@gardenman wrote:
@RealtyGal2 wrote:
@Nancy Drew wrote:
The Good News
From the CDC July 12
United States Population 330,917,584 ( million)
Total Covid Cases 3,236,130
Total Deaths 134,572
Less than 1 % of Americans have caught Covid
Current Survival Rate 99.96 % of the Us population.
Hopes this eases some fears.
While I appreciate you trying to find some good news amid all the bad, don't get too excited because we are so far behind in testing that the numbers are much worse than reflected. In addition, now that they are re-routing the numbers to the governments new system, we may never know the real numbers.
We don't know the "real numbers" now, so it likely won't get any worse and may improve under the new system. The CDC just lumps every "positive" test together. They're not all the same though. PCR testing is the most accurate and tells if the virus is in a person now. That's the most important number, but the CDC doesn't report it separately. Antibody testing largely tells you if the person had contact with Covid-19 or a related coronavirus, but not if they currently have it. And some states now are listing some people who have symptoms or contact with a known infected person as "presumed positive" even though they haven't been tested or the results aren't back yet. All of those three categories are now lumped together as "positive tests" which tells us absolutely nothing.
To get an accurate picture, we need those three categories reported separately. If someone had Covid-19 three months ago and just now got an antibody test, they've long, long since passed the shedding stage and frankly, it doesn't matter if they test antibody positive now. If in ten thousand positive test results there are only five hundred PCR tests showing active virus it's a lot different from all ten thousand showing active virus.
There's a lot of hysteria about the number of "positive tests" but without knowing which tests (if any) are showing those results, it's impossible to know if the hysteria is justified or not. The "presumed positive" test results are the sketchiest. In NJ you had to have symptoms or have been in contact with a known infected person to get tested early on. About 95% of those tested at that time who met those preconditions came back negative. Now in some states, just meeting those criteria makes you an assumed positive person. Are they really infected? Maybe. Maybe not.
We need the numbers broken down by the type of test performed. Without that and with some states making up their own rules as they go, the numbers are just a mess. The CDC has the numbers for each type of test performed, but doesn't release them. They just bunch them all together and that tells us nothing of real value. If the kids in this post were tested using PCR, it's one thing. If they tested positive due to one of the iffier antibody tests that may be detecting the coronaviruses that cause the common cold, it's another thing. If they're presumed to have it because they ran a fever, coughed, or were around someone with the virus it's another thing.
The data we have now is a mess. Every type of test is lumped together and even some non-testing is thrown in. It makes it impossible to know what's going on. Maybe that's what the powers-that-be want. I don't know, but the data can't be any less accurate coming from the HHS than it is from the CDC, so let's see what happens. The good news is the numbers we have now are likely the current worst-case numbers since everything's lumped together. Once we get the testing sorted out by category (assuming the HHS does that) we should get a truer picture of how things stand.
______________________________________________
@gardenman, your information is outdated. Most states, including Georgia that lagged behind in separating out PCR versus serology results have now separated the data that they report and the CDC data was separated. My state always separated the data between serology and PCR results. Another problem that arose from not having a national plan to deal with the pandemic.
Furthermore with the research they have done on following antibodies in those that had confirmed cases of covid-19 they have a preponderance of evidence that it is highly unlikely that even if someone was just somehow "insignificantly" exposed that they would test positive for antibodies even if they didn't have it, as you imply. The work they have done on research with antibodies for convalescent plasma are showing that antibody levels may be dropping significantly even in people that had serious confirmed cases of covid-19. And highly unlikely we have hundreds of thousands of cases in which serology tests revealed false positive antibodies because the person had a cold. Could be an isolated case here or ther, but it isn't going to distort the data that much.
I won't even mention the work they have done of vaccine development which lends credence to evidence that it takes a pretty good "exposure" to ilicit anitbody response in humans. Thus the release of results from the latest vaccine trial of 50% of volunteers in that trial that experience side effects from the dose of the vaccine. ( I might add that the side effects were fairly mild, but still a little high for that particular stage of a vaccine trial). Based on research completed, lower doses did not ilicit desired antibody development. So highly unlikely that someone that just had "contact" with someone else with SARS-CoV-2 would have SARS-CoV-2 antibodies detected on serology exam.
Epidemiologists that cautioned combining the data warned that including serology results in the overall number did give a picture of overall disease burden, but certainly not what you are implying that the numbers would be falsely elevated. In fact, they cautioned that including serology could in fact lower positivity rates which is a number that most in public health watch like a hawk. That is the information medical professionals use to determine community transmission and make decisions on resources. Here is an article that discusses the situation that I think will pass to be linked since it doesn't have sidebars:
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/05/21/860480756/scientists-warn-cdc-testi...
That is what the experts were concerned about. At any rate, the numbers are now and have been reported out separately for some time by the CDC. That information has been available via the CDC for medical professionals for some time.
And I don't even know where to go with your statement about presumed positive????? Presumed positive is a classification assigned by the CDC for someone that tested positive at a local level but is pending testing results from the lab based at the CDC. There are a number of different agencies out there doing PCR testing including tribal associations in which the test they are using might not be verified by the CDC so those must also be tested by the CDC before actually counting it as a positive case.
Presumed positive has nothing to do with meeting any criteria as to whether or not one is positive or negative. In some areas one might have to meet certain criteria in order to be tested, but once tested a presumed positive means that test came back positive but is from a testing site and needs to be confirmed by the CDC.
Anyone that works with public health data of any type knows it can be muddy at times. Sometimes you just have to shake your head when someone that doesn't really have a good understanding of epidemiology but doesn't realize what they don't know is trying to say 2 plus 2 equals 10 in order to downplay the disease burden for this disease and writing it off as hysteria.
Fact is this is a serious disease that has a very high rate of transmission when left unchecked. It is also somewhat fascinating that it has such a wide range of clinical presentation hallmarked by a long incubation period of high transmission with people having no symptoms.
Positivity rates are through the roof in areas of Arizona, Texas, and Florida specifically. Trying to cite misguided and outdated information about presumed positive and clumping PCR and serology results together to downplay the significance doesn't go very far for those that have lost children, loved ones or explain away those high positivity rates, ordering refrigerated trucks because local morgues can no longer handle all the dead bodies, or making plans to have field hospitals set up.
We are where we are today largely due to the most powerful individuals trying to downplay the significance, give out distorted and misguided information in order to make things look better than they really were. Time to stop trying to make 2+2=10 and face reality on the ground.
People need to start listening to their public health experts and doing their part to bring the transmission rate down & taking proper precautions.
* Freedom has a taste the protected will never know *
Blogs & Forums
