The Covid19 thread

[aretood2]

Masks aren't helping. The question ought to be:

"How many more deaths does the US need before it gets through everyone's skulls that the longer you "sheeple" keep resisting isolation and lockdowns and cry about your ****ing freedoms being curtailed,"

Isolation and lockdowns are the only effective means to combat this right now. (yes, I'm aware of the claims of several pharmaceutical companies, but their accuracy as well as people's willingness to take them are unproven.)

If they want to stop this, close the damned bars, restaurants and other socialization-focused activities. Tell people to stay the hell home or if they do go out, engage in solo activities.

Note this strategy was fairly effective while it was in place, and we didn't start to see the resurgence until after the young skulls full of mush returned to colleges and dorms and refused to stay in their dorms and the restaurant industry re-opened indoor dining. It's pretty clear where this spreads the most.

Can you really blame them when their parents and politicians are setting the wrong example?

The fogging of glasses alone is a dealbreaker for masks as far as I'm concerned. If I'm in a store, I need to see. So I pull the mask down below the nose to prevent fogging. If someone don't like it, they can stay 6 feet back from me.

Honestly, the fogging up of glasses is annoying but not that big of a problem. If it really bothers someone, they could use those surgical masks and use their glasses frames to seal the area around the nose, works really well. The N95 style masks do that on their own.

But that is not the only problem with masks. More than once, I've been in some large store, wearing the mask properly and have gotten dizzy; had to stop, steady myself on a shelf or other stationary object, pull the mask and breathe for a few minutes. They do seem to inhibit the amount of oxygen you can breathe in, at least in my case. Any ideas where you can put those masks as far as I'm concerned? Since they allow enough blowby to fog glasses, that alone says they can't be effective anyway.

I think you should see a doctor, that may be indicative of a serious medical problem if you can't breathe properly with a face mask. They are effective, just not as effective as those that can seal more clearly. Something is better than nothing, and that's how facemasks work. It's not a guarantee, only Hazmat suits cand do that. But anything that reduces the chances of getting or passing the virus is just that, it reduces the likelihood.

That is hardly the case. In many NY schools, the teachers' unions simply vote to stay home and that's that, the schools can't open. Well, they can open the buildings, but what is the point?

Well that's a New York problem. In my neck of the woods schools will open if the right conditions are met, and we are heading to a direction where the right conditions won't be met. And that's a real shame because I am tired of this virtual stuff, even though I fear hybrid will be more work, I can't keep it up for ever and frankly, it doesn't work to begin with. So take it figuratively if you will. Just do the stupid things the doctors say to do and schools can start runing again.

[Gatefan1976]

Hybrid IS more work.

[Annoyed]

Honestly, the fogging up of glasses is annoying but not that big of a problem. If it really bothers someone, they could use those surgical masks and use their glasses frames to seal the area around the nose, works really well. The N95 style masks do that on their own.



I think you should see a doctor, that may be indicative of a serious medical problem if you can't breathe properly with a face mask. They are effective, just not as effective as those that can seal more clearly. Something is better than nothing, and that's how facemasks work. It's not a guarantee, only Hazmat suits cand do that. But anything that reduces the chances of getting or passing the virus is just that, it reduces the likelihood.

Wear glasses? If not, try this sometime: walk into a store and immediately pull a light gray hat down over your eyes.

I did mention this to my PCP recently. I suspect I may have had otherwise asymptomatic CV earlier, with reduced breathing capacity as a permanent after effect. Apparently, despite what we hear in the media, they can't really do antibody testing. Seem they have a 20% false positive rate and a 20% false negative rate. For those of you educated in the modern schools, that's a 40% error rate. Might as well flip a coin.

So I'll keep dropping the mask below the nose. If someone doesn't like it, they can stay 6 feet back. More would be preferable.

[SoulReaver]

I suspect I may have had otherwise asymptomatic CV earlier, with reduced breathing capacity as a permanent after effect. Apparently, despite what we hear in the media, they can't really do antibody testing.

if there was lung damage how could you have had no symptoms? you'd have had the worst (shortness of breath)

Seem they have a 20% false positive rate and a 20% false negative rate. For those of you educated in the modern schools, that's a 40% error rate.

nope that'd still be 20% effective error rate

still don't trust those tests though

[Annoyed]

if there was lung damage how could you have had no symptoms? you'd have had the worst (shortness of breath)

nope that'd still be 20% effective error rate

still don't trust those tests though

Since when does 20 + 20 = 20? And you folks wonder why I'm so hostile to the modern school systems.

[SoulReaver]

Since when does 20 + 20 = 20? And you folks wonder why I'm so hostile to the modern school systems.

I said "effective"

that's why bird brain Betsy's a good representative of your educational system

alrite pay attention:

if you're positive you've 20% chance of having a false negative = incorrect result
(the "20% chance of having a false positive" is irrelevant in this case cause that'd yield a correct result since you're positive anyway)
so that's 20% chance of error

likewise if you're negative you've a 20% chance of having a false positive so that's 20% chance of error

so in all cases only 20% chance of error
easy to calculate for this one cause the risk of false positive & false negative are same

capice?

[Annoyed]

I said "effective"

that's why bird brain Betsy's a good representative of your educational system

alrite pay attention:

if you're positive you've 20% chance of having a false negative = incorrect result
(the "20% chance of having a false positive" is irrelevant in this case cause that'd yield a correct result since you're positive anyway)
so that's 20% chance of error

likewise if you're negative you've a 20% chance of having a false positive so that's 20% chance of error

so in all cases only 20% chance of error
easy to calculate for this one cause the risk of false positive & false negative are same

capice?

So that's the "new math", eh? ignore the numbers you don't like? No wonder we have such garbage coming out of the schools.

Sorry, math is math regardless of whether or not you like the result.

[SoulReaver]

So that's the "new math", eh? ignore the numbers you don't like?

Sorry, math is math regardless of whether or not you like the result.

like? what's to like or not like?
they dont teach you common sense in US schools?


then what would you call a "false positive" on someone who's already positive?
makes as much sense as wrongfully accusing a culprit

No wonder we have such garbage coming out of the schools.

yeah man some of it even makes its way into your Government

[Annoyed]

like? what's to like or not like?
they dont teach you common sense in US schools?


then what would you call a "false positive" on someone who's already positive?
makes as much sense as wrongfully accusing a culprit


yeah man some of it even makes its way into your Government

I wanted the test because I didn't know if I had had it. So how would a false positive be any more irrelevant than a false negative? A false result either way could result in taking incorrect action in response.

20% false negative rate + 20% false positive = 40% error rate. Useless.

PS; And they stopped teaching common sense in the schools here quite some time ago. Fortunately, I had graduated from them before that happened.

[SoulReaver]

I wanted the test because I didn't know if I had had it. So how would a false positive be any more irrelevant than a false negative? A false result either way could result in taking incorrect action in response.

20% false negative rate + 20% false positive = 40% error rate. Useless.

lol

try this: you can't be both positive & negative. therefore you can't add those 2 figures



all the same 20% error rate still makes it unreliable

I had CV back in late January though didn't realize it then (cause who pays attention to a mild morning cough)

since social security entitles us to a free antibody test I took mine in July & it came out negative. which means either the test was unreliable (and I won't take a 2nd one cause I'd have to pay for it) or immunity to SARS type viruses doesn't last long (even less of a reason to take their damn vaccine cause it'd be even more profitable to pharma indu$try)

[Falcon Horus]

Here's our Covid19 plan:

1) Testing-and-tracing: ensuring access to regular, reliable, and free testing

• double the number of drive-through testing sites
• invest in next-generation testing, including at home tests and instant tests, so we can scale up our testing capacity by orders of magnitude
• mobilize people across the country with support from trusted local organizations in communities most at risk to perform culturally competent approaches to contact tracing and protecting at-risk populations

2) Fix personal protective equipment (PPE) problems

• ramp up production of masks, face shields, and other PPE so that the national supply of personal protective equipment exceeds demand and our stores and stockpiles — especially in hard-hit areas that serve disproportionately vulnerable populations — are fully replenished
• build now toward a future, flexible home-sourced and manufactured capability to ensure independence from other countries in a crisis

3) Provide clear, consistent, evidence-based national guidance for how communities should navigate the pandemic — and the resources for schools, small businesses, and families to make it through.

• social distancing is not a lightswitch. It is a dial. Provide specific evidence-based guidance for how to turn the dial up or down relative to the level of risk and degree of viral spread in a community, including when to open or close certain businesses, bars, restaurants, and other spaces; when to open or close schools, and what steps they need to take to make classrooms and facilities safe; appropriate restrictions on size of gatherings; when to issue stay-at-home restrictions.
  Establish a renewable fund to help prevent budget shortfalls, which may cause steep cuts to teachers and first responders.
• ensure schools have the additional resources they need to adapt effectively to COVID-19.
• provide a “restart package” that helps small businesses cover the costs of operating safely, including things like plexiglass and PPE.

4) Plan for the effective, equitable distribution of treatments and vaccines

• invest in a vaccine manufacturing and distribution plan that will guarantee it gets to everyone at no cost. Ensure everyone receives the protection and care they deserve, and consumers are not price gouged as new drugs and therapies come to market.
• scientists in charge of all decisions on safety and efficacy; publicly release clinical data for any vaccine approved; authorize career staff to write a written report for public review and permit them to appear and speak publicly uncensored.

5) Protect the elderly and others high risk¨

• establish a COVID-19 racial and ethnic disparities task force, to provide recommendations and oversight on disparities in the public health and economic response.
• create a nationwide dashboard so people can check in real-time to help them gauge whether local transmission is actively occurring in their area. This information is critical to helping all individuals understand what level of precaution to take.

6) Rebuild and expand the defenses to predict, prevent, and mitigate pandemic threats, including those coming from China.

7) Implement mask mandates nationwide by working with local authorities and by asking the people to do what they do best: step up in a time of crisis.

***

Who's with me?

[aretood2]

I wanted the test because I didn't know if I had had it. So how would a false positive be any more irrelevant than a false negative? A false result either way could result in taking incorrect action in response.

20% false negative rate + 20% false positive = 40% error rate. Useless.

PS; And they stopped teaching common sense in the schools here quite some time ago. Fortunately, I had graduated from them before that happened.

This reminds me of kids who say that they can get at least a 25% on a multiple choice test because each question has a 25% chance of being right. For starters, they assume that the test creator equally truly did randomly pick each the letter that would get the correct answer and not favor any one or two letters. It would require that in a 4 question test, the answer for one question to be A, the second to be B, the third to be C, and the last to be B. And additionally, the test taker would have to consistently guess each letter in the right pattern, that is the right permutation (of which there is only a small chance of doing).

I'm not mathematician, but given that a false positive and a false negative are two different scenarios, you can't combine them. This isn't a multiple choice scenario where you have 75% chance to get the answer wrong (given 4 options), because you know that 1 of 4 is correct. A COVID test is a True/False question (sort of). When you get the result, what are the chances that that result is true? Negative results have a percentage of certainty, Positive results have a percentage of certainty. It's two different True/False questions, not a single multiple choice question.

In other words, it's set up like this fictitious example:

1: A negative result can be wrong 10% of the time.
2: A positive result can be wrong 50% of the time.

In that scenario, if you get a negative result, you are pretty sure that it is correct. But if you get a positive result you might not have the tested disease, it's a 50/50 shot the result is incorrect. The chances of accuracy depend on the result given because each result is an independent true/false question. How about this other example:

1: A Negative result can be wrong 10% of the time.
2: A positive result can be wrong 90% of the time.

Does that mean that the test results are 100% wrong? That doesn't make sense given that if you get a negative result, you are 90% certain that you don't have the desease.

[Gatefan1976]

Don't bother, its not worth it.

[Annoyed]

This reminds me of kids who say that they can get at least a 25% on a multiple choice test because each question has a 25% chance of being right. For starters, they assume that the test creator equally truly did randomly pick each the letter that would get the correct answer and not favor any one or two letters. It would require that in a 4 question test, the answer for one question to be A, the second to be B, the third to be C, and the last to be B. And additionally, the test taker would have to consistently guess each letter in the right pattern, that is the right permutation (of which there is only a small chance of doing).

I'm not mathematician, but given that a false positive and a false negative are two different scenarios, you can't combine them. This isn't a multiple choice scenario where you have 75% chance to get the answer wrong (given 4 options), because you know that 1 of 4 is correct. A COVID test is a True/False question (sort of). When you get the result, what are the chances that that result is true? Negative results have a percentage of certainty, Positive results have a percentage of certainty. It's two different True/False questions, not a single multiple choice question.

In other words, it's set up like this fictitious example:

1: A negative result can be wrong 10% of the time.
2: A positive result can be wrong 50% of the time.

In that scenario, if you get a negative result, you are pretty sure that it is correct. But if you get a positive result you might not have the tested disease, it's a 50/50 shot the result is incorrect. The chances of accuracy depend on the result given because each result is an independent true/false question. How about this other example:

1: A Negative result can be wrong 10% of the time.
2: A positive result can be wrong 90% of the time.

Does that mean that the test results are 100% wrong? That doesn't make sense given that if you get a negative result, you are 90% certain that you don't have the desease.

Good grief. You youngsters can't even add!

I'd sue the crap out of whatever school system you graduated from for dereliction of duty or some such.

Or is this "twist the numbers to fit your narrative" ?
This is basic arithmetic. Quite simple. If you need that many words to explain whatever answer you're defending, it's clearly BS. The simple truth doesn't need an explanation.

[SoulReaver]

Good grief. You youngsters can't even add!

I'd sue the crap out of whatever school system you graduated from for dereliction of duty or some such.

Or is this "twist the numbers to fit your narrative" ?
This is basic arithmetic. Quite simple. If you need that many words to explain whatever answer you're defending, it's clearly BS. The simple truth doesn't need an explanation.

and you can't even follow simple logic

were your teachers related to Betsy Devos by any chance?

7) Implement mask mandates nationwide by working with local authorities and by asking the people to do what they do best: step up in a time of crisis.

that's contradictory