Homesteading Forum banner

21 - 40 of 99 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,435 Posts
The change in testing should eliminate false positives, so it should have little to do with hospitalizations.

Testing positive has had little to do with actual number of people getting hospitalized. The PERCENTAGE OF THE POPULATION that ends up in the hospital will probably remain the same, or perhaps decrease as those more likely to die are removed from the population and herd immunity takes affect. The percentage of those tested that get hospitalized is actually likely to go up as the test are allowed to become more accurate. Of course the covid variants might influence this.
 

·
SM Entrepreneuraholic
Joined
·
13,844 Posts
Discussion Starter #22
Testing positive has had little to do with actual number of people getting hospitalized. The PERCENTAGE OF THE POPULATION that ends up in the hospital will probably remain the same, or perhaps decrease as those more likely to die are removed from the population and herd immunity takes affect. The percentage of those tested that get hospitalized is actually likely to go up as the test are allowed to become more accurate. Of course the covid variants might influence this.
That was your point, not mine. The hospitalization rate should be directly proportional to the number of people that get Covid-19. Since both the number of deaths and the number of hospitalizations are going down, that implies the infection rate is also going down, which is what the graph in the OP shows.
 

·
SM Entrepreneuraholic
Joined
·
13,844 Posts
Discussion Starter #23
There is at least one other thing that might be in play - Ivermectin. NIH changed its position on Ivermectin on Jan 14 to not for or against. An article in the Buffalo News dated Feb 2, 2021, discusses the successful use of Ivermectin to treat patients in skilled care facilities in W NY. Could it be that enough people are being treated with Ivermectin to make some difference in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths?

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,235 Posts
That was your point, not mine. The hospitalization rate should be directly proportional to the number of people that get Covid-19. Since both the number of deaths and the number of hospitalizations are going down, that implies the infection rate is also going down, which is what the graph in the OP shows.
But that would depend on what the person was hospitalized for. The policy was that if you went into the hospital with any health issue at all and tested positive for COVID, that was automatically a COVID hospitalization even though you may have had no symptoms of the virus and only had a heart attack. You may have only tested positive for COVID because they were running too high a cycle rate on the COVID test. IOW, you may have been a false positive. COVID hospitalizations could well be dropping because the change made on the day Biden took office to lower the testing cycles which meant fewer false positives. The hospital admission rate they use is only the COVID admission rate. We don't know how many people are admitted every day for every other malady. I'd wager that number is up. Same number going in the hospital, just counted differently now.
 

·
SM Entrepreneuraholic
Joined
·
13,844 Posts
Discussion Starter #25
But that would depend on what the person was hospitalized for. The policy was that if you went into the hospital with any health issue at all and tested positive for COVID, that was automatically a COVID hospitalization even though you may have had no symptoms of the virus and only had a heart attack. You may have only tested positive for COVID because they were running too high a cycle rate on the COVID test. IOW, you may have been a false positive. COVID hospitalizations could well be dropping because the change made on the day Biden took office to lower the testing cycles which meant fewer false positives. The hospital admission rate they use is only the COVID admission rate. We don't know how many people are admitted every day for every other malady. I'd wager that number is up. Same number going in the hospital, just counted differently now.
Try explaining the graph with that logic.
 

·
Otiose Endomorph
Joined
·
3,639 Posts
The WHO changed the sensitivity rate for detection...that's why the numbers have drastically dropped. Amazing how that works once the election is over.

The CDC did that one hour after the inauguration....imagine the timing coincidence !
Really? Like to see the proof on that assertion.

Labs do run verification checks on their work. They do not process thousands of tests on a wing and prayer. And the cycle threshold has little bearing on test results. A positive case is usually detected well before cycle limit.
 

·
SM Entrepreneuraholic
Joined
·
13,844 Posts
Discussion Starter #27


Really? Like to see the proof on that assertion.

Labs do run verification checks on their work. They do not process thousands of tests on a wing and prayer. And the cycle threshold has little bearing on test results. A positive case is usually detected well before cycle limit.
Not a positive case but a true positive case. A cycle threshold that is too high will have a higher number of false positive results.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,235 Posts


Really? Like to see the proof on that assertion.

Labs do run verification checks on their work. They do not process thousands of tests on a wing and prayer. And the cycle threshold has little bearing on test results. A positive case is usually detected well before cycle limit.

You are wrong. Different labs run the tests to different levels. Each cycle looks closer at the specimen seeking ever smaller evidence of the virus, therefore they look for increasingly smaller sections of the virus's DNA. Fauci and others said early on that running a test beyond 30 cycles for any virus gives questionable results and beyond 35 cycles the results are useless because most viruses commonly share some strands of DNA and the small section looked at in that level of testing could well be a small fragment of some dead virus you had in a head cold or other viral infection months ago that is still in your blood. Some labs were running the tests to over v40 cycles. I think it was Kansas that required 42 cycles on all tests, well beyond the max.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sharkerbaby

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,435 Posts
That was your point, not mine. The hospitalization rate should be directly proportional to the number of people that get Covid-19. Since both the number of deaths and the number of hospitalizations are going down, that implies the infection rate is also going down, which is what the graph in the OP shows.
If only we had been and were currently able to get accurate percentages of the population infection rates. Instead we have somewhat accurate numbers of total population, and what seems to be inaccurate numbers claimed to be caused by covid deaths
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,235 Posts
Try explaining the graph with that logic.
The graph only shows the COVID hospital admissions. It does not show the numbers of people being admitted for things like pneumonia, flu, or other things. We have no idea how many of those previously admitted as COVID admissions came to the ER with pneumonia, heart disease, flu, etc. and were wrongly diagnosed as COVID due to false positive tests. In many states a test wasn't even required. A doctor could simply 'assume' it was COVID.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,435 Posts
One thing that does catch my eye about the chart in the OP. The death rate seems to be relative consistent when compared to the extreme fluctuations of the hospitalization and positive test on the charts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,256 Posts
One thing that does catch my eye about the chart in the OP. The death rate seems to be relative consistent when compared to the extreme fluctuations of the hospitalization and positive test on the charts.
You are right. I thought Moon said deaths were dropping
 

·
SM Entrepreneuraholic
Joined
·
13,844 Posts
Discussion Starter #33
You are right. I thought Moon said deaths were dropping
That's what it means when the line goes down instead of up. I think I said it was a steep drop in cases and hospitalizations, but I didn't say the decline in deaths was steep, although in this graph it is rather steep declining from over 3,000 deaths per day to about 2,000.

94030
 

·
SM Entrepreneuraholic
Joined
·
13,844 Posts
Discussion Starter #34
The graph only shows the COVID hospital admissions. It does not show the numbers of people being admitted for things like pneumonia, flu, or other things. We have no idea how many of those previously admitted as COVID admissions came to the ER with pneumonia, heart disease, flu, etc. and were wrongly diagnosed as COVID due to false positive tests. In many states a test wasn't even required. A doctor could simply 'assume' it was COVID.
As Occam said - given 2 explanations, the simpler one is usually the correct one.
 

·
Otiose Endomorph
Joined
·
3,639 Posts
You are wrong. Different labs run the tests to different levels. Each cycle looks closer at the specimen seeking ever smaller evidence of the virus, therefore they look for increasingly smaller sections of the virus's DNA. Fauci and others said early on that running a test beyond 30 cycles for any virus gives questionable results and beyond 35 cycles the results are useless because most viruses commonly share some strands of DNA and the small section looked at in that level of testing could well be a small fragment of some dead virus you had in a head cold or other viral infection months ago that is still in your blood. Some labs were running the tests to over v40 cycles. I think it was Kansas that required 42 cycles on all tests, well beyond the max.
The 42 cycle number you throw out is just that, a number. The PCR test stops if it hits a positive. They are trying to figure out a way to discern viral load from number of cycles. Make the test more informative.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
370 Posts


Really? Like to see the proof on that assertion.

Labs do run verification checks on their work. They do not process thousands of tests on a wing and prayer. And the cycle threshold has little bearing on test results. A positive case is usually detected well before cycle limit.
Our facility received verification of the change in sensitivity guidelines from our local laboratory two weeks ago. As a result, the numbers in our state have dramatically dropped and when we are cleared by the CDC to return to "normal" surveillance testing, it will be changed to once per month...for the last 11 months, we have been mandated to test every 7 days....that's a dramatic drop in surveillance testing in addition to the sensitivity rate changes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,256 Posts
Our facility received verification of the change in sensitivity guidelines from our local laboratory two weeks ago. As a result, the numbers in our state have dramatically dropped and when we are cleared by the CDC to return to "normal" surveillance testing, it will be changed to once per month...for the last 11 months, we have been mandated to test every 7 days....that's a dramatic drop in surveillance testing in addition to the sensitivity rate changes.
How do people get confused about this, or how do the "fact checkers" dispute it?

It seems very straight forward.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,412 Posts
So, after we get to the "herd immunity" stage, what happens then?
Do we continue wearing masks, wash hands frequently and social distance, making that the new norm? Or do we become 'free at last' until the next cycle of Covid-19?

It's my understanding that no one knows just how long this immunity will last.
 
21 - 40 of 99 Posts
Top