Has anyone heard anything to the effect that the first testing "kits" or protocols were yielding >30% false positives?
Just trying to understand what the rationale for CDC demanding early testing be stopped was
Has anyone heard anything to the effect that the first testing "kits" or protocols were yielding >30% false positives?
Just trying to understand what the rationale for CDC demanding early testing be stopped was
-All views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect those of the author's employer-
My old university in TX is shutting down in a week, classes going electronic. However, here are some things I thought of:
1. Much research goes down the drain with no research kids on campus and/or subjects for the social sciences.
2. How does this affect the required productivity for the tenure track wannabees. Going to have looser standards when this over?
3. Going to refund dorm and food service fees?
4. Lots of work done by contract staff - their companies will probably can them.
Parents who were happy to get the kids out of the house - surprise - they're back!
Originally Posted by TiroFijo
Italy has a track record of not doing well with viral diseases, no matter how good their health system is reported to be. During 2013-2016 flu season the estimated deaths from flu in Italy were 68,000. Same period of time in the US the CDC point estimate was 112,000, less than twice that of the Italian numbers. The population of US is more than 5 times larger. The paper that reported those Italian numbers concluded that their mortality was higher than expected. Seems like they didn't pursue it further.
Doesn't read posts longer than two paragraphs.
FWIW here is some more info on the bug. Source can't be vetted so what you see is what you get.
Lots of new foreclosures and homeless people. The gov't will give the money, with which they could have saved those houses from being lost, directly to the bankers who will then auction off the properties and use the fresh new bailout money to pay themselves bonuses.
You will more often be attacked for what others think you believe than what you actually believe. Expect misrepresentation, misunderstanding, and projection as the modern normal default setting. ~ Quintus Curtius
The University of Southampton in the UK has pre-published (available prior to peer review) a study done one the effects of "non-pharmaceutical interventions" (that is, social engineering actions rather than clinical medical treatment) on the outbreak in China.
Effect of non-pharmaceutical interventions for containing the COVID-19 outbreak: an observational and modelling study
(Abstract)
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....03.20029843v2
(Full Report)
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....full.pdf+html
Key points are:
- It worked, at least substantially: NPIs such as "isolating ill persons, contact tracing, quarantine of exposed persons, travel restrictions, school and workplace closures, and cancellation of mass gathering events" in the way and at the time they were implemented in China effectively reduced cases by 67 times compared to no NPIs.
- Three main NPIs where undertaken in China - inter-city travel bans; tracking down, testing and isolating cases; and inner-city travel and contact restrictions
- Act fast: "If NPIs could have been conducted one week, two weeks, or three weeks earlier in China, cases could have been reduced by 66%, 86%, and 95%, respectively"
- Or pay the price for hesitation: "if NPIs were conducted one week, two weeks, or three weeks later, the number of cases could have shown a 3-fold, 7-fold, and 18-fold increase across China, respectively"
- You must know who has it: "early detection and isolation of cases was estimated to prevent more infections than travel restrictions and contact reductions"
- I say again, you must know who has it: "efficacy of the different interventions varied, with the early case detection and contact reduction being the most effective"
- Keep people away from each other (and, yet again, know who has it): "Compared to travel restrictions, improved detection and isolation of cases as well as the social distancing likely had a greater impact on the containment of outbreak" and that "social distancing intervention should be continued for the next few months in China to prevent case numbers increasing again after travel restrictions were lifted on February 17, 2020"
A few cautions, in that the data set may not account for a certain percentage of asymptomatic/sub-clinical infections, it may have been influenced by the seasonality of travel in China (New Year/Spring Festival season), and it was limited to large-scale NPIs. While the research was partially funded by Chinese sources and a number of Chinese researchers contributed, I wouldn't be particularly concerned that it influenced the assessments. Several of the universities in China that were involved have excellent academic reputations for their peer-reviewed work internationally, and a number of very respectable non-Chinese universities and funding organizations (Southampton, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Tennessee, Boston Children's, Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust etc.) were substantially responsible for the report, as well.
Here is a good visual aid for the effectiveness of social distancing in a historical context.
Mostly the unelected leadership (i.e. bureaucrats) that those we elected put in place.
" La rose est sans pourquoi, elle fleurit parce qu’elle fleurit ; Elle n’a souci d’elle-même, ne demande pas si on la voit. » Angelus Silesius
"There are problems in this universe for which there are no answers." Paul Muad'dib
Even given my total lack of expertise, that’s some compelling stuff, and it jives with scuttlebutt from area professionals. Plus, medium pizza for 6 bucks; who knew?
Good stuff, per usual. And fair warning.
”But in the end all of these ideas just manufacture new criminals when the problem isn't a lack of criminals.” -JRB
I think it might be good to separate out short term and long term. The former I think is pretty clear as to funds/refunds. If there is a long term disruption I suspect there will be financial closures of smaller businesses.
Reply With Quote