Rational CoViD-19 Discussion Thread: Science vs. Politics

[babe]

So, anyway, even the worldometer linear graph will soon level off to a flat line at the top of the chart. Under 1 M Americans ever going to a doctor sick, and over 10 M Americans now immune to Covid, and when properly classed, less than 40 k deaths in the US from Covid.

Most Americans, particularly those with reasonably good health, could return to work soon, with some social distancing practices understood. I'm worried about my wife, though. She is one of the front line workers.

I think now we will never have a good vaccine we can just rely on, any more than we have for HIV or SARS. Covid-19 is about 87% Sars and 10% HIV. This did not happen in a bat, or transfer in uncooked weird delicacies appreciated by the strangest of the strange Chinese. It walked outta the Wuhan virology institute infecting a worker, who passed it to her husband.

Sorry all you rabid JFC conspiracy theorists, Joe Biden did not wink at Xi and tell him..... " let the Corona Killer Pandemic Fly, this will ruin Trump for sure."

It was an accident, unintended, for it is certain Xi would not have released it on his own productive economy in the depths of a recession.

Still, it would be my hope that the Dems would just skip trying to score big gains on this epidemic, and our bureaucratic bunglers. Trump pretty much did what Hillary would have done. He listened to the panicky scientists with the bad models and no common sense, but he did ignore the dems and stop the import of the disease practically before anyone knew it should be done.

Just for that alone, Trump should be our choice in 2020, Besides, Trump is doing all the stuff socialists ever dreamed of doing... Not so sure working people who lost their businesses and jobs will vote for Trump now, but damn sure our dictatorial edict issuing governors and a lot of congressmen are gonna lose their jobs as well.

 

[Scat]

Of course.

"Obviously" would have been a better choice of word.

 

[Scat]

COVID 19 will end up being one of the biggest, and most destructive frauds in the history of mankind.

 

[One Brow]

COVID 19 will end up being one of the biggest, and most destructive frauds in the history of mankind.

It will certainly be portrayed as such. Sure, the NYC morgues have been so over-loaded that they are digging temporary, mass graves to hold the bodies and the Wuhan incinerators are working overtime, but why let that get in the way of a good conspiracy theory?

 

[Scat]

It will certainly be portrayed as such. Sure, the NYC morgues have been so over-loaded that they are digging temporary, mass graves to hold the bodies and the Wuhan incinerators are working overtime, but why let that get in the way of a good conspiracy theory?

Are they?

 

[One Brow]

Are they?

Could you be more specific? I'm not sure which part you were questioning.

 

[Harambe]

So we have now, in the USA, tested over 2M folks for Covid. In every test, we need some stats regarding accuracy and precision. Accuracy would involve the idea of getting a "right" answer, "precision" would involve the idea of not missing cases. Poor accuracy would involve, say, getting H1N1 or SARS or other Corona viruses giving a positive Covid test result where Covid is not actually the exact virus giving the positive result. Poor precision would involve on getting positive Covid results some fraction of the time where Covid is indeed present.

We know nothing about either of these parameters, and could only expect or presume some value or meaning in our testing. However, we have judgment, from experience generally, about all of our methods.

A diagnosis based on clinical observations..... acute pneumonia, fever, dry cough, little upper respiratory congestion..... might be 90% accurate/70% if not obviously explained by something else known to be a cause....

Any kind of "crude" positive antibody or antigen assay might be 95% accurate/90% precise.

A good test developed with positive and negative controls in the panel could do much better, but still miss a case or two in a thousand, and still pick up a positive from some other source in a hundred or so tests. There will be no such thing as an inerrant test.

That said, I note a propensity in human psychology for seeing what we are looking for at the moment, for erring on the side of amplification of our concerns. I have no means to quantify this phenomena, but to say, it's possible it's significant, maybe ten percent, maybe one percent, who knows.

But in 2M tests, we report 400k positives.

Considering the claim, with some supporting data, that as many as 80% of Covid cases are not serious enough to prompt a doctor visit..... and that tests are being done only on people who show up to ask for the test, sometimes for good reason..... And that we are reporting ALL the serious cases and deaths...… we can write an equation....

Tot#Covid = #Positive Test Results + Untested/Unknown Positives. The latter can be estimated from available data.

For reasons I discussed a few posts above, we are probably overstating #CovidDeaths, but this number does claim a positive Covid test result. Our stats on #Critical Covid Cases is likely understated, because some people just don't get that attention. And if our psycology is normal, and our tests are pretty good, we are likely overstating the #Positive Test Results by, perhaps.... in my judgment, aroung 2%. Not really a headliner there. But I will include it in the equation.

The next thing is to evaluate the probable extent of Covid cases out and about, walking around unknown and undetected. The best data for estimating this would be the percent of positives being found in persons who have no signs or symptoms of Covid who have been tested, or the rate of positives in the testing lines where, presumably, worried folks with some signs are hurrying to get tested. The first subset would be an underestimate, the second a fairly large overestimate....

Another useful test for evaluation of extent in the general public would be an antibody test rather than an antigen test like what we are now doing. The antibody result would tell us how many people have been exposed and lived to show it.

There's two tests that can be done; standard which can be detected in ~48 hours, and a quick test which results in about 45 minutes. It's a simple yes or no; is it identifiable or is it not. I can't speak for all hospitals, but the infectious disease staff I work with check over every case(Inpatient or Outpatient). I can say that we are required by the state to forward all positive results to the Health Department within 24 hours of a positive result.

We do not forward negative results. We do not forward assumptions, suggestions, or maybes. There is no overstatement. You simply do not have the expertise to make any claims here.

 

[babe]

"Obviously" would have been a better choice of word.

OK. This is a timely and extremely relevant point. "Obviously" would merely be stating the obvious. "Of course" goes further, and explains why.

 

[babe]

There's two tests that can be done; standard which can be detected in ~48 hours, and a quick test which results in about 45 minutes. It's a simple yes or no; is it identifiable or is it not. I can't speak for all hospitals, but the infectious disease staff I work with check over every case(Inpatient or Outpatient). I can say that we are required by the state to forward all positive results to the Health Department within 24 hours of a positive result.

We do not forward negative results. We do not forward assumptions, suggestions, or maybes. There is no overstatement. You simply do not have the expertise to make any claims here.

So here you disclose your professional expertise on the subject, and while I'm sure you understand your protocols, you missed the logic of my statement, which would be an "expertise" area few would really have unless you are either a mathematician or a test designer.

I'm not sure I'm fully qualified in either of the above, but I am aware there is an issue here.

You, and the State, presume that the test, if positive, is absolutely correct, and that a negative result is also definitive or dispositive of the case. There is nothing more to say, or think.

You make a great statists, but a poor philosopher, and a poor realist.

 

[babe]

COVID 19 will end up being one of the biggest, and most destructive frauds in the history of mankind.

While there is an objective reality to Covid 19, and it is a serious challenge to public health and to our healthcare capacities, it is pretty clear to me that our WHO and our CDC have not served the public as well as they have served those who think to convert a health crisis into a useful political tool. I think Trump got rolled on this one, and is done and finished as a real obstacle tp specialism or statism.

Nobody in their right mind believes Biden is competent to be Pres. The obvious reality is that our prime movers don't want a real President standing in their way. A useful tool is all they need.

Congress, and the Courts as well..... and State governance, all has to be neutered for the fascists to implement their dream world. No public leverage allowed.

 

[babe]

Here's my two-cent opinion about the Panic Promoter site, Worldometer's, statistical presentation today.

My objection to the prominence of the linear data charts, above the simple daily data graph, has been heard..... lol.... under the misleading graph there is actually a daily graph. It is claiming we are holding on the 25k/d new case rate. About the same as March 31, less than the 35k peak. The data clearly reflects varying acquisition times for compiling the data. Some not counted one day, then counted the next, that sort of thing.

The graphs, once touted as "exponential", are now clearly linear with a declining rate of new cases. I think the claims of many unaffected or asymptomatic cases, as many as 20 X the symptomatic cases is being debunked by the testing. With a million new tests over about three days, where there is an abvious bias for heavily impacted areas and people presenting for testing because of symptoms, it is the fact that most of the asymptomatic cases are not cases at all, but misdiagnosed evaluations or tests.

So here's the rub. Sars-Cov 19 is not a new virus, it is splice of existing viruses. The PCR test is picking up unspliced parent viral pieces, and other variants of virus, the ELISA tests are also picking up related viruses.

Many of the deaths being attributed to Covid are due to the complex of similar viral entities, and most are people who would have died if they had gotten the ordinary flu instead.

Still, I want the antibody tests promoted, along with the antigen and PCR tests. What my speculation amounts to is the numerical data being bolstered and hyped to make a panic for the public, but if so, we do have a serious disease, with a smaller footprint and more deadly capacities, but which many more people have a sort of co-immunity against because of their exposures to related viral strains.

I don't think it has the potential to rage further on an exponential basis. I think we have almost 20% of the 70+ people with some immunity, and maybe more than 50% of the -30 age people with some immunity.

But who knows, without a well-designed study, which our gov with our opportunistic panic exploiters at work do not want done.

Socialists are like piranha swarming the bloodied waters of every crisis. Transform Society. Empower Government. Put the little peeps in their place, tip-toeing around with mother-may-I hopes and fears for every least aspect of human choice.

 

[babe]

So, this is for Harambe, and other more or less embedded socialists in our authoritarian system, people with jobs dependent on the State.

Of course, I know nothing. Nothing at all. All knowledge belongs to the authorities, and all knowledge is mutable for the sake of social progress. Of course.

But here is what I'm talking about when I say any test, however designed, needs to be evaluated for false positives and false negatives, and the causes of these discussed. While I must attribute most of my experience with testing and measurement to physical science applications more than biological science applications, I do realize that it is orders of magnitude more complex in the biological applications. Nothing so clear cut as elemental analysis with a spectroscope, I imagine.

While PCR methods amplify a small signal, they amplify the interferences as well. It is possible to do a good job of getting the more specific pieces identified, and a very high accuracy achieved..... but it still has to be studied with a well-designed study to prove that accuracy, and precision, that the clinician relies on in practice.

I worked for some time with a project to produce monoclonal antibodies. I had to worry about just what antibody my test was responding to. There are ways to check, and I would guess the time that has elapsed getting mass testing out there reflects the effort to check it out pretty good. But every such method needs the follow-up evaluation of results in practice, and absolutely there are no tests which will not have some liability for false results.

Hopefully, we are doing a really good job creating our tests.