Latest Coronavirus - Yikes

#90,476
#90,476
DancingOutlaw said:
Honestly I would like to see a large group of people flood the testing centers with negative cases and drive this number under 1% just to see what the coronabros would say. If Hamilton county tripled the number of people getting tested and those people knew they weren't infected you could drive the number well under what is "safe". It's stupid. It wouldn't prove anything you didn't already know.
Click to expand...
Total number of cases would double from false positives. The coronabros would then point to that.
 
#90,479
#90,479
ButchPlz said:
The book of Ecclesiastes is a great piece of apologetics that reads somewhat sarcastically to me and describes the types of people that replace God with government (and other vanities).
Click to expand...
I will have to look that up. Any particular chapter/verse?
 
#90,480
#90,480
Rasputin_Vol said:
A moment of silence and a lowering of the flag, please.
Click to expand...
I prefer to show how I feelz.. like those that really do:

iu
 
#90,490
#90,490
To Dancing Outlaw's point about testing and conclusions - if you follow this link you see (scroll down) a map of NYC. The default is the case positivity by area of the city. there's a button at the top where you can swap it to the daily test rate per 100,000 people. While the correlation isn't perfect you see that parts of Manhattan look like they are doing great on test positivity then when you swap it you see it's because they are testing like crazy there so naturally the same absolute # of cases looks like a much smaller positivity rate because you are putting the same # of cases in a larger pool of tests.

IOW - there's no standardization making comparisons even across neighborhoods quite noisy data.

For example: The Chelsea neighborhood in Manhattan had a case positivity rate of 2.89% which is well below the target threshold. They test 1.286% of the population. Compare that to a "hot zone" of Gravesend in Brooklyn the case positivity rate is 9.51% which is well above the target threshold. They only tested .507% of the population however. If they raised the testing percentage to that of Chelsea and those additional tested were negative then the case positivity rate drops to 3.75% which puts them well below the target threshold. Now it's not certain that all those additional tests would be negative but since testing tends to be driven by symptoms it's not unreasonable to expect a higher rate of testing would yield lower case positivity percentages.

Sample size is considered "adequate" but I see no indication it is considered scientific (eg. margin of error can be calculated and findings can be extrapolated)

So, the testing could be useful within a neighborhood assuming the same process and roughly same proportion of population captured (eg. to see trends in the neighborhood) but comparing one neighborhood to another when sample proportion is not controlled is a bit of a fools game.

COVID-19: Latest Data - NYC Health
 
#90,493
#90,493
volinbham said:
To Dancing Outlaw's point about testing and conclusions - if you follow this link you see (scroll down) a map of NYC. The default is the case positivity by area of the city. there's a button at the top where you can swap it to the daily test rate per 100,000 people. While the correlation isn't perfect you see that parts of Manhattan look like they are doing great on test positivity then when you swap it you see it's because they are testing like crazy there so naturally the same absolute # of cases looks like a much smaller positivity rate because you are putting the same # of cases in a larger pool of tests.

IOW - there's no standardization making comparisons even across neighborhoods quite noisy data.

For example: The Chelsea neighborhood in Manhattan had a case positivity rate of 2.89% which is well below the target threshold. They test 1.286% of the population. Compare that to a "hot zone" of Gravesend in Brooklyn the case positivity rate is 9.51% which is well above the target threshold. They only tested .507% of the population however. If they raised the testing percentage to that of Chelsea and those additional tested were negative then the case positivity rate drops to 3.75% which puts them well below the target threshold. Now it's not certain that all those additional tests would be negative but since testing tends to be driven by symptoms it's not unreasonable to expect a higher rate of testing would yield lower case positivity percentages.

Sample size is considered "adequate" but I see no indication it is considered scientific (eg. margin of error can be calculated and findings can be extrapolated)

So, the testing could be useful within a neighborhood assuming the same process and roughly same proportion of population captured (eg. to see trends in the neighborhood) but comparing one neighborhood to another when sample proportion is not controlled is a bit of a fools game.

COVID-19: Latest Data - NYC Health
Click to expand...
They're reading confirmation bias as science. It's moronic.
 
#90,496
#90,496
Sea Ray said:
Biden just now figured out that J&J was coming out with a vaccine so now he says we can get everyone vaccinated by May. Duh. He's just now figuring out that there's more than Moderna and Pfizer?

Biden says U.S. will have enough COVID vaccine supply for all adults by end of May
Click to expand...

yet

"Asked by a reporter when he thinks the U.S. will return to a version of normal, the president said he's been cautioned against answering that since it's not entirely known, but said he hopes the nation will return to normal by this time next year. That's later than the answer of Christmas he's given before to that question."

At a minimum you'd think someone would ask him to try to explain the apparent contradiction or at least acknowledge it but nope.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sea Ray
#90,497
#90,497
volinbham said:
yet

"Asked by a reporter when he thinks the U.S. will return to a version of normal, the president said he's been cautioned against answering that since it's not entirely known, but said he hopes the nation will return to normal by this time next year. That's later than the answer of Christmas he's given before to that question."

At a minimum you'd think someone would ask him to try to explain the apparent contradiction or at least acknowledge it but nope.
Click to expand...

Maybe the guy has a touch of dementia...

If by Memorial Day everyone who wants a shot has gotten one, what's the point in not going back to 100% normal as of June 1st? Nobody has answered that one yet
 
#90,499
#90,499
volinbham said:
yet

"Asked by a reporter when he thinks the U.S. will return to a version of normal, the president said he's been cautioned against answering that since it's not entirely known, but said he hopes the nation will return to normal by this time next year. That's later than the answer of Christmas he's given before to that question."

At a minimum you'd think someone would ask him to try to explain the apparent contradiction or at least acknowledge it but nope.
Click to expand...
Everyone will have access to vaccines by July and things will be normal by Christmas.
UPDATED: Everyone will have vaccines by May and things will be normal by next March.
1614725135047.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rocky_Top_Vol13, DC_Vol and Sea Ray
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top