Go Back  Bike Forums > The Lounge > Coronavirus/COVID-19
Reload this Page >

Denial of stats due to "contributing" factors........

Notices
Coronavirus/COVID-19 Discussion of the novel coronavirus

Denial of stats due to "contributing" factors........

 
Old 11-30-20, 01:30 AM
  #51  
canklecat
Me duelen las nalgas
 
canklecat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 12,271

Bikes: Centurion Ironman, Trek 5900, Univega Via Carisma, Globe Carmel

Mentioned: 186 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3946 Post(s)
Liked 1,706 Times in 1,098 Posts
Well... Mammon demands sacrifices.
canklecat is offline  
Old 11-30-20, 02:52 AM
  #52  
Machka 
In Real Life
 
Machka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Down under down under
Posts: 52,007

Bikes: Lots

Mentioned: 139 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3157 Post(s)
Liked 413 Times in 249 Posts
Originally Posted by freeranger View Post
Was talking with a friend, and people denying Covid stats, saying there were underlying factors and Covid shouldn't be considered the cause of death, or otherwise in stats. I believe, in most cases, that Covid should be and is the cause of death or hospitalization. I used to (and probably still due to an extent) have asthma, and I have seasonal allergies. If I'm lucky enough (trying to be careful enough) to dodge Covid, I can live the rest of my life with any occasional, mild asthma I might still have lingering, and can definitely live the rest of my life with my mild seasonal allergies. I used to smoke way too much, but my lungs seem good now, no problems, quit decades ago. But Covid, due to my past bad habits, could have a chance of killing me. So, someone with asthma that would likely live out the rest of their life, gets Covid and passes away, how can it be argued that Covid was not the cause? If an asthmatic didn't get the virus, good chance they would live out the rest of their life. If they would get Covid, the scenario definitely changes!
I work with health data and statistics and ... it's complicated. There is a whole area of health devoted to coding.
Machka is offline  
Old 11-30-20, 05:59 AM
  #53  
FBOATSB 
Senior Member
 
FBOATSB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Central Indiana
Posts: 1,805

Bikes: Old Stuff

Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 682 Post(s)
Liked 129 Times in 101 Posts
Originally Posted by canklecat View Post
I have several friends who work in health care -- doctors, nurses, EMTs, etc. -- with no particular axes to grind politically or culturally. They're independent thinkers and well informed so I pay attention when they talk about the differences between this SARS pandemic and COVID-19 cases, versus previous years of the usual flu, colds, even occasional outbreaks of meningitis.

This pandemic is worse. Much worse than anything we've seen in the US in my lifetime (I'm 63).

But it still doesn't seem real to many Americans because so many of the deaths are among the invisible people - older folks who are retired, disabled, in nursing homes, assisted living or, like my apartment complex, independent living exclusively for folks over age 55. Many of these folks are invisible because they aren't working full time, or working at all, and rarely see their own families, if they have any surviving family. When I moved here I was surprised to discover how many residents never see or hear from their families.

Even my mom, who was one of the most generous and giving people I've known, never heard from her grandkids during her final decade. Her older brother was the only family member, besides myself, she had any contact with and he died a few years before she did. I was her caregiver during her final decade and the only family member she saw at all. For awhile I reached out to my kids and other family but they never responded. She didn't have any money, and was too old and tired to be a babysitter, so they didn't have any use for her. Their loyalties were to other family who had money and things to offer.

Sounds callous but that's a common theme here. And probably common across the US. These are forgotten people and the numbers -- now approaching a quarter-million deaths -- don't register with many younger folks.

Just today I read a baffling post on social media from a women who is an ICU nurse in my area. Her 2,000 word essay could basically be summed up as "Old people shouldn't expect to live forever. This is just a super-cold. If you die, well, too bad, that's life. The rest of us need to get on with our lives, having fun and partying."

As a former health care professional working in ICU, ER, hemodialysis and with chronically ill patients awaiting transplants, I was disappointed to say the least. I wish I could claim I was shocked but I've seen too much of that this year. I rarely respond to strangers but I suggested she reconsider her career and get out of patient care that involved acute illness and injury. If I was her manager or a hospital administrator I'd have been stunned to see such public callousness in an ICU nurse and would have taken action to protect the patients first. Her attitude was an imminent threat to patients and a liability to her employer.

And those rumors about hospitals fudging the statistics to boost their profits were based on misunderstandings by laypersons about how the SARS virus works. Despite months of readily available factual information, too many people still believe it's just a "really bad cold" or "just like the flu."

Nope. The respiratory system is merely the entry point. And, consequently, the system most commonly attacked. But it's not confined to the respiratory system.

The early 2000s SARS epidemic prompted research that made connections between SARS and a range of non-respiratory illnesses, ranging from cardiovascular disease to inflammatory diseases to autoimmune disorders to neurological damage and dementia.

Unfortunately there wasn't much follow up on that early research. This pandemic is prompting renewed research. If it turns out these viruses attack more than just the respiratory system, and there may be permanent consequences even for younger people who get sick but never fully recover, then we may finally see some emphasis on effective vaccines that may improve our lives in ways we didn't expect.

To the public, Varon has offered different words: "America is going to see the darkest days in modern American medical history" if the nation doesn't "do things right" in coming weeks.
Link
FBOATSB is offline  
Likes For FBOATSB:
Old 12-01-20, 05:32 AM
  #54  
livedarklions
I'm cross-chained
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 8,120

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Motobecane Fantom CX; Giant OCR A1

Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4228 Post(s)
Liked 3,208 Times in 1,824 Posts
Originally Posted by Hondo Gravel View Post
Here is Bubba and Bubbette’s hero.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag0-oXl-IDw
His resemblance to a mule is uncanny.
livedarklions is offline  
Old 12-01-20, 05:39 AM
  #55  
livedarklions
I'm cross-chained
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 8,120

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Motobecane Fantom CX; Giant OCR A1

Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4228 Post(s)
Liked 3,208 Times in 1,824 Posts
Originally Posted by CliffordK View Post
It would be easy enough to create a model of clean homes and dirty homes. Ok, so don't use those terms, but take some nursing facilities for COVID recovery care (and in the future communicable disease recovery). And, other facilities and separate staff for those without the disease. Although, multiple-exposures is a potential issue with lumping people with different diseases together.

Nursing care patients leaving a home and returning to the same home is an issue, although if the home is fighting an outbreak, returning back may not be bad as long as isolated.

Oregon previously published a map with nursing facility outbreaks, but has buried that data.

The weak link in having a system of clean vs. dirty homes is, of course, the staffing. If the spread is uncontrolled in the general population, there's really no way to effectively isolate any given facility. No one has the capacity to put the staff in 24 hour isolation. Seriously, who would work such a job? Also, keep in mind that a lot of the typical nursing home staff is not well-paid.
livedarklions is offline  
Likes For livedarklions:
Old 12-01-20, 05:56 AM
  #56  
work4bike
Senior Member
 
work4bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlantic Beach Florida
Posts: 1,351
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1546 Post(s)
Liked 172 Times in 122 Posts
After this thing blows over, that's when we will get a much clearer picture. As of now this guy addresses the issue of case fatality rate vs infection fatality rate better than anything you hear in the news.

It seems Covid has a infection fatality rate about 3x the normal flu, but that's judging from a relatively small population. Everything else in the news is just political BS.



work4bike is offline  
Old 12-01-20, 08:30 AM
  #57  
CliffordK
Senior Member
 
CliffordK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 24,968
Mentioned: 202 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13012 Post(s)
Liked 1,715 Times in 1,298 Posts
Originally Posted by livedarklions View Post
I can't get past the idiocy of including hospitals on your list. They got taken to the hospital because they were sick with COVID. All you're showing with that stat is that people don't generally die at home from it.
The homes with uncontrolled outbreaks, and thus could accept COVID patients might be self-selecting.

Up until mid-summer, Oregon was publishing stats on every nursing facility that had COVID outbreaks. We had generally missed it here in Lane County, and even some Portland homes were hit hard, while others were hardly hit.

I fear the nursing facility outbreak is much wider now that they've hidden the data.

It is unclear where all the money goes, but wages could be higher. Perhaps give a boost for hazard pay which could be made up by short-term fees charged to patients with the disease.
CliffordK is offline  
Old 12-01-20, 08:46 AM
  #58  
Marcus_Ti 
FLIR Kitten to 0.05C
 
Marcus_Ti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska
Posts: 5,302

Bikes: Roadie: Seven Axiom Race Ti w/Chorus 11s. CX/Adventure: Carver Gravel Grinder w/ Di2

Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2326 Post(s)
Liked 373 Times in 235 Posts
Originally Posted by CliffordK View Post
The homes with uncontrolled outbreaks, and thus could accept COVID patients might be self-selecting.

Up until mid-summer, Oregon was publishing stats on every nursing facility that had COVID outbreaks. We had generally missed it here in Lane County, and even some Portland homes were hit hard, while others were hardly hit.

I fear the nursing facility outbreak is much wider now that they've hidden the data.

It is unclear where all the money goes, but wages could be higher. Perhaps give a boost for hazard pay which could be made up by short-term fees charged to patients with the disease.
It probably was. Here in Nebraska, our public COVID data has always omitted both prisons (other than NDCS employees), and has always omitted nursing homes. And since April, the meat packing plant data has been covered up too.

Private nursing homes...I don't trust them half as far as I can comfortably spit a rat. The staff may mean well, but the corporate owners only see $$$$$$$$$$.
Marcus_Ti is offline  
Old 12-01-20, 09:19 AM
  #59  
mstateglfr 
Sunshine
 
mstateglfr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 11,958

Bikes: '18 class built steel roadbike, '19 Fairlight Secan, '88 Schwinn Premis , Black Mountain Cycles Monstercross V4, '89 Novara Trionfo

Mentioned: 97 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4860 Post(s)
Liked 2,082 Times in 1,244 Posts
Originally Posted by cloud View Post
This was a interesting article put out than taken down by John Hopkins.
https://web.archive.org/web/20201126...ue-to-covid-19

Please respond to this- have you discovered why this isnt an article/paper that is worth citing? Please tell us that you have read more on it and understand why.
mstateglfr is offline  
Old 12-01-20, 12:28 PM
  #60  
livedarklions
I'm cross-chained
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 8,120

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Motobecane Fantom CX; Giant OCR A1

Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4228 Post(s)
Liked 3,208 Times in 1,824 Posts
Originally Posted by mstateglfr View Post
Please respond to this- have you discovered why this isnt an article/paper that is worth citing? Please tell us that you have read more on it and understand why.

Well, here's an explanation about why the article was all wrong: https://healthfeedback.org/claimrevi...t-raw-numbers/

It was an undergraduate reporter's summary of a webinar given by an economist opining about whether or not deaths above average for the year should be considered as having been caused by COVID when there was no shift in the death by age proportions.

Setting aside the issue of economists generally embarrassing themselves when they try to play epidemiologist, I wouldn't get past the fact that this is a second-hand summary of a webinar as a reason it probably shouldn't be cited. Also, the CDC is coming up with a very different answer as to the number of excess deaths using exactly the same data. The article I linked above gives a good explanation of why--the Johns Hopkins article actually ignores the total number of deaths!

One can quibble about the number of deaths all day, what can't be denied is that the number of cases is now spiking up and the hospital capacity is already maxed at this point. Once that capacity is exceeded, the death rate from COVID will likely spike even faster than number of cases as will deaths from other causes. Even if the article is right about the number of deaths (and I'm saying that only for the sake of argument) that "trade off" effect may only be true with at least some minimally effective measures of containment--once there's a spike, all bets are off.

I'm really not looking forward to the discussions about whether an uninfected patient who bled to death because they couldn't get any emergency medical attention should or shouldn't be counted as a victim of the pandemic.

Last edited by livedarklions; 12-01-20 at 12:37 PM.
livedarklions is offline  
Old 12-01-20, 02:08 PM
  #61  
CliffordK
Senior Member
 
CliffordK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 24,968
Mentioned: 202 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13012 Post(s)
Liked 1,715 Times in 1,298 Posts
Originally Posted by mstateglfr View Post
Originally Posted by cloud View Post
This was a interesting article put out than taken down by John Hopkins.
https://web.archive.org/web/20201126...ue-to-covid-19
Please respond to this- have you discovered why this isnt an article/paper that is worth citing? Please tell us that you have read more on it and understand why.
Interesting article.

One should keep in mind that about 2.8 million people die in the USA per year (a little under 1%, noting that population growth weights our population towards younger people a bit).

By the end of this year, COVID will have taken about 300,000, or about 0.1% of the population. And, with some luck, only about 5% to 10% of the population will have been infected with the virus. I.E. If 100% of the population gets infected, then the COVID deaths could match the annual death rate.

Now, looking at the first chart from the article:


Somewhere around weeks 10 to 15 the geezers started dropping like flies.

Compare that to the John's Hopkins COVID data:
https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/a...23467b48e9ecf6

That would put one into late April, early May, just around the first peak in COVID deaths.

Now, on the bright side, through the summer, the mortality among the older age groups seemed to drop off some. Was that because the vulnerable had died, or is it a typical seasonal shift, not enough data is presented.

Of course those are percentages, not absolute numbers. And, remember that we are only expecting around 10% excess mortality based on about 10% of the population infected. We know in general the old folks are more likely to die than the younger folks, and COVID will kill people of all ages, just fewer under 20 or so. And, may well mirror all cause deaths. Thus looking at gross percentages, it may not be that different from normal.

I can't read the X-Axis on the second chart, nor is the inlay clear.

Here is a CDC chart on excess all cause deaths this year



Note, around the beginning of April as COVID took off in the USA, the excess all cause mortality also increased with a very obvious jump.

Yeah, a lot of people die in the USA every year. But, COVID is take its bite despite the lockdowns, quarantines, self isolation, testing, etc. And, without any response, it would be much worse.

The CDC page also lets one select by jurisdiction.

Looking at NYC this spring, it is just brutal. Think of TWO 9/11 attacks every week.

CliffordK is offline  
Likes For CliffordK:
Old 12-01-20, 03:32 PM
  #62  
canklecat
Me duelen las nalgas
 
canklecat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 12,271

Bikes: Centurion Ironman, Trek 5900, Univega Via Carisma, Globe Carmel

Mentioned: 186 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3946 Post(s)
Liked 1,706 Times in 1,098 Posts
Originally Posted by livedarklions View Post
...Setting aside the issue of economists generally embarrassing themselves when they try to play epidemiologist...
The corollary of which is that too many medical professionals have embarrassed themselves and contributed to delusions by playing the role of economist.

Some of my Fakebook acquaintances who work in health care have tried several times this year to persuade me to their side, by citing examples of doctors and nurses downplaying the coronavirus pandemic. In every case the doctors were general practitioners (with the exception of one notable psychiatrist who shall remain nameless here), or the nurses worked in ICU or anything *other than* epidemiology, and they all immediately jumped into the "let's not torpedo the economy" argument.

And every one of the self-appointed nurse/economists cited the loss of recreational diversions. They weren't primarily concerned about the health risks. They wanted to go out and party.

I can understand the latter. Especially for health care givers in the ICU, ER and any chronic/acute care setting. When I was in patient care in the 1970s-'80s I worked extensively with acute and chronic care patients, most of whom died, without regard to age. I notice those of us who worked in those settings tended to party hard after work. There was a lot of extracurricular hanky panky. I realized early on that we were overcompensating for the stress of dealing with hopelessly sick patients and a lot of death. Our colleagues who worked with well patients, regular wards where patients were recovering from surgery, etc., were much more stable, secure, well behaved and ... dull.

Two major red flag warning signs of medical professionals pretending to be epidemiologists and economists:
  • Facebook banners, profile photos and many posts boasting hyper-partisan political affiliation.
  • Lots of photos of themselves partying, hoisting glasses and bottles, making duckface for selfies.

The past few years have gutted my respect for my two major former professions, in health care and journalism. There are still many competent and credible practitioners. But I no longer assume that any individual doctor, nurse, researcher or journalist is inherently credible due to his or her profession. They're just as fallible as anyone else.

Last edited by canklecat; 12-01-20 at 03:36 PM.
canklecat is offline  
Likes For canklecat:
Old 12-01-20, 03:59 PM
  #63  
livedarklions
I'm cross-chained
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 8,120

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Motobecane Fantom CX; Giant OCR A1

Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4228 Post(s)
Liked 3,208 Times in 1,824 Posts
Originally Posted by canklecat View Post
The corollary of which is that too many medical professionals have embarrassed themselves and contributed to delusions by playing the role of economist.

Some of my Fakebook acquaintances who work in health care have tried several times this year to persuade me to their side, by citing examples of doctors and nurses downplaying the coronavirus pandemic. In every case the doctors were general practitioners (with the exception of one notable psychiatrist who shall remain nameless here), or the nurses worked in ICU or anything *other than* epidemiology, and they all immediately jumped into the "let's not torpedo the economy" argument.

And every one of the self-appointed nurse/economists cited the loss of recreational diversions. They weren't primarily concerned about the health risks. They wanted to go out and party.

I can understand the latter. Especially for health care givers in the ICU, ER and any chronic/acute care setting. When I was in patient care in the 1970s-'80s I worked extensively with acute and chronic care patients, most of whom died, without regard to age. I notice those of us who worked in those settings tended to party hard after work. There was a lot of extracurricular hanky panky. I realized early on that we were overcompensating for the stress of dealing with hopelessly sick patients and a lot of death. Our colleagues who worked with well patients, regular wards where patients were recovering from surgery, etc., were much more stable, secure, well behaved and ... dull.

Two major red flag warning signs of medical professionals pretending to be epidemiologists and economists:
  • Facebook banners, profile photos and many posts boasting hyper-partisan political affiliation.
  • Lots of photos of themselves partying, hoisting glasses and bottles, making duckface for selfies.

The past few years have gutted my respect for my two major former professions, in health care and journalism. There are still many competent and credible practitioners. But I no longer assume that any individual doctor, nurse, researcher or journalist is inherently credible due to his or her profession. They're just as fallible as anyone else.
The problem with social scientists playing epidemiologist is fairly specific though. It's the ones that think "it's all statistics", so they're competent to analyze the data. Without the proper medical knowledge, however, you just get a bunch of garbage analyses. The Johns Hopkins student newspaper article is a pretty damn good example of this.
livedarklions is offline  
Old 12-01-20, 04:28 PM
  #64  
CycleryNorth81
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 877

Bikes: custom Cyclery North (Chicago), Schwinn Circuit

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 350 Post(s)
Liked 201 Times in 116 Posts
Originally Posted by canklecat View Post
The corollary of which is that too many medical professionals have embarrassed themselves and contributed to delusions by playing the role of economist.

Some of my Fakebook acquaintances who work in health care have tried several times this year to persuade me to their side, by citing examples of doctors and nurses downplaying the coronavirus pandemic. In every case the doctors were general practitioners (with the exception of one notable psychiatrist who shall remain nameless here), or the nurses worked in ICU or anything *other than* epidemiology, and they all immediately jumped into the "let's not torpedo the economy" argument.

And every one of the self-appointed nurse/economists cited the loss of recreational diversions. They weren't primarily concerned about the health risks. They wanted to go out and party.

I can understand the latter. Especially for health care givers in the ICU, ER and any chronic/acute care setting. When I was in patient care in the 1970s-'80s I worked extensively with acute and chronic care patients, most of whom died, without regard to age. I notice those of us who worked in those settings tended to party hard after work. There was a lot of extracurricular hanky panky. I realized early on that we were overcompensating for the stress of dealing with hopelessly sick patients and a lot of death. Our colleagues who worked with well patients, regular wards where patients were recovering from surgery, etc., were much more stable, secure, well behaved and ... dull.

Two major red flag warning signs of medical professionals pretending to be epidemiologists and economists:
  • Facebook banners, profile photos and many posts boasting hyper-partisan political affiliation.
  • Lots of photos of themselves partying, hoisting glasses and bottles, making duckface for selfies.

The past few years have gutted my respect for my two major former professions, in health care and journalism. There are still many competent and credible practitioners. But I no longer assume that any individual doctor, nurse, researcher or journalist is inherently credible due to his or her profession. They're just as fallible as anyone else.

Oregon nurse is put on leave for boasting that she doesn't wear a mask, keeps traveling and lets her kids go on play dates in TikTok video

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...protocols.html
CycleryNorth81 is offline  
Old 12-01-20, 04:48 PM
  #65  
Marcus_Ti 
FLIR Kitten to 0.05C
 
Marcus_Ti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska
Posts: 5,302

Bikes: Roadie: Seven Axiom Race Ti w/Chorus 11s. CX/Adventure: Carver Gravel Grinder w/ Di2

Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2326 Post(s)
Liked 373 Times in 235 Posts
Originally Posted by livedarklions View Post
The problem with social scientists playing epidemiologist is fairly specific though. It's the ones that think "it's all statistics", so they're competent to analyze the data. Without the proper medical knowledge, however, you just get a bunch of garbage analyses. The Johns Hopkins student newspaper article is a pretty damn good example of this.
It is very easy to get this stuff wrong. On RBR, one of their regulars who did work in epidemiology posted this link:

https://brownmath.com/stat/falsepos.htm

Well worth the read in context of testing as well as vaccine effectiveness.
Marcus_Ti is offline  
Likes For Marcus_Ti:
Old 12-01-20, 10:08 PM
  #66  
livedarklions
I'm cross-chained
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 8,120

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Motobecane Fantom CX; Giant OCR A1

Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4228 Post(s)
Liked 3,208 Times in 1,824 Posts
Originally Posted by Marcus_Ti View Post
It is very easy to get this stuff wrong. On RBR, one of their regulars who did work in epidemiology posted this link:

https://brownmath.com/stat/falsepos.htm

Well worth the read in context of testing as well as vaccine effectiveness.

That's the classic prior probability example. It assumes that the false positive rate is the same as the false negative. The COVID antibody tests bias towards false negatives so much that a positive test can generally be relied on while a negative test may have as much as a 30% chance of being false.

My favorite prior probability example is the "Monty Hall problem." https://statisticsbyjim.com/fun/monty-hall-problem/
livedarklions is offline  
Likes For livedarklions:
Old 12-02-20, 02:55 PM
  #67  
CliffordK
Senior Member
 
CliffordK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 24,968
Mentioned: 202 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13012 Post(s)
Liked 1,715 Times in 1,298 Posts
Originally Posted by Marcus_Ti View Post
It is very easy to get this stuff wrong. On RBR, one of their regulars who did work in epidemiology posted this link:

https://brownmath.com/stat/falsepos.htm

Well worth the read in context of testing as well as vaccine effectiveness.
One isn't necessarily informed of which test one is given.

EUA Authorized Serology Test Performance

Most the tests indicated a false positive rate of < 1%, and a false negative rate of slightly higher.

"Real Word" testing could be different with sampling errors, or perhaps either cross contamination, or a lab technician who is positive.

Now, we aren't just testing the population at random, but rather generally some directed testing, either testing "symptomatic" individuals, or some type of screening for certain individuals.

Anybody who is truly asymptomatic, with no documented exposures should be retested, probably with a different type of test, so a rapid test followed by a PCR test. This would also be a reason to collect a second independent sample.

Anybody who has a full clinical diagnosis, but tests negative should still be treated with isolation and should be retested (as well as being tested for other common ailments such as influenza).

Nonetheless, our positivity rate has been between about 3% and 20%. At the low end, one is at greater risk of statistical anomalies. At the high end, those numbers will get dwarfed by those with the actual disease. Still keep them in mind, and do follow-up testing as needed based on clinical presentation.

Testing and tracing family and contacts may also substitute for some retesting.
CliffordK is offline  
Likes For CliffordK:
Old 12-02-20, 09:21 PM
  #68  
mstateglfr 
Sunshine
 
mstateglfr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 11,958

Bikes: '18 class built steel roadbike, '19 Fairlight Secan, '88 Schwinn Premis , Black Mountain Cycles Monstercross V4, '89 Novara Trionfo

Mentioned: 97 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4860 Post(s)
Liked 2,082 Times in 1,244 Posts
Originally Posted by CycleryNorth81 View Post

Oregon nurse is put on leave for boasting that she doesn't wear a mask, keeps traveling and lets her kids go on play dates in TikTok video

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...protocols.html
let us rise up by pulling others down.
mstateglfr is offline  
Old 12-02-20, 09:24 PM
  #69  
CycleryNorth81
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 877

Bikes: custom Cyclery North (Chicago), Schwinn Circuit

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 350 Post(s)
Liked 201 Times in 116 Posts
Originally Posted by mstateglfr View Post
let us rise up by pulling others down.
Who is to be shamed? The poster or the nurse not wearing the mask?
CycleryNorth81 is offline  
Old 12-02-20, 09:36 PM
  #70  
mstateglfr 
Sunshine
 
mstateglfr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 11,958

Bikes: '18 class built steel roadbike, '19 Fairlight Secan, '88 Schwinn Premis , Black Mountain Cycles Monstercross V4, '89 Novara Trionfo

Mentioned: 97 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4860 Post(s)
Liked 2,082 Times in 1,244 Posts
Originally Posted by CycleryNorth81 View Post
Who is to be shamed? The poster or the nurse not wearing the mask?
Yes
mstateglfr is offline  
Old 12-02-20, 09:42 PM
  #71  
CycleryNorth81
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 877

Bikes: custom Cyclery North (Chicago), Schwinn Circuit

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 350 Post(s)
Liked 201 Times in 116 Posts
Originally Posted by mstateglfr View Post
Yes
NO.

The nurse should be ashamed because she is a position of trust. Obviously her employer felt that she was endangering her patients and place her on leave.
CycleryNorth81 is offline  
Likes For CycleryNorth81:
Old 12-02-20, 09:43 PM
  #72  
mstateglfr 
Sunshine
 
mstateglfr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 11,958

Bikes: '18 class built steel roadbike, '19 Fairlight Secan, '88 Schwinn Premis , Black Mountain Cycles Monstercross V4, '89 Novara Trionfo

Mentioned: 97 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4860 Post(s)
Liked 2,082 Times in 1,244 Posts
Originally Posted by CycleryNorth81 View Post
NO.

The nurse should be ashamed because she is a position of trust. Obviously her employer felt that she was endangering her patients and place her on leave.
I have no problem with a nurse being put on leave for refusing to wear a mask. It makes sense to me.
mstateglfr is offline  
Old 12-03-20, 12:47 AM
  #73  
CliffordK
Senior Member
 
CliffordK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 24,968
Mentioned: 202 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13012 Post(s)
Liked 1,715 Times in 1,298 Posts
Ok, I finally found the Oregon Nursing Home Data:

https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/DISEAS...-19-Report.pdf

Currently: 2,643 cases and 129 deaths in facilities with active outbreaks.
Resolved: 2,789 cases and 368 deaths.

Total of: 5,432 cases and 497 total dead.

They don't seem to be separating staff and patients in the statistics. But somewhere around a 10% case mortality rate.

Oregon is listing 78,160 cases and 953 deaths.

So, just over half the deaths are listed in nursing homes. And about half the deaths are unrelated.
CliffordK is offline  
Old 12-03-20, 06:04 AM
  #74  
livedarklions
I'm cross-chained
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 8,120

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Motobecane Fantom CX; Giant OCR A1

Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4228 Post(s)
Liked 3,208 Times in 1,824 Posts
Originally Posted by mstateglfr View Post
I have no problem with a nurse being put on leave for refusing to wear a mask. It makes sense to me.
I also have no problem with her suspension being publicized so other medical personnel are on notice this can happen. I also wouldn't have a problem with publicizing similar sanctions of other people whose behavior endangers their customers or clients. If they publicly state, as this nurse did, that you are flouting basic precautions, you really can't complain about public reactions to that statement--posting what you're doing publicly is holding yourself out as an example, it makes it necessary to show what actually happens if you follow that example.

So why did you post that meme and say that CycleryNorth81 should be shamed for posting the link?
livedarklions is offline  
Likes For livedarklions:
Old 12-03-20, 08:02 AM
  #75  
mstateglfr 
Sunshine
 
mstateglfr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 11,958

Bikes: '18 class built steel roadbike, '19 Fairlight Secan, '88 Schwinn Premis , Black Mountain Cycles Monstercross V4, '89 Novara Trionfo

Mentioned: 97 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4860 Post(s)
Liked 2,082 Times in 1,244 Posts
Originally Posted by livedarklions View Post
I also have no problem with her suspension being publicized so other medical personnel are on notice this can happen. I also wouldn't have a problem with publicizing similar sanctions of other people whose behavior endangers their customers or clients. If they publicly state, as this nurse did, that you are flouting basic precautions, you really can't complain about public reactions to that statement--posting what you're doing publicly is holding yourself out as an example, it makes it necessary to show what actually happens if you follow that example.

So why did you post that meme and say that CycleryNorth81 should be shamed for posting the link?
Here are a handful of thoughts that will give fuel for you to continue.

- That gif refers to a scene where everyone shames someone. In doing so, they are making themselves feel better while also making the guilty feel worse. This absolutely takes place during the pandemic with social media allowing hot takes and quick judgements over people we dont know and situations we dont fully understand. Last night, I didnt have patience for yet another social media based article that is just judgement oriented, so i posted the gif and comment. I completely believe the comment is true of how we handle stories like this on social media.

- This sort of incident should be handled internally. But the woman created the situation by making it public, so i posted the gif since its public shaming oriented. It works on multiple levels- both sincere and ironically! Pretty great, huh?

- Again, I have no issue with her being suspended for not wearing a mask since she is a nurse. And if in her contract she agreed to not travel(doubtful), then I would have no issue with her being suspended for traveling. But yeah, I kinda dont love the idea that someone is shamed on social media for saying they travel still(a ton of people do it) or for saying they allow their kids to play with others(a crapton of people do it). Those really were what I disagreed with initially- certain sections of the article/headline.
Our kids have hung out with others- its been nearly 9 months of this, of course they have seen friends. Its WAY less than in usual times, but we have taken measured risk in order to allow them social time in situations. I firmly believe it can be done in a way that mitigates risk to an acceptable amount. My kids are not in a school building right now, so that affects how we view and manage interactions.


Hopefully this clarifies things for you and satisfies your confusion. If you want to have an actual discussion about any of my points, neato. If you want do your usual thing, just pass as I dont have interest in that.
mstateglfr is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.