Erie County Dept. of Health Warning Fans Who Plan on Attending the Miami Game

[Geo in Pa]

6 hours ago, BeerLeagueHockey said:

I'm glad the unwashed masses are not allowed to think for themselves.  Go Erie County Department of Health, they are the real undefeated heroes!

Unfortunately the unwashed masses are idiots. 

[BullBuchanan]

45 minutes ago, billspro said:

In Canada the tests are required to have a minimum of 90% sensitivity and 95% specificity. I’m sure most of them are better than that. Those are very accurate numbers for a medical test. 
 

I didn’t say anything incorrect. All I said is the COVID test is a snapshot in time. If you have tested positive before and it is now negative that means you have immunity (this can be partial or full). If you test negative you are likely negative at that moment. You could have had it previously or you could still get it. If you get exposed to any virus you can get it multiple times. Whether you have had a previous exposure or a vaccine hopefully it will be much less severe the second/third/fourth time etc. False negative exist, it’s probably around 5%.  You were the one that said 99%, I just said 99% would be very good. Anything over 90% is actually good for a medical test and it improves when you factor symptoms in. 

 

5 hours ago, billspro said:

This is true. It’s statistically insignificant. 

 

2 hours ago, billspro said:

Of course people with a false negative can spread it. If you have a false negative it means your positive. It just doesn’t happen frequently enough to worry about. Unless the goal is to bring COVID transmission to 0%, which does not seem realistic to me. 
 

You can get any disease more than once. You can also get COVID if you have a vaccine to it. It just means your immune system will be more prepared and you are more likely to be asymptomatic. This is basic immunology and if you haven’t taken a course you shouldn’t talk about COVID online imo.

 

You said that false positives were statistically insignificant which I supplied a ton of data to counter and you continue to just say it without any evidence at all. I never said 99%, I said at 99% it would still be awful and the china test had somewhere between 93% and 60% depending. You were the one that made claim to it and then edited your post. Perhaps it was missing context, which is fine.

Simply put: The data suggests there is reason to believe tests are inaccurate to a very statistically significant level, meaning that just because you tested negative does not mean you don't have it and just because you tested positive and now tested negative does not mean that you had it. Additionally, previously having COVID does not mean you are immune. There is very likely a statistically significant portion of the population that think they are immune because they had a false positive COVID test and later had a false one. There is likewise  very likely a statistically significant portion of the population that has had a false negative and has infected others.

I'm not saying this to change behavior, it's just the facts based on the data that exists. Do with it what you will.

Edited September 14, 2020 by BullBuchanan

[Hapless Bills Fan]

31 minutes ago, billspro said:

That’s all correct. The article doesn’t say anything about when a COVID test can pick the disease. Which would likely be in the presymptomatic phase before the symptomatic phase. So it should be earlier than 12 days. 

 

So if you get a test at day 12, and it takes 24 hrs to return results which is super-good timing...you can leave 1 day early?  ✨🎉🎈

 

If you look at the linked article, 12 days is 97.5% of the eventual positives, 14 days is 99%.  That's where 14 days came from  🤷‍♂️

[Hapless Bills Fan]

22 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

You said that false positives were statistically insignificant which I supplied a ton of data to counter and you continue to just say it without any evidence at all. I never said 99%, I said at 99% it would still be awful and the china test had somewhere between 93% and 60% depending. You were the one that made claim to it and then edited your post. Perhaps it was missing context, which is fine.

Simply put: The data suggests there is reason to believe tests are inaccurate to a very statistically significant level, meaning that just because you tested negative does not mean you don't have it and just because you tested positive and now tested negative does not mean that you had it. Additionally, previously having COVID does not mean you are immune. There is very likely a statistically significant portion of the population that think they are immune because they had a false positive COVID test and later had a false one. There is likewise  very likely a statistically significant portion of the population that has had a false negative and has infected others.

I'm not saying this to change behavior, it's just the facts based on the data that exists. Do with it what you will.

 

Not to butt in but (see what I did there?) there's a distinction that may be worth noting between the sensitivity measured by the test developer and the observed "false negative" rate in clinical use. 

 

The measured sensitivity during test development asks "if you give me 100 known positive samples, how many of them does my test correctly identify?"   This is the number which @billspro mentions as required to be >95% for approval in Canada, and for covid-19 RT-PCR is closer to 98-99% for most of the major test companies' covid tests).

The negative tests observed on patients who eventually have clinical symptoms/test positive, are a different kettle of fish - they have to do with factors I mentioned elsewhere including the quality of the swab taken, whether the virus is in the upper respiratory tract or has moved elsewhere, time elapsed between sample collection and testing, days since exposure.  These have little to do with the quality of the test. 

 

Tieing this back to the OP and subsequent, the key take home point is a negative test at one point in time does not take the place of a quarantine, because a negative test on a given day post-travel does not mean one has not been infected and won't eventually test positive or develop symptoms.   Thus the quarantine thing.

 

3 hours ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

If you had it,  you should have Antibodies which can be verified.  If you donate blood at the Red Cross they will test for Antibodies  

Kind of like a free test.  After a period of time you no longer spread it. 

 

I do not believe a negative test says you were ever exposed to it.  It just means you don't have it.

If Hap tells me I am wrong, I will believe her as she is in the field of medicine

 

That is correct.   A negative diagnostic RT-PCR test for covid-19 says you don't have enough Sars-CoV-19 RNA to detect in whatever area was tested (usually nasopharynx, upper respiratory - sometimes nose or saliva) at the moment. 

 

It says nothing whatsoever about prior exposure to covid-19 or about immunity to covid-19.

[BullBuchanan]

26 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Not to butt in but (see what I did there?) there's a distinction that may be worth noting between the sensitivity measured by the test developer and the observed "false negative" rate in clinical use. 

 

The measured sensitivity during test development asks "if you give me 100 known positive samples, how many of them does my test correctly identify?"   This is the number which @billspro mentions as required to be >95% for approval in Canada, and for covid-19 RT-PCR is closer to 98-99% for most of the major test companies' covid tests).

The negative tests observed on patients who eventually have clinical symptoms/test positive, are a different kettle of fish - they have to do with factors I mentioned elsewhere including the quality of the swab taken, whether the virus is in the upper respiratory tract or has moved elsewhere, time elapsed between sample collection and testing, days since exposure.  These have little to do with the quality of the test. 

 

Tieing this back to the OP and subsequent, the key take home point is a negative test at one point in time does not take the place of a quarantine, because a negative test on a given day post-travel does not mean one has not been infected and won't eventually test positive or develop symptoms.   Thus the quarantine thing.

 

 

That is correct.   A negative diagnostic RT-PCR test for covid-19 says you don't have enough Sars-CoV-19 RNA to detect in whatever area was tested (usually nasopharynx, upper respiratory - sometimes nose or saliva) at the moment. 

 

It says nothing whatsoever about prior exposure to covid-19 or about immunity to covid-19.

That's certainly great info. Thanks.

[JMF2006]

8 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Like Canada?  No foreign nationals allowed in. 

 

Miami-Dade, in a state that doesn't have any quarantine policy, is now the county with the second highest number of Covid positives in the country. 

 

 

They have 4 airports in Canada accepting foreign flights,Toronto,Vancouver Montreal and Calgary.

 

They have confirmed cases in Brampton and Toronto traced to people getting off said flights and not quarantining.

 

They don't want the truth out about who is spreading it.

[Chaos]

10 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

Like it or not, the 14 day quarantine is NYS law, so, Fair.

 

Unstated but a point is that pretty sure NY would like to see Erie and adjacent counties where most of the fans are from, drop to a positivity rate of 0.5% with no active cluster outbreaks to have fans at the game (this is a guess based on messing with the Georgia Tech Covid Probability tool). 

 

Go to Miami, party up, come home with the Covid-19 and share, won’t help that goal.

Did the legislature pass a law? Or is this an executive fiat?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

9 minutes ago, Chaos said:

Did the legislature pass a law? Or is this an executive fiat?

 

It is an executive order.  I leave it to the lawyers in the group to explain whether or not EOs have the force of law and the legal perspective on the difference.

Or not, since said discussion is probably beyond the scope of the group.

[fansince88]

3 hours ago, Gugny said:

 

My apologies.  I am also essential, but my company won't allow any travel to "bad states," without doing the 14-day quarantine when returning to New York.  I thought they were following the NYS rules/guidelines, but it seems that they're company guidelines.

 

Be well.

 

 

 

[Chaos]

1 minute ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

It is an executive order.  I leave it to the lawyers in the group to explain whether or not EOs have the force of law and the legal perspective on the difference.

Or not, since said discussion is probably beyond the scope of the group.

I don't live in NY. Not sure I have any reason to think NY decision makers are smarter than MO. decision makers.  Seems like different states have different opinions on the balance of freedom/liberty/safety. Not sure any one opinion on that balance is the "correct" one. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Just now, Chaos said:

I don't live in NY. Not sure I have any reason to think NY decision makers are smarter than MO. decision makers.  Seems like different states have different opinions on the balance of freedom/liberty/safety. Not sure any one opinion on that balance is the "correct" one. 

 

Well, living in MO I have a strong opinion on that one, but “Somewhere Else, Not Here” is the place to discuss it.

[T&C]

Trip to the fins game heads up... and we are now here. 

[ItsAhardKnoxLife]

9 hours ago, Mr Info said:

My parents, who live in NY recently returned from a trip to MN. However, they connected from MSP to BUF through the Detroit airport. MN was on NYS restricted list but MI was not. When my parents filled out the NYS paper form (they are not esavvy) they indicated MI as their point of entry. This was true and they were not trying to be sneaky. That resulted in no quarantine on their re-entry to NY. 

Had a very similar situation 

[RiotAct]

14 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

It is an executive order.  I leave it to the lawyers in the group to explain whether or not EOs have the force of law and the legal perspective on the difference.

Or not, since said discussion is probably beyond the scope of the group.

hold my beer...

[ziltoid]

Just now, RiotAct said:

hold my beer...

I am interested in your opinion, and I am also interested in how long your opinion will be allowed to be posted.

[RiotAct]

Juuuuust kidding. I have no clue.  Although, I’m sure the executive order will only be in place as long as necessary.

[ziltoid]

Just now, RiotAct said:

Juuuuust kidding. I have no clue.  Although, I’m sure the executive order will only be in place as long as necessary.

2 weeks will do it!  

[ItsAhardKnoxLife]

1 minute ago, RiotAct said:

Juuuuust kidding. I have no clue.  Although, I’m sure the executive order will only be in place as long as necessary.

I'm just worried about who's deciding how long necessary is...

[Mr. WEO]

3 minutes ago, ItsAhardKnoxLife said:

I'm just worried about who's deciding how long necessary is...

 

 

It's the Governor.  This isn't mysterious.

[Green Lightning]

Just drive.