CoronaBro Meltdown/SARS-Covid-19 Spitballing Thread

[michigancat]

People will think they're good and probably take greater risks than they would without the test.

that's just a matter of education.  the tests should be explained to be testing for highly infectious individuals, not for people that are sick.

Yeah I reread it a little more closely and basically he's saying it would detect a positive case 24 hours later than PCR could. That probably wouldn't do too much damage if people are actually testing every day and it was accurate.

And he's pretty much right that we should just throw away current tests, they're not doing us a lick of good.

[Phil Titola]

A day later if PCR test turnaround wasn't garbage. 

[420seriouscat69]

mostly her behavior, but also that she is an evangelical christian.

You don't actually think that do you?

i wouldn't have said it if i didn't.

Pfftt


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[michigancat]

A day later if PCR test turnaround wasn't garbage.

This test allegedly detects covid a day later in the infection process than when a PCR test COULD detect infection assuming there wasn't a backlog.

This test would be superior because the lack of a backlog means it could give results faster than PCR. (And be a lot cheaper)

[sys]

the thing is it can perform much much worse than that and still be more useful than the current (very sensitive) tests.  if you can pull just half of people out of circulation on the actual day that they are shedding virus at work or at school you can dramatically reduce the transmission rate.

they can fail half the time and still be awesome.

[sonofdaxjones]

Bullshit!!   Fail half the time.   

[DaBigTrain]

Based on back to back posts from Dax I think our guy is kickballin’ tonight lol

[sonofdaxjones]

Based on back to back posts from Dax I think our guy is kickballin’ tonight lol

Say Da Big Sociopath, don't post in the Global Warming thread until you put the title of that new Prius up for all to review and show the Beamer being smashed and melted down for housing materials that are sent to 3rd world countries.

[DaBigTrain]

Based on back to back posts from Dax I think our guy is kickballin’ tonight lol

Say Da Big Sociopath, don't post in the Global Warming thread until you put the title of that new Prius up for all to review and show the Beamer being smashed and melted down for housing materials that are sent to 3rd world countries.

Holy mother of meltdowns

[sonofdaxjones]

Based on back to back posts from Dax I think our guy is kickballin’ tonight lol

Say Da Big Sociopath, don't post in the Global Warming thread until you put the title of that new Prius up for all to review and show the Beamer being smashed and melted down for housing materials that are sent to 3rd world countries.

Holy mother of meltdowns

Just figured you'd want to walk the walk (for a change)

Back to testing.   Yeah, let's sideline people or allow them to continue walking around based on a test that's wrong 50% of the time.   

[DaBigTrain]

Based on back to back posts from Dax I think our guy is kickballin’ tonight lol

Say Da Big Sociopath, don't post in the Global Warming thread until you put the title of that new Prius up for all to review and show the Beamer being smashed and melted down for housing materials that are sent to 3rd world countries.

Holy mother of meltdowns

Just figured you'd want to walk the walk (for a change)

Back to testing.   Yeah, let's sideline people or allow them to continue walking around based on a test that's wrong 50% of the time.   

If you need money for new carpet just be nice about it and let me know bud.

[michigancat]

the thing is it can perform much much worse than that and still be more useful than the current (very sensitive) tests.  if you can pull just half of people out of circulation on the actual day that they are shedding virus at work or at school you can dramatically reduce the transmission rate.

they can fail half the time and still be awesome.

I don't know about "failing half the time" but it depends on how you define failure and set up expectation

if "failure" is nothing more than being a day later than PCR half the time, then yeah it's great. If failure means it doesn't detect an infectious viral load at all for half of infectious individuals, I'm not sure that's a good thing. Unless people realize it gives false negatives to half the people.

[sys]

if you have a tool that lets you cut the number of infectious individuals in half, that's a good thing.

[michigancat]

if you have a tool that lets you cut the number of infectious individuals in half, that's a good thing.

It depends on how folks with false negatives behave relative to how they behave now without tests (and how the behavior of positives change relative to someone untested now).

It's all theoretical though, I don't think this guy gave an indication on how consistent these tests actually can be.

[chum1]

if you have a tool that lets you cut the number of infectious individuals in half, that's a good thing.

Extremely good. Also extremely over the head of almost everyone.

[sonofdaxjones]

You’re potentially taking people like critical front line health personnel out of or keeping in circulation with a test that’s wrong 50% of the time?

[8manpick]

It depends if the “wrong” here means that it has an equal chance of a false positive as it does a false negative. If it’s a coin flip that it is correct or incorrect in either direction, it would be pretty useless. If it only has a high false negative rate and doesn’t have an issue with false positives it could be very useful if taken with regularity.

[michigancat]

If it only has a high false negative rate and doesn’t have an issue with false positives it could be very useful if taken with regularity.

and if a false negative didn't change behavior relative to no test at all. an example would be someone that never dined out in the current reality, but started dining out with a false negative from these cheap rapid tests. Or if clusters of false negatives had a party or took a vacation when right now they wouldn't do any of those things.

And in all reality these companies wouldn't put the tests out with 50% error rates even if the CDC allowed it, and obviously the lower the error rate the lower the risk. If this guy correct and claiming that they are just as accurate but not as sensitive as PCR tests, then it's probably as infuriating as sys suggests. I'd like to hear the opposing argument though, because there might be some other reason the CDC won't approve that the guy didn't share.

[sonofdaxjones]

A 50% false negative/false positive rate would literally delegitimize the entire testing process.

I can't think of a bigger disaster, "I've been tested" would be rendered nearly meaningless.

Good Grief.

[bucket]

https://twitter.com/wibw/status/1290910409692766208

 

[Dugout DickStone]

https://twitter.com/wibw/status/1290910409692766208

 

 

Can we get a new combo fan sign for our vacciCATions?

[Cire]

Just wait till schools are all open guys


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Trim]

I'd like the first available chip but I'll eventually get the EMAW chip too.

[mocat]

https://twitter.com/wibw/status/1290910409692766208

 

 

Can we get a new combo fan sign for our vacciCATions?

yes, @_33 pls shop a syringe into the football hand, tia

[sys]

such a good article.

https://twitter.com/BillHanage/status/1291077013168697351