Wu Flu

Fat Cat · Post by **Fat Cat** » Tue Aug 25, 2020 12:20 am

I agree there's a huge common ground, and that's where the most good can be done.

Bennyonesix1 · Post by **Bennyonesix1** » Tue Aug 25, 2020 2:34 am

New CDC testing guidelines:

"If you do not have COVID-19 symptoms and have not been in close contact with someone known to have a COVID-19 infection:
You do not need a test.
A negative test does not mean you will not contract an infection at a later time.
If you decide to be tested, you should self-isolate at home until your test results are known, and then adhere to your health care provider’s advice. This does not apply to routine screening or surveillance testing at work, school, or similar situations."

I see this as a combination of two things:

1) asymptomatics do not transmit

2) we are as a nation near the threshold where the issues with false positives due to testing sensitivity and specificity make mass testing blindingly obvious.

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Tue Aug 25, 2020 2:42 am

Bennyonesix1 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 2:34 am New CDC testing guidelines:

"If you do not have COVID-19 symptoms and have not been in close contact with someone known to have a COVID-19 infection:
You do not need a test.
A negative test does not mean you will not contract an infection at a later time.
If you decide to be tested, you should self-isolate at home until your test results are known, and then adhere to your health care provider’s advice. This does not apply to routine screening or surveillance testing at work, school, or similar situations."

I see this as a combination of two things:

1) asymptomatics do not transmit

2) we are as a nation near the threshold where the issues with false positives due to testing sensitivity and specificity make mass testing blindingly obvious.

Or there are still test shortages. I’m starting to wonder if the reason you’re not Q true believer is because you make even them look stupid than even they are.

Bennyonesix1 · Post by **Bennyonesix1** » Tue Aug 25, 2020 2:52 am

Turdacious wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 2:42 am
Bennyonesix1 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 2:34 am New CDC testing guidelines:

"If you do not have COVID-19 symptoms and have not been in close contact with someone known to have a COVID-19 infection:
You do not need a test.
A negative test does not mean you will not contract an infection at a later time.
If you decide to be tested, you should self-isolate at home until your test results are known, and then adhere to your health care provider’s advice. This does not apply to routine screening or surveillance testing at work, school, or similar situations."

I see this as a combination of two things:

1) asymptomatics do not transmit

2) we are as a nation near the threshold where the issues with false positives due to testing sensitivity and specificity make mass testing blindingly obvious.
Or there are still test shortages. I’m starting to wonder if the reason you’re not Q true believer is because you make even them look stupid than even they are.

Is there a test shortage?

Bennyonesix1 · Post by **Bennyonesix1** » Tue Aug 25, 2020 2:53 am

Turdacious wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 2:42 am
Bennyonesix1 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 2:34 am New CDC testing guidelines:

"If you do not have COVID-19 symptoms and have not been in close contact with someone known to have a COVID-19 infection:
You do not need a test.
A negative test does not mean you will not contract an infection at a later time.
If you decide to be tested, you should self-isolate at home until your test results are known, and then adhere to your health care provider’s advice. This does not apply to routine screening or surveillance testing at work, school, or similar situations."

I see this as a combination of two things:

1) asymptomatics do not transmit

2) we are as a nation near the threshold where the issues with false positives due to testing sensitivity and specificity make mass testing blindingly obvious.
Or there are still test shortages. I’m starting to wonder if the reason you’re not Q true believer is because you make even them look stupid than even they are.

Please explain the last sentence. It's grammatically very complex.

motherjuggs&speed · Post by **motherjuggs&speed** » Tue Aug 25, 2020 3:09 am

syaigh wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 12:00 am Unfortunately, those who are most vocal about outlawing abortion also tend to want abstinence only education, no access to contraception, and purity ceremonies.

That's true. It's also true that most of those who are most vocal about legalizing abortion also view abortion as a lifestyle choice, rather than a last resort in desperate circumstances. They also are opposed to nearly any form of personal responsibility.

motherjuggs&speed · Post by **motherjuggs&speed** » Tue Aug 25, 2020 3:30 am

syaigh wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 12:00 am
It is hard to be responsible when you aren't given sexual education and access to birth control, or if you are being sexually exploited or abused or raped.

It's also hard to be responsible when you aren't told that's something you should do, or how to do it. Kids today (hey! get off my lawn!) aren't told what it even is to be responsible, and that it's good, or how to do it, and that being irresponsible is a bad thing. They are told that saying the wrong thing is a bad thing, and that mindlessly obeying authority is a good thing, but they aren't told that ignorance, incivility, laziness and irresponsibility are bad things. Thus we have the society we have, with kids being given little useful information on the one hand (thanks christians, that helps), and on the other hand being told that it's okay no matter what you do (as long as you don't say or post the wrong thing).

tl;dr: Both major factions in the culture war feed people bullshit that destroys them.

Bennyonesix1 · Post by **Bennyonesix1** » Tue Aug 25, 2020 1:52 pm

So, AZ finally got asked about deaths "from" vs "with" covid. They admitted they certify both the same.

The context of the question was re: motorcycle accidents. AZ points out correctly this is a small subset. But that's not relevant. The admission is that when people "with" covid die but covid was not the cause of death they are tallied with those who die "from" covid.

They claim this is important to do for public health reasons.

The next questions are obviously: why is the conflation helpful? And how big is the group of "with" cases?

And it is also important to note we do this with no other viruses and have never done it before. Not even with TB.

It's a more liberal approach and if done for the flu would increase flu fatalities by the probably same amount.

nafod · Post by **nafod** » Tue Aug 25, 2020 2:23 pm

Bennyonesix1 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 1:52 pm So, AZ finally got asked about deaths "from" vs "with" covid. They admitted they certify both the same.

The context of the question was re: motorcycle accidents. AZ points out correctly this is a small subset. But that's not relevant. The admission is that when people "with" covid die but covid was not the cause of death they are tallied with those who die "from" covid.

They claim this is important to do for public health reasons.

The next questions are obviously:

My obvious question is how do they know? Are they testing all fatalities, or did they know prior that they were infected? Were they symptomatic?

Bennyonesix1 · Post by **Bennyonesix1** » Tue Aug 25, 2020 2:28 pm

nafod wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 2:23 pm
Bennyonesix1 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 1:52 pm So, AZ finally got asked about deaths "from" vs "with" covid. They admitted they certify both the same.

The context of the question was re: motorcycle accidents. AZ points out correctly this is a small subset. But that's not relevant. The admission is that when people "with" covid die but covid was not the cause of death they are tallied with those who die "from" covid.

They claim this is important to do for public health reasons.

The next questions are obviously:
My obvious question is how do they know? Are they testing all fatalities, or did they know prior that they were infected? Were they symptomatic?

They test everyone in hosps. They also maintain all positive results and then go back through old deaths and match within 60 days.

Additinally, they are going back through old results and certifying deaths as covid if there are symptoms even if no positive.

It's the most liberal certifying system possible.

And they maintain no distinction in the data.

syaigh · Post by **syaigh** » Tue Aug 25, 2020 11:30 pm

motherjuggs&speed wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 3:09 am
syaigh wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 12:00 am Unfortunately, those who are most vocal about outlawing abortion also tend to want abstinence only education, no access to contraception, and purity ceremonies.
That's true. It's also true that most of those who are most vocal about legalizing abortion also view abortion as a lifestyle choice, rather than a last resort in desperate circumstances. They also are opposed to nearly any form of personal responsibility.

Lifestyle choice? Who says that?

Most of us women just don't think the government should play a role in how we operate our uterus. Trust me, I don't like abortion. But if I had to go to a judge to grant me an abortion for me or my daughter, I'd be pretty fucking pissed off and scared. Pregnancy is not a straight path to healthy baby. I've known quite a few women who had to deliver dead babies that were sorely wanted because they died in utero. There are those who are serial abortionists. I don't think they'd make good mothers either.

Again, morality is subjective.

Education and publicly acceptable (ie, no slut shaming) access to birth control is the easiest path to decreasing abortion rates.

There needs to be collective work on both sides to make this a non-issue.

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Wed Aug 26, 2020 1:30 am

syaigh wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 11:30 pm Most of us women just don't think the government should play a role in how we operate our uterus. Trust me, I don't like abortion. But if I had to go to a judge to grant me an abortion for me or my daughter, I'd be pretty fucking pissed off and scared. Pregnancy is not a straight path to healthy baby. I've known quite a few women who had to deliver dead babies that were sorely wanted because they died in utero. There are those who are serial abortionists. I don't think they'd make good mothers either.

It will always be a messy issue, but I'd love to see where you got the stat about 'most of us women.' On the pro-life side, a majority of the vehement pro-lifers I've met are women-- a lot of them are quiet about their political stances and always vote. Also, you're leaving out the idea of viability (especially regarding a fetus' development)- support for abortion decreases among both men and women as the pregnancy progresses.

Also, how do you pay propose poorer women pay for abortions without government? Currently half of all births in the US are government funded-- and right or wrong, pregnant women who consider abortion are often poor.

syaigh wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 11:30 pm Education and publicly acceptable (ie, no slut shaming) access to birth control is the easiest path to decreasing abortion rates.

I've never seen a direct correlation between education, public access to birth control, and abortion rates. You have to account for behavior. And the study which did account for it by addressing it in their model successfully (the St. Louis study) is completely ignored by pro-choice advocates for some reason.

syaigh wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 11:30 pm There needs to be collective work on both sides to make this a non-issue.

How do you do that when there's such disagreement on the personhood of a fetus?

Shafpocalypse Now · Post by **Shafpocalypse Now** » Wed Aug 26, 2020 2:49 am

Every 4 fucking years the repubs roll out the tired and sad abortion shit to try to paint their opponents as murderers.

Data clearly shows 2 things: Liberal sex education and free and easy birth control is the easiest and most reliable way to drive abortion down. The freer and easier abortions are, the less they happen.

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Wed Aug 26, 2020 11:01 am

Shafpocalypse Now wrote: ↑Wed Aug 26, 2020 2:49 am Every 4 fucking years the repubs roll out the tired and sad abortion shit to try to paint their opponents as murderers.

Data clearly shows 2 things: Liberal sex education and free and easy birth control is the easiest and most reliable way to drive abortion down. The freer and easier abortions are, the less they happen.

The only study that showed that provided dedicated counseling support, dedicated nursing support, a wide range of birth control options, and to my knowledge hasn’t been replicated on a larger scale. Even planned parenthood hasn’t tried it.

Bennyonesix1 · Post by **Bennyonesix1** » Wed Aug 26, 2020 4:01 pm

I've been playing around with the math of test specificity/sensitivity and it gets wild at low numbers.

Take Delaware, per rt.live, DE has been asymptoting to 40 pos on 2,000 tests.

I can only make this work by the following:

ASSUME 1% prevalence and 99% sens/spec on tests (both unlikely)

2000 tests = 2000(.99) = 1980 = well ppl = 20 infected

For the well ppl we have: 1980(.99) = 1960 negative tests (true neg) and 1980(.01) = 20 positives (false pos)

For the infected we have: 20(.99) = appox 20 positives (true pos) and approx zero false negatives

So, 20 true positives and 20 false positives.

Increasing prevalence decreases the false positives but raises the true infected over 40 quickly.

Decreasing prevalence raises the false positives over true positives.

Decreasing sensitivity increases the false positives over true positives as well.

A 1% prevalence rate gives a statewide infection level of 10,000 as there are 1mil ppl in DE. That seems absurdly high on a gut level but who knows?

A 99% sens/spec test is not in existence.

There's certainly another scenario I am missing. But jfc testing at these levels is useless.

I looked at this because the gov has deemed 3% positive rate as the holy grail. I don't know how this is even possible. I can't manufacture a scenario where it occurs. But it probably exists.

Bennyonesix1 · Post by **Bennyonesix1** » Wed Aug 26, 2020 5:35 pm

This is my favorite chart on twitter. Deaths (by date of) vs Hospitalizations.

I've pondered this for hours.

I think we see a Gompertz Curve for Hospitalizations. Not surprising as cases follow that curve as well.

I am betting we'll see a Gompertz Curve for Deaths (by date of) as well. That would mean deaths will fill in the curve described by hospitalizations. And this makes sense in that there's usually a 28 or so lag in death reporting (by date of).

There also seems to be a small lag from hosps to the early deaths and that may mean deaths (by date of) will appear to over flow the hosps curve.

Hosps is a very good metric.

Bennyonesix1 · Post by **Bennyonesix1** » Wed Aug 26, 2020 5:46 pm

[1/n] Well @gummibear737 pushed me into a position to have to explain our theory of how universal mitigations (for ex. lockdowns) kill over time more people than what Sweden did.
[2/n] Disclaimer ahead, this is early work and not even the central point of our paper with @LDjaparidze. So don't read too much into the details yet.
[3/n] The gist of it is: Like many things in physics and biology, the death toll is path-dependent. One way or another, you always eventually get to community immunity and accrue unavoidable deaths. The question is always HOW you got there.
[4/n] Either by infection, vaccination (at least for some time), or death you will remove a certain percentage of the population through immunity. Meanwhile, over time, you will unavoidably accrue deaths (that's a sad fact).
[5/n] The central argument is that if you have a 2 class system (like with COVID): Vulnerable, and Healthy. When you reach your destination (endemicity) one class will accrue on expectation N deaths over a number of infections (usually 100K),
[6/n] while the other will accrue N'. Here the expected deaths for Vulnerable are higher than for the Healthy, any path that risks Vulnerable more than the Healthy will have higher total deaths over time (and the longer the path to herd immunity, the worse the total fatalities).
[7/n] Clearly the optimal strategy is always for the Healthy to get infected first, their IFR can be more than 2 orders of magnitude lower; and in this fashion a country achieves community immunity as fast as humanly and ethically possible, minimizing total fatalities.
[8/n] Lockdowns are universal mitigations. It means: If you were the virus, whenever you are forced to choose your victim (because we couldn't achieve extinction), you are going to pick whoever happens to make an isolation mistake.
[9/n] In probability we call that a random walk. You assign the same probability to choose Vulnerable and Healthy. The probability of choosing a Vulnerable is p=0.5.

[10/n] On the other hand, targeted mitigations like being careful around Vulnerable, makes it very difficult for you to infect the Vulnerable and far easier to find Healthy victims which in turn will contribute to community immunity with minimal risks. p going to 0

[11/n] In practice, p is not exactly p=0.5 or p=0 because people have to work, demographics and policies influence that number; so the immediate question arises: "As a country, Is it possible to estimate your p number?". And that is what our paper is about.
[12/n] To summarize: If we are not able to extinguish fast, over the lifetime of the epidemic, universal mitigations force the probability of getting infected for Vulnerable and Healthy to equalize. Therefore, we will have a much higher death toll.

syaigh · Post by **syaigh** » Thu Aug 27, 2020 12:28 am

Turdacious wrote: ↑Wed Aug 26, 2020 11:01 am
Shafpocalypse Now wrote: ↑Wed Aug 26, 2020 2:49 am Every 4 fucking years the repubs roll out the tired and sad abortion shit to try to paint their opponents as murderers.

Data clearly shows 2 things: Liberal sex education and free and easy birth control is the easiest and most reliable way to drive abortion down. The freer and easier abortions are, the less they happen.
The only study that showed that provided dedicated counseling support, dedicated nursing support, a wide range of birth control options, and to my knowledge hasn’t been replicated on a larger scale. Even planned parenthood hasn’t tried it.

You can't even go back a page? Shame on you.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ral-issue/

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Thu Aug 27, 2020 2:39 am

syaigh wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 12:28 am
Turdacious wrote: ↑Wed Aug 26, 2020 11:01 am
Shafpocalypse Now wrote: ↑Wed Aug 26, 2020 2:49 am Every 4 fucking years the repubs roll out the tired and sad abortion shit to try to paint their opponents as murderers.

Data clearly shows 2 things: Liberal sex education and free and easy birth control is the easiest and most reliable way to drive abortion down. The freer and easier abortions are, the less they happen.
The only study that showed that provided dedicated counseling support, dedicated nursing support, a wide range of birth control options, and to my knowledge hasn’t been replicated on a larger scale. Even planned parenthood hasn’t tried it.
You can't even go back a page? Shame on you.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ral-issue/

And you can't even be bothered to respond to my more detailed response to your post.

From the article you posted:

To be fair, the multivariable mesh of correlations in all these studies makes inferring direct causal links difficult for social scientists to untangle.

No shit.

Specifically, the studies he cites don't account for social class, income mobility (i.e. outlook), or behavior. There is a wide disparity in unwanted pregnancies along these lines-- my understanding is that this is true worldwide. Here's an example:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780732/

Maybe it would help if you read the study I referenced in both my response to you and to Shaf:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4000282/
Reduction in abortion rate was found by offering a contraception method with the highest upfront cost ($$$), dedicated counseling support ($$$$), regular acccess to nursing support ($$$$$), and a self selected cohort of women (which limits it's broader application without further study).

nafod · Post by **nafod** » Thu Aug 27, 2020 6:08 pm

Rapid cheap testing will be a HUGE game changer. We can get back to normal pretty quick with this.

https://abbott.mediaroom.com/2020-08-26 ... ts-a-Month

Abbott's Fast, $5, 15-Minute, Easy-to-Use COVID-19 Antigen Test Receives FDA Emergency Use Authorization;

- Abbott's BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Ag Card is a rapid, reliable, highly portable, and affordable tool for detecting active coronavirus infections at massive scale
- Test delivers results in just 15 minutes with no instrumentation, using proven lateral flow technology with demonstrated sensitivity of 97.1% and specificity of 98.5% in clinical study

Bennyonesix1 · Post by **Bennyonesix1** » Fri Aug 28, 2020 2:51 am

nafod wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 6:08 pm Rapid cheap testing will be a HUGE game changer. We can get back to normal pretty quick with this.

https://abbott.mediaroom.com/2020-08-26 ... ts-a-Month

Abbott's Fast, $5, 15-Minute, Easy-to-Use COVID-19 Antigen Test Receives FDA Emergency Use Authorization;

- Abbott's BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Ag Card is a rapid, reliable, highly portable, and affordable tool for detecting active coronavirus infections at massive scale
- Test delivers results in just 15 minutes with no instrumentation, using proven lateral flow technology with demonstrated sensitivity of 97.1% and specificity of 98.5% in clinical study

Check my math but...

ASSUME 1,000,000 tested

ASSUME 5% prevalence

True positives = 49,250
False positives = 28,500

ASSUME 2.5% prevalence

True positives = 24,625
False positves = 29,250

ASSUME 1% prevalence

True positives = 9,850
False positives = 30,000

nafod · Post by **nafod** » Fri Aug 28, 2020 2:58 am

Your math is good. However...

The reason the virus is with us is because contagious people are out and about. How many? Enough to have R0 be at or above 1.

With a rapid test that is 97% sensitive, 97% of people who are contagious will pop positive and stay home. Some will be false negative and go out, but R0 will go way down anyway. R0 below 1 and the virus goes away.

You’ll get a lot of false positives, but that won’t impact R0. They’ll just stay home too.

Grandpa's Spells · Post by **Grandpa's Spells** » Fri Aug 28, 2020 3:18 am

Yeah, for reference, my kids got colds from a pool, we couldn't test them for three days due to the sensitivity of that test. Once tested, we had to wait a few days for results, it was something like 10 days since they didn't show symptoms at the same time. I caught it from them, had to isolate. Testing that slow is a nightmare for opening schools.

If the new Abbott test is as advertised that's a pretty big deal. It won't be perfect, but you are going to get 97% of people fast, for the 3% you miss, you catch 97% of the people they infect. That is very promising and way better than good enough to run schools and businesses at a fairly normal level.

I don't think you can get away without another shutdown, just because the case load is so high, but if the testing is that squared away you would be done at that point.

Bennyonesix1 · Post by **Bennyonesix1** » Fri Aug 28, 2020 3:20 am

Absolute insanity

In a city of 8million at prevalence 1% you'll falsely quarantine 240,000 for 80,000 mostly asymptomatic ppl.

Not to mention ppl will pop positive as much as 12 weeks post infectivity.

So some fraction of that 30,000 already had it.

And of those that are currently infected, the majority are asymptomatic and non-transmitting.

Let's be generous and say 50% of popped positive are infective.

You're falsely quarantining 285,000 ppl for 40,000.

Indefinitely. Because this thing is endemic. You'll have endless rounds of this. Making ppl play russian roulette multiple times. Because at this lvl of accuracy no one can assume they had it if they tested positive and quarantined.

This isn't a fucking prison or the military assholes.

And trust me you'll have to criminalize non-compliance.

Bennyonesix1 · Post by **Bennyonesix1** » Fri Aug 28, 2020 3:44 am

THIS ISN'T A GOD DAMNED PRISON.

THIS ISN'T THE FUCKING MILITARY.

IGX

Wu Flu

Re: Wu Flu

Re: Wu Flu

Re: Wu Flu

Re: Wu Flu

Re: Wu Flu

Re: Wu Flu

Re: Wu Flu

Re: Wu Flu

Re: Wu Flu

Re: Wu Flu

Re: Wu Flu

Re: Wu Flu

Re: Wu Flu

Re: Wu Flu

Re: Wu Flu

Re: Wu Flu

Re: Wu Flu

Re: Wu Flu

Re: Wu Flu

Re: Wu Flu

Re: Wu Flu

Re: Wu Flu

Re: Wu Flu

Re: Wu Flu

Re: Wu Flu