D
Deleted member 1
Guest
Changed my mind.
Corona virus, do your thing.
Yes, except with terrible people.This might be my bias showing, but I would assume that the people at a large biker rally are less healthy than the aggregate of society.
I picture an outsized amount of smokers and other chronic diseases.
Beyond the biker rally aspect, it's a party atmosphere and I suspect there will be plenty of boozing and close interactions. This is like Mardi gras right?
there are a lot of really good bikers who are respectful of public health and just like living outside the normal parameters of society.Yes, except with terrible people.
What's GA look like overall? They threw the doors open at the same time as Florida if memory serves.you guys remember that picture a couple weeks ago of the packed/no-mask HS hallway in Georgia?
26 confirmed COVID cases, and the principal suspended the student.
plot twist - although suspending the student for violating privacy rules would be justified, the principal went on the PA and announced that anyone who posted media that made the school look bad would have to face consequences...so he probably just opened the school district up to a lawsuit.
LoL
'We cannot stop people': 250,000 are expected at a South Dakota motorcycle rally
Health officials are still warning against even small gatherings, and states with...www.chron.com
This might go poorly for a previous area that had this under control.
Also lol
View attachment 12265
about half of FL/CA/TX...double Louisiana...I have buddy there who mentioned on his FB that it was really hard to get tested, and another friend in OR who's pediatrician nieghbor said they were told yesterday that there's a shortage of tests.What's GA look like overall? They threw the doors open at the same time as Florida if memory serves.
Stay in your lane, Elon.with HHS taking over accounting and a slow down in testing, I'm getting concerned about the accuracy of the 'new case' counts.
the seat track is factory-serviceable part.Stay in your lane, Elon.
That explains why you can't order individual parts for them, Elon.the seat track is factory-serviceable part.
If they had a legit test then we would consider the numbersI'm getting concerned about the accuracy of the 'new case' counts.
If they had a legit test then we would consider the numbers
If your data is based upon a flawed input then how good is your data
why do you say the test isn't legit?If they had a legit test then we would consider the numbers
If your data is based upon a flawed input then how good is your data
People who have never run a pcr before don't understand how easy a false positive can happen from a teany tiny contamination from a wee little bump.why do you say the test isn't legit?
PCR is being abusedwhy do you say the test isn't legit?
i thought the PCR was an NAAT and had high sensitivity...the mistakes were False Negative.PCR is being abused
It is not a Binary test
arbitrary threshold can determine result
False positives, False negatives
-Kary Mullis-
You cannot trust the "positive tests" data as solid input my brother, I wish that wasn't so but it is.
If we are talking hospitilizations with similar chest x-rays and deaths above the norm for areas then that is more solid data.(although lockdown itself is a variable in the death number)
PCR test isn't solid in any way. Sadly.
With all the money being thrown at the problem I hope somebody is working on a much more reliable test.
Let them Gather
May they all have a great time
That's not really how testing and and statistics work. The concern about how many of the tests are garbage is absolutely valid. There's a ton of them and many are unbelievably bad. But you don't just throw out all of the numbers when you know the aggregate of the test. Even with inaccurate testing, you do have things that are sure like excess deaths. Then you also know the confidence interval that you create from the inaccurate test.If they had a legit test then we would consider the numbers
arbitrary threshold can determine result
people test positive and then negative on the next dayi thought the PCR was an NAAT and had high sensitivity...the mistakes were False Negative.
link me some research, I can't find anything that says PCR is giving lots of false Positive
Respect to your hard workI'm sure that's a common trope on the ground there. And in a vacuum I think that's a perfectly fine thought.
But...I wonder if it's an informed consent.
I wonder how many people will die or kill their loved ones accidentally. These aren't just stats or hypotheticals. It's going to happen. Not only does history show this (parades in Spanish flu) but so does the current virus (Mardi gras tracing).
What I wonder though is what the number will be and if the bikers truly grasp the lottery they're entering for themselves and others. It's not truly freedom if your operating on misinformation and being penalized for it.
That's not really how testing and and statistics work. The concern about how many of the tests are garbage is absolutely valid. There's a ton of them and many are unbelievably bad. But you don't just throw out all of the numbers when you know the aggregate of the test. Even with inaccurate testing, you do have things that are sure like excess deaths. Then you also know the confidence interval that you create from the inaccurate test.
In the same way you might not be able to accurately determine the source of a radio signal with one or two antenna, it becomes increasingly accurate to triangulate with many antennas even if your antennas are bad at this job when you only have a few.
In this case I regularly use a test that is a nearly perfect positive but might miss up to 20% of cases. That is I have an unexpectedly high false negative rate and a population with a lot of coronavirus. This is a major concern and forces me to follow up with more accurate tests that takes much longer to get a result. And on any given day having only an 80% confidence that I haven't missed anybody is not very good. There are surely positive Corona viruses out there that I'm missing. But as I test more and more and more and so do others and we throw them all in a pot You're then able to create a confidence interval which is how these models are created. So you might not know whether you have 150,000 Coronavirus deaths or 200,000 Coronavirus deaths. Matching the variation and testing that is a pretty big range (up to 33%!) But you are mathematically certain at 95% or 99%, (to common confidence intervals used in science) the answer lies inside that range. And if you're sure that the number is at least 150 in less than 200 then you can choose how to act and respond to that and whether that is a big deal or not a big deal.
Great postThis is a misunderstanding of all testing then.
The two most common types of tests that are used right now are PCR and ELISA.
PCR with matching nucleotide fragments to a known viral strand and ELISA that is mostly antigen testing like your rapid flu's. This will create a highlighted molecular attachment that lights up a test strip and is often computer read when you're doing mass testing.
Sort of like a pregnancy test, there are thresholds to determine whether that's a positive or negative. And as above you have confidence intervals for sensitivity and specificity.
The test are in fact red is binary at that point. The thresholds are not arbitrary but instead used to find statistics.
While I understand the concern that I could go and adjust my PCR threshold after the fact, that simply not the way this works. The tests are created to a certain standard and then packaged with that information along with them.
The testing currently used is of the exact same technology that we use for rapid flu and PCR flu.
The major problem is significant variation and all of the different manufacturers as we spun things up emergently.
In the case of rapid flu it still doesn't carry a wonderful percentages. But again as above this percentages are known and with a large enough aggregate you can create confidence intervals.
Now if you start seeing confidence intervals that say we might have 100,000 cases or 500,000 cases in that case you start to see the real breakdown in poor testing, if you determine that one of those numbers requires one societal response and the other one requires another societal response.
How about somebody testing positive one day and negative the next?
The man who created the test had issues with it being used for this purpose
I just think it isn't the end all be all of Data right now...I wish it was.
Are you attributing excess deaths as being covid deaths?Even with inaccurate testing, you do have things that are sure like excess deaths.