Time for a partial lockdown.

[lenny2]

If we’re concerned with actually saving lives then the people that are most vulnerable to this virus are the ones that should be quarantined.

Shutdowns and or mask wearing & rule keeping (e.g. social distancing) and or with heavy duty policing & imprisonment for violators would be more effective.

How do you quarantine the most vulnerable when the most vulnerable & the less vulnerable often live together. Or otherwise come into contact with one another, such as in hospitals, for one example.

Until more is known about this new virus we should consider that everyone is vulnerable to serious illness and or long term negative health effects and or reinfection, as well as being capable of infecting the most vulnerable that they come into contact with. There is more than death to be concerned with. An escalation in cases could quickly lead to hospitals being overwhelmed. This is especially a concern as flu season is approaching.

 

[lenny2]

This is what will happen if we keep locking down: https://globalnews.ca/news/7316777/yves-giroux-federal-deficit-spending/

A vaccine is expected by then [1-2 years in the future]. And probably long before then a lot of immunity, if not "herd immunity", in the population & a flattening of curves.

 

[lenny2]

Human error of some 30 something cases on one day where the province is submitting 30,000 cases daily on a regular basis and these human errors or false tests happening very little is of no significance.
Again the rate of false tests positive or negative is just about 0.01%
And more than likely that 0.01% will never be able to be fixed due to so many different factors.



I am a 100% sure, we are talking about tests in Canada currently and not worldwide tests some 4 months ago.

What sources confirm this opinion?

 

[benstt]

Apparently test ratio right now is like 1% positive to the amount tested. Like 30K.

Apparently we have a .8% false positive rate.

I’m no mathematician but those numbers don’t look good in my opinion. That to me says more needs to be done.

Again, that is not even talking about human error or false negatives.

Your numbers would look like this.

30k tests at a positive rate of 1% gives 300 positive tests.

A false positive rate of .8% would give you 2 or 3 of those 300 positives being false positives.


This is fairly accurate to me.

 

[Jenesis]

Your numbers would look like this.

30k tests at a positive rate of 1% gives 300 positive tests.

A false positive rate of .8% would give you 2 or 3 of those 300 positives being false positives.


This is fairly accurate to me.

My understanding, and hopefully I am wrong, was .8% of all tests are false positives. Not .8% of only positive tests.

But here is hoping I am wrong on that. Because those numbers are scary.

 

[doggystyle99]

What sources confirm this opinion?

Public Health Ontario

"PHO Laboratory has detected false positive SARS-CoV-2 results on approximately 20 occasions among over 228,000 specimens tested to date for COVID-19, with ~11,000 specimens testing positive. This represents a false positivity rate of less than 0.01% (specificity of >99.99%), which is well beyond performance targets for a laboratory test, even acknowledging there may be some false positive tests that are not detected.

In general, the positive predictive value of COVID-19 PCR assays is excellent, and approaches 100%. At PHO Laboratory, we know this as we are able to generate viral sequence from samples that are positive provided the viral copy number is not near the lower limit of detection of the assay.

False positive results can occur at various stages of laboratory testing, which can be grouped into the following categories:

1. Pre-analytical errors. These are errors that occur prior to the actual testing being done. These could include mislabelling of samples that result in incorrect results being reported. They may also result from specimen contamination in transport or during aliquoting in the laboratory.
2. Analytical errors. These occur during the actual laboratory testing. These could occur for various reasons such as reagent contamination. Reagents can arrive contaminated from the supplier. To mitigate this, each new batch undergoes a quality assurance check before being put into use. False positive results can also arise from contamination due to pipetting errors, which can be due to human error or defects in automated equipment. Such analytic errors are controlled by having negative and positive controls on each run of the assay, which are reviewed prior to releasing results.
3. Post-analytical errors. This involves result interpretation by the technologist and reporting of results. Incorrect interpretation could lead to a false positive result. Transcription errors could also result in false positive results being generated. Such errors are controlled by having a second technologist review results prior to them being reported out."

 

[doggystyle99]

My understanding, and hopefully I am wrong, was .8% of all tests are false positives. Not .8% of only positive tests.

But here is hoping I am wrong on that. Because those numbers are scary.

OK now it makes sense. You've completely misunderstood the what 0.8% number represents.
It's not 0.8% of all tests, it's 0.8% of positive tests and 0.01% all tests submitted. Both of these numbers results have the same outcome.
Like I said the false results are so miniscule in comparison to all the tests administered that our testing is the gold standard.

 

[basketcase]

I agree with you. Time for a partial lockdown but I would only shut down schools, bars and anything related to putting on larger events like weddings. No one is really getting sick at work or going to places that mandate masks. Controlling social events where people don't wear masks is the key.

I find it interesting that I can't have more than ten people in my house but my nephew can spend all day in a room with almost 30 people and I can hang out at a strip club. Obviously the government is looking at issues beyond just medical risk but it does raise questions about where the line is between safety and pragmatism.

But I disagree with the workplace thing. I'm sure there are some workplaces that are just as negligent as young people partying.

 

[basketcase]

Thats the smartest plan. Quarantine them and give them a nice pension (more than standard).
...

Locking old people in jail and not allowing them contact with friend and family seems a bit like the draconian world TJ was talking about.

 

[basketcase]

So I was speaking with someone yesterday and they explained how some of the numbers are skewed or being presented incorrectly.

For example, numbers are higher right now like there were but we are testing more.

Except that's not really the case. Between June and Sept. the testing numbers have been pretty consistent. In September there has been around a 20% increase in testing but the case rates have gone up 400%.

 

[basketcase]

So clearly it sounds like they should get their testing fixed. It has been 6 months, how have they not figured out the proper testing by now.
...

The test technically is not whether the person has covid but whether the swab collects enough of a viral load to trigger a positive result. For various reasons, some people don't have enough of the virus in their sinuses to detect, especially early in the infection. There is not much that can be done about that other than using more expensive and labour intensive methods. It is also likely that occasionally a test is not performed properly but I don't know if that makes up a significant proportion.

There are a bunch of other tests in development (including dogs trained to detect covid!) but their effectiveness hasn't been validated enough to be approved by Health Canada.

 

[basketcase]

...

Ugh and as much as I don’t like giving him the credit, C-M is right about the definition change too.
...

The problem with people like him is they just blindly parrot contradictory information (he strangely believes there is no such thing as a covid virus while also claiming that people are getting the virus). Much of the stupid tweets have a basis in fact but then they (either intentionally or out of ignorance) make up their own interpretation. In this case you may notice that although his source points out that there was a change to the guidance, he is unable to say what the change actually was. Either the source he cut and paste from doesn't know or they are intentionally ignoring it because they know it refutes their argument.

 

[fall]

The daily infection rates continue to steadily rise and just as consistent is that people between 20-40 years of age are accounting for 65-70% of the infections.

We all want our lives to get back to some sense of normalcy as soon as possible. But it will never happen as long as these covidiots continue act so irresponsibly. They are depriving the rest of us of our lifestyle and our economy. And they are the ones complaining the most about masks and distancing (as if it's such a horrendous sacrifice), but they are the ones that are causing restrictions to be extended.

We should target our actions at the cause of our ongoing problems. All people between 20 and 40 who have non-essential jobs should be placed under mandatory quarantine until infection rates are down to below 50/day (speaking about Ontario). Start fines at $100 for the first infraction and increase it by 100 for each subsequent infraction.

Why should we let these selfish morons screw the rest of us over? The same people who want to punish China for initiating the pandemic, should be in favour of punishing the people who are keeping us down.

I am not sure how protective measures can lead back to "normalcy" unless the current situation is considered to be normal. Protective measures simply reduce the rate of infection spreading and as long as "life returns to normalcy" the speed of infection spreading will increase. Vaccine is the only thing that can help. Anything else just slows the things, not make the "combined total" smaller and definitely not returns life to the normal.

 

[fall]

Entitled selfish nonsense. You are owed nothing. It's the past generations that have brought the quality of life for the "young, dumb & full of cum" to where it is today, the highest it's ever been in the history of mankind. Imagine if you were born in 1920 or 1900 or 1800 or Europe in the dark or middle ages. Many of the dead gave their lives in WWII to gift you with what you have today.

The problem is that the life expectancy is much greater now. In middle ages people died at 430, so, lots of space for young. 70 years ago people died at 70 and women did not work - lots of jobs for young. Now people live till 90 (and their publicly funded medical care is expensive), work till 75, and no jobs for recent University graduates. Yes, old generation built some wealth into economy, but they forgot to die when they were supposed to.

 

[fall]

My understanding, and hopefully I am wrong, was .8% of all tests are false positives. Not .8% of only positive tests.

But here is hoping I am wrong on that. Because those numbers are scary.

0.8% of healthy people (false positive) is much greater than 0.8% of sick people (false negative) when you look at the total numbers.

 

[glamphotographer]

Ford plan leaked and it plans not to shut down but impose measures on targeted businesses that lead to outbreaks like bars and restaurants, they are likely to be shut down and retail stores will probably allow to operate. Also, Ontario plans on increased testing keeping the sick at home, allowing only the healthy to work and shop safely.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Locking old people in jail and not allowing them contact with friend and family seems a bit like the draconian world TJ was talking about

Err......thats kinda what the last lockdown felt like

 

[shack]

I am not sure how protective measures can lead back to "normalcy" unless the current situation is considered to be normal.

That sounds abnormal.

 

[Jenesis]

So I apologize because clearly I was confused on how the false positives were calculated. So my bad on that guys.

Thanks for clearing it up for me. Appreciate it.

 

[Gooseifur]

I find it interesting that I can't have more than ten people in my house but my nephew can spend all day in a room with almost 30 people and I can hang out at a strip club. Obviously the government is looking at issues beyond just medical risk but it does raise questions about where the line is between safety and pragmatism.

But I disagree with the workplace thing. I'm sure there are some workplaces that are just as negligent as young people partying.

It's possible but as far as I know masks are mandatory everywhere inside including a workplace. It doesn't apply to people working outside. I think Ford is holding off as long as he can on closing any businesses because of the financial implications.