Started By
Message

Univeristy of Alabama school tested 30,000 students for covid: 0.83% positive rate

Posted on 8/13/20 at 11:10 am
Posted by lsupride87
Member since Dec 2007
95198 posts
Posted on 8/13/20 at 11:10 am
Does that not make the state testing data seem like bullshite wrapped in bullshite to you?


State data hovers around 10-15% for that age group, yet they test 30,000 students and get a 0.83% return?

LINK
Posted by Riseupfromtherubble
You'll Never Walk Alone
Member since Jun 2011
38378 posts
Posted on 8/13/20 at 11:12 am to
Sounds like there's football there to me with those numbers
Posted by ell_13
Member since Apr 2013
85039 posts
Posted on 8/13/20 at 11:12 am to
It’s almost like... kids that age don’t get or spread it as much as older demographics. Shocking news.
Posted by Splackavellie
Bayou
Member since Oct 2017
9829 posts
Posted on 8/13/20 at 11:12 am to
Cancel school.
This post was edited on 8/13/20 at 11:14 am
Posted by upgrayedd
Lifting at Tobin's house
Member since Mar 2013
134865 posts
Posted on 8/13/20 at 11:12 am to
If it saves just 0.83 lives
Posted by DavidTheGnome
Monroe
Member since Apr 2015
29166 posts
Posted on 8/13/20 at 11:13 am to
State data meaning what? The 15% are people that went in for a test and returned positive or they were selected randomly? If randomly it should be a lot closer to the 30k amount. If it’s people that went in for a test of course it”ll be higher
Posted by Salmon
On the trails
Member since Feb 2008
83579 posts
Posted on 8/13/20 at 11:14 am to
well I'm not sure how much I trust a bunch of 18-22 year olds with mail-in kits either

and wouldn't the university system be part of the state as well?

This post was edited on 8/13/20 at 11:15 am
Posted by nerd guy
Grapevine
Member since Dec 2008
12715 posts
Posted on 8/13/20 at 11:14 am to
Wouldn't the state testing be from kids that were tested either due symptoms or contact testing? The 30,000 looks like random sampling.
Posted by msutiger
Shreveport
Member since Jul 2008
69621 posts
Posted on 8/13/20 at 11:17 am to
(no message)
This post was edited on 4/14/23 at 1:55 pm
Posted by lsupride87
Member since Dec 2007
95198 posts
Posted on 8/13/20 at 11:17 am to
quote:

and wouldn't the university system be part of the state as well?
But their motive would be wanting kids in school, not fear porn


So, extremely low positive pct with group that needs the money, high pct for fear porners


Seems, strange
Posted by Deep Purple Haze
LA
Member since Jun 2007
51786 posts
Posted on 8/13/20 at 11:18 am to
frick bama
Posted by lsupride87
Member since Dec 2007
95198 posts
Posted on 8/13/20 at 11:18 am to
quote:

Because kids in that age group aren't going to get tested unless they are exhibiting significant symptoms. 18 year olds aren't running to get tested every time they sneeze
I have been told the reason this virus is dangerous is because this age group has a high rate of asymptomatic cases that spread it to older people unknowingly


So is that not the case?
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
422479 posts
Posted on 8/13/20 at 11:20 am to
quote:

Does that not make the state testing data seem like bullshite wrapped in bullshite to you?


State data hovers around 10-15% for that age group, yet they test 30,000 students and get a 0.83% return?


i imagine this is a bigger display of the SES differences in CV19 exposure
Posted by Question
Member since May 2020
229 posts
Posted on 8/13/20 at 11:20 am to
quote:

0.83% positive rate


Dems:

Posted by The Pirate King
Pangu
Member since May 2014
57687 posts
Posted on 8/13/20 at 11:22 am to
quote:

well I'm not sure how much I trust a bunch of 18-22 year olds with mail-in kits either


What reason do they have to cheat the test? Or are you saying they didn’t use the tests correctly?
This post was edited on 8/13/20 at 11:23 am
Posted by LegendInMyMind
Member since Apr 2019
54093 posts
Posted on 8/13/20 at 11:22 am to
quote:

Does that not make the state testing data seem like bullshite wrapped in bullshite to you?

What concerns me is that just a week ago, we were being told by the AL Dept of Health via the media that the state had a major backlog of tests with result wait times being up to two weeks.

Now, in a week or so, they've tested 30K college students and have gotten the results back? Sure, they are now doing limited "pooled testing", but it just isn't a great look.
Posted by East Coast Band
Member since Nov 2010
62790 posts
Posted on 8/13/20 at 11:25 am to
The liberal media, if they even bring up these results, will most definitely question the validity of these results and find some way to stereotype the State of Alabama in the process
Posted by lsuhunt555
Teakwood Village Breh
Member since Nov 2008
38409 posts
Posted on 8/13/20 at 11:27 am to
quote:

Sounds like there's football there to me with those numbers


Give them a bit, they haven't had a chance to manipulate them yet.
Posted by Mahootney
Lovin' My German Footprint
Member since Sep 2008
11875 posts
Posted on 8/13/20 at 11:27 am to
quote:

If it saves just 0.83 positivity rate
FIFY.

No one wants to talk about the dirty little covid secret.
It does not kill kids.
Thats why the big10 is using this bullshite heart disease side symptom thing.

0-14 = 26 total
0-24 = 151 total

You read that right 151 total. Please explain how college athletes are at risk.

Less than 7% of the total deaths are under 55!
Everyone outside of retirement range legitimately has a greater risk of dying of just about anything else.

It's hard as hell to find because it doesn't fit the liberal narrative. But, here are the latest infection fatality rates by age.

5-9 - 0.0016%
10-19 - 0.00032%
20-49 - 0.0092%
50-64 - 0.14%
65+ - 5.6%
All - 0.64%

Can we please just move the frick on?
Posted by moneyg
Member since Jun 2006
56514 posts
Posted on 8/13/20 at 11:28 am to
quote:

Does that not make the state testing data seem like bullshite wrapped in bullshite to you?


State data hovers around 10-15% for that age group, yet they test 30,000 students and get a 0.83% return?



It just goes to show you that testing the general population vs. those who have reason to be tested end in very different results.

The idiocy is in making decisions based on the latter percentage because, as you see, it is not representative of the former.

Each state should be doing several geographic, randomly sampled groups to test and trend the true infection rate. That is very doable. It's very cost effective. And, it adds TONS of clarity to the situation.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 6Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram