Coronavirus All Purpose Thread: moving on?

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by opendoor

It's probably safe to assume they (or at least the one who lost taste/smell) have COVID. I know several people who have tested negative for 5-6 days before getting a positive. And I know of multiple others who never tested positive on rapid tests even while doing them every day for 7+ days despite having an obvious epidemiological link (i.e. family of 5 all have symptoms, 4 of the 5 test positive, and the 5th repeatedly tests negative despite having the same symptoms as everyone else).

I had that last summer where I had a terrible sinus headache and couldn't taste or smell anything for about 6 weeks. Tested a bunch of times rapid but was never positive. Never did do PCR as I didn't really have any place to go at that time -- was working from home -- though wish I had in retrospect as it would have saved me money on a trip home to Canada I had in August.

[bagofpucks]

Yes, she is treating it as COVID, regardless of the tests. Interestingly, no one else in her family has caught what she has yet, so we’ll see if that changes this week. Unfortunately, everyone who is sick can be loosely linked back to the outbreak we had at work.

[evman150]

The rapid tests are virtually useless. Honestly, I'm surprised they haven't been pulled off the shelves. There's every chance they do more harm than good by giving people the "green light" to continue on as normal because they tested negative.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by evman150

The rapid tests are virtually useless. Honestly, I'm surprised they haven't been pulled off the shelves. There's every chance they do more harm than good by giving people the "green light" to continue on as normal because they tested negative.

They are effective in workplaces where periodic rapid testing of everyone is done. They catch lots of cases before giving opportunity to spread. A single rapid test the first day you are symptomatic and then giving out before symptoms are resolved is not what you are supposed to be doing.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by GGG

They are effective in workplaces where periodic rapid testing of everyone is done. They catch lots of cases before giving opportunity to spread. A single rapid test the first day you are symptomatic and then giving out before symptoms are resolved is not what you are supposed to be doing.

Asymptomatic testing is horrible policy. Of course they catch a lot of "cases". The vast majority of asymptomatically tested "cases" are false positives.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by evman150

Asymptomatic testing is horrible policy. Of course they catch a lot of "cases". The vast majority of asymptomatically tested "cases" are false positives.

This is unlikely given the sensitivity and specificity of the tests and the general prevelence of Covid in the community.

[Hockeyguy15]

False positives on rapid tests? Didn't you just say they were basically useless catching cases?

Pick a lane man.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by GGG

This is unlikely given the sensitivity and specificity of the tests and the general prevelence of Covid in the community.

Don't be fooled by 98% or 99% specificity. Those are not good numbers. They look good, but can result in catastrophically incorrect data. As the below link highlights, the actual accuracy of a positive asymptomatic rapid test is likely to be no better than random chance, and can be far, far worse.

https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1411/rr

[evman150]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

False positives on rapid tests? Didn't you just say they were basically useless catching cases?

Pick a lane man.

Sigh.

https://ebn.bmj.com/content/23/1/2

Cliff's Notes: There are two ways for tests to go wrong. They can miss an actual positive (a false negative), or they incorrectly mark an actual negative as a positive (a false positive). When considering symptomatic testing, rapid tests suck because they produce a lot of false negatives. When considering asymptomatic testing, rapid tests suck because they produce a lot of false positives. Given low community infection rates, lowish sensitivity (ability to find true positives), and a 99% specificity (ability to find true negatives), it may be the case that nine out of ten (or more) of asymptomatic rapid test "positives" are false positives.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by evman150

Don't be fooled by 98% or 99% specificity. Those are not good numbers. They look good, but can result in catastrophically incorrect data. As the below link highlights, the actual accuracy of a positive asymptomatic rapid test is likely to be no better than random chance, and can be far, far worse.

https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1411/rr

If you notice that wasn’t done in Omicron. It was done from sept 2020 to Jan 2021 when assessing the population base that had Covid at that time was far lower.

Also it statements of 50/50 being no better than a coin flip is misleading because you have taken it from being a 1/100 chance that anyone person has Covid to a 50/50 chance that the person has Covid upon positive test. So by rapid testing you have significantly improved the likelyhood of selecting a person who has Covid.

So for a business having two people segregate from critical staff with a 50/50 chance of being positive and having 97 people be true negatives and 1 false negative slip though I have reduced the Covid exposure by half by having 2 people at home.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by GGG

If you notice that wasn’t done in Omicron. It was done from sept 2020 to Jan 2021 when assessing the population base that had Covid at that time was far lower.

Also it statements of 50/50 being no better than a coin flip is misleading because you have taken it from being a 1/100 chance that anyone person has Covid to a 50/50 chance that the person has Covid upon positive test. So by rapid testing you have significantly improved the likelyhood of selecting a person who has Covid.

So for a business having a person segregate from critical staff with a 50/50 chance of being positive and having 97 people be true negatives and 1 false negative slip though I have reduced the Covid exposure by half by having 2 people at home.

I take your point on the coin flip thing. You're right, that's a good improvement. However, it may also be the case the reduced sensitivity to Omicron may wipe out most of the "gains" from the greater pre-test probability (community prevalence). Playing around with the calulator I posted, it looks like 0.5% pre-test probability and 90% sensitivity (Delta-ish numbers) are pretty close to 1.5% pre-test probability and 50% sensitivity (Omicron-ish numbers). With 99% specificity, the odds of actually having asymptomatic covid were 31% and 43% respectively.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Nancy

Some COVID-19 infections presenting with GI symptoms only, such as diarrhea only or vomiting and diarrhea.

https://globalnews.ca/news/8800394/a...stro-symptoms/

Interesting, I think I may have had such a case.

Back in mid-March, for about 4 or 5 days, I was in what I can only describe as gastrointestinal distress. My stomach was churning. I also had really bad muscle and joint pain.

At the time, I just chalked it up to eating something that disagreed with me and the muscle pain to getting old. I didn't even think about doing a COVID test because I didn't have any respiratory problems.

[PeteMoss]

So - WHO has started we had 14.9 million excess deaths from 2020 to 2021 related to covid.

Assuming those numbers don't much higher - according to wikipedia that would be the 5th deadliest pandemic behind: Black Death, Spanish Flu, Plague of Justinian, HIV/AIDS. Black Death (1346-1353) and Plague of Justinian (541-549) happened so long ago that those numbers could be all over place.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/who-e...ling-1.6442146

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

So - WHO has started we had 14.9 million excess deaths from 2020 to 2021 related to covid.

Assuming those numbers don't much higher - according to wikipedia that would be the 5th deadliest pandemic behind: Black Death, Spanish Flu, Plague of Justinian, HIV/AIDS. Black Death (1346-1353) and Plague of Justinian (541-549) happened so long ago that those numbers could be all over place.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/who-e...ling-1.6442146

I wish I had those numbers for the person the other day who told me it’s “just a flue.” Spelling is hers, not mine.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

I wish I had those numbers for the person the other day who told me it’s “just a flue.” Spelling is hers, not mine.

She didn’t say which years of the Flu

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

I wish I had those numbers for the person the other day who told me it’s “just a flue.” Spelling is hers, not mine.

It wouldn't have mattered. That type of idiot would just say the numbers are all made up to aid the conspiracy.

[Just a guy]

Did any of you read the article? There seems to be a lot of confirmation bias!

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Just a guy

Did any of you read the article? There seems to be a lot of confirmation bias!

Now this sounds like something that would fit nicely in your thread by what parts of their methodology in particular do you disagree with and on what basis do you call it confirmation bias? And what alternatives do you offer as a credible explanation for the extra dead people?

[Just a guy]

Originally Posted by GGG

Now this sounds like something that would fit nicely in your thread by what parts of their methodology in particular do you disagree with and on what basis do you call it confirmation bias? And what alternatives do you offer as a credible explanation for the extra dead people?

The parts where it states that there is increased drug deaths as example. Counting these against the pandemic is clearly wrong. Cancer deaths are assumed to increase due to the pandemic. Proof? I have been told to show the background for everything, but that doesn’t seem to apply to others.

So, increase in drugs and drug deaths have been huge over the lady several years. I don’t socialize in any circles that would be considered to be involved in drugs, yet know two individuals that have passed due to them in the last two years.

It seems to me that this article on the face seems to support the statement, but reading it there are a number of noncovid reasons. Which is why I asked if others had actually read the article. You are the only one to respond, so I will assume the others haven’t.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

So - WHO has started we had 14.9 million excess deaths from 2020 to 2021 related to covid.

Assuming those numbers don't much higher - according to wikipedia that would be the 5th deadliest pandemic behind: Black Death, Spanish Flu, Plague of Justinian, HIV/AIDS. Black Death (1346-1353) and Plague of Justinian (541-549) happened so long ago that those numbers could be all over place.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/who-e...ling-1.6442146

It was actually about 20mil estimated excess deaths as of November 2021 (the economist), so its likely quite higher now.