• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Mask Efficacy |OT| Wuhan!! Got You All In Check

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joe T.

Joe T.

Member
carlosrox said:
Nice celebrity PR.

What a fucking joke.

Here in BC they begged Ryan Reynolds and Seth Rogan to shill for COVID cuz they're celebs from here. Like, actually. Not making this up at all.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I saw that. I DVR TMZ's 30 min show, used to be a guilty pleasure of mine because of all the self-deprecating humor between the staff, but it turned into a barely tolerable way of keeping up with pop culture. Their covid shilling has been off the charts bad ever since the lockdowns started, each show having a cringey "We're all in this together" reminder at the end of the last commercial break.
 
Gp1

Gp1

Member
EviLore said:
Click to expand...

The photo says it all :messenger_grinning_sweat:


I'm more a right wing leaning-pro market myself than a hard right wing-pro-bolsonaro-conservative- etc.

But Bloomberg would have implied "populism" to a left leaning pro-market president anywhere around the world that reduced poverty through a yield distribution program in the middle of the biggest pandemic of the last 100 years?

www.bloomberg.com

Brazil Hands Out So Much Covid Cash That Poverty Nears a Low

Brazil, which has suffered one of the world’s worst pandemic tolls, has responded to the crisis by distributing so much cash directly to citizens that poverty and inequality are approaching national historic lows.
www.bloomberg.com www.bloomberg.com
 
Last edited:
S

Saruhashi

Banned
EviLore said:
Click to expand...


Perfect example of poorly informing and confusing the public.

First off it can only really apply to people who don't live with their partner.
Actually, it can only really apply to people who don't spend any time with their partner except for just banging.

The idea of wearing the mask is really only going to be helpful if you have otherwise decontaminated literally everything else.

I mean even if you meet some random online and agree that you'll go over to their place, bang, and then leave you've still got bigger issues such as touching door handles etc etc. So you get over there and she's like "OK get in the shower". So I wear a mask the whole time I'm in the bathroom? Has she been wearing a mask in the bathroom? Has she decontaminated the taps? Etc etc etc.

Every step of the way you need to make sure surfaces are completely cleaned, advice for masks indoors is being followed at all times.
Canada's "top doctor": Consider using a mask.

This is where the complete obsession with masks is a bit concerning to me.
Like we are kind of creeping towards "shouldn't you even consider wearing a mask in your own home".
Weird since anyone coming to your home is going to be at risk due to more than simply breathing the same air as you.
What about surfaces? What about clothes? What about everything in the house?
Nah, just wear a mask.

You basically have people who are considered to be "top doctors" spouting bullshit.
Probably because they feel like "well I have to say something so here goes".
 
Last edited:
S

sinnergy

Member
I fear this is all a communists conspiracy to overthrow governments and become the dominant force in the world! Look at how much we had to give up , it’s all becoming to look like China . It’s either China or Russia.

They even got to the Rock, the Rock ! People !

And now the Russians and Chinese are the first with a vaccine, this can’t be a coincidence. They want us to be relying on them for help.
 
Last edited:
F

FireFly

Member
iconmaster said:
Even the NYT is now saying most positives could be false positives (i.e., negligibly infected).

www.nytimes.com

Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be. (Published 2020)

The usual diagnostic tests may simply be too sensitive and too slow to contain the spread of the virus.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
Click to expand...
Right but the problem the article is highlighting is not that the PCR test is identifying people as positive who never had the virus, but that it is identifying people as positive, who are no longer contagious. So as a tool for tracking the spread of the virus it is fine, but as a tool for determining who should quarantine, it is not.

The conclusion of the article is that we need more testing using less sensitive tests, so that even if the "false negative" rate is higher, we will be able to catch more people during their infectious period.
 
B

Birgitte2004-2

Banned
Dr.Guru of Peru said:
Feel free to respond with anything substantive.
Click to expand...
Considering you've spent the entire thread mocking anything that doesn't fit your narrative, I don't think there's any point to responding to you with "anything substantive."

I will say it makes me smile every time that one of our self-proclaimed experts on how bad COVID-19 is and how it should be properly handled is named after the country with the worst death percentage in the world, at least among countries with a large populace
 
D

Dr.Guru of Peru

played the long game
Birgitte2004-2 said:
Considering you've spent the entire thread mocking anything that doesn't fit your narrative, I don't think there's any point to responding to you with "anything substantive."

I will say it makes me smile every time that one of our self-proclaimed experts on how bad COVID-19 is and how it should be properly handled is named after the country with the worst death percentage in the world, at least among countries with a large populace
Click to expand...
Ive been a user on GAF for over 20 years and picked this name for fun when I was 12. Do you think Im the president of Peru or something?

Again , feel free to respond with anything substantive. Ive already explained in detail why both those takes are wrong. Not going to rehash the same thing everytime someone reposts yet another social media pundit who dropped out of high school parroting the same bullshit.
 
Last edited:
D

Dr.Guru of Peru

played the long game
FireFly said:
Right but the problem the article is highlighting is not that the PCR test is identifying people as positive who never had the virus, but that it is identifying people as positive, who are no longer contagious. So as a tool for tracking the spread of the virus it is fine, but as a tool for determining who should quarantine, it is not.

The conclusion of the article is that we need more testing using less sensitive tests, so that even if the "false negative" rate is higher, we will be able to catch more people during their infectious period.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and even that is not a correct conclusion. The PCR tests your viral shedding at that particular point in time. The viral load on NP swab is affected by numerous things: - sampling technique, site of sampling, timing of sampling, etc. For example, we know that bronchial samples have far more virus than NP, which have far more than nasal turbinate which have far more than throat swabs. You could test someone at the exact same time from multiple different sites and multiple different values. Doesnt mean the person is less infectious just because you swabbed his throat. We also know that viral shedding fluctuates throughout the day, and that having a low amount of viral shedding does not mean that you are necessarily less infectious. Using PCR tests to determine infectivity is a bad idea, the purpose of the test is to confirm the presence of the virus. Most jurisdictions are not basing decision to clear people from infectious precautions based on PCR tests anymore. Its based on symptoms and clinical course.

The idea that we have a large amount of false positives is ludicrous. The test has 99.99% specificity. The sensitivity of the test is far lower. The amount of false negative outweighs the amount of false positives by a factor of thousands.
 
Joe T.

Joe T.

Member
Dr.Guru of Peru said:
The idea that we have a large amount of false positives is ludicrous. The test has 99.99% specificity. The sensitivity of the test is far lower. The amount of false negative outweighs the amount of false positives by a factor of thousands.
Click to expand...

You don't need a large number, even a small amount of false positives is enough to negatively affect millions of people. Trying to dig up a CDC page I saw in late April or May with several dozen tests and their accuracy is proving time consuming right now - it definitely didn't inspire confidence - but the following is a very important factor that got buried in all the hysteria: "The evidence shows that false positive PCR results are common enough to impact clinical and policy decisions."

In previous epidemics, health authorities voiced concerns that false positive results from PCRbased tests could harm both the individuals tested and the ability of government agencies to assess the outbreak, and they adopted measures to limit the occurrence of false positives. For example, the World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention limited PCR-based testing to individuals with a high probability of infection (those with symptoms and/or significant exposure) and usually required confirmation of positive results by a second, independent test (Box 1). These warnings and requirements are absent from the same organizations' guidance on SARS-CoV-2 testing.
Click to expand...

When you live in a city of millions and a few dozen positive results is all it takes to impact policy it becomes a massive story, one that can negatively affect a number of important areas of the city and life itself. The premier and news both made a big deal about new cases rising a week or so back, for example, with the disclaimer that about 40 of them could be false positives. It turned out 78 of them were negative. If only we double-checked all our tests from the start...
 
F

FireFly

Member
Dr.Guru of Peru said:
The idea that we have a large amount of false positives is ludicrous. The test has 99.99% specificity. The sensitivity of the test is far lower. The amount of false negative outweighs the amount of false positives by a factor of thousands.
Click to expand...
Do you have a source for the specificity figure?
 
cryptoadam

cryptoadam

Banned
FireFly said:
Do you have a source for the specificity figure?
Click to expand...


On Thursday, the United States recorded 45,604 new coronavirus cases, according to a database maintained by The Times. If the rates of contagiousness in Massachusetts and New York were to apply nationwide, then perhaps only 4,500 of those people may actually need to isolate and submit to contact tracing.

One solution would be to adjust the cycle threshold used now to decide that a patient is infected. Most tests set the limit at 40, a few at 37. This means that you are positive for the coronavirus if the test process required up to 40 cycles, or 37, to detect the virus.

Tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risk — akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left, Dr. Mina said.

Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive, agreed Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. “I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive,” she said.
 
DeepBreath87

DeepBreath87

Banned
cryptoadam said:

On Thursday, the United States recorded 45,604 new coronavirus cases, according to a database maintained by The Times. If the rates of contagiousness in Massachusetts and New York were to apply nationwide, then perhaps only 4,500 of those people may actually need to isolate and submit to contact tracing.

One solution would be to adjust the cycle threshold used now to decide that a patient is infected. Most tests set the limit at 40, a few at 37. This means that you are positive for the coronavirus if the test process required up to 40 cycles, or 37, to detect the virus.

Tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risk — akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left, Dr. Mina said.

Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive, agreed Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. “I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive,” she said.
Click to expand...
Uh oh... but the narrative!!!
 
F

FireFly

Member
cryptoadam said:

On Thursday, the United States recorded 45,604 new coronavirus cases, according to a database maintained by The Times. If the rates of contagiousness in Massachusetts and New York were to apply nationwide, then perhaps only 4,500 of those people may actually need to isolate and submit to contact tracing.

One solution would be to adjust the cycle threshold used now to decide that a patient is infected. Most tests set the limit at 40, a few at 37. This means that you are positive for the coronavirus if the test process required up to 40 cycles, or 37, to detect the virus.

Tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risk — akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left, Dr. Mina said.

Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive, agreed Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. “I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive,” she said.
Click to expand...
It looks like that references the sensitivity, i.e the proportion of actually infected people the virus is able to catch. A low sensitivity means more false negatives. (The claim about the test being "too sensitive" is that it is catching non-infectious people who had the virus in the past, not that it is generating false positives).

What we actually want is the specificity, which is the proportion of non-infected people that are correctly classified as not infected. And that doesn't seem to be addressed by the article at all.

www.healthnewsreview.org

Understanding medical tests: sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value

“Prostate cancer breakthrough as UK team develops more accurate test“ “A Simple 3-Part Test May Predict Alzheimer’s” “Portable device detects severe stroke in seconds with 92% accuracy” Headlines like these touting new medical tests often include impressive-sounding claims of accuracy. Consider...
www.healthnewsreview.org www.healthnewsreview.org
 
Last edited:
carlosrox

carlosrox

Banned
Pay me money and I'll shill for COVID too!

A friend of a friend of an uncle's nephew I know has COVID. But they're fine now.


🤑
 
Joe T.

Joe T.

Member


In a sign of the wealthy Alpine state’s bullishness, rules of social gatherings will under current plans be relaxed from October to allow groups of more than 1,000 to congregate. Ministers spent the week with representatives of the tourism and hospitality sector discussing how best to boost Switzerland’s important winter holiday season.

“We were confronted with something we had no clue about,” Effy Vayena, professor of bioethics at ETH Zurich, said of the outbreak of the pandemic and “needed to buy time and figure out what was happening”.

Five months on, Swiss public health authorities much better understood the dynamics and “that [lockdowns] are not sustainable”, she said. “There’s been a big shift in focus. What we’re seeing now in Switzerland is people getting used to the idea of living in a risk society. We’re asking: ‘how do we live with this?’”
Click to expand...

The Swiss public in general support that approach. The outcry to an otherwise minor gaffe by public health officials a month ago underscores the extent to which many Swiss are suspicious of renewed curbs on social life.

An official report from July 31 erroneously wrote that two-thirds of new infections in Switzerland were traceable to pubs and clubs. In fact, the government’s figures, corrected days later, showed that just 1.9 per cent of new infections occurred in nightclubs and a further 1.6 per cent in bars and restaurants. Most — 27 per cent — occurred within families.
Click to expand...
 
lock2k

lock2k

Banned
I think I might have this shit.

I've been out more than usually the last two weeks and I had contact with some people.

For the last three days I've been feeling a little tired and with a weak pain in my chest when breathing but not nothing that big, I also had headaches but no fever whatsoever. I don't know if I should be scared or not, but I'm not feeling too bad compared to what I normally feel.
 
Jooxed

Jooxed

Gold Member
lock2k said:
I think I might have this shit.

I've been out more than usually the last two weeks and I had contact with some people.

For the last three days I've been feeling a little tired and with a weak pain in my chest when breathing but not nothing that big, I also had headaches but no fever whatsoever. I don't know if I should be scared or not, but I'm not feeling too bad compared to what I normally feel.
Click to expand...

Don't be scared even if you have it. I work in a care facility and most of the people that had it here had 0 symptoms and recovered (all 75+) We only had 5 people pass away out of the 45 cases we had.

If someone tests positive they are only being prescribed Zinc, a broad spectrum antibiotic and vitamin C.

Get lots of rest and get some vitamin c!
 
lock2k

lock2k

Banned
Jooxed said:
Don't be scared even if you have it. I work in a care facility and most of the people that had it here had 0 symptoms and recovered (all 75+) We only had 5 people pass away out of the 45 cases we had.

If someone tests positive they are only being prescribed Zinc, a broad spectrum antibiotic and vitamin C.

Get lots of rest and get some vitamin c!
Click to expand...

Great, thanks. I actually have a lot of vitamin C everyday in the form of fruits and lemons. Will drink a fresh lemon juice now.
 
cryptoadam

cryptoadam

Banned
FireFly said:
It looks like that references the sensitivity, i.e the proportion of actually infected people the virus is able to catch. A low sensitivity means more false negatives. (The claim about the test being "too sensitive" is that it is catching non-infectious people who had the virus in the past, not that it is generating false positives).

What we actually want is the specificity, which is the proportion of non-infected people that are correctly classified as not infected. And that doesn't seem to be addressed by the article at all.

www.healthnewsreview.org

Understanding medical tests: sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value

“Prostate cancer breakthrough as UK team develops more accurate test“ “A Simple 3-Part Test May Predict Alzheimer’s” “Portable device detects severe stroke in seconds with 92% accuracy” Headlines like these touting new medical tests often include impressive-sounding claims of accuracy. Consider...
www.healthnewsreview.org www.healthnewsreview.org
Click to expand...

I was just providing the answer about the sensitivity. They were doing 40 cycles instead of 35.
 
H

hariseldon

Unconfirmed Member
lock2k said:
I think I might have this shit.

I've been out more than usually the last two weeks and I had contact with some people.

For the last three days I've been feeling a little tired and with a weak pain in my chest when breathing but not nothing that big, I also had headaches but no fever whatsoever. I don't know if I should be scared or not, but I'm not feeling too bad compared to what I normally feel.
Click to expand...

You’re going to die within 3 days, sorry to break it to you.
 
12Goblins

12Goblins

Lil’ Gobbie
carlosrox said:
Now they're talking about "reinfection" :messenger_tears_of_joy:

Can they be any more fucking desperate?

I almost respect their fear mongering game.
Click to expand...
Fear sells. Same reason you tune in to Tucker carlson. It's the same stupid shit and you are what you hate
 
Last edited:
Joe T.

Joe T.

Member
Yeah, the progression of emerging stories talking about reinfection from various parts of the world, conveniently timed for maximum impact, looks just as crooked as all the celebs they've trotted out. Alyssa Milano posted a follow up to her condition which is, of course, still making this sound like something really scary. The fearmongers have become way too predictable, I don't see how they can keep this up without changing things up.

Maybe Bill will fast forward to "the next one" so "the darkest winter in modern history" doesn't become a bad joke everyone forgets. If the level of fear comes down they'll have a difficult time selling their "new normal" in January.
 
Darkmakaimura

Darkmakaimura

Can You Imagine What SureAI Is Going To Do With Garfield?
Bars are staying closed in Vegas and rest of Clark County.

Fuck Sisolak and fuck everyone in Nevada making these decisions.
 
Last edited:
HellforLeather

HellforLeather

Member
EviLore said:
Click to expand...


200w.gif


...how about a bag for her?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Coronavirus live news: WHO team gives briefing in Wuhan following investigation
News
17
2K
Liljagare replied
TOKYO PSYCHODEMIC launches May 30 on PlayStation 5, PlayStation 4, Switch, and PC via Steam
News Trailer
8
1K
Thick Thighs Save Lives replied
TOKYO PSYCHODEMIC PlayStation 5, Nintendo Switch, PlayStation 4, Xbox One, Microsoft Windows, Xbox Series X|S
7
2K
Robb replied
[SF Chronicle] San Francisco declares state of emergency over monkeypox
News Event
22
2K
Drew1440 replied
Thousands, Without Masks, Party At Wuhan Water Park In China
38
2K
Chaplain replied
Top Bottom