When will the SIP end?
- Thread starter Beanzy
- Start date
GAJ
Well-known member
Industries attempting "business as usual" are having issues with virus transmission, we know about Health Care workers and Grocery workers but other workers being affected in new areas including meat plants.
https://www.ft.com/content/9e3f906f-7db0-4027-974f-bf7393d60068
https://www.ft.com/content/9e3f906f-7db0-4027-974f-bf7393d60068
ctwo
Merely Rhetorical
Thanks Sara Gilbert!
Stop twisting my mind. :laughing
This article will be published tomorrow, April 18:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30796-0/fulltext
ctwo
Merely Rhetorical
Why don't you fuck off with your political banter in the poly sink? Saying it's not political does not make it so. I don't do twitter and don't think its political crap should be dragged out here.
Climber
Well-known member
So you see nothing wrong with the leader doing that, regardless of what letter is before their name?
I'd be hammering this kind of behavior regardless of what side they are on. :thumbdown
Caddywumpus
4N631
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v1
I disagree. Per Stanford study there's probably 80k cases in santa Clara alone.
This is about on par with the flu.
Dr_SLO
Well-known member
The preprint that was cited has a lot of issues. My biggest issue is the complete lack of data presented. Yes, there are numbers but actual data relating to the tests, how many were IgG, IgM, and IgG and IgM positive are missing, plus, the most important part, how many had previously shown symptoms. The information from this was collected but not reported in the manuscript. There were also two false positives (0.5%) in the negative control samples. Another important factor is where were the positives identified. Were they geographically clustered or evenly distributed. If they're clustered it will invalidate the projection to an entire population. This is the sort of science I hate; first past the post. It's very typical of Stanford.
This preprint also demonstrates the importance of peer review of which I do a considerable amount. If this came across my desk for review I would haul it over the coals. The conclusions a very week and over interpreted from the small sample size (3,330), poor data analysis and oversimplified population modelling. Sadly, the scientific rigor of a lot of studies during this pandemic has been allowed to slide because some folk are desperate to get their work published first.
To a final point, if this paper does hold and there are 80k cases then this further reinforces why SIP orders are needed not the opposite.
Caddywumpus
4N631
I completely disagree. This pushes fatality rates to close to seasonal flu levels and to your point a point five % in the false positives is pretty insignificant. HIV testing is not as sensitive.
Climber
Well-known member
One final point on the supposed count of cases in Santa Clara.
If there really were 80k cases in Santa Clara, how does it explain the 69 total deaths in the county?
That comes out to a 0.086% fatality rate. Something that is a tiny fraction of any figures I've seen to date. That would only be something resembling valid if the vast majority of those infections are under 3 weeks old.
The numbers simply don't add up.
If there really were 80k cases in Santa Clara, how does it explain the 69 total deaths in the county?
That comes out to a 0.086% fatality rate. Something that is a tiny fraction of any figures I've seen to date. That would only be something resembling valid if the vast majority of those infections are under 3 weeks old.
The numbers simply don't add up.
ctwo
Merely Rhetorical
I can point out a lot of right and wrongs that our politicians are doing, but I'm not participating in the poly sci forum.
That is what I'm saying.
Dr_SLO
Well-known member
A 0.5% error in a test that's looking at 1.5% positivity is not insignificant. The study is weak.
Not sure what HIV testing has to do with this as their assays are ridiculously sensitive at about 10 RNA copies per ml of blood. Even less with more sensitive assays.
:teeth
Yup. We are no where close to herd immunity. I'm also very skeptical of this study.
Climber
Well-known member
Now the results are being reported in SFGate (and probably many other publications):
Large-scale Santa Clara antibody test suggests COVID-19 cases are underreported by factor of 50-85
This story and it's version across the nation could result in a significant spike in cases if not accurate by a couple magnitudes.
Only time will tell.
Anybody remember the 'Cold Fusion' findings in a paper in the late 80's?
Large-scale Santa Clara antibody test suggests COVID-19 cases are underreported by factor of 50-85
This story and it's version across the nation could result in a significant spike in cases if not accurate by a couple magnitudes.
Only time will tell.
Anybody remember the 'Cold Fusion' findings in a paper in the late 80's?
Last edited:
Archimedes
Fire Watcher
So a study employing a non-random sample, using a test that isn't FDA approved to be accurate yet, and that resulted in an estimated range of positives with an almost 80% spread...
And, in the end it suggested a) an incredibly low rate of infection and b) likely much higher percentage of asymptomatic cases; the latter of which appears to be supported by other data coming out. But of course the headline is "Covid 19 Cases Under Reported by a Factor of 50!" :laughing
Panic porn at its finest.
Archimedes
Fire Watcher
Back on topic, as I predicted a while back, it appears that the people across the country are starting to decide when SIP ends rather than wait for our fearless leaders to decide for them. I figured by May 1 people would start getting back out there, but it might be even sooner than that.
Climber
Well-known member
Time will demonstrate if that was a smart move or not.
We'll know in about a month, if some areas go back to no SIP to an extensive degree.
Climber
Well-known member
Either a case of bias confirmation or prophetic thinking. Time will tell. :laughing :ride
Archimedes
Fire Watcher
Oh there will be a spike in cases, for sure, but that's simply the price for going on with life and trying to save the millions of families that are penniless right now. Anyone who wants to stay home and shelter in place is free to do so.