Anonymous
08/28/2021 11:18
Subject: Now testing is opt-out, not opt-in
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Does anyone have a source on the false positive rate for these tests? Genuine question. There are lots of anecdotes like rice university, and the two “fleeting contact” people in the Australia outbreak, but is there any robust data on it?
It's not enough for you that a DCUM poster saw it on FB or heard about it on another forum? You want "DATA"!!!???
Kidding of course. Welcome to the DCUM echo chamber.
Research/explanation/support from experts has been provided already on this thread, and on the linked thread. People just don’t bother to read a thread.
The article quoted as research support is based on data from last April, prior to Delta. You'd need to take into account the much higher contagion rate of delta, which would negate some of her statements about transmissibility.
Additionally, the research does not refer to the particular test being given and its false positive rate. You have to assume there might have been advances in both the testing itself and the accuracy of the false negative or positive measurements. I want to know what exactly those rates are for that test specifically.
The article mentions a "saliva PCR" test, which is what DCPS is using.
Anonymous
08/28/2021 11:17
Subject: Now testing is opt-out, not opt-in
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Does anyone have a source on the false positive rate for these tests? Genuine question. There are lots of anecdotes like rice university, and the two “fleeting contact” people in the Australia outbreak, but is there any robust data on it?
It's not enough for you that a DCUM poster saw it on FB or heard about it on another forum? You want "DATA"!!!???
Kidding of course. Welcome to the DCUM echo chamber.
Research/explanation/support from experts has been provided already on this thread, and on the linked thread. People just don’t bother to read a thread.
The article quoted as research support is based on data from last April, prior to Delta. You'd need to take into account the much higher contagion rate of delta, which would negate some of her statements about transmissibility.
As predicted, this was the response. You haven't understood the article, and have just parroted the same "all research prior to delta is unimportant." Please tell me how delta breaks math.
Sigh. Transmissibility isn't pertinent to the MATH of the false positive rate. As was already explained upthread, the current case rate is similar to the one quoted in the article.
Anonymous
08/28/2021 10:31
Subject: Now testing is opt-out, not opt-in
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Does anyone have a source on the false positive rate for these tests? Genuine question. There are lots of anecdotes like rice university, and the two “fleeting contact” people in the Australia outbreak, but is there any robust data on it?
It's not enough for you that a DCUM poster saw it on FB or heard about it on another forum? You want "DATA"!!!???
Kidding of course. Welcome to the DCUM echo chamber.
Research/explanation/support from experts has been provided already on this thread, and on the linked thread. People just don’t bother to read a thread.
The article quoted as research support is based on data from last April, prior to Delta. You'd need to take into account the much higher contagion rate of delta, which would negate some of her statements about transmissibility.
Additionally, the research does not refer to the particular test being given and its false positive rate. You have to assume there might have been advances in both the testing itself and the accuracy of the false negative or positive measurements. I want to know what exactly those rates are for that test specifically.
Anonymous
08/28/2021 10:29
Subject: Now testing is opt-out, not opt-in
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Does anyone have a source on the false positive rate for these tests? Genuine question. There are lots of anecdotes like rice university, and the two “fleeting contact” people in the Australia outbreak, but is there any robust data on it?
It's not enough for you that a DCUM poster saw it on FB or heard about it on another forum? You want "DATA"!!!???
Kidding of course. Welcome to the DCUM echo chamber.
Research/explanation/support from experts has been provided already on this thread, and on the linked thread. People just don’t bother to read a thread.
The article quoted as research support is based on data from last April, prior to Delta. You'd need to take into account the much higher contagion rate of delta, which would negate some of her statements about transmissibility.
Anonymous
08/28/2021 09:16
Subject: Now testing is opt-out, not opt-in
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Not sure what the new form looks like but I plan to opt out my vaccinated student. I will keep my child home if they are symptomatic and we will handle testing. There is no legit reason to do screening testing on an asymptomatic vaccinated student in a school environment where everyone has the option of getting vaccinated. And I'm not risking the possibility that a false positive will derail my child's education.
I also happen to think the "opt out" model is illegal and the school district has no business doing medical testing on my child without my consent.
It’s not meant for vaccinated students.
“ Participating schools will aim to test a random sample of 10-20% of asymptomatic students, targeting unvaccinated students.”
I wonder how they are going to figure out how to target unvaccinated students given DCPS is not going to ask for status from anyone. Maybe it means that more effort will go into the testing programs at the ES school and up to 7th grade. I hope so.
Because the vaccinated students should opt-out. As the opt-out form says, DOH recommends the asymptomatic testing for *unvaccinated* individuals.
Anonymous
08/28/2021 09:08
Subject: Now testing is opt-out, not opt-in
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Does anyone have a source on the false positive rate for these tests? Genuine question. There are lots of anecdotes like rice university, and the two “fleeting contact” people in the Australia outbreak, but is there any robust data on it?
It's not enough for you that a DCUM poster saw it on FB or heard about it on another forum? You want "DATA"!!!???
Kidding of course. Welcome to the DCUM echo chamber.
Research/explanation/support from experts has been provided already on this thread, and on the linked thread. People just don’t bother to read a thread.
Anonymous
08/28/2021 08:36
Subject: Now testing is opt-out, not opt-in
Anonymous wrote:Does anyone have a source on the false positive rate for these tests? Genuine question. There are lots of anecdotes like rice university, and the two “fleeting contact” people in the Australia outbreak, but is there any robust data on it?
It's not enough for you that a DCUM poster saw it on FB or heard about it on another forum? You want "DATA"!!!???
Kidding of course. Welcome to the DCUM echo chamber.
Anonymous
08/28/2021 08:34
Subject: Now testing is opt-out, not opt-in
Anonymous wrote:Not sure what the new form looks like but I plan to opt out my vaccinated student. I will keep my child home if they are symptomatic and we will handle testing. There is no legit reason to do screening testing on an asymptomatic vaccinated student in a school environment where everyone has the option of getting vaccinated. And I'm not risking the possibility that a false positive will derail my child's education.
I also happen to think the "opt out" model is illegal and the school district has no business doing medical testing on my child without my consent.
You have the right to opt out. But the bolded above is a silly statement. There are of course legitimate reasons to do random testing on vaccinated people. #1 is the increased prevalence of breakthrough cases of the Delta variant. #2 is that people are contagious before they are symptomatic. So by the time your kids has symptoms they would already have potentially spread Covid creating a possible outbreak.
Just because you say or type something with conviction does not make it so.
Anonymous
08/28/2021 08:02
Subject: Now testing is opt-out, not opt-in
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Not sure what the new form looks like but I plan to opt out my vaccinated student. I will keep my child home if they are symptomatic and we will handle testing. There is no legit reason to do screening testing on an asymptomatic vaccinated student in a school environment where everyone has the option of getting vaccinated. And I'm not risking the possibility that a false positive will derail my child's education.
I also happen to think the "opt out" model is illegal and the school district has no business doing medical testing on my child without my consent.
It’s not meant for vaccinated students.
“ Participating schools will aim to test a random sample of 10-20% of asymptomatic students, targeting unvaccinated students.”
I wonder how they are going to figure out how to target unvaccinated students given DCPS is not going to ask for status from anyone. Maybe it means that more effort will go into the testing programs at the ES school and up to 7th grade. I hope so.
If they do 20% in wards/neighborhoods with the lowest overall vaccination rates but 10% elsewhere that would yield more unvaccinated students getting tested although it would target any specific individuals.
Anonymous
08/28/2021 07:34
Subject: Now testing is opt-out, not opt-in
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Not sure what the new form looks like but I plan to opt out my vaccinated student. I will keep my child home if they are symptomatic and we will handle testing. There is no legit reason to do screening testing on an asymptomatic vaccinated student in a school environment where everyone has the option of getting vaccinated. And I'm not risking the possibility that a false positive will derail my child's education.
I also happen to think the "opt out" model is illegal and the school district has no business doing medical testing on my child without my consent.
It’s not meant for vaccinated students.
“ Participating schools will aim to test a random sample of 10-20% of asymptomatic students, targeting unvaccinated students.”
I wonder how they are going to figure out how to target unvaccinated students given DCPS is not going to ask for status from anyone. Maybe it means that more effort will go into the testing programs at the ES school and up to 7th grade. I hope so.
Anonymous
08/28/2021 07:34
Subject: Now testing is opt-out, not opt-in
Anonymous wrote:What is the current rate in DC? Is it a low rate?
You can see it’s around 24/ 100k. Not sure if that is low but it is compared to most of the rest of the country right now.
Anonymous
08/28/2021 07:31
Subject: Now testing is opt-out, not opt-in
Anonymous wrote:What is the current rate in DC? Is it a low rate?
For the purposes of the math about the rate of false positives, it is. By a lot.
Anonymous
08/27/2021 23:25
Subject: Now testing is opt-out, not opt-in
The form isn’t clear who to send the opt out form to. Assume that lack of clarity is by design. I assume your child’s school. They should try and collect reasons families are opting out. It would likely help guide public health efforts. And it’s pretty crappy to advertise an “opt in” policy for weeks and then the Friday before school starts to change the policy completely. Shameful.
Anonymous
08/27/2021 23:14
Subject: Now testing is opt-out, not opt-in
What is the current rate in DC? Is it a low rate?
Anonymous
08/27/2021 23:13
Subject: Re:Now testing is opt-out, not opt-in
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'll be opting out, due to high false positive rates and my lack of trust in DC schools with how they are running education during a pandemic.
What exactly is the false positive rate for this test? I feel like it’s false negatives that are more of a worry.
Did you take a look at the long post on the previous page about the math? PP explained why the testing will result in a lot of disruption when prevalence rates are low.