Corona Virus... the second wave

[bigburly912]

Agree, let's just tell everyone they are negative and let them keep spreading it


Edit to add: have you even looked at the failure rates on all of these different tests?

Quidel. 32%

The Abbott testing the White House was using failed miserably and they are still spreading it throughout all of those guys/gals. (Which is still partly their fault for not following other simple rules to prevent spread).

Simple to understand my friend, just because a rapid test tells you that you are fine does not mean you are fine.

Edit to add: many people are taking one rapid test and assuming they are fine because they tested negative. That may not always be the case. When I had my rapid test done the doctor asked me if I had any symptoms and I said no none at all but I was exposed. He said ahh you are probably fine. Paid 150 bucks and left.

 

[raggie33]

never mind ill just be nice

 

[PhotonWrangler]

My sense is that the rapid tests are better than nothing but not by much. Under the stress of a pandemic, 'better than nothing' has some value even if it's not always definitive, assuming that the individual being tested has the good sense to remain isolated until a PCR test comes back.

The temperature screenings are another "better than nothing" measure. They're really only going to pick up symptomatic individuals who probably shouldn't be wherever they're being measured. They're going to miss 100% of presymptomatic and asymptomatic people but they still have some value in spotting a portion of the affected public.

 

[raggie33]

ive asked this before but cant find answer. how do i know what tempature is a fever with me? reason i ask is i typicaly run around 97 f .so do i take that into acct and at 98.6 is consdered a fever for me?

 

[jtr1962]

ive asked this before but cant find answer. how do i know what tempature is a fever with me? reason i ask is i typicaly run around 97 f .so do i take that into acct and at 98.6 is consdered a fever for me?

I'm also typically in the low 97s, so anything above that I consider a fever. 98.6 is a mild fever for me. 101 or 102 is starting to get serious. In 2004 I caught something bad and got past 104. That would have been like pushing 106 for most people. Thankfully it dropped soon after that.

 

[turbodog]

My sense is that the rapid tests are better than nothing but not by much. Under the stress of a pandemic, 'better than nothing' has some value even if it's not always definitive, assuming that the individual being tested has the good sense to remain isolated until a PCR test comes back.

The temperature screenings are another "better than nothing" measure. They're really only going to pick up symptomatic individuals who probably shouldn't be wherever they're being measured. They're going to miss 100% of presymptomatic and asymptomatic people but they still have some value in spotting a portion of the affected public.

:thumbsup:

 

[bigburly912]

My sense is that the rapid tests are better than nothing but not by much. Under the stress of a pandemic, 'better than nothing' has some value even if it's not always definitive, assuming that the individual being tested has the good sense to remain isolated until a PCR test comes back

But the problem is that most people aren't getting both tests and they are being told by rapid testing that they are fine when that test is more of flipping a coin than anything.

Better than nothing has No value when it is helping to spread the pandemic. Not everyone is going to self isolate after being exposed and some people certainly won't if they are told they are negative. I

n the case of the Georgia senator she tested negative **twice** from rapid tests and they were wrong. She was potentially of the assumption she was fine for 2 weeks until her PCR test came back. (Sometimes the tests take longer sometimes they get them back sooner, I'm sure everyone is aware of that though)

How many people would a regular person have spread that to if all they had was a rapid test and thought they were negative?

 

[bigburly912]

To make a blanket statement about rapid testing being useless is simply inaccurate. They are more useful early in the infection cycle

Your wording here is incorrect. Most of The tests are actually way less accurate early in the infection cycle and in people displaying less of a symptomatic response to the virus.

 

[Lynx_Arc]

ive asked this before but cant find answer. how do i know what tempature is a fever with me? reason i ask is i typicaly run around 97 f .so do i take that into acct and at 98.6 is consdered a fever for me?

Typically the places that require temperature tests use 101 as their "fever" test gauge. When this virus thing started I zapped my forehead with a laser thermometer almost daily especially when I felt a little off and it varied from 87 to almost 95 degrees it isn't an accurate gauge but since my temperature hasn't spiked out of that range I'm confident I haven't had the "fever" symptom of the virus. It is quite possible I've had it long ago and been asymptomatic. All the years of people having the flu and other colds they have never used asymptomatic as someone "having" something. It may be 5-10 times as many people who got the regular flu were asymptomatic and likewise with other viruses and cold and were also passing them along to others in the past. Personally I think they are rather clueless as to how many asymptomatic people do infect others and how to determine who would be infectious that has no symptoms.

 

[turbodog]

But the problem is that most people aren't getting both tests and they are being told by rapid testing that they are fine when that test is more of flipping a coin than anything.

...

So what's your better, more realistic, idea? If you are positive, according to your numbers (which I have not checked), you still are ~65% likely to get an accurate, positive result. While far from perfect, being able to confirm infection in 65% of suspected cases is a huge benefit.

I think you're looking at it from the wrong perspective. Agreed, everyone will not isolate, especially when told they are negative. But a large number will... say maybe the 65% that pop positive.

The test itself should be over 90% accurate. If you are seeing those numbers, it's almost certainly because the test is used incorrectly: at wrong stage of infection, bad sample taken, sample transported/handled incorrectly, analyzed incorrectly, etc.

My real-world guess is that those administering/receiving the tests (on people tested every day) are only paying lip service to performing a proper test, whereas a single test at a doctor's office for a random person is performed much more carefully.

This is what we currently have to work with: imperfect tests, belligerent citizens, stressed medical industry, etc. I am thankful that c-19 isn't MORE deadly and a vaccine is at hand.

 

[bigburly912]

No...... 32% accurate in asymptomatic persons.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny...lth/coronavirus-testing-quidel-sofia.amp.html

Granted that is only one of the many tests but there are many that fail miserably.

 

[idleprocess]

This is what we currently have to work with: imperfect tests, belligerent citizens, stressed medical industry, etc. I am thankful that c-19 isn't MORE deadly and a vaccine is at hand.

Emphasis added because boy howdy is that one of the bigger problems we're facing. 1.1 million dead worldwide from COVID-19, 220,000 of them American; we're about 4% of world population but have experienced about 20% of the casualties. An effective vaccine can't come too soon to save us from ourselves so we can return to our normally-scheduled factionalism.

 

[LeanBurn]

I interpret the graph as alignment to the 99% survival rate for covid 19.

 

[jtr1962]

Emphasis added because boy howdy is that one of the bigger problems we're facing. 1.1 million dead worldwide from COVID-19, 220,000 of them American; we're about 4% of world population but have experienced about 20% of the casualties. An effective vaccine can't come too soon to save us from ourselves so we can return to our normally-scheduled factionalism.

+1000

There's nothing I've found more disconcerting throughout this entire episode than the large numbers of people absolutely refusing to do a thing the experts say to slow the spread, but at the same time complaining of the closures and lock downs which may well have largely not been needed if we had successfully controlled the spread. I've heard the electorate is often schizophrenic, but this takes the cake.

The US as of today has 794 deaths per million people. Japan has 16, Hong Kong has 14, South Korea has 10, New Zealand has 5, Vietnam has 0.4, Taiwan has 0.3. Why are mostly Asian countries handling this so much better than us? I'd say because their citizens are more willing to take measures to protect their fellow citizens, even if those measures might sometimes be a little inconvenient. There are more than three orders of magnitude difference in the per capita death rate between the US and the countries which handled it well. If we did even as well as Japan, we would have only around 5,000 deaths instead of over 260,000 and counting. If we did as well as Taiwan, we would have had perhaps 100 deaths. These countries bided their time until a vaccine is available by taking strict measures. As a result, they're going to come out of it with fewer deaths combined than most US states. To say the US response to this has been dreadful is an understatement. Some countries in the EU aren't doing a whole lot better, and again it's often for similar reasons, although in their defense they have much higher population densities than the US.

I agree, a vaccine can't come soon enough since nothing else is going to stop this. I just wonder how many more people will die before the vaccine is widely distributed. The current trends are frightening, to say the least.

 

[jtr1962]

I interpret the graph as alignment to the 99% survival rate for covid 19.

That's assuming the hospitals don't get overwhelmed and are able to administer treatments. Without treatment, it's looking like the mortality rate of this is in the area of 5%, which is 50 times more than the worst seasonal flu. About 50% are asymptomatic, 30% get sick but recover at home, and 20% require hospitalization. In NYC in March/April, when we essentially had no effective treatments, and were often resorting to triage, about 25% of that 20% needing to be hospitalized died, sometimes while in the waiting room. That's a 5% mortality rate.

 

[bigburly912]

Underground swingers party broken up in NYC with 80 attendees......ya know because, priorities.

They fared much better than the police who tried to shut down a business meeting in Erie county New York earlier this week who were chased off by a mob screaming we will not comply.

 

[PhotonWrangler]

...chased off by a mob screaming we will not comply.

Those people should be arrested and sentenced to spend a day or three in a Covid ward to observe.

 

[markr6]

The US as of today has 794 deaths per million people. Japan has 16, Hong Kong has 14, South Korea has 10, New Zealand has 5, Vietnam has 0.4, Taiwan has 0.3. Why are mostly Asian countries handling this so much better than us?

Definitely due to citizens taking it more serious. But I also have to remember those are small islands and peninsulas. Population densities aside, I just think it would be easier to control. Less traffic, travel, entry points, worlds busiest airports, etc.

 

[raggie33]

you cant fix stupid .

 

[markr6]

you cant fix stupid .

But just think how much $$ the first person will come into if they every figure out how to.