• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: Coronavirus Resources - and other things to not worry about

I believe he's incorrect in any case. Think false negatives are something like 5% and false positives are around half that.
 
Just checked and yeah, all studies show false negatives are far more common than false positives with PCR. Which as you say, makes more scientific sense than the other way around. Human error with the swabbing could also play a role in false negatives.. Maybe the biggest role since they're obviously more sensitive than rapid tests so they can pick up pretty low viral loads.
 
I’m pretty confident in rapid tests but assumed that false positives were possible because there could be an antigen due to a regular cold that the test might mistake as being covid-related.
 
Each rapid test box will contain a product insert with the results of their clinical trials. Just looked at mine.

In clinical trials, every sample that tested positive on the RAT was confirmed as positive by PCR. 100% diagnostic specifity.
About 5% of the samples that were negative on the RAT, tested positive with PCR. ~95% sensitivity.

Huge list of samples with measles, EBV, strep, influenza A, B, adenovirus, parainfluenza, rhinovirus, norovirus, etc. All tested negative on RATS in the clinical trials.

In summary - if a RAT says you're positive, you're probably fucking positive.
 
The false neg vs pos thing for Pcrs was explained to me by a doctor based on a conversation with his virologist and immunologist colleagues at a Toronto area hospital, so 🤷‍♀️🤷‍♂️
 
Doesn’t counter what I said. It just says false positives are rare (never said they weren’t) and that false negatives are a bigger concern to epidemiologists.
 
Yeah wasn't a counter. More just an explanation of why false positives aren't even remotely common. All studies I could find on the googles support that they're less common than false negatives. Couldn't find any that had a higher rate of false positives than negatives.

(the studies would have been a counter, but I'm not looking to argue because I don't care enough about this topic!)
 
This guy is a bit weird and maybe a little insane so I don't really fully trust his work but... Here's an interesting risk analysis for your gatherings depending on where you are:

www.imgrund.ca

Ontario Risk Analysis | Imgrund's COVID-19 Stats

Figure out your risk of encountering COVID-19 in various groups sizes throughout Ontario.
www.imgrund.ca www.imgrund.ca

This is saying that there's a 10.6% chance I'm going to be infected with covid tomorrow. Not bad tbh. Rapid tests can bring that down a bit. I'll take it. Will make my appearance.. Pay my dues and either end up with covid or not. In either case I'm going back to shutting 'er down on Boxing Day.
 
Preston said:
This guy is a bit weird and maybe a little insane so I don't really fully trust his work but... Here's an interesting risk analysis for your gatherings depending on where you are:

www.imgrund.ca

Ontario Risk Analysis | Imgrund's COVID-19 Stats

Figure out your risk of encountering COVID-19 in various groups sizes throughout Ontario.
www.imgrund.ca www.imgrund.ca

This is saying that there's a 10.6% chance I'm going to be infected with covid tomorrow. Not bad tbh. Rapid tests can bring that down a bit. I'll take it. Will make my appearance.. Pay my dues and either end up with covid or not. In either case I'm going back to shutting 'er down on Boxing Day.
Click to expand...
Take those and multiple by 1/6 to get the risk if everyone is fully vaccinated. That may have changed with omicron but early Nov that was the calculation
 
trujaysfan said:
Take those and multiple by 1/6 to get the risk if everyone is fully vaccinated. That may have changed with omicron but early Nov that was the calculation
Click to expand...
Yeah 2 doses might give us 20-30% protection so there could be some reduction I guess. My parents are the only ones boosted and it has only been a week for them. Plus idk if the risk evaluation changes when we're not talking about 10 different households gatherings.. Feel like that would be far riskier. But in any event.. I'm gonna assume a 10-15% risk and I'm ok with that. Skipped Christmas last year and I think my parents would off themselves if they can't spend Christmas with their grandson in his first two years of life.
 
Preston said:
Yeah wasn't a counter. More just an explanation of why false positives aren't even remotely common. All studies I could find on the googles support that they're less common than false negatives. Couldn't find any that had a higher rate of false positives than negatives.

(the studies would have been a counter, but I'm not looking to argue because I don't care enough about this topic!)
Click to expand...
Yet oddly (I guess I know lots of people) I know if three false positives
 
My big "roll of the dice"was yesterday. Had to make mama ch1 happy....and I was fine with it. I guess I'll know in a few days if I got snake eyes.
 
I’m tossing the dice for Christmas too. Spending about a week up north with the folks, who are healthy and triple-vaxxed. And having 5-6 members of the extended family (all of whom are at least double vaxxed) over on Christmas Day.

We’re all aware of and comfortable with the risk, and spending Christmas hunkered down and apart would’ve been far too depressing.
 

Some simple game theory of Omicron​

by Tyler Cowen December 24, 2021 at 4:14 pm in
Let’s say that everyone is totally reckless, and they go to Christmas Eve “Omicron parties.” A week or two from now the virus has cleared their systems and I, who stay at home and blog, can then go out and frolic. Even if they stay sick, or if they die, they are removed as sources of potential infections for others (see below for new variants, possibly from the immunocompromised).
If I know that is happening, I find it easy to stay at home for a week. I look forward to my pending freedom. In other words, right now my behavior becomes safer. I engage in intertemporal substitution.
Alternately, let’s say that quite a few people decide to behave more safely. They stay at home and avoid the Omicron parties, and furthermore they go about with a mask in Whole Foods and don’t go to bars at all. The Omicron pandemic, instead of being over in two weeks, can run on for months, depending on the exact numbers of course. There is a ready stock of “not yet infected with Omicron” potential victims to keep the virus circulating. And that means ongoing risk for me.
Returning to my decision calculus, I can wait a week but I cannot stay at home for a month or two. So I know I am going to go out, and I expect I am going to get Omicron. So I might as well go out now. My behavior becomes riskier.
Get the picture? If one set of people behave more safely, another set takes more risks. And vice versa.
This is one reason why moral exhortation, or for that matter policy interventions, may be less than effective in our current moment.
It is also a reason why telling people “don’t worry about it!” doesn’t fully translate at the collective level either.
Of course you can modify these scenarios with reinfection risk, new variants, and other factors.
 
CH1 said:

Some simple game theory of Omicron​

by Tyler Cowen December 24, 2021 at 4:14 pm in
Let’s say that everyone is totally reckless, and they go to Christmas Eve “Omicron parties.” A week or two from now the virus has cleared their systems and I, who stay at home and blog, can then go out and frolic. Even if they stay sick, or if they die, they are removed as sources of potential infections for others (see below for new variants, possibly from the immunocompromised).
If I know that is happening, I find it easy to stay at home for a week. I look forward to my pending freedom. In other words, right now my behavior becomes safer. I engage in intertemporal substitution.
Alternately, let’s say that quite a few people decide to behave more safely. They stay at home and avoid the Omicron parties, and furthermore they go about with a mask in Whole Foods and don’t go to bars at all. The Omicron pandemic, instead of being over in two weeks, can run on for months, depending on the exact numbers of course. There is a ready stock of “not yet infected with Omicron” potential victims to keep the virus circulating. And that means ongoing risk for me.
Returning to my decision calculus, I can wait a week but I cannot stay at home for a month or two. So I know I am going to go out, and I expect I am going to get Omicron. So I might as well go out now. My behavior becomes riskier.
Get the picture? If one set of people behave more safely, another set takes more risks. And vice versa.
This is one reason why moral exhortation, or for that matter policy interventions, may be less than effective in our current moment.
It is also a reason why telling people “don’t worry about it!” doesn’t fully translate at the collective level either.
Of course you can modify these scenarios with reinfection risk, new variants, and other factors.
Click to expand...
Nice I love this stuff and this is how I think of it. I made the decision 2 weeks ago that I'm good with hunkering down a month because I was pretty sure we'd peak at some point between now and mid January. Also influences my decision to wait on getting boosted. I get boosted now and I risk getting infected at the appointment and my booster wanes to nearly nothingness by March. I hunker down now (which has more effectiveness than a booster), get boosted in a month and my protection is extended.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top