Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Delta variant has hit our house


Zod
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Why do you trust the flu tests if you don't trust the COVID tests? COVID is simply out-competing the flu. This isn't a phenomenon unique to the U.S. It's happening globally.

Did you read the results part? Ive seen others saying the same thing and came to the conclusion that the testing varies farr to much to be trusted. Miss-information with the number of positives testing AND negatives. Guess Lauren Kucirka MD is another big-foot believer too!

Quote
Original Research18 August 2020

Variation in False-Negative Rate of Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction–Based SARS-CoV-2 Tests by Time Since Exposure

FREE
 
Results:

Over the 4 days of infection before the typical time of symptom onset (day 5), the probability of a false-negative result in an infected person decreases from 100% (95% CI, 100% to 100%) on day 1 to 67% (CI, 27% to 94%) on day 4. On the day of symptom onset, the median false-negative rate was 38% (CI, 18% to 65%). This decreased to 20% (CI, 12% to 30%) on day 8 (3 days after symptom onset) then began to increase again, from 21% (CI, 13% to 31%) on day 9 to 66% (CI, 54% to 77%) on day 21.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Why do you trust the flu tests if you don't trust the COVID tests? COVID is simply out-competing the flu. This isn't a phenomenon unique to the U.S. It's happening globally.

Besides, if the test isn't accurate you would think one would want the shot to protect themselves anyway. 

When I got so sick in April 2020 I eventually got tested by my doctor and it came back negative.   He later told me that those early tests weren't very accurate and admitted that he thinks I had Covid.  I sure felt like it. 

I got the shot anyway as soon as it was available to me.  Still not sure I'm safe from that poo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Basbear said:

Did you read the results part? Ive seen others saying the same thing and came to the conclusion that the testing varies farr to much to be trusted. Miss-information with the number of positives testing AND negatives. Guess Lauren Kucirka MD is another big-foot believer too!

 

You're quoting something from a year ago. The CDC's early tests were garbage. That's a well known fact. We didn't buy the WHO's tests because we wanted to create our own and they were trash. That hasn't been relevant for a long time now.

 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, pamlicopanther said:

These people don't even know what irony means

Denial of this disease due to politics is just so hard for me to comprehend.  The mantra seems to be “I will believe COVID is more than a cold when you pry the ventilator tube from my cold dead lips”. 

Edited by Pejorative Miscreant
  • Pie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 45catfan said:

Like I said, the answer was pretty obvious, just looking for clarification.

I just find it kinda sad that probably 90 plus percent of the thread is infighting while there are maybe 10 posts saying "hey, sorry to hear that" or some such.

Snapshot of the culture at large, I suppose...

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Basbear said:

Did you read the results part? Ive seen others saying the same thing and came to the conclusion that the testing varies farr to much to be trusted. Miss-information with the number of positives testing AND negatives. Guess Lauren Kucirka MD is another big-foot believer too!

 

It is painfully obvious that you are not understanding this article. I was going to let it go but it's just hurting my brain reading your responses.

1. This is only referencing false negatives, not false positives. They make no comment about the rate of false positives. False positives are also incredibly difficult to ascertain since people can be infected and be asymptomatic. So you can't definitively say it's a false positive just because you do a test the next day and it's negative. Especially if you have no symptoms, your viral loads may be so low that you keep testing negative after your initial positive test.

2. The majority of false negatives in the report are before people develop symptoms or well after they got infected. That's universal for any virus and any test, no matter how good the test is. It's because these are the times when viral loads are the lowest, either because there hasn't been enough time for the virus to replicate in the case of the early testing, or because the immune system has cleared some of the virus as it relates to later testing. Many of the other false negatives are often due to tester error, for instance the nurse not inserting the swab far enough or not leaving it in long enough either because they're doing it wrong or the patient squirmed out of it. 

Anyhow, I implore you to stop posting articles and misinterpreting the science before I get anymore of a headache. Thanks

  • Pie 2
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

I just find it kinda sad that probably 90 plus percent of the thread is infighting while there are maybe 10 posts saying "hey, sorry to hear that" or some such.

Snapshot of the culture at large, I suppose...

Yep, one side is convinced the other side is wrong, when honestly it's somewhere in the middle. Watch me get attacked for saying this; for not picking a side.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, LinvilleGorge said:

You're quoting something from a year ago. The CDC's early tests were garbage. That's a well known fact. We didn't buy the WHO's tests because we wanted to create our own and they were trash. That hasn't been relevant for a long time now.

 

So you admitted WHO and the our testing was "trash", glad you figured that out on your own! Theres hope after all! I do hope a more accurate test comes out and the figures are honestly reported, but thats a total dream about the honest part. Lab results are another issues too, many labs would come back with different results on the same sample. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Peon Awesome said:

It is painfully obvious that you are not understanding this article. I was going to let it go but it's just hurting my brain reading your responses.

1. This is only referencing false negatives, not false positives. They make no comment about the rate of false positives. False positives are also incredibly difficult to ascertain since people can be infected and be asymptomatic. So you can't definitively say it's a false positive just because you do a test the next day and it's negative. Especially if you have no symptoms, your viral loads may be so low that you keep testing negative after your initial positive test.

2. The majority of false negatives in the report are before people develop symptoms or well after they got infected. That's universal for any virus and any test, no matter how good the test is. It's because these are the times when viral loads are the lowest, either because there hasn't been enough time for the virus to replicate in the case of the early testing, or because the immune system has cleared some of the virus as it relates to later testing. Many of the other false negatives are often due to tester error, for instance the nurse not inserting the swab far enough or not leaving it in long enough either because they're doing it wrong or the patient squirmed out of it. 

Anyhow, I implore you to stop posting articles and misinterpreting the science before I get anymore of a headache. Thanks

You made it further than I did. I didn't make it past the date. Like yep, this is no longer relevant info.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Basbear said:

So you admitted WHO and the our testing was "trash", glad you figured that out on your own! Theres hope after all! I do hope a more accurate test comes out and the figures are honestly reported, but thats a total dream about the honest part. Lab results are another issues too, many labs would come back with different results on the same sample. 

The more accurate tests came out pretty quickly. "Bad tests" hasn't been a relevant issue for a long time now.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Jon Snow said:

Still not sure I'm safe from that poo.

Yeah, with new variants, no one should be taking their health for granted.

We all need to remain vigilant.

I'm continuing to social distance and wear a mask indoors while shopping.

I've also nixed any unnecessary social interactions outside of immediate family.

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
  • Poo 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Here is how Morgan is strategic-He re-signs Scott because he was not going S in round 1--he had the chance, and he did not.  He saw the top of the draft at T and knew none of them would be ready to start day 1, so he signs a veteran to a one-year deal, giving his tackle selection a chance to learn and prepare for what might be LT or RT.  Those two moves suggested, perhaps ironically because they contradict each other, what he was going to do, based on the talent pool.  He never brought in a Robinson replacement at DE/NT, and then moves up to draft one.   I almost wonder if the intent was to draft DT/DE all along at some point, maybe with a trade back, but then Freeling dropped to them.   Of course, we felt that they were looking WR, and wonder if the plan was to draft a WR in round 2 if you traded back in round 1.  However, when Freeling was there, the trade back fell apart.  Then we traded up for Hunter.  We could stick with XL and hope Metchie steps up, so we sat still in round three and took Brazell II, a 1000 yard speedster and perfect Z WR.  What a break. At that time, CB and Center were our biggest needs, and with several possible centers on the board and a good fit for our defense at CB, we grabbed Will Lee III.  Lee and Thornton have people in front of them, but I think Morgan knew we needed a guy who can play the outside and press--and probably step in as Jackson's replacement in 2027.    After making trades to get back into the fifth round, where we grabbed one of the best centers in the draft.  This is significant because we signed Fortner to a one-year deal; maybe Morgan saw what some of us saw--the center position is strong in this draft--on day 3, and day 3 players need a year, in most cases.  Moments later, a safety they had been talking to whose skill set matched what we are looking for in a FS.  As stated, Scott was signed,  but the fact that the Panthers were talking to Wheatley and not Theiemann means that they might have known they were not going FS early, but would need a developmental FS later--which explains why we signed Scott.  So if you pay attention to the one-year, vet deals, you can tell where we planned to sign later-round, developmental players.  What positions did we draft early that did not have 1-year veterans signed in front of them:  DL (Hunter) and WR (I don't count Metchie because I count starting-level players). I would not be surprised to learn later that the plan was DT and WR in rounds 1 and 2--then Freeling fell.  Notice that Freeling--from Mt Pleasant SC, did not come in for a visit.  Most of the other OT candidates had short arms or were certain to be gone. I don't think Freeling was in their plans.  I think a trade back and Hunter and maybe Boston was the vision.  I am guessing that CB was also high on their list.   So in this draft, we got 
    • This is one area I think that is not getting enough exposure in the midst of all the optimism. I like Chuba a great deal from a personal standpoint but he has largely proven nothing on a consistent basis yet. He's had the one season of production but before that most people pegged us as moving on. And last year injuries or not he just did not have that juice. The rest of the guys are completely unproven. I don't see anyone among the group having a game or a handful of games worth of high level production the way Rico Dowdle did last year. And yeah he dropped off and yeah he got an attitude about our incompetent handling of the touches which was honestly justified on his part and he moved on but he did legitimately save our season. That's what it is going to take to seize control of the NFC South. We all know that we will not be passing all over defenses. It is what it is. So who amongst this RB group is capable of doing that? And if we are struggling to run the ball AND pass are we going to revert to making excuses for our coach and QB again? That is definitely getting old.
×
×
  • Create New...