- 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: Antibodies ...why are they not getting any love?
Posted on 5/3/20 at 11:45 pm to Buckeye Jeaux
Posted on 5/3/20 at 11:45 pm to Buckeye Jeaux
quote:
But, ABSOLUTELY for testing large samples (1000+ people) where individuals are NOT given their results.
How so?
Right now, .0035% of Americans have tested positive. Let's say that the real number is 100 times greater than that.
Let's give the test to 102 people.
Out if 102 people, by percentages only .36 people have covid. Let's round that up to 1 with covid. And there would be 1 false positive at 99% accuracy.
You have netted a 50% accuracy with me making some very generous presumptions in favor of the testing.
1
Posted on 5/3/20 at 11:50 pm to Buckeye Jeaux
quote:
But, ABSOLUTELY for testing large samples (1000+ people) where individuals are NOT given their results
Using 1013 tests per your recommendation and my presumption that actual cases are 100 time worse than the current positive tests (and using the presumption that the antibody test is 99% accurate)...
You have 10 false positives and 3 correct tests coming back positive.
The test that only has a 99% accurate testing is false positive over 300% of the time.
This post was edited on 5/3/20 at 11:54 pm
Posted on 5/4/20 at 12:05 am to meansonny
quote:
Let's give the test to 102 people.
Out if 102 people, by percentages only .36 people have covid. Let's round that up to 1 with covid. And there would be 1 false positive at 99% accuracy.
First of all, you would test 1000 at a minimum.
Second, if only 0.32% (I assume .32% is what you meant) had the antibody, that result would likely be outside the test's accuracy range.
However, testing is finding results like 2.4%, 5%, 13%, 19% up to 24% across various tested samples. The range of accuracy is always reported.
We all know this entire matter is saturated with political bias. If you are politically hell-bent not to understand the value of current antibody testing, then you won't (or you won't admit it)
Posted on 5/4/20 at 12:08 am to meansonny
quote:
The test that only has a 99% accurate testing is false positive over 300% of the time.
I'll email your finding to the Stanford professor of statistics (and MD) who is conducting many of these studies.
I'm sure he could use a laugh
Posted on 5/4/20 at 12:12 am to Buckeye Jeaux
quote:
However, testing is finding results like 2.4%, 5%, 13%, 19% up to 24% across various tested samples. The range of accuracy is always reported.
2.4% in people asking to be tested because 100% of them already thought they had it.
quote:
We all know this entire matter is saturated with political bias. If you are politically hell-bent not to understand the value of current antibody testing, then you won't (or you won't admit it)
I did a math equation based upon the presumption that 100 times more people have covid than tested positive. Where is my political bias?
The point is that 99% accuracy sucks.
Even if the real number with Covid is over 600 times the current positive test number (using your 2.4%), that still means the test gives false positive 41% of the time (1034 tests given. 24 true positive tests and 10 false positive tests).
What is political in my post? Do Republicans or Democrats hate math?
Posted on 5/4/20 at 12:21 am to meansonny
Let me see if I have this right...
YOU are really, really smart.
And the 2 Stanford MD/professors* are really really dumb.
*One of them is also a Stanford professor of statistics as well as a professor of medicine
YOU are really, really smart.
And the 2 Stanford MD/professors* are really really dumb.
*One of them is also a Stanford professor of statistics as well as a professor of medicine
This post was edited on 5/4/20 at 12:24 am
Posted on 5/4/20 at 12:22 am to Buckeye Jeaux
I'm not smart. This is basic math.
Where is my math wrong?
If you are smarter than my dumbass, please share where I am wrong.
Where is my math wrong?
If you are smarter than my dumbass, please share where I am wrong.
Posted on 5/4/20 at 12:23 am to Buckeye Jeaux
Also, you implicate me with political bias.
Substantiate your claim.
Substantiate your claim.
Posted on 5/4/20 at 12:26 am to meansonny
quote:
Where is my math wrong?
You are second-guessing a Stanford MD & professor of statistics. You are silly.
Posted on 5/4/20 at 12:28 am to Buckeye Jeaux
quote:
You are second-guessing a Stanford MD & professor of statistics. You are silly.
I did a math problem.
I carried out an example of why 99% accuracy sucks.
Where was I wrong?
And secondly, the scientific method demands that studies are second guessed. You of course know that already, being a bright guy on a "college" football forum
Posted on 5/4/20 at 12:39 am to Buckeye Jeaux
You obviously have nothing to add on my post. Math is math. There is nothing political about it.
If it makes you feel better, there have been numerous scientists with the same thoughts/numbers that I shared on here tonight. The uselessness of 99% accuracy is well known in the scientific community regarding antibody testing. I'm glad I can share with you that there are more than 2 scientists in the world. And that all science should be challenged.
If it makes you feel better, there have been numerous scientists with the same thoughts/numbers that I shared on here tonight. The uselessness of 99% accuracy is well known in the scientific community regarding antibody testing. I'm glad I can share with you that there are more than 2 scientists in the world. And that all science should be challenged.
Posted on 5/4/20 at 12:48 am to meansonny
quote:
The uselessness of 99% accuracy is well known in the scientific community regarding antibody testing
For testing individual's result 99% accuracy is not acceptable.
For testing group samples (1000 or more people) 99% accuracy is nearly perfect.
You should watch that video sometime. He is brilliant and humble. Well worth your time.
Posted on 5/4/20 at 12:50 am to meansonny
quote:
Even if the real number with Covid is over 600 times the current positive test number (using your 2.4%), that still means the test gives false positive 41% of the time (1034 tests given. 24 true positive tests and 10 false positive tests).
This doesn't make any sense at all
You're assuming it doesn't give any false negatives in this scenario
Posted on 5/4/20 at 12:53 am to Disgeaux Bob
quote:
Antibodies ...why are they not getting any love?
Because at this point there is zero scientific evidence that humans develop long term immunity to Covid-19, we may or may not do so but it is far from certian.
This is the problem with the herd immunity stratagy, it could be very much all for naught other than the susceptible all die.
We must end the lockdowns but at the same time figure out how to tackle this and need to explore everything including antibodies but it is very likely they are not the magic bullet so many seem to think they are.
Posted on 5/4/20 at 12:53 am to Buckeye Jeaux
quote:
should watch that video sometime. He is brilliant and humble. Well worth your time.
I've seen it.
Question for you.
When was the last time you were tested for STDs?
When was the last time you were tested for AIDS?
Do you know where I'm going with this?
100% of the people signing up for antibody testing in the study either had an illness from December to March or had contact with someone who tested positive. And of those 4-6% tested positive for the antibody with a large degree of error.
Secondly (this is less my issue and more with the scientific community) a Facebook ad is not a cross sample of the population. Someone really should have stepped in and stopped the study right there. At that instant, the scientific community casted doubts on what a good man with good intentions was going to be able to accomplish
Posted on 5/4/20 at 12:54 am to Powerman
quote:
You're assuming it doesn't give any false negatives in this scenario
The degree of error is spelled out in the study for false positive. If the antibody is present, it cant give a false negative.
Posted on 5/4/20 at 1:19 am to cave canem
quote:
but it is very likely they are not the magic bullet so many seem to think they are.
Why? You say there is zero scientific evidence. Well that may be so with CV19, as not enough time has passed to determine this. But to say there is zero scientific evidence regarding natural immunity to viruses generally and other coronaviruses more specifically is of course wrong.
So there is more than zero scientific evidence.
Posted on 5/4/20 at 1:24 am to Buckeye Jeaux
quote:Are you under the impression that the Stanford team used an antibody test that they developed at Stanford in conducted the Santa Clara County test?
^More phony double-talk from our Big Pharma shill
Posted on 5/4/20 at 1:36 am to McLemore
quote:
Why? You say there is zero scientific evidence. Well that may be so with CV19, as not enough time has passed to determine this. But to say there is zero scientific evidence regarding natural immunity to viruses generally and other coronaviruses more specifically is of course wrong.
There are far more viruses we do not develop long term immunity to than those we develop it for and my comment was specific to Covid-19.
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News