COVID-19: Chapter 10 - Mission Achomlished!

[j8i3h289dn3x7]

@amead

The best way to know whether cases are rising or falling isn’t with testing numbers, but simply by reading this thread.

The more esoteric the squabbles the safer it is to lick your coworkers.

Looks licking season draws near!

@bestof

[CaffeineNeeded]

@JohnnyTruant

Read the post above the last one. More than that, why don’t you give me one source anywhere that says testing numbers are accurate. That is what you contend, correct? Just want to be clear here. You think that the numbers in nyc for cases are accurate?

The claim is that vaccinated are more likely to have an unreported case. It is not that testing numbers are ‘accurate’ (which is essentially a meaningless statement). You understood that in your previous post… for some reason the bar has suddenly changed.

Your citation does not support that claim.

If you feel differently, you can quote the part that supports that claim.

[Trolly]

@JohnnyTruant

You misspelled Caffeine needed.

Church is also posting charts with case numbers. If it’s all bullshit then we have to disregard whatever it is he’s driving at.

@j8i3h289dn3x7

Shows that cases have fallen in NY 74 percent off their peak. Is testing capturing all cases? No. Was testing capturing all cases at the peak? No. Are cases down 74 percent from the peak? In the absence of other actual evidence, sure looks like it to me.

This is a good example of how data that have systematic errors can still be useful. Like, we can agree that many asymptomatic people are being undercounted and still conclude that cases are dropping.

[CaffeineNeeded]

@JohnnyTruant

I also think it is obvious that the original claim forwarded by CN, that doesn’t provide citation, is fatally flawed.

JT can you quote the ‘original claim’ that you’re referring to here?

[CaffeineNeeded]

@JohnnyTruant

So on topic, do you think that CN and Wookie are correct that mild and asymptomatic cases are captured and counted as consistently as more severe cases? They do.

Neither wookie or I have said this. It’s frankly dishonest to say this tbh.

@JohnnyTruant

CN think that because vaccinated people are more consciousness they are more likely to test and make sure it is counted in reports so that probably trues it up.

This frankly, is a lie. Stop.

[j8i3h289dn3x7]

@JohnnyTruant

wasn’t involved in that discussion and still am not.

Well maybe you should scroll up, because that was indeed, what the conversation was originally about.

[j8i3h289dn3x7]

@JohnnyTruant

So on topic, do you think that CN and Wookie are correct that mild and asymptomatic cases are captured and counted as consistently as more severe cases? They do.

No, they don’t. They don’t know just like you don’t know. You can’t prove this by “thinking about it.”

[CaffeineNeeded]

gmafb. The data I provided is cited. Churchill’s claim was that there was a bias in that data that remains wholly unsupported.

[j8i3h289dn3x7]

I mean you weirdly left out the entire exchange between Churchill and I in the middle of that, but sure JT, feel free to jump in with the last word here, as this argument is assinine at this point.

[anon38180840]

If anything, it’s more likely that cases were being missed at a higher rate at the peak, which means you’re even more than 74% off the peak.

[CaffeineNeeded]

Your citation does not support your assertion. Furthermore, it refers to March 2020 guidelines when there basically was no testing and is nothing close to true now.

Feel free to try again, but it sure seems like you have no idea what you are talking about.

Again, you need to support the claim that vaccinated individuals are less likely to show up in case counts.

[j8i3h289dn3x7]

@anon38180840

If anything, it’s more likely that cases were being missed at a higher rate at the peak, which means you’re even more than 74% off the peak.

Yeah, I agree.

[CaffeineNeeded]

@JohnnyTruant

So you think that testing is more complete now than it was then?

I know. I literally was a frontline doctor in March 2020 in NYC JT. We only tested admitted people and it took 1-2 weeks to get tests back. That’s not the case today.

@JohnnyTruant

It supports the exact thing me, and church said.

It does not, and it’d be irrelevant if it did. It’s not March 2020.

Again, please support the assertion that current numbers of NYC are signficaitnly distorted by relative testing differences between the vaccinated and unvaccinated.

[otatop]

I understand some of the confusion because churchill originally replied to CN’s post about vaccines being efficient specifically in NYC, but he also received pushback from saying

@Churchill

We’re told no need for PCR after postive LFT, hence the case numbers, based off PCR only have dropped a little

This is from Santa Clara County and their recommendations seem like they would lead to an underreporting of cases as churchill claimed in the quote above

Do not get a PCR test if:

• You’ve tested positive in the last 90 days.
• You have already tested positive with a rapid home test.
• You need a negative test to end isolation early (for that, use a rapid home/antigen test).

NYC has totally different testing recommendations so their case numbers are probably more accurate than places like Santa Clara County.

[CaffeineNeeded]

@JohnnyTruant

It was not an about what was happening in march of 2020, it was about how captured testing is heavily skewed toward more severe cases, and that mild and asymptomatic cases are skewed toward not being captured.

Great! Also not what was cited!

Also it specifically references March 2020, when this effect was the worst. You have no idea what you’re talking about and are clearly here to stir up shit and nothing more. Bye.

[CaffeineNeeded]

JT you can keep tried to rework that into a citation that supports churchill, but it just doesn’t. It’s not going to work. Vaccination continues to protect people from infection, hospitalization, and death.

[anon38180840]

A new variant arrives, cases shoot up, it peaks, they drop. This is true regardless of whether your theory is correct or not. Surely we can all agree on this part, right?

Now, what you and CN and jman seem to be arguing about is whether tons of vaccinated mild cases are being missed. But in a general sense it doesn’t matter. Unless you’ve got some theory for why the cases being missed would be different on the upside or at the peak than on the downside, so different that it would meaningfully change the shape of the curve, then it doesn’t matter.

I haven’t seen anyone even theorize about that, so in a general sense, cases went up, they peaked, they’re coming down. Unless something changed drastically in the last few weeks, that seems pretty hard to dispute.

Now, if you were arguing about a certain threshold to scale back personal precautions based on nominal case numbers relative to summer 2021 or winter 2020-21 or spring 2021, that might be a different story.

I think you can logically argue both sides and while I’m comfortable saying we’re missing a ton of cases I’m not comfortable saying we’re missing more than at one of those prior key points in the pandemic. We may be missing them for different reasons though, and that probably has an impact on what conclusions we should draw.

[CaffeineNeeded]

@JohnnyTruant

But the other thing you are claiming, the one I disagree with, that vaccinated positives are not more likely to go uncounted than unvaxxed, is not.

Cool, I never said that. I’m sure this will be the end of it instead of another 5 paragraph post titled - how jt doesn’t understand how the null hypothesis works in scientific discussion.

[anon38180840]

You’re arguing with several people over whether we are missing a higher proportion of vaccinated cases than unvaccinated. Both sides have logical reasons to support their assertions, but it’s impossible to know for sure either way.

My post is an attempt to tie it back in to some sort of tangible way it matters, because I don’t see the point in arguing over case numbers just to argue. The case numbers are able to help us draw general conclusions about the situation and adjust accordingly with our personal choices. If your point ultimately leads to saying we should add some multiplier relative to past numbers in order to normalize them for those decisions, well, aren’t we just going to be making a wild ass guess?

I’m also not close to definitively convinced we’re missing more cases in vaxxed than unvaxxed people. But there’s no way of knowing right now, so to each their own on that I guess.

[CaffeineNeeded]

I support the null hypothesis. This is how scientific discussion works. You need to positively prove a claim. It’s not up to me disprove whatever nonsense you claim.