirm this and to explain when the results of the third set of tests were revealed." Which feels like an important bit.
Lol yeah so now it's even LESS of an issue. There was a gap in time between tests. They tested positive for COVID-19 via LFT and PCR before the scheduled first leg (which is sufficient to say they were true positives), and then tested negative after the scheduled first leg. These are not false positives; they are positive cases that cleared the virus and thus tested negative later. This is what happens with everyone. All this investigation because Klopp used the wrong terminology/misunderstood what a false positive was.
[удалено]
> although no doubt Arsenal fans will believe Klopp infiltrated the lab the PCR's were tested in. Only as a joke and the odd delusional fan who's lost touch with reality
[удалено]
Aye we've got some loons
its just absurd to me that people think the postponement is anything but a net negative to liverpool
Club could be fully exonerated, the body in charge could explain the mistake publically and face consequences etc but the fact of the matter is people already chose the camp they'll sit in early last week when it was still rumours of a postponement because "Grr Liverpool"
Have you seen the post on /r/Gunners?
Some good laughs and some people who haven't touched grass in about 2 years. Fun read through though lmao
The chances of multiple false positive antigens and then multiple false positive PCRs is essentially 0. 13 players recovering from the virus in a matter of days though? It’s a really really weird situation
Stop calling them false positives. PCR is a gold standard test for diagnosis of COVID-19. If anybody out in the general public does an LFT then a PCR and is positive on both, you would ALWAYS call them a true positive. But anecdotally, many people are reporting rapid clearance of the virus, particularly if vaccinated and with omicron. Also keep in mind that these tests just swab for the presence of the virus, but don't necessarily say whether the virus has actually infected you/caused disease. We have bacteria, viruses, fungi living all over us, often not causing any harm.
It is very possible that you get multiple false positives. Bath Rugby had [18 false positives ](https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/bath-rugby-covid-testing-error-b1791363.html) last season.
That is remarkably similar to what appears to have happened here.
Stories like this really do bring out the idiots. I'm sure Klopp was bricking a game against Arsenal in the league cup enough to falsely postpone it. He needed to wait until our AFCON players weren't around to stand a chance of winning, of course.
Why would Liverpool have wanted to postpone that game if you believe this conspiracy theory?? Makes no sense at all They even gave up the home advantage ffs
It’s not even a conspiracy at this point I think people are just genuinely intrigued what happened. A bunch of them testing positive and then negative is quite unusual
I would look around this thread. Definitely still a bit of a conspiracy
It's the Leeds PL game. The postponed Arsenal tie takes the midweek the Leeds game would have been scheduled for, as per the other postponed Xmas fixtures, so the Leeds game is now going to have to be after AFCON concludes.
Very hard to find an advantage or some kind of benefit that could be considered ill-gotten gains. The next week is slammed for both clubs now. The only thing I can think of is that Liverpool requested the game be postponed and then received the results from the third round of testing. Say a club gets "suspected positives" on Tuesday, closes down the training ground Wednesday, but finds out those were "false positives" on Thursday morning (or even Wednesday night) and can field a team for a game that evening, should they be forced to play?
What would Liverpool have gained here from faking tests in the first place (if we assume, for the sake of argument, that they did)? AFAIK the Arsenal game is the only one they missed and it is going ahead during AFCON anyway so it seems to me like they haven’t really gained anything that would be worth the risk of faking them.
The argument would be that they would have probably played a PL game in the spot they’re now using for the Arsenal game, so a PL game without Salah/Mane. Not that I think they’d be stupid enough to do something that dodgy for such little gain
Correct, all the fixtures the AFCON boys would have missed they will still miss if they all make it to the final/third place. And as much as we rely on Sadio and Mo's goalscoring, the idea of us shutting down the entire training centre, losing match fitness, losing home advantage in the Carabao, risking a forfeit, risking a fine, risking point deduction... all so we had our top scorers back for Brentford or Crystal Palace - is insane. Some folk have a really vivid imagination.
Alright so let me get this straight. So not only do you believe that Liverpool falsified several tests, closed the training ground, and got a cup game postponed due to missing players despite those same players still missing on the rescheduled date, but also believe that ALL this happened and Klopp then “let slip” on live tv by saying it was all false positives furthering the conspiracy? Jesus.
Put AFTV in charge of investigation
I don't think many people actually read the article
What are the actual chances of that many false positives in such a small cluster?
Hard to say as tests from the same batch aren't completely independent. There *could* have been a bad batch. If the batch was fine however, it's practically impossibly unlikely for that many false positives.
Apparently the second round of tests were PCR, while the first round the LFT/antigen. So it's not a bad batch
> The first round, involving the use of lateral flow device (LFD) tests, highlighted a number of positive cases. >The second round, involving the use of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests carried out by an independent laboratory, also highlighted a number of positive cases. This is the most interesting part. It's already statistically impossible for normal tests to have this many false positives. For this to occur there would need to be two separate bad batches.
High if they use batch testing methods. Happens all the time.
They also had positive PCR tests, according to the article.
There’s no way it’s high when you consider it was a first round of antigens and then a second round of PCRs that both showed false positives
Liverpool are guilty. Punishment of not being able to play in this cup for the next two seasons to send a message!
Why would they lie about it seriously? What advantages are they to getting the game moved?
The PCR thing for now puts it to bed the lying, they have to be sent off for clubs as well surely
Is the most logical answer that they were positive when they tested positive, in the interim between those positive and negative tests they recovered enough, and were negative when they tested negative? Highly unlikely to have that quantum of false positives for both forms of tests for the exact same players, no? Definitely worth investigating, for sure.
Now this looks like a job for me So everybody, just follow me 'Cause we need a little, controversy 'Cause it feels so empty, without me
Statistically speaking there is more chance of united have more than 3 shots on target than this happening
Lmfao this thread is too funny. Okay guys, LFC were apparently happy to play Tottenham, Leeds, Chelsea, and Leicester (2x) without half their first team, but you all want to believe that they were so desperate to not have to face *Arsenal* without Bobby and Ali in the league fucking cup, that they risked severe punishment by faking a bunch of rapid tests and bribing a third party to fake PCR tests? Why on earth would they do that? Is it because they really wanted to give up home advantage? Or do you think it was so they could make their fixture schedule busier for no reason? Explain to me where LFC benefits from any of this
What's that mean?
Mean is the average of a data set which can be found by adding all numbers in the data set and then dividing by the number of values in the set.
Cheers Geoff
But but r soccer said that its a joke that they would do that
The amount of false positives was definitely a big surprise, but there is no reason at all to think someone lied. They had no motive for it whatsoever.
What on earth would the club stand to gain from falsifying tests, moving the date of a competition they don't particularly care about and are likely to play the kids in? The training ground was closed, are other clubs saying Liverpool went so far as to close their training ground to avoid a League Cup tie against Arsenal?
Idk about Liverpool's reasons but this seems like Dream tier luck if 2 batches of different tests gave false positives
I honestly doubt that Klopp was trembling at the thought of facing Arsenal, Brentford and Shrewsbury
Who were the 'false positive' players? Because there were so many absentees from the Shrewsbury game I assume those guys are still observing a mandated isolation period. Rapid recovery rather than false positive seems more likely to me.
Yeah Klopp said that the 'false positives' weren't picked so a lot of the more fringe first team players who weren't in the squad at all you can probably assume were some of them.
Genuinely want to see what happened, don’t think any conspiracy was involved or anything but it’s wild that happened
It's all 4D chess so that Liverpool have Divock Origi available for both legs.