ramssuperbowl99 Posted August 7, 2020 Share Posted August 7, 2020 1 hour ago, BobbyPhil1781 said: How are we supposed to know people are really positive or not? The error rates on these tests are like 2%. That's not 100% so you never really "know" unless you also get sick and show symptoms, but 98% is more than accurate enough to give confidence that the test result is accurate. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanedorf Posted August 7, 2020 Share Posted August 7, 2020 updates on the Novovax vaccine, encouraging results https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/08/06/vaccine-data-from-novavax The interesting item on this one is how much better the response was with adjuvant vs without. You'd expect to see somewhat better results, but in this case it made an IMMENSE difference in the response. adjuvant = a helper/catalyst molecule that isn't specific to treating COVID, it boosts the immune response to any vaccine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikesfan89 Posted August 7, 2020 Share Posted August 7, 2020 47 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: Like regular positives. That's the whole problem. Interesting. So Dewine and Stafford will show up as a coronavirus case even though they don't have it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted August 7, 2020 Share Posted August 7, 2020 (edited) 2 minutes ago, vikesfan89 said: Interesting. So Dewine and Stafford will show up as a coronavirus case even though they don't have it? I believe they'd be listed, yes. And people who tested negative but had COVID (false negatives) will be listed as negatives, so it cancels out. Again, the rate is like 2%. This isn't interesting, because it has completely negligible impact. It just happened to a famous person, but when enough famous people get COVID that's to be expected too. Edited August 7, 2020 by ramssuperbowl99 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted August 7, 2020 Share Posted August 7, 2020 6 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: I believe they'd be listed, yes. And people who tested negative but had COVID (false negatives) will be listed as negatives, so it cancels out. Again, the rate is like 2%. This isn't interesting, because it has completely negligible impact. It just happened to a famous person, but when enough famous people get COVID that's to be expected too. allegedly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mesa_Titan Posted August 7, 2020 Share Posted August 7, 2020 It's insane how many positive tests there are with no symptoms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikesfan89 Posted August 7, 2020 Share Posted August 7, 2020 8 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: I believe they'd be listed, yes. And people who tested negative but had COVID (false negatives) will be listed as negatives, so it cancels out. Again, the rate is like 2%. This isn't interesting, because it has completely negligible impact. It just happened to a famous person, but when enough famous people get COVID that's to be expected too. Aren't a lot of people that have false negative going to get tested again? 2% of millions of tests is a lot of people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikesfan89 Posted August 7, 2020 Share Posted August 7, 2020 If I'm understanding this right, false negatives can become positive with another test but false positives stay positive? Someone else can chime in if I'm missing something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted August 7, 2020 Share Posted August 7, 2020 1 minute ago, vikesfan89 said: Aren't a lot of people that have false negative going to get tested again? 2% of millions of tests is a lot of people The number of people who got accurate tests is 49 times higher than that "lot of people" who didn't get accurate tests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikesfan89 Posted August 7, 2020 Share Posted August 7, 2020 14 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: The number of people who got accurate tests is 49 times higher than that "lot of people" who didn't get accurate tests. Fair enough. It just surprised me that those would be included Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted August 7, 2020 Share Posted August 7, 2020 (edited) 4 minutes ago, vikesfan89 said: Fair enough. It just surprised me that those would be included Think about from a different angle and it might make more sense: what matters more to you, a 2% error rate that goes both directions (so the total stats are still quite accurate), or the trust in the dataset you get knowing that every single test and case is included and that people aren't excluding cases based on their personal opinion or inconsistent criteria? Edited August 7, 2020 by ramssuperbowl99 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikesfan89 Posted August 7, 2020 Share Posted August 7, 2020 3 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: Think about from a different angle and it might make more sense: what matters more to you, a 2% error rate that goes both directions (so the total is still stats are quite accurate), or the trust in the dataset you get knowing that every single test and case is included and that people aren't excluding cases based on their personal opinion or inconsistent criteria? I get keeping personal influence out of it but it seems like they could have a system where if a positive test is followed by 2 negatives in a certain number of days it would come off the positive list since a negative followed by a positive would go on the positive list At the end of the day you are right that it wouldn't amount much difference either way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikesfan89 Posted August 7, 2020 Share Posted August 7, 2020 And I suppose some positive tests followed by negatives could just mean they got over it already Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted August 7, 2020 Share Posted August 7, 2020 1 minute ago, vikesfan89 said: I get keeping personal influence out of it but it seems like they could have a system where if a positive test is followed by 2 negatives in a certain number of days it would come off the positive list since a negative followed by a positive would go on the positive list At the end of the day you are right that it wouldn't amount much difference either way You could request that each sample is repeated twice and then go with whatever is 2/3, but now you're running a lot of samples for asymptomatic, positive people in duplicate and just confirming the overwhelming majority of them. The false negatives are the bigger problem since that would potentially cause people to think they're okay and spread it, but repeating every negative test in duplicate would be completely impossible. One of those situations where its a manageable problem without a practical solution, so we've just gotta deal with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikesfan89 Posted August 7, 2020 Share Posted August 7, 2020 5 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: You could request that each sample is repeated twice and then go with whatever is 2/3, but now you're running a lot of samples for asymptomatic, positive people in duplicate and just confirming the overwhelming majority of them. The false negatives are the bigger problem since that would potentially cause people to think they're okay and spread it, but repeating every negative test in duplicate would be completely impossible. One of those situations where its a manageable problem without a practical solution, so we've just gotta deal with it. Right i guess I was just talking about the people the get tested multiple times anyways, so mostly just the rich and famous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts