- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Dr Fauci says positive test numbers not good indicator
Posted on 3/30/20 at 3:18 pm to ldts
Posted on 3/30/20 at 3:18 pm to ldts
quote:
The fact is, we can't test everyone for the virus. As a result, there's very likely a lot of positive cases that are unknown.
That's not true at all, this is why we do blind tests of a controlled group. Take XXXX people in a certain area and test as many of them as possible. This should give you a good idea of a larger population.
I'm fairly convinced until someone proves me otherwise the federal government knows this isn't very serious but isn't running any true controlled tests or releasing all of the data accurately in order to keep people sheltering in place.
The military for example as of just a couple of days ago started to take it serious. The pentagon has been following this closely. If an entire base could get hammered from this the military would shut down with a quickness.
1
Posted on 3/30/20 at 3:19 pm to TutHillTiger
I’m going to need a quote bc that’s the dumbest fricking thing I’ve ever read on tO-T about this topic and we have a mega thread where posters predicted millions of American deaths
Posted on 3/30/20 at 3:21 pm to baldona
quote:
That's not true at all, this is why we do blind tests of a controlled group. Take XXXX people in a certain area and test as many of them as possible. This should give you a good idea of a larger population.
If you randomly select a sufficient amount, that's so. But our testing so far doesn't seem anywhere near that. From reports, it seems that those with some type of symptom or know to be exposed are the ones getting most of the tests. That's not necessarily representative of the overall population, that gives selection effects that undermine the estimates based off that sample.
This post was edited on 3/30/20 at 3:22 pm
Posted on 3/30/20 at 3:32 pm to BlindTiger7
quote:
I believe the number of positive cases is a better indication of the spread than just the number of hospitalizations.
Maybe so, but not everybody who has it is getting tested so not every positive case is being recorded.
Posted on 3/30/20 at 3:35 pm to TutHillTiger
quote:
Alabamas Governor just restricted that info from the public and news media last week. (Lol)
I was just about to say that most of that info is inexplicably hard to come by.
Posted on 3/30/20 at 3:36 pm to ldts
quote:
If you randomly select a sufficient amount, that's so. But our testing so far doesn't seem anywhere near that. From reports, it seems that those with some type of symptom or know to be exposed are the ones getting most of the tests. That's not necessarily representative of the overall population, that gives selection effects that undermine the estimates based off that sample.
I agree. But with all the money we are blowing on this, I don't think it would be that hard for our Government to run a random blind test to get some sort of grasp on this. Iceland did it for heaven's sake.
Posted on 3/30/20 at 3:39 pm to baldona
quote:
I agree. But with all the money we are blowing on this, I don't think it would be that hard for our Government to run a random blind test to get some sort of grasp on this. Iceland did it for heaven's sake.
It doesn't seem like it would be that hard, but that would require a level of competence and setting aside of egos and agendas that is so rarely seen in our government.
Posted on 3/30/20 at 3:43 pm to BlindTiger7
quote:
Right, because the other positive cases which don't require hospitalization don't add to the spread of the disease?
I believe the number of positive cases is a better indication of the spread than just the number of hospitalizations.
It's not because # of positive cases is severely understated because we don't test everyone.
The assumption (which is a good one) is that those who need hospitalization get hospitalization. Estimating spread from that constant is a good method, IMO.
Posted on 3/30/20 at 3:56 pm to moneyg
I can’t explain bell curves, standard deviation’s, confidence levels and extrapolation in this site, but it’s really simple Algebra, if you know A Is a function of B and you use the best number for A then you are going to get your most accurate results.
The test even if they are 95% accurate, (which I seriously doubt, since the closest similar test, the flu swab is notoriously inaccurate) has almost become a waste of time since the lag time for the results is still 3 days or more. I assume that’s why many of the experts indicated we would probably stop these mass testing by May. Just watch the hospitals and you will be able to see the spread faster and more accurately.
We really need a test that shows who already has had the virus more, assuming reinfections are rare, these people can go to work or volunteer to help etc, with minimal fear of spreading the virus
The test even if they are 95% accurate, (which I seriously doubt, since the closest similar test, the flu swab is notoriously inaccurate) has almost become a waste of time since the lag time for the results is still 3 days or more. I assume that’s why many of the experts indicated we would probably stop these mass testing by May. Just watch the hospitals and you will be able to see the spread faster and more accurately.
We really need a test that shows who already has had the virus more, assuming reinfections are rare, these people can go to work or volunteer to help etc, with minimal fear of spreading the virus
Posted on 3/30/20 at 3:57 pm to BlindTiger7
quote:
believe the number of positive cases is a better indication of the spread than just the number of hospitalizations.
I can say that in NY everyone who calls doctor/health services, even people who obviously have it and are pretty sick, is being told to NOT go out get tested.
The number of moderate to bad flu-like symptom cases but not "life or death" in NY that are actually being tested would seem to be 1 of 20, if that many.
Posted on 3/30/20 at 4:10 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
.......and, the goal posts moved again.
Exactly. The mandatory quarantine crowd has said that they believe the lockdowns are needed so that the hospital systems do not get overwhelmed. How close are we to exceeding hospital capacity?
Who cares how many cases there are (confirmed or unconfirmed) that don’t require hospitalization? Those numbers are not reliable because they depend on testing which might not be available or even requested.
I’m tired of hearing that we are “## days behind Italy” etc and that the “apex” will occur anywhere from 7 to 30 days from now, depending on which expert you choose to believe. Just like with climate change alarmists, no one will say exactly when it will be safe to call off the quarantine. If you are at-risk, isolate yourself. Everyone else, take precautions. For families who have sent elderly relatives to old folks’ homes, this risk was part of the bargain - lay your guilt elsewhere.
Posted on 3/30/20 at 4:23 pm to BobABooey
quote:
.......and, the goal posts moved again.
Exactly.
quote:
Who cares how many cases there are (confirmed or unconfirmed) that don’t require hospitalization? Those numbers are not reliable because they depend on testing which might not be available or even requested.
In the first quote, you seem to be disagreeing with Fauce's statement.
In your second quote, you seem to be agreeing with his statement.
It makes sense to me, due to the reasons you stated above, that number of hospitalizations is the best data point we have and thus, the best to figure out how many infected we actually have. It's the most timely (moreso than deaths) and that data is 100% reliable.
We can argue, review data, etc. about what the right ratio of infected vs. hospitalized should be, but once we settle on that estimate, we have a decent idea of how many in the country are/have been infected.
Posted on 3/30/20 at 4:48 pm to TutHillTiger
If you take the La. Dept. of Health reporting on #s of hospitalizations and patients on ventilators, respectively, the daily trend for the past week is:
3/25-3/26 = +81% & +73%
3/26-3/27 = +57% & +66%
3/27-3/28 = +20% & +24%
3/28-3/29 = +22% & +13%
3/29-3/30 = +3% & +1%
3/25-3/26 = +81% & +73%
3/26-3/27 = +57% & +66%
3/27-3/28 = +20% & +24%
3/28-3/29 = +22% & +13%
3/29-3/30 = +3% & +1%
Posted on 3/30/20 at 5:07 pm to BlindTiger7
quote:
I believe the number of positive cases is a better indication of the spread than just the number of hospitalizations.
You’re wrong, and he’s right. The sum of hospitalization and non-hospitalization would obviously be best, but we don’t know how many non-hospitalization cases there are. We DO KNOW the number of cases requiring hospitalization, and it’s a dead certainty that the overall spread is roughly proportional to that. The rate of change of total cases is not proportional to the rate of virus spread, because the amount of testing introduces an extraneous factor.
Posted on 3/30/20 at 5:12 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:
if all the hospital beds are full of COVID-19, what happens when someone gets in an accident, or has a heart attack)?
First, all the beds ARE NOT taken up by COVID-19. Second, The social distancing has radically reduced the number of other deaths and accidents.
Posted on 3/30/20 at 5:21 pm to tiger91
quote:
I'm no scientist or numbers person but
Lord.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News