ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 1697 of 3903
« First < 697119715971647168716931694169516961697 169816991700170117071747179721972697 > Last »
Nzoner's Game Room>***NON-POLITICAL COVID-19 Discussion Thread***
JakeF 10:28 PM 02-26-2020
A couple of reminders...

Originally Posted by Bwana:
Once again, don't come in this thread with some kind of political agenda, or you will be shown the door. If you want to go that route, there is a thread about this in DC.
Originally Posted by Dartgod:
People, there is a lot of good information in this thread, let's try to keep the petty bickering to a minimum.

We all have varying opinions about the impact of this, the numbers, etc. We will all never agree with each other. But we can all keep it civil.

Thanks!

Click here for the original OP:

Spoiler!

[Reply]
LiveSteam 07:29 PM 04-28-2020
Political hackery
[Reply]
IowaHawkeyeChief 07:31 PM 04-28-2020
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
They claim that their test has a specificity of 99.5%. I haven't seen any external validation of that particular brand, and the lateral flow tests are highly dependent upon training the observer (which can result in interoperator disagreement that they address).

Overall, their methodology is good, but even they admit:

"The specificity was acceptable at 99.5% (98.7-99.9) but leads to a
low positive predictive value in low-prevalence areas."

The specificity is claimed to be 99.5%. So, if they test 1000 people, five of those will be false positives, but if 1.7% of the population actually has the disease, then over 1/4 of the positive tests are false positives. ((17/(17+5)) and they admit uncertainty over reactivity with other coronavirus antibodies.

They also admit to the lack of a gold standard test to weigh their test against.

This is actually a really well-designed study given their limitations that they rightfully acknowledge, but the low prevalence does throw quite a bit of potential skew into the numbers.
This is a well-designed study and by far the largest so far, it estimates a IFR of .0008 or .08% for those under age 70. I found this finding in the study very timely, especially after earlier discussions today in this thread:

Originally Posted by :
Using available data on fatalities and population numbers a combined IFR in patients younger than 70 is estimated at 82 per 100,000 (CI: 59-154) infections. Conclusions: The IFR was estimated to be slightly lower than previously reported from other countries not using seroprevalence data. The IFR, including only individuals with no comorbidity, is likely several fold lower than the current estimate. This may have implications for risk mitigation.

[Reply]
TLO 07:34 PM 04-28-2020
Just to be clear - I know nobody gives a shit about this but me, but I'm going to post this for my own sanity.

John Hopkins had Missouri at 373 deaths about 30 minutes ago.

Now it's at 330.

Does it matter? No.

Does it mess with my brain? For some reason, yes.

Thank you for your time.
[Reply]
DaFace 07:36 PM 04-28-2020
Originally Posted by TLO:
Just to be clear - I know nobody gives a shit about this but me, but I'm going to post this for my own sanity.

John Hopkins had Missouri at 373 deaths about 30 minutes ago.

Now it's at 330.

Does it matter? No.

Does it mess with my brain? For some reason, yes.

Thank you for your time.
This is just the way my brain works, but perhaps you should start a spreadsheet of your own to track the numbers, but only pay attention to a three-day (or more) moving average. These daily numbers updates will just make you go crazy.
[Reply]
TLO 07:37 PM 04-28-2020
Originally Posted by DaFace:
This is just the way my brain works, but perhaps you should start a spreadsheet of your own to track the numbers, but only pay attention to a three-day (or more) moving average. These daily numbers updates will just make you go crazy.
:-)

I like this idea. Good suggestion!
[Reply]
Monticore 07:44 PM 04-28-2020
Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief:
This is a well-designed study and by far the largest so far, it estimates a IFR of .0008 or .08% for those under age 70. I found this finding in the study very timely, especially after earlier discussions today in this thread:
The antibodies tests are not accurate ( at this time) making the rest of the study useless. Hamas explained it quite well.
[Reply]
DaFace 07:48 PM 04-28-2020
Originally Posted by Monticore:
The antibodies tests are not accurate ( at this time) making the rest of the study useless. Hamas explained it quite well.
To add on to my earlier rants, the FDA decision to allow whatever tests just happened to be out there with very little vetting has also made this whole thing a shit show. I don't fault them for their decision since it was vital to get testing rolling, but man...it's a problem when trying to really understand this thing.
[Reply]
IowaHawkeyeChief 07:48 PM 04-28-2020
Originally Posted by Monticore:
The antibodies tests are not accurate ( at this time) making the rest of the study useless. Hamas explained it quite well.
Come on...

Hamas even said this was a well designed study, and no offense to Hamas, but these people seem pretty well educated and used the variable in their estimates...

Originally Posted by :

AUTHOR INFORMATION
Christian Erikstrup19 (christian.erikstrup@skejby.rm.dk), Christoffer Egeberg Hother2 (christoffer.egeberg.hother@regionh.dk), Ole Birger Vestager Pedersen3 (olbp@regionsjaelland.dk), Kåre Mølbak4 (krm@ssi.dk), Robert Leo Skov4 (rsk@ssi.dk), Dorte Kinggaard Holm5 (dorte.holm@rsyd.dk), Susanne Sækmose3 (sugs@regionsjaelland.dk), Anna Christine Nilsson5 (anna.christine.nilsson@rsyd.dk), Patrick Terrence Brooks2 (patrick.terrence.brooks@regionh.dk), Jens Kjaergaard Boldsen6 (jenbol@rm.dk), Christina Mikkelsen2 (christina.mikkelsen@regionh.dk), Mikkel Gybel-Brask2 (mikkel.gybel-brask@regionh.dk), Erik Sørensen2 (erik.soerensen@regionh.dk), Khoa Manh Dinh1 (khoadinh@rm.dk), Susan Mikkelsen1 (susanmke@rm.dk), Bjarne Kuno Møller1 (bjamoell@rm.dk), Thure Haunstrup7 (t.haunstrup@rn.dk), Lene Harritshøj2 (lene.holm.harritshoej@regionh.dk), Bitten Aagaard Jensen7 (biaaj@rn.dk), Henrik Hjalgrim8 (hhj@ssi.dk), Søren Thue Lillevang5 (soren.lillevang@rsyd.dk) and Henrik Ullum2 (henrik.ullum@regionh.dk)
1 Department of Clinical Immunology, Aarhus University Hospital and Department of Clinical Medicine Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark;
2 Department of Clinical Immunology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark;
3 Department of Clinical Immunology, Zealand University Hospital, Koege, Denmark;
4 Infection Control, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark;
5 Department of Clinical Immunology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark;
6 Department of Clinical Immunology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, DenmarkD;
7 Department of Clinical Immunology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark;
8 Department of Epidemiology Research, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark
↵* Corresponding author; email: christian.erikstrup@skejby.rm.dk

[Reply]
Monticore 07:49 PM 04-28-2020
Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief:
Come on...

Hamas even said this was a well designed study, and no offense to Hamas, but these people seem pretty well educated and used the variable in their estimates...
They admitted the issue with the testing themselves.

They are basing their guess off of another guess.
[Reply]
kgrund 07:50 PM 04-28-2020
Originally Posted by TLO:
As someone who has followed this very closely, you're 100% right. It's unfortunate that they were very, very off on some states. But nationally it has done a very good job.

We'll see how it plays out in the end.
Within modeling this would make sense as higher the given number of items in a pool the more predective it becomes.
[Reply]
IowaHawkeyeChief 07:53 PM 04-28-2020
Originally Posted by DaFace:
To add on to my earlier rants, the FDA decision to allow whatever tests just happened to be out there with very little vetting has also made this whole thing a shit show. I don't fault them for their decision since it was vital to get testing rolling, but man...it's a problem when trying to really understand this thing.
This was a study in Denmark of nearly 10,000 blood donors, also from the study:

Originally Posted by :
The seroprevalence was adjusted for assay sensitivity and specificity taking the uncertainties of the test validation into account when reporting the 95% confidence intervals (CI)

[Reply]
jaa1025 07:53 PM 04-28-2020
Originally Posted by Monticore:
The antibodies tests are not accurate ( at this time) making the rest of the study useless. Hamas explained it quite well.
Same can be said for the swab tests though. I've read somewhere that the tests may give a false negative reading 30% of the time.

That's if they test you. We took my 5 month old to Childrens Mercy twice about 3 weeks ago and they diagnosed him with Bronchiolitis and RSV. He had a fever of 100.8 and a cough. They said he met the symptoms of COVID-19 but did not meet the standards of testing but requested we all quarantine for 14 days. I called everywhere trying to get tests and we could not get a test in JOCO. How many more are in my son's shoes where they show symptoms but refuse to test?
[Reply]
Monticore 07:58 PM 04-28-2020
Originally Posted by jaa1025:
Same can be said for the swab tests though. I've read somewhere that the tests may give a false negative reading 30% of the time.

That's if they test you. We took my 5 month old to Childrens Mercy twice about 3 weeks ago and they diagnosed him with Bronchiolitis and RSV. He had a fever of 100.8 and a cough. They said he met the symptoms of COVID-19 but did not meet the standards of testing but requested we all quarantine for 14 days. I called everywhere trying to get tests and we could not get a test in JOCO. How many more are in my son's shoes where they show symptoms but refuse to test?
People want answers and they want them now for many different reasons and I understand but jumping on every number , trial, model right now is not helping , we don’t know can be an answer , it is not the answer a anybody wants but it is what it is.
[Reply]
O.city 08:05 PM 04-28-2020
Originally Posted by Monticore:
People want answers and they want them now for many different reasons and I understand but jumping on every number , trial, model right now is not helping , we don’t know can be an answer , it is not the answer a anybody wants but it is what it is.
I don’t disagree, but in real time you kind of have to do what you have to do.
[Reply]
IowaHawkeyeChief 08:05 PM 04-28-2020
Originally Posted by Monticore:
They admitted the issue with the testing themselves.

They are basing their guess off of another guess.
Yes, as Hamas stated this is a well designed study, that could have 1/4 error in testing, which they say they adjusted for in their conclusions. The difference is still a .11 IFR instead of a .08 if they didn't adjust properly. This is by far the best of these studies so far and peer review will be interesting, but you can't continue to discount these test. They are buying the antibody test off the internet and they have measures in place to gauge their accuracy.
[Reply]
Page 1697 of 3903
« First < 697119715971647168716931694169516961697 169816991700170117071747179721972697 > Last »
Up