HealingWell
Search Close Search
☰

Sorry, but another COVID post--disturbing Interview

Support Forums
>
Prostate Cancer
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
12
❬ ❬ Previous Thread |Next Thread ❭ ❭
Posted 4/26/2020 4:53 PM (GMT -5)
On Meet The Press, they interviewed a guy with a good pedigree (Dir. or Head of Infectious Diseases at Univ. of Minn., as I recall).
Anyway, no politics. He just gave us the scoop as he saw it.

1) We are not close to climbing that mountain. He predicts 16-18 more months.

2) Far worse, the FDA has given up their overseer capacity As a result, we have many really CRAPPY
virus tests out there. Many FALSE POSITIVES.

I was very disappointed that neither Chuck Todd nor his panel followed up on that. But, think about that. We keep hearing that so many people test positive but have no symptoms. That gives us some hope. Well, think about it. Maybe no symptoms because the test was flawed. Prat-- that would make your neighbor happy.

Meanwhile folks, enjoy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPDPzbLFeP4

Mel
Posted 4/26/2020 5:48 PM (GMT -5)

Sure-fire, powerful treatments, in combination with an effective vaccine --- will be a GODSEND, looking to the future.

We need to find the proven, magic elixer that will deliver the KNOCKOUT punch, in this boxing match.

Speed the plow & burn the midnight oil in the laboratory, researchers! You are our heroes and heroines, along with all our frontline workers!

Stay safe and sound, one & all !

CYCLONE - # Iowa State University (Hoping There's A Fall Sports Season!)
Posted 4/26/2020 5:57 PM (GMT -5)
Mel, re FDA, he (?) is right. There are over 100 tests for COVID - 19 antibodies. Only 4 have been validated by the FDA, to date. The rest are being marketed with permission from the FDA, based on the companies that make the tests reporting to the FDA on self-validation. A total crapshow. Very worrisome.
Posted 4/26/2020 6:27 PM (GMT -5)
U.S. is ****ed.
Posted 4/26/2020 7:52 PM (GMT -5)
Michael Osterholm, PhD, has been around Minnesota for a long time and likes to talk. He was with the Department of Health for many years. I sort of like him and he is pretty well know in his field but I always take what he says with a grain of salt. He may be right or he may not, time will tell and he will talk a lot between now and then.
Posted 4/27/2020 4:50 AM (GMT -5)
Summary statement #1 is true. Covid-19 is going to be around for a while--'flattening the curve' does not mean no more infections, it means that the rate becomes manageable.

Summary statement #2 is only sort-of true (spin). The FDA has not given up. They have given provisional approval to some tests in the name of expediency. Those who hate the FDA and think it's a pointless bureaucracy will use language like 'failed' and 'given up'. Those who actually understand what they do and respect their role will point out that their own system (mandated by law, by the way) is not designed to work instantly to approve new things--provisional approvals happen all the time while the evidence comes in. Sometimes those provisional approvals become permanent, sometimes they are taken away. Evidence takes time--and news reports and opinion pieces shouting about the failures are not useful. If there was a time for the media to actually take the time to explain how science works, rather than blaring headlines about the (by definition) provisional nature of the enterprise and the search for truth amid all the fluff, that time is now.

Here's one layman's description of how science works:

Science is a building built on quicksand. Think about a tower that is constantly under construction. Structure is constantly being added on top...and when it starts to get unstable, more pilings are driven below to hold it up. They will never hit bedrock---but in some cases they are close--and they will never stop building new wings and new, ever more fanciful details on top. There are places where the architecture has changed, the styles have changed, dead ends have been reached and been chopped off and allowed to fall into the muck below.
Posted 4/27/2020 9:56 AM (GMT -5)
Halbert:

Thanks for your good, thoughtful response. However, the most important part of my post was the assertion that so many of the tests are crap (due to the relaxation of FDA standards). As a result, and this is my opinion, it would seem that the conclusion that so many folks with the Virus have little or no symptoms is specious. That is disturbing/disappointing information as one would like to think that testing positive might still result in no ill effects. On the other hand, having fewer people with the virus is good for public health.

Anyway, the guy was impressive, he has a high-ranking title, seemed to know his stuff, and seemed to not shade his answers for political reasons.

Mel
Posted 4/27/2020 10:39 AM (GMT -5)
I'm not a retired math professor or anything, but if the actual rate of infection in the population is 2% and an antibody test has a false positive rate of 4%, you have twice the number of people mistakenly thinking they had the disease vs people that actually had it. OTOH, if the actual rate of infection in the population is 10%, now only a minority of those with a positive antibody test have a mistaken result. (Although the absolute number of false positives is the same.)

Assuming that there's a low incidence of really true people that have already had the disease, then it's super important that the antibody tests to be *really* accurate if they are to have any benefit.
Posted 4/27/2020 11:00 AM (GMT -5)
Oh, I agree that crap tests are (almost) as bad as no test. I was more reflecting on the willingness to choose language that denigrates (that creates headlines) than use language that is measured. And, people being people, making headlines to get one's 15 minutes of fame is pretty darned common.
Posted 4/27/2020 12:11 PM (GMT -5)
Michael/Halbert

Well, we don't know what the false positive rate is, do we? Also, there are many tests now out there.
I
heard about 100 different tests. I hope there's a way to delineate the good accurate tests and throw away the crap.

Real bad information is worse than no info.

I hope the expert was just being over-dramatic. My gut says no.

Mel
Posted 4/27/2020 12:40 PM (GMT -5)
Mel, I know that for some medical tests they publish numbers for sensitivity (true positive rate) and specificity (true negative rate). I have no idea how they determine those numbers and given that in this case the antibody tests are being rushed out, I'm sure you're correct that we have no idea what the false positive rate.

The point I was trying to make was that in a (presumably) low incidence rate situation like covid-19, those numbers matter more than ever. So yes...it's very likely that there's bad information out there.

On a personal level, I've been interested in an antibody test since I spent 3-4 weeks with a dry cough in late March and early April and I've always wondered if I had a mild case of covid-19. But I have no plans to do it since I wouldn't be able to trust the results.
Posted 4/27/2020 12:44 PM (GMT -5)
And never mind the uncertainty about whether the presence of antibodies actually indicates immunity--which has been an ominous warning from overseas....
Posted 4/27/2020 1:13 PM (GMT -5)
"And never mind the uncertainty about whether the presence of antibodies actually indicates immunity--which has been an ominous warning from overseas...."

To me that's the most critical piece of missing information. We have seen the reports of re-infections. If that is true, it's big trouble. If low or partial immunity ends up being true, this virus could be menacing us for many, many years.
Posted 4/27/2020 9:18 PM (GMT -5)
Not a medical expert but an analytical chemist
Familiar with developing and validating tests. If the test is to be widely used validating is a time consuming process. Can take months. So preliminary approval makes sense while at the same time validating. If there are a hundred different test out there that seem a bit much. And should be narrowed down drastically.
Just my 2 cents
Oh also just cause you have antibodies it does not mean you are not contageous
Again not an expert
Posted 4/27/2020 9:29 PM (GMT -5)
It is my understanding:

If you have antibodies, it means you were exposed to the virus.
That's it.

Are you now immune? We don't know yet.

Mel
Posted 4/28/2020 2:48 AM (GMT -5)
And finding out you don't have the virus doesn't mean a lot if you get infected on the way home from the test...
Posted 4/28/2020 3:20 PM (GMT -5)
All the misleading mathematical models, broad initial assumptions usually based on questionable data, well meaning investigations, unregulated tests, and major questions begging unequivocal answers, lead me to believe we are going to need a lot of LUCK, or some divine intervention.
Posted 4/29/2020 9:26 PM (GMT -5)

Steve n Dallas said...
And finding out you don't have the virus doesn't mean a lot if you get infected on the way home from the test...

Or in the lab getting tested. People, for goodness sakes, even though it is hardly mentioned except by maniacs/demoniacs like myself, find out what you can do to boost your immune system and do it!
Posted 5/1/2020 9:13 AM (GMT -5)
No offense intended.
Just a small correction, not "mathematical models", they are statistical models.

Mathematics is more of an exact science,
but statistics is more educated guess work based on models.
Posted 5/1/2020 10:31 AM (GMT -5)

alephnull said...
No offense intended.
Just a small correction, not "mathematical models", they are statistical models.

Mathematics is more of an exact science,
but statistics is more educated guess work based on models.

Is that why it is said "Figures never lie, but liars often figure?"
Posted 5/1/2020 10:46 AM (GMT -5)
Unfortunately, epidemiology IS all about statistical models. And, as most of us in this forum understand, statistics don't mean a lot as applied to individuals.

One of the more interesting statistical models out there that I suspect we will be hearing a lot more about is called something like deaths above typical. Which is a way to attribute the true death rate of a pandemic. Basically, they look at the average death rate for a region in a particular average year or part of year. Then they eliminate the obvious discrepancies (are there fewer deaths by car wreck now than average), and then say, OK, we've had X number of additional deaths in the last month that we would in an average April. Therefore, we can attribute those extra deaths to the pandemic.

Good? Bad? Valuable? Who knows?
Posted 5/1/2020 11:04 AM (GMT -5)
Halbert...that's potentially the case here in California. Just finished reading an article in the LA Times about the significant gap between the number of covid-19 deaths and deaths from all causes so far in 2020. The preliminary data suggests that the actual death rate could be 3X higher based on the number of "excess" deaths.
Posted 5/1/2020 2:49 PM (GMT -5)

alephnull said...
No offense intended.
Just a small correction, not "mathematical models", they are statistical models.

Mathematics is more of an exact science,
but statistics is more educated guess work based on models.

What were the odds alephnull was going to comment on that? Are we looking for statistical chance? Or was it a mathematical certainty?
Posted 5/1/2020 11:05 PM (GMT -5)
I will say one thing for ya...Compiler...your health...upbeat attitude...and complete persona...seems to have done a complete 180 to where you were not that long ago...congrats on that...who or what do you thank for that...mercy...good on ya... Im kinda thinken this will not be replied to( not sure why maybe the senior sailor will explain}...oh me of little faith...As Art Linkletter said wisely..." people are funny


sorry " I paints what I sees "...Gahan Wilson
Posted 5/1/2020 11:15 PM (GMT -5)
Ahh...Go Bucks...the man who plays Bingo...was it an outing you were going for...or just good fun playing inside...yep tiz a puzzlement...go for the gold...who was the referent from which the sap oozed with out sticken due to innocent of intent...>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>yep that's another whisper of soul...

I got your back. Island Time...whether you like it or not ...lol..
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
12