Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Or they'll say nothing we've learned applies because *waving hands* DELTA! There can be no parameters that are acceptable to the PP because nothing is delta-y enough.

You, my friend, are a nimrod. It must be nice to believe that a more dangerous variant doesn't affect anything.

Delta spreads about 75% faster than the original virus. It doesn't make sense to believe studies of the spread of the original are still valid - at least until people who know what they're talking about come to some conclusions about it.

You seem to be confusing infectiousness with virulence.

New poster here. Not really. We all understand that Delta is more transmissible, and there is data to show that is tends to lead to more hospitalizations in each population compared to previous strains, even for pediatric populations. No data about deaths as yet.

But even if it Delta was "only" more transmissible, it would end up being more disruptive than previous strains, and therefore, in popular parlance, more dangerous, because it spreads quicker and more people get sick, need time off work and school, are stressed out because they feel unwell and may need hospitalization, and consume expensive medical resources and personnel when they do end up in hospital.

So yes, Delta is more dangerous than previous strains. The short-hand is actually true.

No. It is the same rate of hospitalization. Your short hand is imprecise and inaccurate. If you know that the "short hand" is wrong, and you know that it's about transmission/infectiousness, then use the right words. If you know the right words but refuse to use them, people have to wonder why you'd obfuscate the difference.

You seem to be confusing infectiousness with virulence.

No, I just mean that being more contagious makes it a more dangerous virus, not that it makes people sicker if they get infected.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Or they'll say nothing we've learned applies because *waving hands* DELTA! There can be no parameters that are acceptable to the PP because nothing is delta-y enough.

You, my friend, are a nimrod. It must be nice to believe that a more dangerous variant doesn't affect anything.

Delta spreads about 75% faster than the original virus. It doesn't make sense to believe studies of the spread of the original are still valid - at least until people who know what they're talking about come to some conclusions about it.

You seem to be confusing infectiousness with virulence.

New poster here. Not really. We all understand that Delta is more transmissible, and there is data to show that is tends to lead to more hospitalizations in each population compared to previous strains, even for pediatric populations. No data about deaths as yet.

But even if it Delta was "only" more transmissible, it would end up being more disruptive than previous strains, and therefore, in popular parlance, more dangerous, because it spreads quicker and more people get sick, need time off work and school, are stressed out because they feel unwell and may need hospitalization, and consume expensive medical resources and personnel when they do end up in hospital.

So yes, Delta is more dangerous than previous strains. The short-hand is actually true.

Here's the math laid out:

Also note that this is saying that MATHMATICALLY, when you've got 50% of your population truly having the disease and a 95.1% testing specificity, more than half of your positives will be false positives.

https://www.statsdirect.com/help/clinical_epidemiology/screening_test.htm

Anonymous wrote:

Or they'll say nothing we've learned applies because *waving hands* DELTA! There can be no parameters that are acceptable to the PP because nothing is delta-y enough.

You, my friend, are a nimrod. It must be nice to believe that a more dangerous variant doesn't affect anything.

Delta spreads about 75% faster than the original virus. It doesn't make sense to believe studies of the spread of the original are still valid - at least until people who know what they're talking about come to some conclusions about it.

You seem to be confusing infectiousness with virulence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Right? Delta changes nothing about the false positivity rate in cases of low community incidence.

I wasn't saying delta affects the false positive rate. I was responding to previous posts that cited pre-delta studies of spread in schools to argue against testing.

Read the ASM study. https://asm.org/Articles/2020/November/SARS-CoV-2-Testing-Sensitivity-Is-Not-the-Whole-St

Not about spread in schools.

The "no research" poster will now reject the ASM study because it is not about delta.

She will only accept one particular research study based on empirical data acquired within the past month, on one very specific topic (delta and schools! schools haven't been open during delta times!), and also peer-reviewed. Anyone who knows anything about research knows that she can't possibly satisfied. Instead of deciding that she can't make conclusions without this evidence, she decides that it means she can make whatever conclusions she wants.

Here is another study that might be useful for comprehension of this issue, since it seems to be challenging.

https://www.rcpjournals.org/content/clinmedicine/21/1/e54

This one's from a hospital, but note these conclusions:

False positive results in low-prevalence settings
False positive results are proportionally more of an issue when prevalence is low. Prevalence is a measure of how common a disease is in a specified at-risk population at a specific time point or period.5 It measures the disease burden for the specified population.5 Prevalence affects the pre-test probability of a disease being present and consequently impacts on the positive predictive value (PPV; the probability that subjects with a positive test truly have the disease) and the negative predictive value (NPV; the probability that subjects with a negative test truly do not have the disease).3 As the prevalence increases, the PPV increases but the NPV decreases. Similarly, as the prevalence decreases the PPV decreases while the NPV increases.3 The adverse outcomes associated with false positive results will be proportionally greater during periods of low prevalence.3 However, the individual impact of false positive results are significant at all times.

False positive results in high-prevalence settings
Although proportionally false positive results are less of a problem in high-prevalence settings when compared to true positive results, the overall percentage of false positive tests will not change. If testing increases as a consequence of high prevalence, the absolute number of false positive tests will also increase. A false positive result is less likely to be detected during times of high prevalence as the result will receive less scrutiny.

Anonymous wrote:

Or they'll say nothing we've learned applies because *waving hands* DELTA! There can be no parameters that are acceptable to the PP because nothing is delta-y enough.

You, my friend, are a nimrod. It must be nice to believe that a more dangerous variant doesn't affect anything.

Delta spreads about 75% faster than the original virus. It doesn't make sense to believe studies of the spread of the original are still valid - at least until people who know what they're talking about come to some conclusions about it.

OMG read the study. It has nothing to do with transmissibility. The thing that matters is the prevalence rate.

The belligerent anti-science stance of some of you is just profound.

Or they'll say nothing we've learned applies because *waving hands* DELTA! There can be no parameters that are acceptable to the PP because nothing is delta-y enough.

You, my friend, are a nimrod. It must be nice to believe that a more dangerous variant doesn't affect anything.

Delta spreads about 75% faster than the original virus. It doesn't make sense to believe studies of the spread of the original are still valid - at least until people who know what they're talking about come to some conclusions about it.

Anonymous wrote:

You didn't read the ASM study, did you.

I guess I wasn't clear. I wasn't saying delta affects the false positive rate - what this study is about - I was responding to earlier posts citing pre-delta studies about spread in schools to argue against testing.

Yeah....this isn't that hard. The high false positivity rate is about population incidence. Even extremely high population incidence (what we in DC would think of as extremely high, at any rate) still gets a majority of false positives when you do random asymptomatic testing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Right? Delta changes nothing about the false positivity rate in cases of low community incidence.

I wasn't saying delta affects the false positive rate. I was responding to previous posts that cited pre-delta studies of spread in schools to argue against testing.

Read the ASM study. https://asm.org/Articles/2020/November/SARS-CoV-2-Testing-Sensitivity-Is-Not-the-Whole-St

Not about spread in schools.

The "no research" poster will now reject the ASM study because it is not about delta.

You didn't read the ASM study, did you.

I guess I wasn't clear. I wasn't saying delta affects the false positive rate - what this study is about - I was responding to earlier posts citing pre-delta studies about spread in schools to argue against testing.

Anonymous wrote:

Right? Delta changes nothing about the false positivity rate in cases of low community incidence.

I wasn't saying delta affects the false positive rate. I was responding to previous posts that cited pre-delta studies of spread in schools to argue against testing.

Read the ASM study. https://asm.org/Articles/2020/November/SARS-CoV-2-Testing-Sensitivity-Is-Not-the-Whole-St

Not about spread in schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Also, remember: If no studies apply, then YOU have no studies to support any of your projections or ideas.

I'm not trying to argue the case either way. I'm just saying that people can't rely on these past studies in their arguments because the math is different with a virus that spreads much more easily. Go ahead and make other good arguments, but I don't think you can honestly quote pre-delta studies.

Sigh. Did you even bother looking at the study so see why it doesn't matter if it is pre- or post-delta? You are talking out of your butthole.

Right? Delta changes nothing about the false positivity rate in cases of low community incidence.

The other poster is not going to attempt to understand that, so why bother.

Or they'll say nothing we've learned applies because *waving hands* DELTA! There can be no parameters that are acceptable to the PP because nothing is delta-y enough.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frequent testing would be a disaster.
1)Under the DCPS current plan, any positive test will send home an entire class (and in the case of middle and high school 5-8 classes) for 2 weeks.
2)DCPS has no plan for virtual instruction once kids are sent home for 2 weeks. They will sit at home doing nothing. Then they will return to school, another kid will be postive and the entire group will be sent right back home.
3)the virus is overwhelmingly benign in kids.

Yep this. If they come up with a more sensible plan I'd be all for it. But not if this is the response.

THERE IS GOING TO BE VIRTUAL INSTRUCTION FOR QUARANTINES. They didn’t do it for summer school because there is no mandated instruction time. Do I need to scream this again for the people in the back?

I'm not that worried about #2. I am very worries about 1 and 3.

+1

[url] https://coronavirus.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/coronavirus/page_content/attachments/COVID-19_DC_Health_Guidance_For_Schools_Reopening_080621.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1WyV4PI8chTiJqH9UR4TjbiawPihDzU4ZVL9Cm903kZf0vSrA1a-50qQ4

It says that the classroom will shut down for 7 days if the people that were exposed are able to get tested after the 5th day.