Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

MisterPenguin

🐧🐧🐧🐧🐧🐧🐧🐧Fully Pfizered!🐧🐧🐧🐧🐧🐧🐧🐧
Premium Member
1598718928024.png


1598718965380.png
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
Ok. A serious conversation. 90% of the positives in the decimated in March/April states are not real positives. You don’t see that as a major issue?
That has nothing to do with the CDC recommendation. Let’s separate the 2 things. Assuming you also agree that it’s very unlikely that this has anything to do with the CDC recommendation and there’s no evidence at all that’s actually the case let’s move on. If not we can agree to disagree on that.

I think you are confusing the issue a little. It’s not that the 90% are false positives it’s that the level of viral load is low. Those people were infected so they are real positives.

From the article:
People infected with the virus are most infectious from a day or two before symptoms appear till about five days after. But at the current testing rates, “you’re not going to be doing it frequently enough to have any chance of really capturing somebody in that window,” Dr. Mina added.
Highly sensitive PCR tests seemed like the best option for tracking the coronavirus at the start of the pandemic. But for the outbreaks raging now, he said, what’s needed are coronavirus tests that are fast, cheap and abundant enough to frequently test everyone who needs it — even if the tests are less sensitive.


The article is suggesting a pivot to more rapid testing to catch more people earlier when they are most contagious vs waiting too long. Some of the 90% you are referencing were infected and contagious but by the time they got tested had lower viral loads so it’s really too late for contact tracing, the damage is done and the spread has already occurred. I don’t disagree with that at all. Obviously whatever we are currently doing with contact tracing isn’t working.
 

xdan0920

Think for yourselfer
That has nothing to do with the CDC recommendation. Let’s separate the 2 things. Assuming you also agree that it’s very unlikely that this has anything to do with the CDC recommendation and there’s no evidence at all that’s actually the case let’s move on. If not we can agree to disagree on that.

I think you are confusing the issue a little. It’s not that the 90% are false positives it’s that the level of viral load is low. Those people were infected so they are real positives.

From the article:
People infected with the virus are most infectious from a day or two before symptoms appear till about five days after. But at the current testing rates, “you’re not going to be doing it frequently enough to have any chance of really capturing somebody in that window,” Dr. Mina added.
Highly sensitive PCR tests seemed like the best option for tracking the coronavirus at the start of the pandemic. But for the outbreaks raging now, he said, what’s needed are coronavirus tests that are fast, cheap and abundant enough to frequently test everyone who needs it — even if the tests are less sensitive.


The article is suggesting a pivot to more rapid testing to catch more people earlier when they are most contagious vs waiting too long. Some of the 90% you are referencing were infected and contagious but by the time they got tested had lower viral loads so it’s really too late for contact tracing, the damage is done and the spread has already occurred. I don’t disagree with that at all. Obviously whatever we are currently doing with contact tracing isn’t working.
Ok, I don’t really feel like defending the CDC, so I’ll let that pass.

The implications of this, are STAGGERING. We are using case counts, and positivity to define policy. This research is showing you, up to 90% of positive tests are NOT Covid cases. Think about that for a minute.

How does NJ ever reach the 1/100,000 threshold? It’s statistically impossible. Which means we can never get back to normal. California, New York, PA, all using these metrics. We are as close to 0 as we can get in NY/NJ. This information changes everything. Or at least, I hope it does.
 

rowrbazzle

Well-Known Member
The implications of this, are STAGGERING. We are using case counts, and positivity to define policy. This research is showing you, up to 90% of positive tests are NOT Covid cases. Think about that for a minute.

I don't think that's what it's saying. Still, I agree that the implications could be very important. I do wonder how many of these low infection cases are those at the tail end of infection versus the beginning. I think that makes a difference, as those at the beginning could still be a problem. If they test negative under new standards, but don't have any follow-ups, then they we may wind up missing infections. I think that underscores the need for available rapid testing. "If you develop symptoms, take another test."
 

hopemax

Well-Known Member
Ok, I don’t really feel like defending the CDC, so I’ll let that pass.

The implications of this, are STAGGERING. We are using case counts, and positivity to define policy. This research is showing you, up to 90% of positive tests are NOT Covid cases. Think about that for a minute.

How does NJ ever reach the 1/100,000 threshold? It’s statistically impossible. Which means we can never get back to normal. California, New York, PA, all using these metrics. We are as close to 0 as we can get in NY/NJ. This information changes everything. Or at least, I hope it does.
They are not "NOT Covid" cases. They are likely not active, *infectious* cases. Each of those people still had Covid recently, though. They were infectious and could have spread it. This doesn't change the view of how widespread an outbreak in an area is. It changes the view on what they can DO with that information, in regards to contract tracing and quarantines. It's acknowledgement that a person might have been infectious on Monday, or even last Monday, but they got tested on Friday, and now it's Sunday and it's too late to use the positive test for anything useful. Meanwhile, we've wasted resources on processing that not useful test and that resulted in delays in testing people who needed to be found.

The lesson is that we need to narrow the viewport, so that we can do a better job of identifying the active infections, fast enough so that quarantines and contract tracing can be effective. It doesn't mean no quarantines, just make sure that we're quarantining the right people at the right time. It doesn't mean no testing. It doesn't mean no contract tracing. And it certainly doesn't mean that things get back to normal. It's just another example of our system being reactive instead of pro-active. It's like we're trying to cover receivers after they've already run into the endzone and caught the ball. The answer isn't "don't try to cover them," which IMO is the answer you are still trying to push.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
Ok, I don’t really feel like defending the CDC, so I’ll let that pass.

The implications of this, are STAGGERING. We are using case counts, and positivity to define policy. This research is showing you, up to 90% of positive tests are NOT Covid cases. Think about that for a minute.

How does NJ ever reach the 1/100,000 threshold? It’s statistically impossible. Which means we can never get back to normal. California, New York, PA, all using these metrics. We are as close to 0 as we can get in NY/NJ. This information changes everything. Or at least, I hope it does.
You are way over stating this. Nobody is saying 90% of the cases aren’t Covid. There are levels of infection. We’ve known that from the beginning. The higher the viral load the more likely that a person has symptoms (and higher load generally more severe symptoms) and the higher the viral load you are exposed to the more likely you are to be infected. This is all well established. There’s no major new revelation coming from this article. What that article is saying is that some of the experts interviewed believe that the threshold being used is too sensitive and some of the people testing positive with a lower viral load may not be contagahius or as contagious as someone with a higher load. It’s not saying the people don’t have Covid or never had Covid. You are jumping to that conclusion to create the narrative that we have overstated positive cases. There is no definitive proof what level of infection is high enough for the person to be contagious. It’s insincere to say 90% of the people with positive tests didn’t have Covid.

That’s my thoughts on it. You are free to believe what you want. I don’t see it changing much of anything unless people want to embrace a change to frequent, rapid testing which I’d be all in favor of.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
I don't think that's what it's saying. Still, I agree that the implications could be very important. I do wonder how many of these low infection cases are those at the tail end of infection versus the beginning. I think that makes a difference, as those at the beginning could still be a problem. If they test negative under new standards, but don't have any follow-ups, then they we may wind up missing infections. I think that underscores the need for available rapid testing. "If you develop symptoms, take another test."
That’s exactly how I read the article. Both in the beginning after infection but before viral load grows you can have a low dose of the virus. Also as the infection is reduced the same thing. Using less sensitive rapid tests will still miss the people who are in the beginning stages and will become contagious but if you test frequently enough you catch them eventually and that’s still way better than waiting for the original test. Your perecent positive would go way down due to frequent testing and you would catch people faster so less chance for spread. Its the best path to shorter term success in containing the virus. That’s how college campuses and other schools should be looking at this.
 

xdan0920

Think for yourselfer
You are way over stating this.
I’m purposely understating it. I’m avoiding some of the other implications since I already know the reaction here. I’m keeping this narrow. At these testing levels. With these tests. We are as low as possible in the northeast states. Our positive tests can not get any lower. This is a huge problem.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
I’m purposely understating it. I’m avoiding some of the other implications since I already know the reaction here. I’m keeping this narrow. At these testing levels. With these tests. We are as low as possible in the northeast states. Our positive tests can not get any lower. This is a huge problem.
I don’t follow your logic. Lets say for argument‘s sake 90% of positive Covid tests were not really Covid. That means only 591,741 Americans actually had Covid. 181,773 still died from it. So if that’s the case the mortality rate is over 30%. I do agree that’s a bit terrifying if true. It certainly won’t help encourage people to just want to live with the virus.
 

monykalyn

Well-Known Member
ent to work knowing they were positive
They. did. not. know. they. were. positive. Sorry I didn't attach that story. The first did everything she was told-went to MD when first started with what she thought were allergies-HE told her she didn't need a test but to call in a few days if not better, She worked in meantime. Remember-these people had been (needlessly) out of work for months. They followed guidelines including the (recommended at the time, NOT mandated) masking for themselves and clients. She called a few days later and was told to go ahead and get a test. Turned out she was positive. They did work while "symptomatic"-however it was SPRING in the Ozarks. I seem to recall some people advocating that people should isolate every time they have a sneeze or cough. Have you read the list of covid "symptoms"? It is basically everything at this point.
The CORRECT thing is to call each client individually (done) but not go on news and shame her for doing what she was told to do. The news literally named the exact shop. OH and did you get the part where no clients positive? The HD changed HOW they notify after that due to severe backlash. She cannot work again, had to go into hiding - because the media has everyone so hyped they will instantly DIE if they are within 1000 feet of a single virus particle. But sure-death threats are OK :rolleyes: THAT is why people are reluctant to name names with contact tracing.
 
Last edited:

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
I’m purposely understating it. I’m avoiding some of the other implications since I already know the reaction here. I’m keeping this narrow. At these testing levels. With these tests. We are as low as possible in the northeast states. Our positive tests can not get any lower. This is a huge problem.
No, you’re way overstating and making a baseless claim that is exactly the sort of speculation you call dangerous.
 

monykalyn

Well-Known Member
Testing materials remain a limited resource. It’s not that we don’t have the capacity, it’s that we don’t have enough reagent.
I don't think that's what it's saying. Still, I agree that the implications could be very important. I do wonder how many of these low infection cases are those at the tail end of infection versus the beginning. I think that makes a difference, as those at the beginning could still be a problem. If they test negative under new standards, but don't have any follow-ups, then they we may wind up missing infections. I think that underscores the need for available rapid testing. "If you develop symptoms, take another test."
The lesson is that we need to narrow the viewport, so that we can do a better job of identifying the active infections, fast enough so that quarantines and contract tracing can be effective. It doesn't mean no quarantines, just make sure that we're quarantining the right people at the right time. It doesn't mean no testing. It doesn't mean no contract tracing.
The super sensitive test (PCR) picking up remnants of the virus while no longer infectious is also why CDC switched to symptom based release from quarantine rather than relying on negative tests. There is one employee at one of the nursing Homes I work with going on week FOUR with positive test, no symptoms (ever) yet still cannot come back to work as company hasn't bothered to update their policy - now they did for residents-moved residents out of isolation based on symptoms.

Even with the relatively less expensive rapid tests-this is still going to cost money. Where is it coming from? What happens when there is a false positive? Even best case is 98.5% accurate. That is still a ton of people that will need to isolate or go for a second test to verify. More concerning is the higher rate of false negatives. Perhaps pooled testing is better for large groups?
 

Jrb1979

Well-Known Member
Ok, I don’t really feel like defending the CDC, so I’ll let that pass.

The implications of this, are STAGGERING. We are using case counts, and positivity to define policy. This research is showing you, up to 90% of positive tests are NOT Covid cases. Think about that for a minute.

How does NJ ever reach the 1/100,000 threshold? It’s statistically impossible. Which means we can never get back to normal. California, New York, PA, all using these metrics. We are as close to 0 as we can get in NY/NJ. This information changes everything. Or at least, I hope it does.
We don't ever reach it. just an FYI, normal isn't likely to come back anytime soon. I have learned to accept that and get used to life the way it is now. Here where I live the restrictions we have in place including no theme parks is where we stay til a vaccine or better treatments come along. Why people are still going on with things that happened in the past is mindboggling. Just accept it and move on with life. Its really not hard to live with being socially distant and wearing a mask. Kids can go to school with wearing masks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Top Bottom