Covid-19

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xavierj

Meanwhile, with the increase use of masks the cases keep Jumping. Also the death rate to number of cases fell below 4%. Should end up around 0.4% about a year from now, if not lower. I think we are still under 10,000 deaths for people under 55.

---

So masking causes increased cases? Huh?

My opinion is that deaths are a big deal, and hospitalizations are also a big deal to the impact this disease state has. The cost burden on insurances from this if not controlled is too much... rates will be sky high next year, even though insurances saved a ridiculous amount of money the 2nd quarter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun

So masking causes increased cases? Huh?

My opinion is that deaths are a big deal, and hospitalizations are also a big deal to the impact this disease state has. The cost burden on insurances from this if not controlled is too much... rates will be sky high next year, even though insurances saved a ridiculous amount of money the 2nd quarter.

---

Never said masks cause this. Just pointing out that with the increased mask usage we are seeing higher cases than ever but less deaths. My guess is that we are just testing a lot more people, including people that are not even sick that test positive. My guess is that a lot of people had it before that never even knew it and never got tested. So cases were probably even higher two or three months ago and we never even knew it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun

Unless you linked 2 articles recently, I didn’t get that at all, just that the 95% was used as an arbitrary number to demonstrate that it sounds like a good accurate test, but really isn’t. I can try to find data later for the PCR tests, which vary by manufacturer, but the specificity is significantly higher with those ~98-99% - IF they are done correctly. FWIW in a small sample size (25-30) I have seen first hand the local CVS minute clinics give patients the swab to do themselves. The patient swabs their own nose 1/4” inside and don’t go all the way up to the nasopharynx, which is more likely to obtain viral nucleic acid. The true lag is in false negatives with the current PCR tests, as they are more specific than sensitive. Antibody tests seem to have more propensity for false positives.

---

I haven’t seen the article and am very loosely following your exchange. However, ever time I see 95%, I think of confidence interval. Maybe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noteggs

I haven’t seen the article and am very loosely following your exchange. However, ever time I see 95%, I think of confidence interval. Maybe?

---

95% was I believe an arbitrary number used to demonstrate specificity and sensitivity in COVID testing. I too am used to 95% confidence interval but it is strictly coincidence. Here is MID’s original post (Lost in a swarm of nonsense) with a link to the article:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muskie in dayton

Adding to the problems with testing, this article is pretty concerning:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/13/w...t-testing.html

In short, the Covid-19 tests are very unreliable. Some still show the high false negative rate; others are showing false positive and false negative. The time of collection relative to infection plays a major role in the accuracy, and the testing procedure apparently has not been standardized.

I hear the calls for more testing and contact tracing, but if we can't trust the results, what good is it doing? The test result data are garbage and cannot be relied upon.

---

If you scroll down in that article it mentions the importance of testing accuracy, but the article is kind of choppy and tough to follow. My takeaway was that similar to MID’s in that we have to be careful with the accuracy of testing, but I felt they were implicating antibody testing accuracy more than PCR testing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun

So masking causes increased cases? Huh?

My opinion is that deaths are a big deal, and hospitalizations are also a big deal to the impact this disease state has. The cost burden on insurances from this if not controlled is too much... rates will be sky high next year, even though insurances saved a ridiculous amount of money the 2nd quarter.

---

For some people, deaths are just another statistic...........until it’s someone you know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xavierj

Never said masks cause this. Just pointing out that with the increased mask usage we are seeing higher cases than ever but less deaths. My guess is that we are just testing a lot more people, including people that are not even sick that test positive. My guess is that a lot of people had it before that never even knew it and never got tested. So cases were probably even higher two or three months ago and we never even knew it.

---

Increased mask usage also correlates with opening everything up, which is the likely driver of increased cases. Deaths are starting to increase too, as are hospitalizations. Agree that mortality rate should continue to come down as the denominator goes up and we get better at treatment regimens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulxu

Your outlook changes on the issue when it's personal, not political:

---

https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset..._720_noupscale

https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset..._720_noupscale

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xavierj

Never said masks cause this. Just pointing out that with the increased mask usage we are seeing higher cases than ever but less deaths. My guess is that we are just testing a lot more people, including people that are not even sick that test positive. My guess is that a lot of people had it before that never even knew it and never got tested. So cases were probably even higher two or three months ago and we never even knew it.

---

This made me think of a preprint on the importance of preventing self-infection deeper into the respiratory system. Maybe masks are doing that? https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....13.20100057v1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun

95% was I believe an arbitrary number used to demonstrate specificity and sensitivity in COVID testing. I too am used to 95% confidence interval but it is strictly coincidence. Here is MID’s original post (Lost in a swarm of nonsense) with a link to the article:



If you scroll down in that article it mentions the importance of testing accuracy, but the article is kind of choppy and tough to follow. My takeaway was that similar to MID’s in that we have to be careful with the accuracy of testing, but I felt they were implicating antibody testing accuracy more than PCR testing.

---

I read it again (for the last time!) and I can see that interpretation too. One thing for sure it’s a poorly written piece of crap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muskie in dayton

This made me think of a preprint on the importance of preventing self-infection deeper into the respiratory system. Maybe masks are doing that? https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....13.20100057v1

---

That's interesting. I'm glad we are undertaking studies on how to better prevent severe infection. It seems like this isn't going to just 'go away', so getting better at treating it will become very important.