Co-vid 19: What Is and Isn't Known, Discussion and Debate

[Calm]

Ignore me, I am embarrassing myself.  I should never read technical stuff and definitely not try math when this mindfogged.  Going to go watch Korean dramas instead.  Vertigo is back today, so trying to stay vertical which unfortunately fogs me up.  I would think the reverse would happen, but my body seems to be the opposite of expected in so many ways.

I just noticed this thread is rated 5, that feels nice even if I can't tell how many rated it, lol, as .I have way too big of a personal attachment to it at this point. (Sheesh, I was hoping it would tell me if more than one voted and now all it tells me is what I rated it...which is 5 of course, but not so warm and fuzzy feeling).

Edited August 12, 2020 by Calm

[let’s roll]

Here’s a poem I penned a few years ago that seems relevant to our sometimes Covid-centric lives.  I hope it will make you smile.

THE WIND OR A BEAR

There’s a noise outside my tent

It may be the wind or it may be a bear

If I always think it’s the wind am I oblivious to, and unprepared for, danger.

Or do I just understand probabilities 

If I always think it’s a bear, am I prone to overreaction 

Or do I just want to take proper precautions

In a world full of noises that may be the wind or may be a bear

May I develop the serenity that comes from not fearing the wind

The foresight to prepare for the occasional bear

And the wisdom to realize that the noise will usually be...a raccoon.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

It depends on what does "97% accuracy" mean.  Generally, a test has a "sensitivity" (true-positive) rate and a "specificity" (true-negative) rate.  Both of those rates are rarely the same.  It looks like strappinglad is giving an example where both the sensitivity and the specificity are 97%.  And his numbers are correct in that case.  But even if you give different sensitivity and specificity rates, you'll get those odd results.

The reason in why it is over 3% is because the 3% is the accuracy of the test in determining if you have the disease (technically the sensitivity rate) or if you don't have the disease (the specificity rate).  So, if I have a positive result, 3% of the time, I might actually not have the disease.  But if I have a negative result, 3% of the time, I might actually have the disease.  If the disease is in 15% of the population, then what is the chance that I actually have the disease?  If the population happens to be 100,000 (just for easy numbers), then only 15,000 people have the disease.  So, if you test a person with the disease, you'll get a positive result for 14,550 people (97% of the 15,000 infected people).  But if you test a person without the disease, you'll get a positive result for 2,550 people (3% of the 82,450 uninfected people).  So the total number of people that will have a positive result is 17,100 but only 14,550 actually have the disease.  The other 2,550 people (which is 14.9%) don't have the disease even though they tested positive.  So, for a random person who tests positive, they have a 14.9% of not having the disease.

These odd results get a lot worse when the infection rate of the disease is lower.  Extremely rare diseases have severe problems with these false positives.  Imagine only 1% of the population is infected and the test is 99% accurate.  So, in a population of 100,000, then only 1,000 people have the disease.  If you test someone with the disease, you'll get a positive result for 990 of them (99% of 1,000).  If you test someone without the disease, you'll get a positive result for 990 of them (1% of the 99,000 uninfected).  Which means that out of the 1980 people who test positive, 990 of them (50%) will be false positive.  A test with 99% accuracy will actually have 50% false positives!

I think I understand where you guys are coming from and why these figures are misleading.

Here is why these examples are a misrepresentation of the real world and can lead to unnecessary mistrust in testing and a false belief that numbers are artificially high:  

1) As I have previously noted, we are not testing 100% of the population.  We only test those who are symptomatic or who have had close contact with a positive person.  This significantly reduces false positive results.  2) We don’t really know what the actual number of positive cases are in a population.  3) A fairly large percentage of positive cases never test.  This also throws off your numbers.  4) You guys are not accounting for human error either.  You are assuming that the tests are performed 100% perfectmy 100% of the time.  The number one reason for false negative tests is misapplication and sampling errors where nurses simply are not going deep enough with the swab. This is partly why it is assumed that false negatives are far more likely then false positives, but also because specificity of PCR tests are extremely high. Positive tests are thought to be more reliable then negative tests.
 

Edited August 12, 2020 by pogi

[Rain]

14 hours ago, T-Shirt said:

I agree, I should have included the, "might".  Nevertheless, it is encouraging.  I am an optimist and will never understand the doomsayers and the fear-mongers.  I choose to find the bright side of everything.  Even if cases were on the rise and it was determined that one can be reinfected, I would still look at everyday as one day closer to the end of the pandemic.

I am an optimistic realist. I recognize how good or bad a situation is and then find optimistic things about the situation. For example, when I have a problem in my life I often see it as an adventure which will produce a story to tell rather than something to be discouraged about. The problem is still there and I recognize it, but I choose how I deal with it with my optimism.  

A lot of people thought I was a doomsayer because I chose to build food storage. Realistically I knew there could be a problem some time, but optimistically I chose to have food storage because I thought it could help.  And we have learned so much.  My husband has become an excellent bread maker. We have learned to live on less money because of living on basic items.  And now that we have had a pandemic on top of all that I have never feared because we didn't have enough food or TP!

Realism doesn't mean you are a doomsayer, fear monger or alarmist. It just means you recognize what is going on.  Optimism or pessimism is how you view the realistic facts.  Sometimes when people lay out the facts people assume optimism or pessimism. They often don't have enough info to make a good judgment of that. 

An optimist may view all of this and say, "I'm so glad we have people like Pogi looking into this so we can learn what we need to and get past it.  With the information he is gathering and analyzing we can learn what we need to make things safer. He is a blessing to the rest of us!"

 

[smac97]

10 hours ago, let’s roll said:

Here’s a poem I penned a few years ago that seems relevant to our sometimes Covid-centric lives.  I hope it will make you smile.

THE WIND OR A BEAR

There’s a noise outside my tent

It may be the wind or it may be a bear

If I always think it’s the wind am I oblivious to, and unprepared for, danger.

Or do I just understand probabilities 

If I always think it’s a bear, am I prone to overreaction 

Or do I just want to take proper precautions

In a world full of noises that may be the wind or may be a bear

May I develop the serenity that comes from not fearing the wind

The foresight to prepare for the occasional bear

And the wisdom to realize that the noise will usually be...a raccoon.

I like this.  Thank you for sharing.

Then there's the Serenity Prayer coined by Reinhold Niebuhr[, an oldie but a goodie: Father, give us courage to change what must be altered, serenity to accept what cannot be helped, and the insight to know the one from the other.

I also like this bit of wisdom from an otherwise mediocre 1995 movie, First Knight.  Played by Sean Connery, King Arthur commences a meeting of the Knights of the Round Table with this: May God grant us the wisdom to discover right, the will to choose it, and the strength to make it endure.

Thanks,

-Smac

[webbles]

9 hours ago, pogi said:

I think I understand where you guys are coming from and why these figures are misleading.

Here is why these examples are a misrepresentation of the real world and can lead to unnecessary mistrust in testing and a false belief that numbers are artificially high:  

1) As I have previously noted, we are not testing 100% of the population.  We only test those who are symptomatic or who have had close contact with a positive person.  This significantly reduces false positive results.  2) We don’t really know what the actual number of positive cases are in a population.  3) A fairly large percentage of positive cases never test.  This also throws off your numbers.  4) You guys are not accounting for human error either.  You are assuming that the tests are performed 100% perfectmy 100% of the time.  The number one reason for false negative tests is misapplication and sampling errors where nurses simply are not going deep enough with the swab. This is partly why it is assumed that false negatives are far more likely then false positives, but also because specificity of PCR tests are extremely high. Positive tests are thought to be more reliable then negative tests.
 

Since I don't think we actually have the correct sensitivity rate or the specitifity rate of the tests in question, nor do we know the infected percentage of people in the population (either the tested population or the entire population), the numbers that strappinglad used were just a wild guess.  But the math is still the same.

I think your concerns are focused in the wrong direction.  Whether we test the entire population or not doesn't change the math, it just changes which infection rate to be applied.  As you point out, we don't know that number so any use of the math will be a wild guess.  And human error should be accounted in the sensitivity or specificity rate that the test has.  Since we don't have those numbers, the math will (again) be a wild guess.

Instead, this calculation is really useful to decide whether an invasive procedure is needed or not.  Take the case of breast cancer.  If the math behind breast cancer and screening was 99% accurate test and 1% population infection, then for a specific person, it is a 50/50 chance that they will actually have breast cancer.  Should they do a mastectomy with those odds?  But with covid-19, the result of the test just means to quarantine for 14 days.  That is nothing like a mastectomy and so even if the odds are 50/50, the person should still do the quarantine.

But, for policy decisions, you don't want to know what a specific person's chance of having the disease.  You want to know how prevalent the disease is.  And the math gives numbers much closer to the actual infection rate.  Using the extreme example of 99% accurate and 1% infection rate, the positive test rate (including both false positives and true positives) is only 1.98% (990 of the infected test positive and 990 of the uninfected test positive so 1980/1000000).  So, even though for a specific person, the odds of having a true positive is 50/50, the tested infected rate of the entire population would only be a little bit higher (2% vs 1%).  If you use strappinglad's numbers (97% accurate and 15% infection rate), the tested infected rate is 17% vs the actual infection rate of 15%.

So, if a state is saying that they have 8% positive test rate (which I think is what Utah is saying), and if the accuracy of the test is 97% (which is probably lower than the actual test accuracy), then the actual infection rate of those being tested would be somewhere around 6%.  Making policy decisions with that slight inaccuracy is good enough for me.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

never mind. Point already made by others. 

Edited August 12, 2020 by SeekingUnderstanding

[bsjkki]

Interesting on school not closing in Sweden and what happened. https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN24G2IS?__twitter_impression=true

 

“The report, which has not been peer-reviewed, found that during the period of February 24 to June 14, there were 1,124 confirmed cases of COVID-19 among children in Sweden, around 0.05% of the total number of children aged 1-19. 

Finland recorded 584 cases in the same period, also equivalent to around 0.05%. 

"In conclusion, (the) closure or not of schools had no measurable direct impact on the number of laboratory confirmed cases in school-aged children in Finland or Sweden," the agencies said in the report, published last week.

The report showed that severe cases of COVID-19 were very rare among both Swedish and Finnish children aged 1 to 19, with no deaths reported. A comparison of the incidence of COVID-19 in different professions suggested no increased risk for teachers.”

Edited August 12, 2020 by bsjkki

[pogi]

3 hours ago, webbles said:

I think your concerns are focused in the wrong direction.  Whether we test the entire population or not doesn't change the math, it just changes which infection rate to be applied.  As you point out, we don't know that number so any use of the math will be a wild guess.  And human error should be accounted in the sensitivity or specificity rate that the test has.  Since we don't have those numbers, the math will (again) be a wild guess.

It does significantly change the outcome of the math if we test the entire population or not.  I don't know what you mean by "it just changes which infection rate to be applied".   If we don't test the entire population, and only focus on those who are symptomatic or who have had close contact with a positive case, then we radically lower the ratio of false positives to true positives.   Thus significantly improving the positive predictive vale (PPV) of a test.  

I don't believe that human error is necessarily accounted for in determining sensitivity and specificity rates of a given test.  I am assuming these rates are determined through controlled testing under ideal conditions. 

3 hours ago, webbles said:

Instead, this calculation is really useful to decide whether an invasive procedure is needed or not.  Take the case of breast cancer.  If the math behind breast cancer and screening was 99% accurate test and 1% population infection, then for a specific person, it is a 50/50 chance that they will actually have breast cancer.  Should they do a mastectomy with those odds?  But with covid-19, the result of the test just means to quarantine for 14 days.  That is nothing like a mastectomy and so even if the odds are 50/50, the person should still do the quarantine.

The way around this problem, where invasive procedures are concerned, is by double testing for positive results.  With a 99% accuracy rate, the odds of having 2 false positive tests in a row is incredibly low.  Of course, there are other diagnostic measures as well that we take to confirm a diagnosis before deciding if an invasive procedure is indicated or not.  At the beginning of the pandemic (which feels like a life-time ago, but was only a few months ago), we were actually doing this with every positive Covid test.  The results had to be confirmed by the CDC by performing a second test.  While that improved the accuracy of the results, it significantly impaired a timely response to the outbreak, so double testing for positive results was stopped.  However, we still double test negative results in order to be released from isolation.  While the double-test method is not required in the general population, and most people use the symptoms based method instead, employees who work with high-risk populations are often required to have 2 negative tests 24 hours apart before they can return to work after an infection.  This significantly reduces the chance of a false negative, thus assuring that the individual is fully recovered and not infectious. 

3 hours ago, webbles said:

But, for policy decisions, you don't want to know what a specific person's chance of having the disease.  You want to know how prevalent the disease is.  And the math gives numbers much closer to the actual infection rate.  Using the extreme example of 99% accurate and 1% infection rate, the positive test rate (including both false positives and true positives) is only 1.98% (990 of the infected test positive and 990 of the uninfected test positive so 1980/1000000).  So, even though for a specific person, the odds of having a true positive is 50/50, the tested infected rate of the entire population would only be a little bit higher (2% vs 1%).  If you use strappinglad's numbers (97% accurate and 15% infection rate), the tested infected rate is 17% vs the actual infection rate of 15%.

So, if a state is saying that they have 8% positive test rate (which I think is what Utah is saying), and if the accuracy of the test is 97% (which is probably lower than the actual test accuracy), then the actual infection rate of those being tested would be somewhere around 6%.  Making policy decisions with that slight inaccuracy is good enough for me.

  I agree with this. 

Edited August 12, 2020 by pogi

[T-Shirt]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

I am an optimistic realist. I recognize how good or bad a situation is and then find optimistic things about the situation. For example, when I have a problem in my life I often see it as an adventure which will produce a story to tell rather than something to be discouraged about. The problem is still there and I recognize it, but I choose how I deal with it with my optimism.  

I agree with this.  Did I say something that would lead you to believe I feel differently?

Quote

A lot of people thought I was a doomsayer because I chose to build food storage.

I don't know who these, "lot of people are", but, if they exist, their definition of, "doomsayer" is drastically different than mine.  I don't call that, "doomsaying", I call that, smart.

Quote

Realistically I knew there could be a problem some time, but optimistically I chose to have food storage because I thought it could help.  And we have learned so much.  My husband has become an excellent bread maker. We have learned to live on less money because of living on basic items.  And now that we have had a pandemic on top of all that I have never feared because we didn't have enough food or TP!

I agree with this.  Did I say something that would lead you to believe I feel differently?

Quote

Realism doesn't mean you are a doomsayer, fear monger or alarmist. It just means you recognize what is going on. 

Can you point to anything I have said that you feel is contradictory to this?

Quote

Optimism or pessimism is how you view the realistic facts.

The problem here is that we don't have a lot of hard facts regarding Covid.  Nearly everything we knew back in March turned out to be wrong.  We are learning new things everyday.  Everyone has their, "experts" and often, in the news and elsewhere, people cite, "experts" but never get around to telling you who these experts are.  If someone takes a position or cites research or an, "expert" that doesn't fit a certain political narrative, they are shouted down, called names, threatened and destroyed.  I want to hear all sides so I can make an informed decision.   I want to hear CNN and Fox News.  I want to hear Dr. Fauci and Doctor Gold, I want to hear Donald Trump and Nancy Pelosi.  As soon as one side tries to silence those who disagree with them, we have a serious problem.

Quote

 Sometimes when people lay out the facts people assume optimism or pessimism. They often don't have enough info to make a good judgment of that. 

We are still learning what the facts are.

Quote

An optimist may view all of this and say, "I'm so glad we have people like Pogi looking into this so we can learn what we need to and get past it.  With the information he is gathering and analyzing we can learn what we need to make things safer. He is a blessing to the rest of us!"

I love Pogi, also.  He is a valiant medical professional working on the front lines.  I honor him and respect him. I pray for his safety.  I want to hear his input and opinions.  However, though he may be an expert in some things, he is not an expert on Covid-19.  Medically, he knows a lot more than I do, but I don't have to agree with everything he says.  I probably agree with him on most things, but If some want to silence me because I don't agree with everything Pogi says, I don't think I am the problem.

[strappinglad]

It is true that we do not test 100% of the population for covid, but we don't do it for cancer either. After years of studies we can be reasonably sure about the prevalence of a particular cancer in the population. A lot of statistical analysis is done by samples usually of a few thousand examples and then we extrapolate to the population. As said , we don't know the prevalence of covid in the population and the data changes based on country or state etc., but the numbers are quite high worldwide now so the actual prevalence number is being closed in on. We may not know for months if not years. My example of 15% was a guess but based on other guesses by other guesstimaters.😎

[ksfisher]

Inexpensive, accessible device provides visual proof that masks block droplets

Study demonstrates a simple way to test facial covering materials for effectiveness

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/08/200811152916.htm

"We confirmed that when people speak, small droplets get expelled, so disease can be spread by talking, without coughing or sneezing," Fischer said. "We could also see that some face coverings performed much better than others in blocking expelled particles."

"If everyone wore a mask, we could stop up to 99% of these droplets before they reach someone else," Westman said. "In the absence of a vaccine or antiviral medicine, it's the one proven way to protect others as well as yourself."

[Calm]

Ksf, did you see info about what the device was specifically?

[pogi]

15 hours ago, let’s roll said:

Here’s a poem I penned a few years ago that seems relevant to our sometimes Covid-centric lives.  I hope it will make you smile.

THE WIND OR A BEAR

There’s a noise outside my tent

It may be the wind or it may be a bear

If I always think it’s the wind am I oblivious to, and unprepared for, danger.

Or do I just understand probabilities 

If I always think it’s a bear, am I prone to overreaction 

Or do I just want to take proper precautions

In a world full of noises that may be the wind or may be a bear

May I develop the serenity that comes from not fearing the wind

The foresight to prepare for the occasional bear

And the wisdom to realize that the noise will usually be...a raccoon.

I like your poem a lot. 

To play off it a little -

Some see Covid in the scary bear, others ignorantly brush it off and see it in the harmless wind, but what if Covid is the rabid racoon outside your tent you are not giving due attention to?

This is a graph I have posted in my travel office that I use when teaching mosquito precautions in developing countries.  Sometimes it is the thing we are the least afraid of that deserves the greatest respect. 

 

Wouldn't you know it, racoon (#12) outranks both the black bear (#33) and grizzly bear (#24) in the deadliest animals in the US:

https://www.science101.com/deadliest-animals-united-states-ranked/

Of course the number 1 spot belongs to the thing you would least expect, the cow!

It kind of puts our fears in perspective. 

 

Edited August 12, 2020 by pogi

[ksfisher]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Ksf, did you see info about what the device was specifically?

"he MacGyvered a relatively inexpensive apparatus from common lab materials that can easily be purchased online. The setup consisted of a box, a laser, a lens, and a cell phone camera."

[webbles]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

It does significantly change the outcome of the math if we test the entire population or not.  I don't know what you mean by "it just changes which infection rate to be applied".   If we don't test the entire population, and only focus on those who are symptomatic or who have had close contact with a positive case, then we radically lower the ratio of false positives to true positives.   Thus significantly improving the positive predictive vale (PPV) of a test.

The math isn't based on how much of the population you test nor is it based on what parts of the population you test.  It is based on the prevalence of the disease.  If you want to run the calculations based off the entire population, then you would use the infection rate of the entire population.  But if you only want to run the calculations based on those that are symptomatic or those with close contact, then you would just use the infection rate of that group.  Going with the numbers, lets say that the entire population is 100,000 and the test is 97% accurate and the disease is prevalent in 15% of the entire population.  For a specific individual, a positive result is 14.9% of the time false.  Now, lets say that we are only testing those who are symptomatic or have had a close contact.  Let's say that 90% of those who are sick are symptomatic or were in close contact (13,500 individuals) and 10% of those who aren't sick have symptoms or were in close contact (8,500 individuals).  So, instead of the infection rate being 15%, the infection rate is now 61% (13500 / (13500 + 8500)).  Running the numbers again, but with 61% infection rate instead of the 15% infection rate, gives us 1.9% false positives for a specific individual.

That's what I mean by "just changes which infection rate to be applied".  Is it the entire population infection rate or just the infection rate of the group you are testing?

On a slightly different note, I was looking online for any information on the specificity or sensitivity of covid-19 tests.  All I could find were ranges but I did come across a paper using this mathematical calculation and discussing whether covid-19 antibody tests will be helpful.  You can see it at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7287442/.  It gives several examples of what it means to a person if they get a positive result from an antibody test that has a sensitivity/specificity of various percentages.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, T-Shirt said:

I agree with this.  Did I say something that would lead you to believe I feel differently?

I don't know who these, "lot of people are", but, if they exist, their definition of, "doomsayer" is drastically different than mine.  I don't call that, "doomsaying", I call that, smart.

I agree and many of those people now agree with me!  But they didn't when they couldn't imagine a scenario when it would apply.

1 hour ago, T-Shirt said:

I agree with this.  Did I say something that would lead you to believe I feel differently? 

I used the wording I did because I don't know where you stand. 

My concern is I have heard/read a lot of people talking about doomsayers and fearmongers the last few months about people it didn't really apply to. I also find people use optimism as a way to say others who are realistic are wrong. 

So rather than accuse you of anything I wanted to share what I felt about the terms which you brought up.

1 hour ago, T-Shirt said:

Can you point to anything I have said that you feel is contradictory to this?

The problem here is that we don't have a lot of hard facts regarding Covid.  Nearly everything we knew back in March turned out to be wrong.  We are learning new things everyday.  Everyone has their, "experts" and often, in the news and elsewhere, people cite, "experts" but never get around to telling you who these experts are.  If someone takes a position or cites research or an, "expert" that doesn't fit a certain political narrative, they are shouted down, called names, threatened and destroyed.  I want to hear all sides so I can make an informed decision.   I want to hear CNN and Fox News.  I want to hear Dr. Fauci and Doctor Gold, I want to hear Donald Trump and Nancy Pelosi.  As soon as one side tries to silence those who disagree with them, we have a serious problem.

We are still learning what the facts are.

Yes (though that's the same about anything), but it doesn't really matter to what I was saying.

1 hour ago, T-Shirt said:

I love Pogi, also.  He is a valiant medical professional working on the front lines.  I honor him and respect him. I pray for his safety.  I want to hear his input and opinions.  However, though he may be an expert in some things, he is not an expert on Covid-19.  Medically, he knows a lot more than I do, but I don't have to agree with everything he says.  I probably agree with him on most things, but If some want to silence me because I don't agree with everything Pogi says, I don't think I am the problem.

I don't see anyone trying to silence you.

[let’s roll]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

It kind of puts our fears in perspective. 

Thanks for the kind words re my poem.

Fascinating chart.  Raccoons must be proud...”we’re #12”🎉.   Sharks, and lions, really need to step up their games.  😀

And wind, in some forms (tornado, typhoon) can be far deadlier than a bear.🐻

[pogi]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

The math isn't based on how much of the population you test nor is it based on what parts of the population you test.  It is based on the prevalence of the disease.  If you want to run the calculations based off the entire population, then you would use the infection rate of the entire population.  But if you only want to run the calculations based on those that are symptomatic or those with close contact, then you would just use the infection rate of that group.  Going with the numbers, lets say that the entire population is 100,000 and the test is 97% accurate and the disease is prevalent in 15% of the entire population.  For a specific individual, a positive result is 14.9% of the time false.  Now, lets say that we are only testing those who are symptomatic or have had a close contact.  Let's say that 90% of those who are sick are symptomatic or were in close contact (13,500 individuals) and 10% of those who aren't sick have symptoms or were in close contact (8,500 individuals).  So, instead of the infection rate being 15%, the infection rate is now 61% (13500 / (13500 + 8500)).  Running the numbers again, but with 61% infection rate instead of the 15% infection rate, gives us 1.9% false positives for a specific individual.

I understand now what you meant by the infection rate.  But the population sample variable absolutely is a very important factor in the equation and greatly effects both the numerator and denominator in the equation that he used below,:

Quote

 

What is the chance that a random person tests positive but doesn't have the disease ? 2550/17100 = 14.9%

what is the chance that a person tests negative but actually has the disease ?  450/ 82900 = 0.54 %

 

You have well demonstrated my point that by simply changing the population variable (which affects the infection rate within a given population) by testing only symptomatic people etc. instead of the whole population , we were able to significantly reduce false positives from 14.9% to 1.9%, and thus improve the reliability of positive test results.  Isn't that what I have been saying the whole time?  So, yes the math is largely based on the population you test.  

 

Edited August 12, 2020 by pogi

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

"he MacGyvered a relatively inexpensive apparatus from common lab materials that can easily be purchased online. The setup consisted of a box, a laser, a lens, and a cell phone camera."

Yeah, I saw that.  It didn't say how it worked so we can't do the same unfortunately.

[pogi]

45 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

And wind, in some forms (tornado, typhoon) can be far deadlier than a bear.🐻

Touché

Perhaps the wind is the best metaphor for Covid after all.  For most it is mild and tame, but for the unlucky and unprepared (who dismiss it as merely "wind") it will violently ravish them. 

I survived a signal 5 super typhoon in the Philippines.  I was once naive to the wind, and careless.  Never again will I be catching the last jeepney home when the warning is sounded.  I am lucky to be alive. 

Edited August 12, 2020 by pogi

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

don't see anyone trying to silence you.

Only one being silenced in this thread is Longview because he can't seem to stop doing the purely political stuff.    Everyone else has kindly adapted themselves to the limits of the thread.  I suppose that is silencing in a way, but everyone including Longview if the mods are okay with his politicking ( unlikely I am thinking) is able to start their own thread and I am happy for them to do so.  Might even participate.

I know there are some tired of certain topics on this thread, but the beating a dead horse icon has always made frequent appearances and yet rarely stopped people from what I have seen.

[T-Shirt]

20 hours ago, pogi said:

Would you classify me as a doomsayer and a fear-monger?  I personally view myself as a cautious optimist who puts evidence before wishful thinking and misinformation. 

Call it what you want, but one example of what I would call fear-mongering is in one of your posts early in this thread.  You were, what I would call, scolding another poster about his post and in the process used pictures of refrigerated boxes and boxes being buried on Hart Island  in New York.  You made some quite alarmists statements about these deaths and mass burials.  These deaths are tragic, but it is important to put all of this in context.  Hart Island is a cemetery for unclaimed bodies and has been for 150 years.  There were a significant number of burials there from Covid-19, not because the system was overwhelmed, but because these people either had no family or their family could not afford the price of a burial. Hart Island has nothing to do with Covid-19, it is simply a public cemetery.  The images are used to create fear and alarm.  The thought of mass graves in America is unheard of.  Except it's not.  This island has served this purpose for 150 years.  Furthermore, the images and comments about it are used to incite fear in others, trying to make them think this is coming to a neighborhood near you.  The problem is, New York was hit hard early on, harder than anyone else then or since.  New York made some big mistakes, but we were all learning and have learned a lot form them.  Burials on Hart Island have returned to a normal pace now as deaths in New York have been drastically reduced.  New York, even though their deaths have slowed substantially, still has more than two times the number of deaths than the second highest state and more than three times the deaths of the number three State, California, which has the most total cases in the country.  To put this more in perspective, NY has ten times the deaths of Utah.  NY has four times the deaths of the State that all of the media likes to demonize, Florida.  NY has slightly more deaths than Arizona, California, Florida and Texas combined, and most of their deaths happened early.  So, no, what happened in New York was not going to happen and has not happened all across America, not even close.  Those images and comments were nothing more than fear-mongering.  But, I still love you and thank you for your service🙂

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Inexpensive, accessible device provides visual proof that masks block droplets

Study demonstrates a simple way to test facial covering materials for effectiveness

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/08/200811152916.htm

"We confirmed that when people speak, small droplets get expelled, so disease can be spread by talking, without coughing or sneezing," Fischer said. "We could also see that some face coverings performed much better than others in blocking expelled particles."

"If everyone wore a mask, we could stop up to 99% of these droplets before they reach someone else," Westman said. "In the absence of a vaccine or antiviral medicine, it's the one proven way to protect others as well as yourself."

My niece through marriage, posted this article https://kutv.com/news/local/wearing-masks-in-your-home-may-be-new-normal-once-school-starts?fbclid=IwAR23DyCMnZjH0gqTXZLgG-Nl8FBhq0qXTe8IDdP0xJoFzOoE6yOCz0VZjao she thought it was so silly. Well, it just so happens I did this very thing last night because I have a cold, it was worse, but it got better super fast today luckily, but my husband said he didn't want it, so I wore my mask around him. Well this niece said, that she thought we won't be immune if we start wearing them inside our homes. I wonder if she has a point. All I know is my husband is always worried about getting sick ever since he got H1N1 a few years ago.

Edited August 12, 2020 by Tacenda

[pogi]

41 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

Call it what you want, but one example of what I would call fear-mongering is in one of your posts early in this thread.  You were, what I would call, scolding another poster about his post and in the process used pictures of refrigerated boxes and boxes being buried on Hart Island  in New York.  You made some quite alarmists statements about these deaths and mass burials.  These deaths are tragic, but it is important to put all of this in context.  Hart Island is a cemetery for unclaimed bodies and has been for 150 years.  There were a significant number of burials there from Covid-19, not because the system was overwhelmed, but because these people either had no family or their family could not afford the price of a burial. Hart Island has nothing to do with Covid-19, it is simply a public cemetery.  The images are used to create fear and alarm.  The thought of mass graves in America is unheard of.  Except it's not.  This island has served this purpose for 150 years.  Furthermore, the images and comments about it are used to incite fear in others, trying to make them think this is coming to a neighborhood near you.  The problem is, New York was hit hard early on, harder than anyone else then or since.  New York made some big mistakes, but we were all learning and have learned a lot form them.  Burials on Hart Island have returned to a normal pace now as deaths in New York have been drastically reduced.  New York, even though their deaths have slowed substantially, still has more than two times the number of deaths than the second highest state and more than three times the deaths of the number three State, California, which has the most total cases in the country.  To put this more in perspective, NY has ten times the deaths of Utah.  NY has four times the deaths of the State that all of the media likes to demonize, Florida.  NY has slightly more deaths than Arizona, California, Florida and Texas combined, and most of their deaths happened early.  So, no, what happened in New York was not going to happen and has not happened all across America, not even close.  Those images and comments were nothing more than fear-mongering.  But, I still love you and thank you for your service🙂

If you would have read the article about Hart Island, you would have understood that burials there increased from around 2 dozen/week, but when Covid struck they had to hire contract workers to keep up with the influx and were burying 2 dozen/day. 

I was trying to illicit respect for the virus and a reality-check, rather than fear, because many seemed intent on diminishing the super typhoon happening in New York, to mere "wind".  No worse than a regular flu season.  I posted those pics to accentuate that this is no normal flu season.  When is the last time anyone has seen anything like that in a normal flu season, anywhere? 

If warning people that the wind can be deadly and that we should prepare because there is a storm-a-brewing, is "fear-mongering", than I am guilty as charged.  Alarmist? yes.  I hope so. 

Edited August 12, 2020 by pogi