Page 253 of 763 FirstFirst ... 153203243251252253254255263303353753 ... LastLast
Results 2,521 to 2,530 of 7628

Thread: Covid-19

  1. #2521
    Junior Lloyd Braun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Cleveland, OH
    Posts
    4,197
    Wow. You’ve gone off the rails.... and I followed you there. You will continue to spew lies and fail to comprehend simple reading and I will continue to get sucked into your tangled web of “isms” hoping one day you will admit you were MAYBE wrong or misspoke. We’ve reached the pity stage however as there is no chance of either of those things happening ever. Good day, sir.

  2. #2522
    Supporting Member D-West & PO-Z's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montgomery
    Posts
    17,048
    Quote Originally Posted by boozehound View Post
    My example was very specifically the actual COVID test, not the antibody test. It seems surprising to me that a group of that many people, including people over 70 and 2 with Lupus would all be positive but asymptomatic. Then again this is a strange virus. I'm sure we will learn more as time goes on, but right now the randomness of it seems shocking.
    Yeah I didnt mean to imply you were confused.

    I have known several people asymptomatically positive as well.
    "I’m willing to sacrifice everything for this team. I’m going to dive for every loose ball, close out harder on every shot, block out for every rebound. I’m going to play harder than I’ve ever played. And I need you all to follow me." -MB '17

  3. #2523
    Supporting Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Springboro OH
    Posts
    1,582
    Quote Originally Posted by boozehound View Post
    My example was very specifically the actual COVID test, not the antibody test. It seems surprising to me that a group of that many people, including people over 70 and 2 with Lupus would all be positive but asymptomatic. Then again this is a strange virus. I'm sure we will learn more as time goes on, but right now the randomness of it seems shocking.
    The NY Times article I linked above mentioned a newer COVID test with 95% accuracy on the positive and negative sides. That sounds pretty good, but doing the math reveals the problem. With a testing population of 10,000, assume 1% actually have COVID. So 100 have it, 9900 do not. Then doing some basic math with with 95% accuracy, you can expect:
    - 5 False Negatives (.05*100)
    - 495 False Positives (.05*9900)

    So theoretically, this testing method will show 95 true positives and 495 false positives. That means that roughly 4 our of 5 positive tests is not real. That's a problem.
    Last edited by Muskie in dayton; 07-16-2020 at 09:58 AM. Reason: need more coffee
    "...treat 'em with respect, or get out of the Gym!"

  4. #2524
    Supporting Member paulxu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    20,260
    Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) on Wednesday explicitly banned cities and counties from adopting rules requiring masks or other face coverings.
    I'm at a loss to understand how this would help anything. If some city wanted to require masks in public places (government offices, etc.) why would the governor care? Who is it hurting?
    ...he went up late, and I was already up there.

  5. #2525
    Supporting Member X-man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Currently residing in Section 105, Row J, after 17 years in Section 104, Row I
    Posts
    3,399
    Quote Originally Posted by paulxu View Post
    I'm at a loss to understand how this would help anything. If some city wanted to require masks in public places (government offices, etc.) why would the governor care? Who is it hurting?
    Because he's an idiot who wants to politicize the mask issue.
    Xavier always goes to the NCAA tournament...Projecting anything less than that this season feels like folly--Eamonn Brennan, ESPN (Summer Shootaround, 2012)

  6. #2526
    Supporting Member boozehound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Cherry Hill, NJ
    Posts
    6,554
    Quote Originally Posted by Muskie in dayton View Post
    The NY Times article I linked above mentioned a newer COVID test with 95% accuracy on the positive and negative sides. That sounds pretty good, but doing the math reveals the problem. With a testing population of 10,000, assume 1% actually have COVID. So 100 have it, 9900 do not. Then doing some basic math with with 95% accuracy, you can expect:
    - 5 False Negatives (.05*100)
    - 495 False Positives (.05*9900)

    So theoretically, this testing method will show 95 true positives and 495 false positives. That means that roughly 4 our of 5 positive tests is not real. That's a problem.
    That's an interesting point. It probably doesn't impact the results as much in smaller cohorts (i.e. if you test 5 people in a family and they all test positive, the results are probably valid) but can certainly skew the data in widespread testing, particularly of asymptomatic / healthy individuals.

    Quote Originally Posted by X-man View Post
    Because he's an idiot who wants to politicize the mask issue.
    It seems to me like a risky battle to pick, but what do I know?
    Eat Donuts!

  7. #2527
    Junior Lloyd Braun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Cleveland, OH
    Posts
    4,197
    Quote Originally Posted by Muskie in dayton View Post
    The NY Times article I linked above mentioned a newer COVID test with 95% accuracy on the positive and negative sides. That sounds pretty good, but doing the math reveals the problem. With a testing population of 10,000, assume 1% actually have COVID. So 100 have it, 9900 do not. Then doing some basic math with with 95% accuracy, you can expect:
    - 5 False Negatives (.05*100)
    - 495 False Positives (.05*9900)

    So theoretically, this testing method will show 95 true positives and 495 false positives. That means that roughly 4 our of 5 positive tests is not real. That's a problem.
    This was just for the antibody test though, correct? The article you linked used the 95% as an example unless my reading comprehension is poor (gulp!). The molecular testing -nasopharyngeal swab that everyone uses for widespread testing- should be highly specific (99%+) thus greatly decreasing false positives. That’s what I have been told anyways unless it’s the BD brand which has been under question for a few months.

  8. #2528
    Supporting Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Springboro OH
    Posts
    1,582
    Quote Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun View Post
    This was just for the antibody test though, correct? The article you linked used the 95% as an example unless my reading comprehension is poor (gulp!). The molecular testing -nasopharyngeal swab that everyone uses for widespread testing- should be highly specific (99%+) thus greatly decreasing false positives. That’s what I have been told anyways unless it’s the BD brand which has been under question for a few months.
    My read was that it was the actual COVID infection test. The article hopped around between the two, but was discussing the older COVID tests missing so many infections, then moved right into the 95% discussion.
    "...treat 'em with respect, or get out of the Gym!"

  9. #2529
    Senior xavierj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Northern KY
    Posts
    5,907
    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.

  10. #2530
    Junior Lloyd Braun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Cleveland, OH
    Posts
    4,197
    Quote Originally Posted by Muskie in dayton View Post
    My read was that it was the actual COVID infection test. The article hopped around between the two, but was discussing the older COVID tests missing so many infections, then moved right into the 95% discussion.
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •