ECAC Schedule

[Scersk '97]

Considering how isolated and rather small Princeton is, I think they could've achieved similar testing protocols to what Cornell has, making their students safer and helping make their surrounding community safer as well. All they had to do was commandeer some lab space and spend some of their many billions in filthy cash.

How integrated the other Ivies are into their urban environments made things really problematic.

Are PCR testing setups even available at the moment?

Good point; way beyond my pay grade. I should have written, "One would think all they had to do..."

That does make we wonder whether there has been a national, coordinated effort to make sure there aren't useful machines sitting around idle for some reason. Oh wait, I should have said, "Of course, I would be completely unsurprised to find out that there has been no national, coordinated effort..."

[Trotsky]

That'd be nice.   You do realize though that the reason we can do this is because we owned the test euqipment already  in the Vet school and re-purposed fir the people instead of the cows?

Yep, knew that.  

But the article linked by Scoop85 makes a critical point: Every medical test in the US with the exception of pregnancy tests is forced to go through the medical establishment.  We need to break that paradigm, especially with this virus.

That idea has already been broken with this virus.

And that's the main reason why I tell my patients not to get an antibody test.

The PCR to identify the virus did go through it's own testing. However, in order to get antibody tests out quickly, the government allowed virtually any company to put out an antibody test, even before the test itself had been shown by an independent source to be accurate. The obvious happened and there are so many tests out there that you cannot rely upon them to tell you anything useful.

Tests, if they are to be used to make clinical decisions, need to be validated by an independent body. You can say that, because they are too slow, it shouldn't be the government, but it has to be done and done by someone who is not associated with the companies making the tests.

Do you want to be diagnosed with a disease based upon a test that has no independent reliability testing? Do you want to be told that you have immunity to the virus, based upon the same false testing?

I'm willing to wait till someone like the government tells me the test is valid.

Except not this government.

See you all in August.  Those of you remaining, anyway.

[Jim Hyla]

That'd be nice.   You do realize though that the reason we can do this is because we owned the test euqipment already  in the Vet school and re-purposed fir the people instead of the cows?

Yep, knew that.  

But the article linked by Scoop85 makes a critical point: Every medical test in the US with the exception of pregnancy tests is forced to go through the medical establishment.  We need to break that paradigm, especially with this virus.

That idea has already been broken with this virus.

And that's the main reason why I tell my patients not to get an antibody test.

The PCR to identify the virus did go through it's own testing. However, in order to get antibody tests out quickly, the government allowed virtually any company to put out an antibody test, even before the test itself had been shown by an independent source to be accurate. The obvious happened and there are so many tests out there that you cannot rely upon them to tell you anything useful.

Tests, if they are to be used to make clinical decisions, need to be validated by an independent body. You can say that, because they are too slow, it shouldn't be the government, but it has to be done and done by someone who is not associated with the companies making the tests.

Do you want to be diagnosed with a disease based upon a test that has no independent reliability testing? Do you want to be told that you have immunity to the virus, based upon the same false testing?

I'm willing to wait till someone like the government tells me the test is valid.

Except not this government.

See you all in August.  Those of you remaining, anyway.

No, I'll still believe parts of and some people in this government. You do have to be very particular, however.

And with any hope, and hope is all I've got, I'll soon feel that I can trust more of it.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

That'd be nice.   You do realize though that the reason we can do this is because we owned the test euqipment already  in the Vet school and re-purposed fir the people instead of the cows?

Yep, knew that.  

But the article linked by Scoop85 makes a critical point: Every medical test in the US with the exception of pregnancy tests is forced to go through the medical establishment.  We need to break that paradigm, especially with this virus.

That idea has already been broken with this virus.

And that's the main reason why I tell my patients not to get an antibody test.

The PCR to identify the virus did go through its own testing. However, in order to get antibody tests out quickly, the government allowed virtually any company to put out an antibody test, even before the test itself had been shown by an independent source to be accurate. The obvious happened and there are so many tests out there that you cannot rely upon them to tell you anything useful.

Tests, if they are to be used to make clinical decisions, need to be validated by an independent body. You can say that, because they are too slow, it shouldn't be the government, but it has to be done and done by someone who is not associated with the companies making the tests.

Do you want to be diagnosed with a disease based upon a test that has no independent reliability testing? Do you want to be told that you have immunity to the virus, based upon the same false testing?

I'm willing to wait till someone like the government tells me the test is valid.

I spoke with my GP before getting an antibody test, and also researched the various tests to understand their accuracy (at least as quoted by company that created the test).  The local hospital chain here who do the tests actually discloses which test it uses and it was by a reputable manufacturer.  From that I was able to learn that the test has roughly a 10% false positive and a 1% false negative.  For the cost (free) it seemed a reasonable test to take if only for some degree of peace of mind.

I tested negative, so I'm relatively confident I don't have any measurable antibodies. And yes, I know that doesn't mean for certain that I didn't have covid since they don't know the rate of antibody fading and they don't test for T-cells.  

Also, I'd like to think that even if I had tested positive, it wouldn't have changed my ultra-cautious behavior, but of course, that's easy to say.

[Jim Hyla]

That'd be nice.   You do realize though that the reason we can do this is because we owned the test euqipment already  in the Vet school and re-purposed fir the people instead of the cows?

Yep, knew that.  

But the article linked by Scoop85 makes a critical point: Every medical test in the US with the exception of pregnancy tests is forced to go through the medical establishment.  We need to break that paradigm, especially with this virus.

That idea has already been broken with this virus.

And that's the main reason why I tell my patients not to get an antibody test.

The PCR to identify the virus did go through its own testing. However, in order to get antibody tests out quickly, the government allowed virtually any company to put out an antibody test, even before the test itself had been shown by an independent source to be accurate. The obvious happened and there are so many tests out there that you cannot rely upon them to tell you anything useful.

Tests, if they are to be used to make clinical decisions, need to be validated by an independent body. You can say that, because they are too slow, it shouldn't be the government, but it has to be done and done by someone who is not associated with the companies making the tests.

Do you want to be diagnosed with a disease based upon a test that has no independent reliability testing? Do you want to be told that you have immunity to the virus, based upon the same false testing?

I'm willing to wait till someone like the government tells me the test is valid.

I spoke with my GP before getting an antibody test, and also researched the various tests to understand their accuracy (#1 at least as quoted by company that created the test).  The local hospital chain here who do the tests actually discloses which test it uses and it was by a reputable manufacturer.  From that I was able to learn that the test has roughly a 10% false positive and a 1% false negative.  For the cost (free) it seemed a reasonable test to take if only for some degree of peace of mind.

I tested negative, so I'm relatively confident I don't have any measurable antibodies. And yes, I know that doesn't mean for certain that I didn't have covid since they don't know the rate of antibody fading and they don't test for T-cells.  

Also, #2 I'd like to think that even if I had tested positive, it wouldn't have changed my ultra-cautious behavior, but of course, that's easy to say.

#1 Wouldn't it be nicer if something like the FDA had independently looked at all the tests and approved those that had enough data to prove their accuracy?

#2 This is exactly the reason why these tests should only be used by researchers. 10% false positive & 1% false negative is exactly the wrong way for a test like this to result. The worst that a false negative would do is make you continue to act safely. A false positive however might get you to act unsafely, and that's bad for you and all of us.

Many times the government is needed and useful.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

That'd be nice.   You do realize though that the reason we can do this is because we owned the test euqipment already  in the Vet school and re-purposed fir the people instead of the cows?

Yep, knew that.  

But the article linked by Scoop85 makes a critical point: Every medical test in the US with the exception of pregnancy tests is forced to go through the medical establishment.  We need to break that paradigm, especially with this virus.

That idea has already been broken with this virus.

And that's the main reason why I tell my patients not to get an antibody test.

The PCR to identify the virus did go through its own testing. However, in order to get antibody tests out quickly, the government allowed virtually any company to put out an antibody test, even before the test itself had been shown by an independent source to be accurate. The obvious happened and there are so many tests out there that you cannot rely upon them to tell you anything useful.

Tests, if they are to be used to make clinical decisions, need to be validated by an independent body. You can say that, because they are too slow, it shouldn't be the government, but it has to be done and done by someone who is not associated with the companies making the tests.

Do you want to be diagnosed with a disease based upon a test that has no independent reliability testing? Do you want to be told that you have immunity to the virus, based upon the same false testing?

I'm willing to wait till someone like the government tells me the test is valid.

I spoke with my GP before getting an antibody test, and also researched the various tests to understand their accuracy (#1 at least as quoted by company that created the test).  The local hospital chain here who do the tests actually discloses which test it uses and it was by a reputable manufacturer.  From that I was able to learn that the test has roughly a 10% false positive and a 1% false negative.  For the cost (free) it seemed a reasonable test to take if only for some degree of peace of mind.

I tested negative, so I'm relatively confident I don't have any measurable antibodies. And yes, I know that doesn't mean for certain that I didn't have covid since they don't know the rate of antibody fading and they don't test for T-cells.  

Also, #2 I'd like to think that even if I had tested positive, it wouldn't have changed my ultra-cautious behavior, but of course, that's easy to say.

#1 Wouldn't it be nicer if something like the FDA had independently looked at all the tests and approved those that had enough data to prove their accuracy?

#2 This is exactly the reason why these tests should only be used by researchers. 10% false positive & 1% false negative is exactly the wrong way for a test like this to result. The worst that a false negative would do is make you continue to act safely. A false positive however might get you to act unsafely, and that's bad for you and all of us.

Many times the government is needed and useful.

Agree and agree.  Which is why I made the points I did.  And to be honest, I hemmed and hawed about getting the test, but once I studied the implications and the accuracy, I only bothered getting it because it was free on my insurance.  If I had to pay $100 for it, I wouldn't have been tested.

However, a government reviewed and approved test that is accurate and can be self-administered is the best of both worlds.  That's where we need to get to.

And that said, we aren't going to get there with our current government.

[jtwcornell91]

#2 This is exactly the reason why these tests should only be used by researchers. 10% false positive & 1% false negative is exactly the wrong way for a test like this to result. The worst that a false negative would do is make you continue to act safely. A false positive however might get you to act unsafely, and that's bad for you and all of us.

Wouldn't a false positive make someone do something like quarantine unnecessarily?  Or do you reckon it would make them think they were immune and invincible once two weeks had passed?  It seems like a false negative would be more dangerous, in that it would make someone miss an infection.

And of course we're one number (the percentage of the general population infected) away from an intro stats Bayes's Theorem problem...

[marty]

It would make someone feel invincible as they had already had the disease.  That would be a problem.  Jim can correct me but if someone without symptoms was correctly shown to have the antibodies, then the disease would have been a few weeks past.

You are also correct that they might quarantine based on whatever other factors are present.  When I was tested (negative results) I would not have quarantined myself as the supposed (repeated) exposure in NYC was four or five months prior.

[osorojo]

It's a cinch to exterminate or even educate the entire human race compared to making the slightest change in one tiny coronavirus - even fathead politicians can't do that. Speculation about resuming large, in person audiences sports events is hubris, not reason.

[Trotsky]

It's a cinch to exterminate or even educate the entire human race compared to making the slightest change in one tiny coronavirus - even fathead politicians can't do that. Speculation about resuming large, in person audiences sports events is commerce, not reason.

Fixed your post.

[osorojo]

Thanks, Trotsky, but in Florida NOTHING - faith, honor, reason, even hubris is subservient to quick profit - AKA "commerce". The numbers and the environment speak for themselves.

[Trotsky]

Thanks, Trotsky, but in Florida NOTHING - faith, honor, reason, even hubris is subservient to quick profit - AKA "commerce". The numbers and the environment speak for themselves.

This is the business we've chosen.

For now.  Or maybe forever.

[Rita]

Thanks, Trotsky, but in Florida NOTHING - faith, honor, reason, even hubris is subservient to quick profit - AKA "commerce". The numbers and the environment speak for themselves.

Osorojo - Florida has to be completely open and ready to welcome the snow birds in 15 days. if (when) there is a spike at the end of October / beginning of November they won't be able to blame that on the kids. it will be courtesy of the president's #1 puppet.

The year-round residents in my parents community (my parents among them) are trying to figure out a way to have returning people quarantine and be unable to use any of the facilities for 2 weeks. Most of the permanent residents have been very careful and they want to keep their community bubble intact.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

#2 This is exactly the reason why these tests should only be used by researchers. 10% false positive & 1% false negative is exactly the wrong way for a test like this to result. The worst that a false negative would do is make you continue to act safely. A false positive however might get you to act unsafely, and that's bad for you and all of us.

Wouldn't a false positive make someone do something like quarantine unnecessarily?  Or do you reckon it would make them think they were immune and invincible once two weeks had passed?  It seems like a false negative would be more dangerous, in that it would make someone miss an infection.

And of course we're one number (the percentage of the general population infected) away from an intro stats Bayes's Theorem problem...

This was an antibody test, not a PCR test.  The presumption of antibodies means you already had the disease.  My thinking was a positive would tend to make someone try to resume their life.  If it was a false positive, they would be exposing themselves without having presumed immunity.

[Swampy]

#2 This is exactly the reason why these tests should only be used by researchers. 10% false positive & 1% false negative is exactly the wrong way for a test like this to result. The worst that a false negative would do is make you continue to act safely. A false positive however might get you to act unsafely, and that's bad for you and all of us.

Wouldn't a false positive make someone do something like quarantine unnecessarily?  Or do you reckon it would make them think they were immune and invincible once two weeks had passed?  It seems like a false negative would be more dangerous, in that it would make someone miss an infection.

And of course we're one number (the percentage of the general population infected) away from an intro stats Bayes's Theorem problem...

This was an antibody test, not a PCR test.  The presumption of antibodies means you already had the disease.  My thinking was a positive would tend to make someone try to resume their life.  If it was a false positive, they would be exposing themselves without having presumed immunity.

If someone tests positive, can't they still be a carrier?