Covid-19

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
29,006
31,548
1,743
oklahoma city
They cut domestic travel a few weeks ago by 60%, so I think that is a pretty good indicator of what is actually going on.
If there was a significant outbreak there, our government would know. I would be very surprised if our current government would keep that under wraps. I'm not saying that the 5-7 cases a day out of 1.3 billion people is accurate, I would just be surprised if it was like Arizona there.
 

okstate987

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Oct 17, 2009
7,754
4,739
1,743
Somewhere
If there was a significant outbreak there, our government would know. I would be very surprised if our current government would keep that under wraps. I'm not saying that the 5-7 cases a day out of 1.3 billion people is accurate, I would just be surprised if it was like Arizona there.
Its hard to say. Information is pretty locked down there, so it wouldn't suprise me if there was a larger scale outbreak since then. They tried to keep the initial outbreak under wraps too.
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
22,136
9,685
1,743
Earth
My wife is a nurse and she has also seen this with people trying to go back to work. Asymptomatic positives that get 2 or 3 positive tests before finally getting a negative so they can work.

The positively rate is based on tests, not individuals, so obviously this inflates the numbers but I'm sure it's balanced out a little by all the cases that don't get tested.
Are you 100% positive this is true? You might want to check and make sure. I think it might be...but I do not know. If it is this is a huge issue and not just in Oklahoma...unless it is just Oklahoma double and triple counting patients who test positive more than once. Make sure it’s factual
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
22,136
9,685
1,743
Earth
You really want my thought?

My thought is if you never trust anything that goes against your already conceived notions but readily accept anything that goes with it and every time something happens on the side that agrees with you that seems possibly shady you readily accept the excuse but when something that seems shady on the other side happens you contend it must be a narrative then there really is no way to change a mind on anything.

I've essentially quit this thread because it is the same people with the same opinions no matter what is actually happening. This virus has surprised us in so many ways. With surprises, there should be changes in opinion. Mine has changed many times. And yet, for the most part, there has been little of that here. At least you are somewhat recognizing your intense biases. If you trust no media why are you discussing it at all? It is like staying in a relationship with someone that you absolutely think is cheating on you every time they leave the house. Why would you stay?
We are all biased. It’s the nature of man. In terms of staying in relationships, when I make a commitment I’m going to have to lose my arm before I leave it. Good thing my wife is trustworthy. I do this for community, Op is one of the few places where we can all discuss our ideas openly these days and perhaps get attacked but typically not personally. Community keeps us sane...my pre conceived notions are based on a lifetime of observations..just like yours. My life has 54 years gone now and this one has been my most difficult, both personally and as a member of the society. The chenage I see do “scare” me...and without my faith they would be devastating. So I’m guilty in that I come here for hope and not fear, for life and not death. For truth is also a reason but it’s always going to be a backdrop to the truth that has sustained me all these years and especially this year. Your input is appreciated and your biases also exist...learning is a lifelong process and I too have gone from against the mask to firmly for them and slowing the spread is a top priority for me. Thanks
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
29,006
31,548
1,743
oklahoma city
Are you 100% positive this is true? You might want to check and make sure. I think it might be...but I do not know. If it is this is a huge issue and not just in Oklahoma...unless it is just Oklahoma double and triple counting patients who test positive more than once. Make sure it’s factual
I am 100% positive of this because I did it. We are testing everyone that gets an elective procedure and/or admitted. So, last night there was a patient that had a procedure (tested neg) then returned with a fever (tested negative) then returned with another complication and was admitted (tested again, still negative!).

The other thing is that the rapid tests are not completely accurate. So, some negatives are confirmed with another test. While not accurate, they are far more than 50% accurate. So, every "confirmatory" test is going to be more likely to be negative than simply testing off the street.

If this is an issue, it is an issue that cuts both ways. Before you call it a huge issue, you would at least need to know which way it moves the needle.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
29,006
31,548
1,743
oklahoma city
We are all biased. It’s the nature of man. In terms of staying in relationships, when I make a commitment I’m going to have to lose my arm before I leave it. Good thing my wife is trustworthy. I do this for community, Op is one of the few places where we can all discuss our ideas openly these days and perhaps get attacked but typically not personally. Community keeps us sane...my pre conceived notions are based on a lifetime of observations..just like yours. My life has 54 years gone now and this one has been my most difficult, both personally and as a member of the society. The chenage I see do “scare” me...and without my faith they would be devastating. So I’m guilty in that I come here for hope and not fear, for life and not death. For truth is also a reason but it’s always going to be a backdrop to the truth that has sustained me all these years and especially this year. Your input is appreciated and your biases also exist...learning is a lifelong process and I too have gone from against the mask to firmly for them and slowing the spread is a top priority for me. Thanks
I'm glad to hear you have changed your mind on the masks.
I wasn't trying to claim that I don't have bias. I do feel, at least in matters of medicine, my training decreases (but doesn't remove) my bias to this type of data.

Look at @RxCowboy. He is a person that based on his overall politics should have been on the "masks are BS/we don't need to close down/ this is overdone" side of this. But, he mostly hasn't been. In my opinion, that is because he is trained to look at the data and better sort reality from hope/manipulation/bias/fear.
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
22,136
9,685
1,743
Earth
I am 100% positive of this because I did it. We are testing everyone that gets an elective procedure and/or admitted. So, last night there was a patient that had a procedure (tested neg) then returned with a fever (tested negative) then returned with another complication and was admitted (tested again, still negative!).

The other thing is that the rapid tests are not completely accurate. So, some negatives are confirmed with another test. While not accurate, they are far more than 50% accurate. So, every "confirmatory" test is going to be more likely to be negative than simply testing off the street.

If this is an issue, it is an issue that cuts both ways. Before you call it a huge issue, you would at least need to know which way it moves the needle.
All true...but if positives are being counted more than once numerous times that MIGHT be an issue in terms of decision making for things like football and travel and gatherings even with strong mask mandates. Certainly and conversely the number of negatives would be effected as well. I would think it would be better to count each person as either a case or not but not twice unless they test negative and then positive as that should be counted as one case of the virus and not a negative. But if someone test positive four times and negitive once over the course of one Illness period, it shouldn’t be counted as 3 positives during that illness period. Same for negatives. Right??
 

wrenhal

Banned
Banned
Aug 11, 2011
9,789
4,062
743
Half truth. It isn't "the" reason it is a reason.

First of all, China has tested more than us and has far fewer cases so it isn't all just a testing issue.
Second, on a tests/pop figure there are many countries that have tested more than us.
Third, if the issue was only testing then overtesting would make your number of cases increase but your positivity rate decrease. Well, our positivity rate is increasing. Which means we have more cases, not just more testing.
View attachment 83366
One thing you can't take into consideration is the fact that there are many different versions of tests and they all have different efficacies. How many false positives can possibly occur with increased testing. What is the potential for increased false positives that might be due to cross contamination? With increased testing, comes increased backlog, which can cause human error in safety protocols. No one is studying any of this. As mentioned before, why aren't they accounting for one individual having many tests?

also I'll have to look us up again but apparently there are some counties in Florida that are showing 100% positive in regards to testing. How is that even possible?

And China?? Is there some name for the act of bringing China into this discussion?
 
Last edited:

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
22,136
9,685
1,743
Earth
My bias does make me think that the positive test numbers are being padded either intentionally or not. Mostly because I think typically if someone gets a test they feel sick enough that they need it so it would stand to reason they might be more likely positive than negative. And if they count all test then...However as pointed out by one of the doctors in this thread this could be somewhat balance by folks being made to get test for routine procedures or to play a sport like our football team. Bottom line...who knows, but it sounds like it should balance out, even if flawed??
 
Last edited:

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
29,006
31,548
1,743
oklahoma city
One thing you can't take into consideration is the fact that there are many different versions of tests and they all have different efficacies. How many false positives can possibly occur with increased testing. What is the potential for increased false positives that might be due to cross contamination? With increased testing, comes increased back, which can cause human error in safety protocols. No one is studying any of this. As mentioned before, why aren't they accounting for one individual having many tests?

also I'll have to look us up again but apparently there are some counties in Florida that are showing 100% positive in regards to testing. How is that even possible?

And China?? Is there some name for the act of bringing China into this discussion?
Of course you can take into consideration the sensitivity and specificity of the tests. The PCR test tests for Sars-2 genetic material and has an extremely low false-positive rate. The antibody tests have a higher false-positive rate that depends on the prevalence of the disease in the population. They should be able to get a disease prevalence from PCR to help estimate a FP rate for the Ab test.

What do you mean that nobody is studying any of this? LOL.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
70,098
40,702
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
Trump is exactly right...there is a direct relationship between numbers of tests performed in any group to a larger number of tests that are positive for the virus.
"We have tested 40,000,000 people. If we did 20,000,000 instead, Cases would be half, etc. NOT REPORTED!"

C'mon doc, you're smarter than that. People have heart disease whether they know it or not. Just because they don't know yet that they have 90% occlusion of the left anterior descending doesn't mean they don't have a 90% occlusion of the LAD. The heart attack is coming. Burying our heads in the sand and not testing, as Trump is suggesting, so that the cases wouldn't happen is just plain stupid. Sometimes he needs to shut up.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
70,098
40,702
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
I'm glad to hear you have changed your mind on the masks.
I wasn't trying to claim that I don't have bias. I do feel, at least in matters of medicine, my training decreases (but doesn't remove) my bias to this type of data.

Look at @RxCowboy. He is a person that based on his overall politics should have been on the "masks are BS/we don't need to close down/ this is overdone" side of this. But, he mostly hasn't been. In my opinion, that is because he is trained to look at the data and better sort reality from hope/manipulation/bias/fear.
Well, in fact, if you look at my earliest posts in this thread, they're mainly memes and jokes and stuff and I was headed down that path. Then the data hit me upside the head. I've been called a liberal, and asked what it's like to be on the other team. But, yeah, you and I are trained to look at the data and try to see what the data is telling us without injecting political opinion. What has blown my mind in all of this is how deeply people have invested their worldviews in HCQ, whether to wear masks or not, UV light, shutdowns, etc.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
70,098
40,702
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
And sometimes has competing demands. Where is the distribution of masks most effective? If it's limited, then maybe it's more effective with medical workers than the general public. How do you communicate that without creating a run on them like we saw with toilet paper and hand sanitizer? They could have done better, but this is a really small needle to thread.
I've learned a whole LOT about public health in the past 5 months that I just simply did not know.
 

wrenhal

Banned
Banned
Aug 11, 2011
9,789
4,062
743
Its hard to say. Information is pretty locked down there, so it wouldn't suprise me if there was a larger scale outbreak since then. They tried to keep the initial outbreak under wraps too.
And as it stands, we still don't even have the full truth of what happened to all those people that had to be put in the quickly built " hospitals". word is slowly seeping out that those were actually morgues and crematoriums. Not sure how true that is though Any more than we know their numbers being true or not.
 

wrenhal

Banned
Banned
Aug 11, 2011
9,789
4,062
743
Of course you can take into consideration the sensitivity and specificity of the tests. The PCR test tests for Sars-2 genetic material and has an extremely low false-positive rate. The antibody tests have a higher false-positive rate that depends on the prevalence of the disease in the population. They should be able to get a disease prevalence from PCR to help estimate a FP rate for the Ab test.

What do you mean that nobody is studying any of this? LOL.
I mean, is there really someone going through and studying real time the potential number of false positives, or are they just going by what was tested before and/or right after it went to market? Is there any way to know the true rate of false positives? Is there any way possible to guarantee no laziness in protocols isn't causing problems? I'm not asking to be argumentative, I really want to know the answers to these?
 

okstate987

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Oct 17, 2009
7,754
4,739
1,743
Somewhere
And as it stands, we still don't even have the full truth of what happened to all those people that had to be put in the quickly built " hospitals". word is slowly seeping out that those were actually morgues and crematoriums. Not sure how true that is though Any more than we know their numbers being true or not.
There was also the order for 45,000 urns from the Wuhan provence when things were getting crazy there when the official death count was 8 or 9k.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
70,098
40,702
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
I mean, is there really someone going through and studying real time the potential number of false positives, or are they just going by what was tested before and/or right after it went to market? Is there any way to know the true rate of false positives? Is there any way possible to guarantee no laziness in protocols isn't causing problems? I'm not asking to be argumentative, I really want to know the answers to these?
The answer is yes, we've employed an army of contact tracers because this disease pandemic is different than any other we've seen. From my friend is an epidemiologist at Purdue:

Side note: I have also been getting asked who I am so I just wanted to say a quick word about that. I am no one. Not really. But I do have my PhD in public health and epidemiology. I am a college professor and teach/train future public health professionals and epidemiologists and am proud to say I have former students working all over the world including at the WHO and CDC and in medical facilities all over the world including places like the Mayo Clinic (super proud of my students). I am actively working with this pandemic both in the US and overseas, by helping communities respond to it and determine what steps they need to take to keep their communities safe, and how to safely open their schools and businesses as well as by training contact tracers (4k and counting to date). In order to do that, I have to stay current on the research and crunch the numbers. I began posting these updates to help my family and friends understand the outbreak and have information they could trust. So, I am not anyone fancy, I am tired and frustrated just like you. But I am an epidemiologist working the most significant pandemic of our lifetime and I am happy to share that with anyone who cares to join me.​
She has been training contact tracers like crazy since the end of March. Is there any way to guarantee no laziness or sloppiness in protocols? No, people are people. But the models generally take that human error into account.
 

wrenhal

Banned
Banned
Aug 11, 2011
9,789
4,062
743
The answer is yes, we've employed an army of contact tracers because this disease pandemic is different than any other we've seen. From my friend is an epidemiologist at Purdue:

Side note: I have also been getting asked who I am so I just wanted to say a quick word about that. I am no one. Not really. But I do have my PhD in public health and epidemiology. I am a college professor and teach/train future public health professionals and epidemiologists and am proud to say I have former students working all over the world including at the WHO and CDC and in medical facilities all over the world including places like the Mayo Clinic (super proud of my students). I am actively working with this pandemic both in the US and overseas, by helping communities respond to it and determine what steps they need to take to keep their communities safe, and how to safely open their schools and businesses as well as by training contact tracers (4k and counting to date). In order to do that, I have to stay current on the research and crunch the numbers. I began posting these updates to help my family and friends understand the outbreak and have information they could trust. So, I am not anyone fancy, I am tired and frustrated just like you. But I am an epidemiologist working the most significant pandemic of our lifetime and I am happy to share that with anyone who cares to join me.​
She has been training contact tracers like crazy since the end of March. Is there any way to guarantee no laziness or sloppiness in protocols? No, people are people. But the models generally take that human error into account.
You're saying a tracer goes through and is constantly checking the possible false positives? How do they know? Is someone really still going through and testing the tests now to see if they are still say 75% correct vs now they might be getting only 50% positive due to ingredients and/or issues in productions?
My understanding is a contact tracer is just a virus detective, questioning where they've been and who they've come into contact with so that they can tie in and try to see where they were infected and who they might have infected themselves. That still doesn't seem like it is talking about what I am talking about. It seems the only ways to know of false positives, is to retest multiple times ultimately.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
29,006
31,548
1,743
oklahoma city
You're saying a tracer goes through and is constantly checking the possible false positives? How do they know? Is someone really still going through and testing the tests now to see if they are still say 75% correct vs now they might be getting only 50% positive due to ingredients and/or issues in productions?
My understanding is a contact tracer is just a virus detective, questioning where they've been and who they've come into contact with so that they can tie in and try to see where they were infected and who they might have infected themselves. That still doesn't seem like it is talking about what I am talking about. It seems the only ways to know of false positives, is to retest multiple times ultimately.
False negatives have shown to be a bigger concern with our current testing. In addition, the risk of someone with the disease testing falsely negative and then either getting sick or spreading it is far more than the risk of a false positive which while not desirable is mostly inconvenient. Given that, why is your concern about inaccurate testing only about false positives? That is what you have mentioned each time.
 

wrenhal

Banned
Banned
Aug 11, 2011
9,789
4,062
743
False negatives have shown to be a bigger concern with our current testing. In addition, the risk of someone with the disease testing falsely negative and then either getting sick or spreading it is far more than the risk of a false positive which while not desirable is mostly inconvenient. Given that, why is your concern about inaccurate testing only about false positives? That is what you have mentioned each time.
Mainly because that's what all the media is hyping. For instance, what's up with all the 100% positives in Florida in counties with at least 25 tests??