Better start looking for a Sept 3rd opponent...

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
21,646
9,583
1,743
Earth
#81
I was dismissed in these forums about 3 weeks ago for suggesting football might not happen this fall. Now getting much closer to that real possibility.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Patting ones self on the back for being a little Debbie Downer is nothing to be proud of.
 
May 4, 2011
1,875
966
743
Charleston, SC
#82
Positivity rate is comprised of the number total positive tests / total number of tests conducted, but does not distinguish the total number of tests conducted vs the total number of individuals tested. Positivity rate increase is therefore is very likely positively correlated to the retesting of individuals who have already tested positive. Increased Positivity does not necessarily mean a greater number of people are being infected.

All of which points back to More Testing ----> More positive Results (likely a high percentage of whom would've recovered without testing and never known they were infected) ----> More Retesting in a short period of time ----> More positive results ---> Increased Positivity Rate

Until States start distinguishing total tests vs total individuals tested, we really can't say whether Positivity rate is even a concern, because without excluding positive tests on individuals who have been tested multiple times, we don't know if the Positivity rate is even truly increasing.
Even in that scenario, more tests coming back positive still means greater spread of cases. Testing hasn't changed that drastically in the last month.

Also, that scenario isn't fully likely because you also have more asymptomatic people being tested or least you did prior to this recent uptick.
 
Jul 25, 2018
3,690
1,089
243
49
Boulder, CO
#83
New York shutdown because they were the epicenter. Agreed. They're also not like 99% of the rest of the country. They were also brilliant enough, along with NJ & CA to mandate COVID patients back into nursing homes. Thankfully, CA saw how stupid that was in a matter of 3 days & rescinded their order.

They didn't become the epicenter because they shut down. I don't know who's claiming that, I'm not.

In fact, their positive test rate has fallen below 1%. Can't possibly be, right?

They just cancelled theit State Fair, and theie Casinos and Movie Theaters are still closed. I've never said, nor am I saying now, that zero measures should be taken. Clearly, some should, & clearly, some have a nebulous benefit.

You can make your own determination as to why you think their positive test rate has dropped so dramatically.

I'm siding with the lockdown playing a significant factor in it.
 

pokefan05

Knickas on Backward
A/V Subscriber
Dec 6, 2006
1,737
1,467
1,743
Tulsa
#85
Yes

I got my information directly from the CDC and it was current as of today.

It specifically addressed that issue

I've explained the positivity rate
This does NOT account for individuals who test positive multiple times. The highlighted alludes to this. Also the caveat that 'not all tests are reported' lends further evidence to the fact that the true positivity rate is likely much lower than 9%.

1594417094806.png
 
Jul 25, 2018
3,690
1,089
243
49
Boulder, CO
#86
The "suggest" part of my reply was worded poorly

I dont doubt in any way that you social distance and/or wear a mask when you can't social distance.

I commend you for that and appreciate it as a fellow citizen.

What I meant to say was....if wveryone did that in Oklahoma throughout this entire thing, we wouldnt be in this predicament nearly as bad as we are now.
Fair enough. And I do realize it's different everywhere, in terms of how people are acting about the guidelines.
 
Nov 14, 2010
3,925
1,902
743
#87
This does NOT account for individuals who test positive multiple times. The highlighted alludes to this. Also the caveat that 'not all tests are reported' lends further evidence to the fact that the true positivity rate is likely much lower than 9%.

View attachment 83245
I explained all of that and provided the evidence and explained where I got it and the highlighted part shows you just that.

That first column is total tests reported, not total tests taken.

But, you're welcome to your opinion.
 
Last edited:

Patron

Banned
Banned
Oct 12, 2019
580
110
43
30
Dustin,ok
#89
Hard to social distance and have sports, Stiilville locked down till Nov 30. Remember they are in CONTROL and know what’s best for the sheep.
 

pokefan05

Knickas on Backward
A/V Subscriber
Dec 6, 2006
1,737
1,467
1,743
Tulsa
#90
I explained all of that and provided the evidence and explained where I got it and the highlighted part shows you just that.

But, you're welcome to your opinion.
I have provided data from Johns Hopkins and the CDC which directly contradict your assertions. I have offered supporting evidence for why this doesn't paint the full picture, based on available data limitations (ie not distinguishing individuals who test positive multiple times). One of my friends, who is a dr at a hospital in Tulsa, contracted the virus, and was tested several times of a 3 week period, with multiple positive tests. That's just one example, but surely can't be the only example. Not to mention unreported tests (almost surely negative), that would further drive down the positivity rate. You are welcome to your opinion, but you haven't said anything to refute the evidence I have provided.
 
Nov 14, 2010
3,925
1,902
743
#91
I have provided data from Johns Hopkins and the CDC which directly contradict your assertions. I have offered supporting evidence for why this doesn't paint the full picture, based on available data limitations (ie not distinguishing individuals who test positive multiple times). One of my friends, who is a dr at a hospital in Tulsa, contracted the virus, and was tested several times of a 3 week period, with multiple positive tests. That's just one example, but surely can't be the only example. Not to mention unreported tests (almost surely negative), that would further drive down the positivity rate. You are welcome to your opinion, but you haven't said anything to refute the evidence I have provided.
No they dont

It specifically says that not all tests are reported.

I'm sure there is an error margin either way, and anecdotal evidence to support those margins as with anything else in life

I would have to imagine that very few things that deal with this kind of mass is perfect.

There surely is a statistical margin for error on negative tests that get reported twice as well..

If you think that margin for error is enough to skew 40,000,000 tests, then power to you.
 
Last edited:

pokefan05

Knickas on Backward
A/V Subscriber
Dec 6, 2006
1,737
1,467
1,743
Tulsa
#92
No they dont

It specifically says that not all tests are reported.

You're going in circles
This does not mean that additional positive tests on the same individual are not being reported. I'm sorry, but you are just misinterpreting this.From the CDC: Positivity rate is based on laboratory testing. Disclaimer in the fine print reads: The data may also not include results from all potential testing sites within the jurisdiction (e.g., non-laboratory or point of care test sites) and therefore reflect the majority, but not all, of COVID-19 testing being conducted in the United States.

And again from Johns Hopkins on distinguishing total tests vs individuals tested: Currently, states may not be distinguishing overall tests administered from the number of individuals who have been tested. This is an important limitation to the data that is available to track testing in the U.S., and states should work to address it.

So based on what I provided: 1) CDC data does not include reporting from ALL testing sites, only Laboratory 2) States may not be distinguishing total tests vs tested individuals, which would skew the data based on individuals being tested multiple times.

I assume you'll just deny everything and move to shut down the debate at this point, but i'm done with it anyway. You are starting to act childish and there is no reason to get into an argument.
1594420169144.png
 
Nov 14, 2010
3,925
1,902
743
#93
This does not mean that additional positive tests on the same individual are not being reported. I'm sorry, but you are just misinterpreting this.From the CDC: Positivity rate is based on laboratory testing. Disclaimer in the fine print reads: The data may also not include results from all potential testing sites within the jurisdiction (e.g., non-laboratory or point of care test sites) and therefore reflect the majority, but not all, of COVID-19 testing being conducted in the United States.

And again from Johns Hopkins on distinguishing total tests vs individuals tested: Currently, states may not be distinguishing overall tests administered from the number of individuals who have been tested. This is an important limitation to the data that is available to track testing in the U.S., and states should work to address it.

So based on what I provided: 1) CDC data does not include reporting from ALL testing sites, only Laboratory 2) States may not be distinguishing total tests vs tested individuals, which would skew the data based on individuals being tested multiple times.

I assume you'll just deny everything and move to shut down the debate at this point, but i'm done with it anyway. You are starting to act childish and there is no reason to get into an argument.
View attachment 83252
I already explained that I'm sure there is a margin for error as with anything else in life.

Nothing is perfect.

If you think that margin for error is enough to skew the numbers then power to you.

There were over 40,000,000 cases reported

It would take a margin for error of 400,000 to move it 1%

It's America....
You're welcone to follow that train of thought if you wish.
 
Last edited:

pokefan05

Knickas on Backward
A/V Subscriber
Dec 6, 2006
1,737
1,467
1,743
Tulsa
#94
I already explained that I'm sure there is a margin for error as with anything else in life.

Nothing is perfect.

If you think that margin for error is enough to skew the numbers then power to you.

There were over 40,000,000 cases reported

It would take a margin for error of 400,000 to move it 1%

It's America....
You're welcone to follow that train of thought if you wish.
From CDC:
Tests Reported (Laboratory): 40,787,857
Confirmed Positive Tests (Laboratory): 3,663,490
Confirmed Cases: 3,106,931

If you take the difference in confirmed cases vs confirmed positives as the margin for error, (which would represent a 15% margin for error in Positivity Rate), you are already down to a 7.6% actual Positivity Rate, which doesn't account for non-reported tests and asymptomatic/mildly symptomatic individuals who are not tested at all.

So yes, that margin for error is enough to skew the numbers for me, so I will continue to follow that train of thought.
 
Nov 14, 2010
3,925
1,902
743
#97
From CDC:
Tests Reported (Laboratory): 40,787,857
Confirmed Positive Tests (Laboratory): 3,663,490
Confirmed Cases: 3,106,931

If you take the difference in confirmed cases vs confirmed positives as the margin for error, (which would represent a 15% margin for error in Positivity Rate), you are already down to a 7.6% actual Positivity Rate, which doesn't account for non-reported tests and asymptomatic/mildly symptomatic individuals who are not tested at all.

So yes, that margin for error is enough to skew the numbers for me, so I will continue to follow that train of thought.

There is a discrepancy in your numbers between positive tests and confirmed cases of roughly 500,000

There are almost 41 million tests recorded.

Thats the 1% I just listed in the last post

You're going to have to assume that that entire 1% is duplicates and not just bad test specimens etc...that actually were positive tests, but, out of the interest of accuracy, were thrown out for comfirmed cases.

And...the positivity rate spike is current, but the cases are cumulative.

You're going to have to assume that the margjn for error rate is keeping the pace with recent cases and not from testing and cas ee's s in thev in the past because this wasnt an issue until cases and poaitivity rates spiked.

To do that you're going to have to assume that testing was perfect right up until the time frame where the positivity rate started spiking then all of that margin for has come during the tine period that the positivity rate came from.

Even if by some miracle that was the case 100% of the time, as I said, you've moved the needle by 1% as I mentioned in the last post.

Again, if thats the narrative you want to follow then power to you.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:

pokefan05

Knickas on Backward
A/V Subscriber
Dec 6, 2006
1,737
1,467
1,743
Tulsa
#98
Shhhhh no talk of mortality, don’t look @ NY, NJ, Mass, Pa, Mich. Nothing to see, just move on.
Better not look at Sweden, deaths peaked in Mid-April and have been rapidly declining since...shhhhh

Somehow they managed to flatten the curve with no lockdown whatsoever!

1594424372316.png

1594424384290.png
 

pokefan05

Knickas on Backward
A/V Subscriber
Dec 6, 2006
1,737
1,467
1,743
Tulsa
#99
There is a discrepancy in your numbers between positive tests and confirmed cases of roughly 500,000

There are almost 41 million tests recorded.

Thats the 1% I just listed in the last post

You're going to have to assume that that entire 1% is duplicates and not just bad test specimens etc...that actually were positive tests, but, out of the interest of accuracy, were thrown out for comfirmed cases.

And...the positivity rate spike is current, but the cases are cumulative.

You're going to have to assume that the margjn for error rate is keeping the pace with recent cases and not from testing and cas ee's s in thev in the past because this wasnt an issue until cases and poaitivity rates spiked.

To do that you're going to have to assume that testing was perfect right up until the time frame where the positivity rate started spiking then all of that margin for has come during the tine period that the positivity rate came from.

Even if by some miracle that was the case 100% of the time, as I said, you've moved the needle by 1% as I mentioned in the last post.

Again, if thats the narrative you want to follow then power to you.
[/QUOTE]

Potentially 500,000 repeat tests, that means the 3.6M positives is really just 3.1M individuals. That 1% margin you keep touting is based on of Total Tests, but its 15% of Total positives. I'm done thought, the data is there. I've outlined my case, that's all I can do. You have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary, other than the number at face value.

You are just straight up misinterpreting the data and the entire case that I have laid out with evidence from the SAME source you are using.
 
Nov 14, 2010
3,925
1,902
743
Potentially 500,000 repeat tests, that means the 3.6M positives is really just 3.1M individuals. That 1% margin you keep touting is based on of Total Tests, but its 15% of Total positives. I'm done thought, the data is there. I've outlined my case, that's all I can do. You have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary, other than the number at face value.

You are just straight up misinterpreting the data and the entire case that I have laid out with evidence from the SAME source you are using.[/QUOTE]
No
Not mis interpreting anything

Its clear the narrative you want to follow and I've made it clear how large the margin for error would have to be for your narrative to have validity.

Theres a discrepancy of 500,000 out of close to 41 million tests

Thats a 1% margin for error
But.
Like I said, its America

You are entiltled to whatever narrative you choose to follow.