Fear and Loathing, a Rat Flu Odyssey

[ron johnson]

You are so bad at interpreting data and evaluating evidence it is impressive. Your hubris is also extraordinary. You’ve demonstrated an inability to understand basic statistics and science, yet think you figured out the truth and all the worlds experts who devoted their life to educating themselves and researching this are wrong.

Very insightful, how about instead of telling me I'm wrong, show me where I'm wrong?

[ron johnson]

Yes. Bingo. Masks are harder for a respiratory virus to travel through vs just empty air.

We know people can be contagious with covid without having symptoms.

We know an infected person can spread the virus to many people at the same gathering.

We know that mask use alone (with otherwise just going about our lives normally) will not be enough to slow or stop the spread. You also need physical distancing, increased hygiene, and isolation of known or suspected contagious persons. Even then it’s not perfect.

Why do you think that experts in all countries are almost all advocating for mask use? What do you think you know that they don’t? What angle are you seeing that all these scientists are missing?

Or are you just here to troll for reactions and you otherwise accept all these facts and you don’t actually think of yourself as a super genius who can see what others can’t.

You realize it's possible that masks can help block virus particles AND be ineffective at preventing transmission at the same time?

I think the experts advocate mask use because they panicked and it's an easy implementation with low downside. It feels nice to feel like you are doing something proactive. The scientific consensus before March was that masks don't help transmission with respiratory viruses. There was no groundbreaking science released in that time to change that position. Now so many public figures have advocated for masks they will never backtrack on it.

[jono]

This is disregarding the potential of receiving inaccurate test results.

I can't improve on the numbers, but in reference to this last bit: the cheapest, quickest, most likely to be used tests probably deserve a little discussion on accuracy. Which is sure to complicate matters. Good luck!

[KQ]

Holy sheep shit, this thread picked up. Ah can’t read it all.

Question: trying to help peers/friends understand the risk of gatherings next week by just getting a test a day or two ahead of time and feeling that covers them. I wanna make sure I have some info correct and I’m struggling to find info with my thumbs (internet searching on my phone):
-incubation post infection: typically 2-14 days (likely won’t test positive during incubation) after exposure
-contagious when eventually symptomatic: avg of 12 days (~2 day contagious w/o symptoms and ~10 days after symptoms develop)
-contagious when asymptomatic the whole time:???

With the 14-day quarantine requirement that’s common, it’s clear that many people may leave quarantine after those days and still be contagious. Has that probability been published based on evidence?

This is disregarding the potential of receiving inaccurate test results.

News tonight emphasized that a negative test is only good for that moment. You could be infected and not testing yet, you could walk out from being tested and get infected etc. Report said you still need to take all precautions.

Also type of test matters. Quickie tests have lots of false negatives .

[ron johnson]

I just don't understand why masks are such a big deal, it's so easy.

All the 'experts' tell us to wear masks - turns out they don't work. It's not a big deal that the 'experts' could be so wrong?

It's not a big deal that something that is supposed to significantly help slow the spread actually doesn't?

[rideit]

A shit-weasel says what?

[Buster Highmen]

sophistry

noun, plural soph·ist·ries.
1. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
2. a false argument; sophism.

[Mokomahonah]

Recovery data is a tricky one. My county just calls 14days post pos PCR as a recovery. I think some states are not tracking recovery. I think that's why India seems to be doing better than US. Apples to oranges and all.

Sent from my 5007Z using Tapatalk

[LongShortLong]

Holy sheep shit, this thread picked up. Ah can’t read it all.

Question: trying to help peers/friends understand the risk of gatherings next week by just getting a test a day or two ahead of time and feeling that covers them. I wanna make sure I have some info correct and I’m struggling to find info with my thumbs (internet searching on my phone):
-incubation post infection: typically 2-14 days (likely won’t test positive during incubation) after exposure
-contagious when eventually symptomatic: avg of 12 days (~2 day contagious w/o symptoms and ~10 days after symptoms develop)
-contagious when asymptomatic the whole time:???

With the 14-day quarantine requirement that’s common, it’s clear that many people may leave quarantine after those days and still be contagious. Has that probability been published based on evidence?

This is disregarding the potential of receiving inaccurate test results.

LA county health officer said don't do this.

I'm just a geek and don't know beans.

That aside, my guess is if you can get a same day test, you probably cut your risk of infecting someone by 80-90%. Taking a test two or three days ahead reduces the chance about 50%. I'm assuming the peak infection window starts not long after a PCR test goes positive (like hours after), and lasts 5 days or so. So if you get tested 5 days ahead, there's basically very little benefit. I think an antigen test is as good as PCR for this use, but they are new, and there may be unknown issues. No test is FDA approved for this purpose (that may change).

If everybody gets tested like this, maybe the Thanksgiving bump will only require a few extra portable morgues in every city. That said, the true problem is this bumps the baseline, so every day following until vaccine is that much worse. It's like adding say 10% to the loan principal.

A few pages back, I estimated the chances a party of 10 has an infectious member. I think I came out around 10%. That's somewhat grounded in science, but we don't really know how many cases are out there not caught by testing. I tended to use pessimistic assumptions, so chances may be somewhat lower. Cases have soared ~5x since then, so the chances are higher now, with a week to go. Someone else posted an interactive website that produced a similar estimate, and made similar assumptions.

We're staying home on Thanksgiving. I don't know exactly how bad things are ICU-wise, but my guess is many politicians are hoping someone else cancels Thanksgiving first, so they can follow (or at least benefit from the fear factor keeping people home).

[jono]

We're staying home on Thanksgiving. I don't know exactly how bad things are ICU-wise, but my guess is many politicians are hoping someone else cancels Thanksgiving first, so they can follow (or at least benefit from the fear factor keeping people home).

Isn't that why the POTUS pardons the turkey every year? So it should all work out.

[bodywhomper]

News tonight emphasized that a negative test is only good for that moment. You could be infected and not testing yet, you could walk out from being tested and get infected etc. Report said you still need to take all precautions.

Also type of test matters. Quickie tests have lots of false negatives .

That has been the point that my wife and I use for driving the discussion with friends that testing ahead of time is not that great of a plan. Some come back saying, “well, I’ll isolate for a few days beforehand,” which may not help that much. For those trying to think critically about this, the next part of the conversation about how that still may not work out related to how long you could be in incubation (and the broad range of time for incubation to occur) and the time that you could be contagious and have no symptoms (I’m missing the data about likely time period of being contagious when you’re asymptomatic).

When I was searching, TN has an info graphic describing how incubation and becoming contagious can take up to 14 days from exposure. It concludes that you should quarantine for the full 14 days after exposure to keep others safe..... it seems like they are missing something important....

[bodywhomper]

LA county health officer said don't do this.

What does LA county say not to do?

My argument is that the only way to know you’re being safe is to take that NZ approach of 14-day isolation with tests administered 3x during that time or a long time of isolation, like nearly a month and more with multiple people in your household.

Same day rapid testing, it would have been amazing if that was available for little to no fee every day next week and, like you said, it would definitely reduce upcoming problems for early December.

UICU rapid testing program is pretty interesting. They’re getting a lot of cases per day, but their daily positivity rate is like 0.36%.

[rideit]

Just waiting for a certain dipshit to say “the evidence is strong that tests are useless”.

[MakersTeleMark]

Saag chole is the only way my 5 year olds will eat spinach or chick peas...he loves it. We need some good Indian here in Aspen


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

You used to have some on the turnoff to CMC in S. Glenwood. The family sold to another family and opened Anapurna in Vail. Last I went through there, it was still there. It was solid, but you, gasp, might have to go up valley. It's called Sherpa's.

[MakersTeleMark]

Yea... I wish I could show you these really cool graphs from work that show how masking and distancing wiped about basically every respiratory virus that had been circulating except rhinovirus and COVID last spring... we were testing at insane rates and positivity just dropped to 0% for most everything (Flu A, Flu B, RSV, hMPV, PIV-1, PIV-2, etc all went to zero across the CO front range).

We still have many cases of FULL BLOWN AIDS though.

[NWFlow]

sophistry

noun, plural soph·ist·ries.
1. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
2. a false argument; sophism.

Oh there's even a perfect word for it!

[uglymoney]

U of I nurse dealing with sick patient whose family thinks it is all a hoax. Unreal.

https://twitter.com/allisonwynes/sta...224240133?s=19

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

[riser4]

Or we’ll be eating squirrels on a spit by fireside.

My family gives me crap for having that kind of cheery outlook.

[riser4]

We still have many cases of FULL BLOWN AIDS though.

Fuck.

[riser4]

sophistry

noun, plural soph·ist·ries.
1. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
2. a false argument; sophism.

More interested in sapphism.

[riser4]

All the 'experts' tell us to wear masks - turns out they don't work. It's not a big deal that the 'experts' could be so wrong?

It's not a big deal that something that is supposed to significantly help slow the spread actually doesn't?

Shut up and wear your fucking mask.

[Casey E]

Jab jitters around the world

https://www.economist.com/graphic-de...-have-the-jabs

Interesting to see how this changes with the recent vaccine announcements.

[Lone Star]

just bumping this on top of puregravity's stupid redundant thread

[jono]

I'm surprised none of you have clued into the thick wool on the COVID vaccine effectiveness stats.

Out of 15,000 people who received a vaccine, 5 got infected.
Of the non-vaccine cohort, 90 of them got infected and contracted china-flu.
That's how they got to 95% effectiveness in the PR releases.
Because 95% of the ones that got sick were from the non-vaccine group.

Without the vaccine, 99.4 % did not get sick.
The effectiveness of doing nothing other than social distancing and wearing a mask is quite remarkable!

The #fakenews is truly astonishing.

First off dude, china-flu is not the preferred nomenclature. Rat flu, please.

Second, the numbers you cite work out to match the published numbers. What you're suggesting is that the sample size (the period of time x the number of people) is small and possibly unreliable. There is a valid question to be asked about that, but it's not remotely close to "fake news." Your question should be "how much will this data change when we have a larger sample?" At this point, your objections relate to the confidence interval, not the raw number, which is really just an estimate of what we might see in the larger population.

If you look at the confidence interval and come away concerned, why? Are you worried that there is a dangerous side effect lurking that those 15k participants didn't show? Or do you think we just need a larger sample to be more confident of effectiveness? We might achieve that by giving it to more people. For example, as many HC workers as possible. Does that sound like it will yield more reliable data?

[goldenboy]

Holy sheep shit, this thread picked up. Ah can’t read it all.

Question: trying to help peers/friends understand the risk of gatherings next week by just getting a test a day or two ahead of time and feeling that covers them. I wanna make sure I have some info correct and I’m struggling to find info with my thumbs (internet searching on my phone):
-incubation post infection: typically 2-14 days (likely won’t test positive during incubation) after exposure
-contagious when eventually symptomatic: avg of 12 days (~2 day contagious w/o symptoms and ~10 days after symptoms develop)
-contagious when asymptomatic the whole time:???

With the 14-day quarantine requirement that’s common, it’s clear that many people may leave quarantine after those days and still be contagious. Has that probability been published based on evidence?

This is disregarding the potential of receiving inaccurate test results.

I posted about this scenario a couple of weeks ago. My nephew got a negative test before visiting his parents/ my brother's family and ended up getting them all sick.