Coronavirus math
Quote: mcallister3200There’s been much more correlation to population density and time population spends outside than anything lockdown vs not lockdown related. South Dakota and Colorado would be examples. South Dakota never locked down and hasn’t had it that bad comparatively at any point. .... The interpretation of any data relating to the pandemic is a fascinating example of confirmation bias depending on who’s looking at it.
"Hasn't had it that bad"?? Really?
JohnsHopkins shows South Dakota's positive test percentage currently at over 30 percent. Only Wyoming (40.2%) and Mississippi (100%) show higher percentages of positive cases. Also, a quick search on "South Dakota coronavirus news" turns up multiple stories about how South Dakota hospitals are close to being overwhelmed. How bad is "that bad" to you?
If South Dakota "hasn't had it that bad ... at any point" in your view, my view is that South Dakota is a poster child for how to do it wrong. If C-virus hasn't hit South Dakota "that bad" yet (in anyone's viewpoint), everything may soon change. All because this is a very serious virus, and some are not taking it seriously. Lives will be lost because of this state's poor pandemic response.
Don't get me wrong. South Dakota is not alone in this regard. My own state, Florida, it trying to lead the charge of the "Open for Business" Brigade. JohnsHopkins shows Florida's weekly trend at 12.2% positive (still far above the 5% "safe" limit). But, the recent daily test rates are skyrocketing. Thursday's test results were over 19% positive. And, new cases are climbing in Florida, as well as South Dakota and so many other states. We are all such toast...
Bottom line: It all impacts the upcoming recession as America tries to hold itself together while markets constrict and jobs disappear. Word on the street is that 25 percent or more of small businesses -- large source of jobs -- will never recover. Business air travel not expected to recover until 2024. Fasten your seatbelt (if your constitution allows) because it may be a bumpy ride going forward.
It seems to merely be a proxy for political discussion.
I was expecting the House & Senate to be out sick back in April. Seems they went on vacation multiple times instead.
I saw a sippymask on Instagram the other day. It's a velcroed opening for your mask so you can take a sip and then close it back up without affecting your ear loops.
Quote: CalderI'm surprised the thread is still open.
It seems to merely be a proxy for political discussion.
Amazingly political discussion, somewhat disguised, is allowed. Where are the mods? Where is the flag button?
Quote: SOOPOOFirst of all, I do wear a mask everywhere it is required to do so without complaint. But here is my 'decent' reason why I don't 9want to0 wear one.... I don't like to! I have worn a mask 5-6 days a week for 35 years due to my job requiring it. I never liked the feel of them, or how it felt to be breathing through one. But it was part of the job so I just wore one. Period. End of story. Same as now. If I need to go somewhere (grocery store, indoor restaurant, doctor's office) where I have to wear one, I do. Period. End of story. Some people don't like doing things that they don't like doing..... like wearing a mask, like driving the speed limit, like not farting loudly in public, like....
So the 'decent' reason for not wearing one.... they don't want to.
This sounds very close to what I have been saying.
Quote: gordonm888This is hopeless. The contorting and twisting of statements is as if the conversation is a game to be won.
You nailed it. Internet forum standard behavior. All about scoring points, lots of misreading of other posts and constructing straw men to knock down. If someone make a logical response, the post gets ignored instead of the person acknowledging a good comment.
Hardly anyone is posting in this thread with the thought of getting information to make up his or her mind.
Quote: unJon
Hardly anyone is posting in this thread with the thought of getting information to make up his or her mind.
Huh
I just changed my mind today due to this thread
I'm in New Mexico
They are now seeing their highest virus numbers ever
I was planning on taking the famous Tram in ABQ.
It goes up to 10k feet
amazing
but
due to increasing virus numbers here
Decided not to do the Tram
I just dont want to be in an enclosed space with others while the virus is spreading like mad in the area
Instead
Doing the Breaking Bad tour:-) First stop Twisters. The Restaurant they converted.
Quote: AZDuffmanIf a huge number of people have it and do not even know they are sick then is it really as bad as they are claiming?
Wow!
It's worse.
Look up Typhoid Mary.
She spread Typhoid but was asymptomatic.
A disease spread MORE EASILY BECAUSE OF ASYMPTOMATIC CARRIERS is a lot worse.
If you saw a guy vomiting would you sit next to them? Probably not. But if he was an asymptomatic carrier of a vomiting disease you probably wouldn't think twice of getting close enough to be infected.
Quote: gordonm888You are ignoring a bias - the people that get tests are not random population - they tend to be people who either have symptoms or are concerned they may have been exposed. Given that those tests are 1% positive, it does not imply that 1% of the population at large is infected.
Indeed, one can make an argument that a large fraction of the people who have symptoms or are concerned about exposure do get tested.
I was not trying to twist your argument.
I am trying to figure out your mathematics.
Please explain how I am wrong here.
[Only people who have symptoms are likely to be tested.]. Agreed.
[Large population of people are asymptomatic]. Implied and agreed. Asymptomatic people won't get tested.
[1% positive from people sick] + [asymptomatic positive people] = -1% positive?
Explain how adding two numbers gets a smaller number. I'm not getting it
Thank you for posting this.Quote: terapinedHuh
I just changed my mind today due to this thread
I'm in New Mexico
They are now seeing their highest virus numbers ever
I was planning on taking the famous Tram in ABQ.
It goes up to 10k feet
amazing
but
due to increasing virus numbers here
Decided not to do the Tram
I just dont want to be in an enclosed space with others while the virus is spreading like mad in the area
Instead
Doing the Breaking Bad tour:-) First stop Twisters. The Restaurant they converted.
Quote: darkozWow!
It's worse.
Look up Typhoid Mary.
She spread Typhoid but was asymptomatic.
A disease spread MORE EASILY BECAUSE OF ASYMPTOMATIC CARRIERS is a lot worse.
If you saw a guy vomiting would you sit next to them? Probably not. But if he was an asymptomatic carrier of a vomiting disease you probably wouldn't think twice of getting close enough to be infected.
Vomiting is a symptom, not a disease.
For the who knows what time, if you are that afraid hide at home. But let the economy open up and let people live normal lives.
Quote: darkozI was not trying to twist your argument.
I am trying to figure out your mathematics.
Please explain how I am wrong here.
[Only people who have symptoms are likely to be tested.]. Agreed.
[Large population of people are asymptomatic]. Implied and agreed. Asymptomatic people won't get tested.
[1% positive from people sick] + [asymptomatic positive people] = -1% positive?
Explain how adding two numbers gets a smaller number. I'm not getting it
Because you are mixing fractions with different denominators.
1% = positive tests / people that took test
X % = people that would test positive / people that did not take test.
Searching for Y the overall % of people with COVID in population = (positive tests + people that would test positive) / (people that took tests + people that did not take test).
Let’s just make up some reasonable sounding assumptions. They aren’t correct assumptions but will illustrate the math.
5% of population took test.
1% tested positive.
Only people with symptoms took test.
Half of Covid cases are asymptomatic.
Population is 1,000,000
Plugging these assumptions into our equations gives us:
People that took test: 5% of 1,000,000 = 50,000
People that tested positive = 1% of 50,000 = 500
Asymptomatic cases = 500
People that did not take test = 1,000,000 - 50,000 = 950,000
Percentage of population with COVID = (500 + 500) / (1,000,000) = 0.1%
Make sense?
Quote: unJonQuote: darkozI was not trying to twist your argument.
I am trying to figure out your mathematics.
Please explain how I am wrong here.
[Only people who have symptoms are likely to be tested.]. Agreed.
[Large population of people are asymptomatic]. Implied and agreed. Asymptomatic people won't get tested.
[1% positive from people sick] + [asymptomatic positive people] = -1% positive?
Explain how adding two numbers gets a smaller number. I'm not getting it
Because you are mixing fractions with different denominators.
1% = positive tests / people that took test
X % = people that would test positive / people that did not take test.
Searching for Y the overall % of people with COVID in population = (positive tests + people that would test positive) / (people that took tests + people that did not take test).
Let’s just make up some reasonable sounding assumptions. They aren’t correct assumptions but will illustrate the math.
5% of population took test.
1% tested positive.
Only people with symptoms took test.
Half of Covid cases are asymptomatic.
Population is 1,000,000
Plugging these assumptions into our equations gives us:
People that took test: 5% of 1,000,000 = 50,000
People that tested positive = 1% of 50,000 = 500
Asymptomatic cases = 500
People that did not take test = 1,000,000 - 50,000 = 950,000
Percentage of population with COVID = (500 + 500) / (1,000,000) = 0.1%
Make sense?
Thanks.
We don't know the true number of asymptomatic people who didn't get tested so we may have more or less than a 1% positivity rate if I am understanding correctly
Quote: darkozQuote: unJonQuote: darkozI was not trying to twist your argument.
I am trying to figure out your mathematics.
Please explain how I am wrong here.
[Only people who have symptoms are likely to be tested.]. Agreed.
[Large population of people are asymptomatic]. Implied and agreed. Asymptomatic people won't get tested.
[1% positive from people sick] + [asymptomatic positive people] = -1% positive?
Explain how adding two numbers gets a smaller number. I'm not getting it
Because you are mixing fractions with different denominators.
1% = positive tests / people that took test
X % = people that would test positive / people that did not take test.
Searching for Y the overall % of people with COVID in population = (positive tests + people that would test positive) / (people that took tests + people that did not take test).
Let’s just make up some reasonable sounding assumptions. They aren’t correct assumptions but will illustrate the math.
5% of population took test.
1% tested positive.
Only people with symptoms took test.
Half of Covid cases are asymptomatic.
Population is 1,000,000
Plugging these assumptions into our equations gives us:
People that took test: 5% of 1,000,000 = 50,000
People that tested positive = 1% of 50,000 = 500
Asymptomatic cases = 500
People that did not take test = 1,000,000 - 50,000 = 950,000
Percentage of population with COVID = (500 + 500) / (1,000,000) = 0.1%
Make sense?
Thanks.
We don't know the true number of asymptomatic people who didn't get tested so we may have more or less than a 1% positivity rate if I am understanding correctly
That’s correct. Though for that to be true, the number of asymptomatic cases would need to be X times the number of symptomatic cases where X is the ratio of people not tested to tested. In other words, if 5% of the population is tested, then you would need in excess of 19 times more asymptomatic cases than tested cases to go above 1%.
To flip it on its head, if you think that there are 3 asymptomatic cases for every tested case, then you need to be testing 25% of the population before you can equate the positivity rate of 1% to the % of population that has COVID.
Quote: AZDuffmanVomiting is a symptom, not a disease.
EXACTLY!!!
IF YOU SAW SYMPTOMS OF A DISEASE YOU WOULD BE WARY OF GOING NEAR THEM.
WHICH IS WHY ASYMPTOMATIC PEOPLE ARE MORE DANGEROUS WHICH WAS YOUR ORIGINAL QUESTION.
BECAUSE YOU WOULD BE OBLIVIOUS TO THEIR DISEASE SINCE YOU WOULD NOT BE OBSERVING ANY SYMPTOMS.
BUT THEY WOULD STILL BE CONTAGIOUS
Quote: KeyserThere are so many asymptomatic people because close to 50% of people already have some level of immunity/protection from a severe infection due to previous Covid infections.
I read an article yesterday that said people of blood type O are less likely to contract it. I believe close to 38% of people have type O blood.
Quote: darkozEXACTLY!!!
IF YOU SAW SYMPTOMS OF A DISEASE YOU WOULD BE WARY OF GOING NEAR THEM.
WHICH IS WHY ASYMPTOMATIC PEOPLE ARE MORE DANGEROUS WHICH WAS YOUR ORIGINAL QUESTION.
BECAUSE YOU WOULD BE OBLIVIOUS TO THEIR DISEASE SINCE YOU WOULD NOT BE OBSERVING ANY SYMPTOMS.
BUT THEY WOULD STILL BE CONTAGIOUS
Take off the cap lock.
It is not 1996.
Quote: AZDuffmanTake off the cap lock.
It is not 1996.
You were being screamed at.
I know exactly what I was doing
Quote: darkoz
[Only people who have symptoms are likely to be tested.]. Agreed.
/q]
Ummm.... NO! I think NFL players are tested multiple times a week when totally asymptomatic. Same with a multitude of other jobs. Every person coming for ANY surgery is tested. Every pre-op colonoscopy. Plus others who just want to be tested. I've been tested twice without any symptoms. My younger son 4 times. My wife twice. If you work in a nursing home in NYS you get twice a week tests. My examples are just the tip of the iceberg.
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: darkoz
[Only people who have symptoms are likely to be tested.]. Agreed.
/q]
Ummm.... NO! I think NFL players are tested multiple times a week when totally asymptomatic. Same with a multitude of other jobs. Every person coming for ANY surgery is tested. Every pre-op colonoscopy. Plus others who just want to be tested. I've been tested twice without any symptoms. My younger son 4 times. My wife twice. If you work in a nursing home in NYS you get twice a week tests. My examples are just the tip of the iceberg.
Well, doesn't that kill Gordon's theory that only people who show symptoms are getting tests which accounts for a 1% or less positivity rate.
It feels like the counter arguments counter the counter counter argumentsFor Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
Quote: darkozYou were being screamed at.
I know exactly what I was doing
Then you know not to do it.
Dr Soopoo advice not planning out
I'm visiting Albuquerque.
Biggest attraction in town is the Tram.
They are socially distancing by not taking too many passengers
But
Albuquerque seeing very high virus figures
I was in Santa Fe last week
They are getting hit real hard
Checked out Canyon Rd, the art gallery community
I saw masks everywhere outside. This is outside, lots of people wandering around the galleries and social distance. I would estimate 90% full mask outside. 9% mask down outside. 1% no mask. Good to see most people taking this virus seriously
Anyway, with Albuquerque over run with the virus, Tram seems a bad idea even with social distancing. It goes up to 10k feet, got to be a long time in an enclosed space with strangers in a city with the virus is exploding.
Gonna go Petroglyph hunting instead.
A lot more fun and so fascinating
700 year old carvings in rocks, really incredible.
So much safer with the virus overwhelming New Mexico
Quote: terapinedremdesivir doesn't do Jack in saving lives
Dr Soopoo advice not planning out
I'm guessing you are referring to this?
https://www.who.int/news/item/15-10-2020-solidarity-therapeutics-trial-produces-conclusive-evidence-on-the-effectiveness-of-repurposed-drugs-for-covid-19-in-record-time
Remdesvir has the same effectiveness as Hydroxychloriquine on saving lives which basically means it's a dud!
Hmmm, where and who knew that six months ago???
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/off-topic/34719-remdesvir-a-dud-possible-stock-fraud/
Quote: darkoz
Remdesvir has the same effectiveness as Hydroxychloriquine on saving lives which basically means it's a dud!
Actual results in the field show you to be wrong on Hydroxychloriquine. It and zinc are a good treatment. Simple medicine, imagine that!
Quote: AZDuffmanActual results in the field show you to be wrong on Hydroxychloriquine. It and zinc are a good treatment. Simple medicine, imagine that!
Provide link to sources!
Cannot be right wing website
PS, if true then the epidemic is over. Whoops, it's not
Quote: unJonLet’s just make up some reasonable sounding assumptions. They aren’t correct assumptions but will illustrate the math.
If you want to use assumptions from an uninvolved third party, may I recommend the Rt: Effective Reproduction Model Internet site. These guys don't claim to be perfect, either.
The Rt site models "effective reproduction" rates for all states. They share a lot of info in their "Learn More" link. Info like you and others are discussing. The site isn't fancy, but the "Rt" folks say who they are. Plus, they share the source code they use in their model(s).
If the Rt value is at or below "1," then the virus is not spreading. When I checked, Nevada showed 1.12 (0.84 - 1.34 range). Few states are in the "safe" range.
Quote: darkozProvide link to sources!
Cannot be right wing website
JAMA says you are wrong
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2771265
So when you cling to left wing websites and media organizations you are always (left) right?
Quote: darkozProvide link to sources!
Cannot be right wing website
PS, if true then the epidemic is over. Whoops, it's not
It has been reported many places.
It is not magic, it will not end the pandemic.
It will help people sick from the virus.
You want to wait for the magic bullet instead of using something that works because you do not like who says it works.
Big Pharma thanks you for your support.
Quote: DeMangoSo when you cling to left wing websites and media organizations you are always (left) right?
I cling to medical organizations that have no political axe to grind.
NEJM (New England Journal of Medicine) for example
Cite those sources and I will believe you.
Quote: AZDuffmanIt has been reported many places.
It is not magic, it will not end the pandemic.
It will help people sick from the virus.
You want to wait for the magic bullet instead of using something that works because you do not like who says it works.
Big Pharma thanks you for your support.
And yet you cannot provide one link????
I'm supposed to believe you????
All I ask is a reasonable link to back up your claims.
If you can't provide one link to a reputable medical association finding of your claims then stop spouting those unproven claims.
PS, in the field is anecdotal evidence. Means nothing. What some doctor observed without studied placebo could mean the patient might have gotten better anyways
Quote: darkozAnd yet you cannot provide one link????
I'm supposed to believe you????
All I ask is a reasonable link to back up your claims.
If you can't provide one link to a reputable medical association finding of your claims then stop spouting those unproven claims.
PS, in the field is anecdotal evidence. Means nothing. What some doctor observed without studied placebo could mean the patient might have gotten better anyways
There is this neat site called google that shows results. https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study.
See, you think if something does not work 100% of time it is not valid. That because it just helps symptoms and is not a vaccine it is no good.
The issue is you have grown up in such a comfortable time in the world that a disease that does not have a vaccine within a few months is the end of the world to you.
I will believe reports from commonsense doctors in the field over slapped together studies. They are far closer to the real world.
BTW: 85% of people who catch the virus wore masks yet you still scream about how we need to wear masks. How to you hold that position? That would indicate the masks do not work. Why do you believe one but not the other? Is it the source?
Quote: AZDuffmanThere is this neat site called google that shows results. https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study.
See, you think if something does not work 100% of time it is not valid. That because it just helps symptoms and is not a vaccine it is no good.
The issue is you have grown up in such a comfortable time in the world that a disease that does not have a vaccine within a few months is the end of the world to you.
I will believe reports from commonsense doctors in the field over slapped together studies. They are far closer to the real world.
BTW: 85% of people who catch the virus wore masks yet you still scream about how we need to wear masks. How to you hold that position? That would indicate the masks do not work. Why do you believe one but not the other? Is it the source?
Your reliable link has been removed lol.
So much for any reliable info from you.
Cannot even link to one reliable source.
As to the mask issue, the full report which I read and you most likely didn't said people who wear masks often catch covid when REMOVING THEM in restaurants and bars.
The conclusion of the report confirmed the use of masks is necessary (but you love your ridiculous spin on things don't you).
As for doctors anecdotal reports over FDA trials, once again you love to believe what science says doesn't work.
Why I ask?
Quote: darkoz
As for doctors anecdotal reports over FDA trials, once again you love to believe what science says doesn't work.
Why I ask?
Because what I have heard says it does work.
Because I am not about to believe a slapped together study with incentive to show that it does not work.
Because it treats the same symptoms caused by other things, thus there is no reason to believe it does not work.
Because I can see where the FDA is risk adverse, fearing what happens if they give the go and it does not work 100% of the time.
Because I live in the real world.
Because I look at it like an AP would look at it. Same symptoms in other illness, it works then. It should work now.
Because I do not let perfect be the enemy of great.
Quote: AZDuffmanBecause what I have heard says it does work.
Because I am not about to believe a slapped together study with incentive to show that it does not work.
Because it treats the same symptoms caused by other things, thus there is no reason to believe it does not work.
Because I can see where the FDA is risk adverse, fearing what happens if they give the go and it does not work 100% of the time.
Because I live in the real world.
Because I look at it like an AP would look at it. Same symptoms in other illness, it works then. It should work now.
Because I do not let perfect be the enemy of great.
I'm asking you for lousy link.
What you heard? From whom? I'm supposed to take your word that you interviewed some doctors?
Symptoms? Lol, just a day or two ago you pointed out symptoms are not a disease. What type of mumbo jumbo are you saying.
So if someone has vomiting symptoms the drug to treat them can be any drug which treats a disease that causes vomiting?
Hydroxychloriquine is an anti-malarial drug. You equate viruses with Malaria(a parasite disease)?
You believe if a drug kills bacteria and parasites it must also kill viruses???
What scientific evidence do you base this on or you just like making things up?
Quote: darkozI'm asking you for lousy link.
What you heard? From whom? I'm supposed to take your word that you interviewed some doctors?
Symptoms? Lol, just a day or two ago you pointed out symptoms are not a disease. What type of mumbo jumbo are you saying.
So if someone has vomiting symptoms the drug to treat them can be any drug which treats a disease that causes vomiting?
Hydroxychloriquine is an anti-malarial drug. You equate viruses with Malaria(a parasite disease)?
You believe if a drug kills bacteria and parasites it must also kill viruses???
What scientific evidence do you base this on or you just like making things up?
For the 28th time I am going on reports from the field. IOW, real life. Doctors have seen results. No reason not to give people the right to try it.
Your position is kind of like someone found some starving people and says, "You cannot eat McDonalds, the better food will be here in a few days, a week tops."
The idea is to survive the virus. If Hydroxychloriquine helps that then it is a good thing and we should be using it. Not waiting for a vaccine that is anywhere from months to years away.
Why are you so against people using it? Nobody is forcing you do use it.
Quote: AZDuffmanFor the 28th time I am going on reports from the field. IOW, real life. Doctors have seen results. No reason not to give people the right to try it.
Your position is kind of like someone found some starving people and says, "You cannot eat McDonalds, the better food will be here in a few days, a week tops."
The idea is to survive the virus. If Hydroxychloriquine helps that then it is a good thing and we should be using it. Not waiting for a vaccine that is anywhere from months to years away.
Why are you so against people using it? Nobody is forcing you do use it.
Please link to reports on the field!
Or are you saying you speak directly to doctors and hear things and we should believe you.
I'm just asking you to provide some sliver of evidence that you heard something.
Why is it so difficult to provide evidence of a claim you make?
Quote: darkozPlease link to reports on the field!
Or are you saying you speak directly to doctors and hear things and we should believe you.
I'm just asking you to provide some sliver of evidence that you heard something.
Why is it so difficult to provide evidence of a claim you make?
You do not accept links except from lamestream sources so waste of my time.
Trump was using it based on field reports for crying out loud! And he recovered quickly.
I do not care what you believe. I do wonder why you are so staunch on masks when 85% of people with the virus were mask wearers but down on hdc when it has helped people?
Quote: AZDuffmanYou do not accept links except from lamestream sources so waste of my time.
Trump was using it based on field reports for crying out loud! And he recovered quickly.
I do not care what you believe. I do wonder why you are so staunch on masks when 85% of people with the virus were mask wearers but down on hdc when it has helped people?
Ok so no reputable sources like from medical authorities
An Trump didn't get treated with Hydroxychloriquine.
He was treated with a MAB cocktail from Regeneron. He claims he took Hydroxychloriquine months ago as a preventative (that didn't work out too good).
So lamo response from you about your claims
And I already debunked your masks claims
Bye bye
Quote: DeMangoSo when you cling to left wing websites and media organizations you are always (left) right?
I love the New England Journal of Medicine
Its not left or right
All they care about is science and the Truth
Another great source. I come from Baltimore. Johns Hopkins University.
They are not left or right
They are tracking the virus for the planet
I have the greatest respect for Johns Hopkins University and their medical expertise
Quote: WillyBubbHis reliable source is that he heard Trump say it on TV.
And your and his reason for not believing it is the same.
Quote: AZDuffman
Why are you so against people using it? .
He’s been taking a victory lap any time he can find evidence any treatment but LL might not work. Quite odd if you don’t enjoy the pandemic.
North Dakota and South Dakota currently have the most confirmed cases per capita among U.S. states
They had the longest warning on the Planet
They should have almost zero cases
All they had to do was wear masks and socially distance
With the internet, they could clearly see it was coming. 10 month warning
Pretty shocking that rural areas of the Country are seeing a spike while California is not spiking
My heart goes out to rural areas of our country.
In many instances, they just dont have the medical facilities the populated areas of our country have.
No doubt death numbers will be skyrocketing in our rural areas in the coming weeks
PLEASE WEAR A MASK AND SOCIALLY DISTANCE AS IF YOUR LIFE DEPENDS ON IT
I don’t know how exactly the per capita is calculated but I wonder if there’s some considerable variance skew in SD’s numbers it might either be even worse in SD or a non negligible amount of the stats attributed to SD might effectively not really be SD. SD has got to have the largest percentage of their population that are full time nomads/rv types given that it’s the easiest no state income tax state to establish domicile. It takes like two days vs planting down for at least a month in Nevada. South Dakota you just need to spend like one night in a hotel or campground, and sign an affidavit that you travel full time and will be returning to the state at some point to get a license and register a vehicle there. It is illegal to register to vote if you don’t actually live at that address. Their vehicle registration revenue has about doubled in the last decade. That along with a smaller population than most other no state income tax states there could be some variance skew from sort of but not really residents in their Covid numbers.
Have recently been in Mississippi since the governor lifted the mask mandate a couple weeks ago. Cases have steadily risen since. Have went grocery shopping twice since the mandate lifted, once slightly after saw only one maskless patron at a Rouses, went to Walmart a couple days ago and it was pretty bad probably 60/40 or 50/50ish.
Can anyone quote the false positive rates for the rapid covid test systems?
Quote: gordonm888We all know that Nick Saban tested positive on Wednesday and has had 3 consecutive negative tests on the next three days.
Can anyone quote the false positive rates for the rapid covid test systems?
Hopefully, no one is just going by one test. For any medical diagnosis.
