I'm actually surprised that the positive rate isn't higher. Why would you get tested if you weren't showing symptoms or part of contact tracing?
A lot of medical workers and some other jobs get tested regularly and they are included in the total.
I'm actually surprised that the positive rate isn't higher. Why would you get tested if you weren't showing symptoms or part of contact tracing?
Might help with social distancing
Seriously, a creative way to test for coronavirus
Might help with social distancing
Seriously, a creative way to test for coronavirus
Testing wastewater has been going on for quite awhile including here in the Midwest. But most times it’s not really being used to drive decisions. They are doing it more extensively with better focused goals in Europe.
Something like this probably only works in dense housing like large apartment complexes and dorms.
So the big spike seems to be a result of changing testing and tabulations. They decided they now want to include antigen tests, which dont even detect the virus. Much less reliable tests but sure why not change now.
#putbrockinabubbleThe Big 12 will be using those same antigen tests every Friday morning to determine if players will suit up on Saturday, along with the deep nasal cavity tests during the week. If it’s good enough for the Big 12 to make the final determination of who play on Saturdays, I don’t see why you wouldn’t include cases identified using that method in the numbers.
You are right that it is more likely to miss cases than the traditional test, so it may decrease the %positivity rate slightly. We are dealing with large amounts of data, none of which is perfect. Doesn’t make sense not to include thw results from that method especially as the medical experts in the Big 12 have deemed it reliable enough to use to make final game day decisions.
The Big 12 will be using those same antigen tests every Friday morning to determine if players will suit up on Saturday, along with the deep nasal cavity tests during the week. If it’s good enough for the Big 12 to make the final determination of who play on Saturdays, I don’t see why you wouldn’t include cases identified using that method in the numbers.
You are right that it is more likely to miss cases than the traditional test, so it may decrease the %positivity rate slightly. We are dealing with large amounts of data, none of which is perfect. Doesn’t make sense not to include thw results from that method especially as the medical experts in the Big 12 have deemed it reliable enough to use to make final game day decisions.
#putbrockinabubble
It's a way more inaccurate test with lots of false positives. So I guess we'll test the teams depth. But it's very disingenuous to claim some new spike when all you've done is change the reporting. Again.
Yay Iowa!
![]()
Ames, Iowa City COVID Outbreaks Are Worst In The World
Iowa's exploding COVID-19 outbreaks at state universities in Ames and Iowa City are now disasters that can only be fully measured on a global scale. Amesiowastartingline.com
![]()
University of Alabama has 1,200 students who have tested positive for Covid-19 | CNN
More than 1,000 students at the University of Alabama have tested positive for Covid-19 since classes resumed on the Tuscaloosa campus less than two weeks ago, according to the University of Alabama System.amp.cnn.com
Yay Iowa!
![]()
Ames, Iowa City COVID Outbreaks Are Worst In The World
Iowa's exploding COVID-19 outbreaks at state universities in Ames and Iowa City are now disasters that can only be fully measured on a global scale. Amesiowastartingline.com
The 7 day and 14 day trends will always be more accurate than individual day trends. That’s what people should focus most on.
But since you also want to argue a position that you are concerned these tests could lead to false positives being accounted for - it’s well established now that the swab test misses around 10% of infections - I assume you think we should be bumping up the positive numbers by 10% on these tests to account for that inaccuracy, right?
Personally, I think any time you deal with large amounts of data like this there will always be variability, and that is expected. Best practice is to simply report the data as accurately and transparently as possible. In this case the best measure we have is the actual numbers of positive tests and total tests. You don’t ignore numbers because you don’t like them or can get them to account for the variability in accuracy - it’s understood that is part of the data set you are working with.