Study shows that PCR tests with 35 cycles or more have an accuracy below 3%, meaning up to 97% of positive results could be false positives.

[DeniseM]

Hey, everybody - did you hear that I got a drive up flu shot yesterday? A fireman gave it to me and he was cute! My arm is just a tiny bit tender today. Today was even better - I got to put together all of the paperwork for a Refi. Then I got to take the freeze off my credit - that was the most fun ever! It was even more fun than this thread!!! Have an awesome night!

 

[DannyTS]

Hey, everybody - did you hear that I got a drive up flu shot yesterday? A fireman gave it to me and he was cute! My arm is just a tiny bit tender today. Today was even better - I got to put together all of the paperwork for a Refi. Then I got to take the freeze off my credit - that was the most fun ever! It was even more fun than this thread!!! Have an awesome night!

Have you read the study and the New York Times article and you got bored or you got bored but you did not read them? Maybe if you read them you will be like this:

 

[CO skier]

Guess that explains why hospitalization rates are so high... all the false positives.

I was struck by this post in another thread comparing daily case count to daily death rate; the graphic I cannot cut and paste.

[ merged ] The true picture: Has Sweden emerged as paragon or pariah in the corona sweepstakes?

That would be great news if 1/3 of the USA (more than 100 million people) have already been infected. But who trusts the experts anymore. Based on the media reports, I expected nearly everyone in the USA to have Covid by now and millions to be dead. I am surprised at how slow this virus...

tugbbs.com

There is absolutely no correlation between "positive tests rate" and "death rate" which is what really matters. But that is not what the media promotes, and what politicians are acting on. In the mind of the media and governors and citizens who do not know what to think at this point, higher "positive test rates" including a substantial false positive test rate equals death and that is why everyone should just stay home. Clearly a false conclusion. And a conclusion that the "Swedish experiment" proved to be false.

 

["Roger"]

Guess that explains why hospitalization rates are so high... all the false positives.

I don't know where you live, but a false positive would never get you into the hospital where I live. At least two people I know have lost their sense of taste and smell, suffered from violent headaches, and had a fever. That is not a false positive, but not enough to merit hospitalizing. You need serious breathing problems to be considered.

 

[DannyTS]

I don't know where you live, but a false positive would never get you into the hospital where I live. At least two people I know have lost their sense of taste and smell, suffered from violent headaches, and had a fever. That is not a false positive, but not enough to merit hospitalizing. You need serious breathing problems to be considered.

But if you are in the hospital and you would have been regardless of Covid and your test positive you are now counted as hospitalized with Covid. False positives do inflate the number of Covid hospitalizations and deaths.

 

[Cornell]

But if you are in the hospital and you would have been regardless of Covid and your test positive you are now counted as hospitalized with Covid. False positives do inflate the numeber of Covid hospitalizations and deaths.

It's worse than that. In IL, if you go to the hospital you are tested for Covid. IDPH counts "awaiting test results" as "probables" when they report their data.
So our "hospitalizations" in IL include "true positives" and "probables". To even use the language "probable" is questionable.
And the positives include people who are in the hospital for other reasons (scheduled surgery ,etc) and may be asymptomatic but got a positive test.

 

[csodjd]

I don't know where you live, but a false positive would never get you into the hospital where I live. At least two people I know have lost their sense of taste and smell, suffered from violent headaches, and had a fever. That is not a false positive, but not enough to merit hospitalizing. You need serious breathing problems to be considered.

Stating the obvious... first, my post was facetious. Second, hospitalization is clinically based, not "test" based. The OP was implying that there's not nearly as much COVID out there was the testing would seem to suggest because the tests are reporting positives that really are not positive. My comment was to suggest that the huge and rapid increase in hospitalization demonstrates in a rather compelling way that there IS a lot of COVID out there, and that buttresses the testing results. What you really need to be hospitalized is low O2 saturation (below about 93%).

 

[csodjd]

But if you are in the hospital and you would have been regardless of Covid and your test positive you are now counted as hospitalized with Covid. False positives do inflate the number of Covid hospitalizations and deaths.

That's wrong. Please stop promulgating false and ignorant statements. Doctors make CLINICAL diagnosis. They look at sign, symptoms, data. A test result is one piece of that. But you can test negative and be diagnosed with COVID. It has a clinically characteristic pattern, including on CT.

 

[DannyTS]

It's worse than that. In IL, if you go to the hospital you are tested for Covid. IDPH counts "awaiting test results" as "probables" when they report their data.
So our "hospitalizations" in IL include "true positives" and "probables". To even use the language "probable" is questionable.
And the positives include people who are in the hospital for other reasons (scheduled surgery ,etc) and may be asymptomatic but got a positive test.

Yes, you are right about that.

 

[csodjd]

It's worse than that. In IL, if you go to the hospital you are tested for Covid. IDPH counts "awaiting test results" as "probables" when they report their data.
So our "hospitalizations" in IL include "true positives" and "probables". To even use the language "probable" is questionable.
And the positives include people who are in the hospital for other reasons (scheduled surgery ,etc) and may be asymptomatic but got a positive test.

That statistically works itself out as results come and adjustments made. You people forget you are dealing with INFECTIOUS disease. That means contagious. They also test for MRSA, because there is special handling in a hospital for MRSA patients, just as there is for COVID because of the infectious nature of the disease. When a patient presents with CLINICAL signs or symptoms consistent with an infectious disease a hospital MUST treat them as infectious until proven otherwise. I think you would appreciate that if you were in the bed sharing a room with another patient!

 

[DannyTS]

That's wrong. Please stop promulgating false and ignorant statements. Doctors make CLINICAL diagnosis. They look at sign, symptoms, data. A test result is one piece of that. But you can test negative and be diagnosed with COVID. It has a clinically characteristic pattern, including on CT.

False. Again. From the CDC:

How COVID-NET Calculates Hospitalization Rates
Hospitalization rates are calculated by the number of residents of a defined area who are hospitalized with a positive SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test divided by the total population within that defined area.

 

[csodjd]

And the positives include people who are in the hospital for other reasons (scheduled surgery ,etc) and may be asymptomatic but got a positive test.

Those people are infectious. But if you're comfortable hanging out in a small hospital room with someone that is NOT there for COVID but just tested positive for it, go for it. Let Darwin do his thing for the betterment of the species, right?

 

[DannyTS]

Those people are infectious. But if you're comfortable hanging out in a small hospital room with someone that is NOT there for COVID but just tested positive for it, go for it. Let Darwin do his thing for the betterment of the species, right?

We were not talking about treatment and contagion but about how false positives inflate covid hospitalization and death numbers

 

[csodjd]

False. Again. From the CDC:

How COVID-NET Calculates Hospitalization Rates
Hospitalization rates are calculated by the number of residents of a defined area who are hospitalized with a positive SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test divided by the total population within that defined area.

Your ignorance is impressive. COVID-NET is a limited surveillance program in a handful of states. As they say, it only covers about 10% of the population. It is not state by state reporting.

 

[DrQ]

“I reject your reality and substitute my own.”

― Adam Savage

 

[Cornell]

That statistically works itself out as results come and adjustments made

HUH?

I have no problem at all with hospitals testing everyone, as they should. But the point is that public health organizations play fast & loose with what they call "hospitalized" and unless you follow all of the details closely, it just ratchets up the panic levels.

 

[csodjd]

We were not talking about treatment and contagion but about how false positives inflate covid hospitalization and death numbers

Your argument fails at the outset. Your attack on all testing as false ASSUMES (falsely) that testing is a binary outcome. But it isn't. It is, in the end, reported as such based on probability criteria. But, as you note, the measures in the testing affect the probabilities. If you set the criteria too high you will get a much lower positivity rate, and also a much higher false negative rate. In other words, if the test must be 99.9% certain to report a positive, you will miss a LOT of people that are in fact infected. If the test must be 10% certain, you'll get a lot of false positives. EXPERTS -- people NOT like you -- determine the appropriate measures to use. It is, by definition and design, imperfect. It will ALWAYS generate some false results because we're dealing with probabilities. Nonetheless, we rely on experts to provide us the most reliable information they reasonably can. Generally, it is a much better PUBLIC HEALTH decision to err on the side of false positives than false negatives. Your bitching is really just saying you want more false negatives. Experts disagree. I'll go with the experts and not DannyTS when considering my health. I'd hope others will do the same.

 

[DannyTS]

Your argument fails at the outset. Your attack on all testing as false ASSUMES (falsely) that testing is a binary outcome. But it isn't. It is, in the end, reported as such based on probability criteria. But, as you note, the measures in the testing affect the probabilities. If you set the criteria too high you will get a much lower positivity rate, and also a much higher false negative rate. In other words, if the test must be 99.9% certain to report a positive, you will miss a LOT of people that are in fact infected. If the test must be 10% certain, you'll get a lot of false positives. EXPERTS -- people NOT like you -- determine the appropriate measures to use. It is, by definition and design, imperfect. It will ALWAYS generate some false results because we're dealing with probabilities. Nonetheless, we rely on experts to provide us the most reliable information they reasonably can. Generally, it is a much better PUBLIC HEALTH decision to err on the side of false positives than false negatives. Your bitching is really just saying you want more false negatives. Experts disagree. I'll go with the experts and not DannyTS when considering my health. I'd hope others will do the same.

I want to see your statistics about the people who tested positive, are in the hospital, and do not count as Covid hospitalizations. You can't? Why?

I showed you how the hospitalizations are calculated in 14 states by the CDC guidance. You SHOW us how it is calculated in the other states. You have offered no reason why they would calculate the hospitalizations that way in ANY state. You pretend to know something but you are just writing generalities without any proof or source to back you up. And rude on top of that.

 

[x3 skier]

IBTL

 

[DrQ]

 

[DrQ]

I suspect that most of the people arguing over "statistics" don't know a PDF other than an adobe document.

As an an engineer who has been involved in statistical methods for production quality (Six Sigma) and I had to take two courses of probability and statistics in college and have to model different distributions based off of the nature of what you are measuring.

Most do not have a clue as to WHAT to measure or HOW to measure it. Add politics and selfish economic interests and we get post like these.

I won't be CHILDISH and STALK other's posts, I will just:

 

[DannyTS]

deleted

 

[Cornell]

I suspect that most of the people arguing over "statistics" don't know a PDF other than an adobe document.

As an an engineer who has been involved in statistical methods for production quality (Six Sigma) and I had to take two courses of probability and statistics in college and have to model different distributions based off of the nature of what you are measuring.

Most do not have a clue as to WHAT to measure or HOW to measure it. Add politics and selfish economic interests and we get post like these.

I won't be CHILDISH and STALK other's posts, I will just:

Comments like this crack me up. Everyone puffing up their chest with credentials as a way of dismissing others. Back at the beginning of Covid I entered into the discussion and was shouted down in TUG by someone who mocked my career and belittled me. Why must these conversations go this way?

 

[DrQ]

Comments like this crack me up. Everyone puffing up their chest with credentials as a way of dismissing others. Back at the beginning of Covid I entered into the discussion and was shouted down in TUG by someone who mocked my career and belittled me. Why must these conversations go this way?

I don't recall mocking you, if I remember correctly, you DO work with statistics.

The issue is that I'm seeing economic self interest be the main driver of the decision. If that is the case, state it up front. In the beginning, there was a lot of gymnastics to compare this with the seasonal flu (I was one in the beginning), but with the restrictions in place and the hospitalization/death rates, I have changed my mind.

The Lieutenant Governor of Texas was BIG on the senior citizens should be willing to make the sacrifice to open up businesses in the State and use them, but when the time came for HIM to attend the the convention PERSONALLY ... ZOOM BABY!

 

[Cornell]

I don't recall mocking you, if I remember correctly, you DO work with statistics.

The issue is that I'm seeing economic self interest be the main driver of the decision. If that is the case, state it up front. In the beginning, there was a lot of gymnastics to compare this with the seasonal flu (I was one in the beginning), but with the restrictions in place and the hospitalization/death rates, I have changed my mind.

The Lieutenant Governor of Texas was BIG on the senior citizens should be willing to make the sacrifice to open up businesses in the State and use them, but when the time came for HIM to attend the the convention PERSONALLY ... ZOOM BABY!

I think we can all agree that our politicians have been incredible hypocrites.