On 8/17/2020 at 12:34 PM, Bluegrasscard said:

As of Thursday (posted yesterday) - UK testing. 

15,450 Tests, 147 positive,  0.951% (Site show 1.0% with rounding). 

https://www.uky.edu/coronavirus/covid-19-testing-results

I think this (and other college results) gives a far better view of the issue since:  a) the pool of the sample population being tested is known; and b) the criteria for having the test is known (mandatory if you are in the sample pool).  These two things are not known with general statewide or nationwide testing and makes conclusions from those numbers all but impossible to understand. 

If this holds around 1% it seems it would be a good outcome.  It would also hopefully mean the concern of football and other sports participants coming out of their summer pseudo-bubble is less. 

 

 

UK testing as of today (results from 17th): 

21,064 Tests, 231 Positive, 1.1%

The crazy and irresponsible college kid theory seems to not be taking too much hold.  If these numbers are raw then the rate is likely lower as false positives can be as high or higher than 1% of the tests. 

https://www.uky.edu/coronavirus/covid-19-testing-results

 

 

I went out to eat at restaurant the other morning for the first time in over 2 months. I still find it absurd  to wear a mask from the entrance to sitting at a table, but everybody appeared to be complying. 

On 8/22/2020 at 1:40 PM, swamprat said:

I went out to eat at restaurant the other morning for the first time in over 2 months. I still find it absurd  to wear a mask from the entrance to sitting at a table, but everybody appeared to be complying. 

I think people, even those who have no use of the mask game, do this to support the business and not put it a risk from the "health officials", who may be monitoring from afar. 

Ointment to kill the virus approved. 

 

https://www.cnbctv18.com/healthcare/us-fda-approved-ointment-found-to-treat-kill-viral-infections-including-covid-19-6703831.htm

The research concludes that APT T3X effectively neutralises viral infectivity within seconds. The anti-viral efficacy supports the topical intranasal use of APT T3X to decrease the viral load of exposure.

....

The product was initially developed eight years ago for resistant-bacterial infections, but its formulation additionally provides powerful anti-fungal and anti-viral therapies. It has no documented side effects.

 

20 hours ago, Bluegrasscard said:

Ointment to kill the virus approved. 

 

https://www.cnbctv18.com/healthcare/us-fda-approved-ointment-found-to-treat-kill-viral-infections-including-covid-19-6703831.htm

The research concludes that APT T3X effectively neutralises viral infectivity within seconds. The anti-viral efficacy supports the topical intranasal use of APT T3X to decrease the viral load of exposure.

....

The product was initially developed eight years ago for resistant-bacterial infections, but its formulation additionally provides powerful anti-fungal and anti-viral therapies. It has no documented side effects.

 

Interesting. I could not find more info online. How and when is this ointment supposed to be used?

4 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

Interesting. I could not find more info online. How and when is this ointment supposed to be used?

It implied it goes around the nose area.  But information does seem sketchy at best.

On 8/21/2020 at 4:34 PM, Bluegrasscard said:

UK testing as of today (results from 17th): 

21,064 Tests, 231 Positive, 1.1%

The crazy and irresponsible college kid theory seems to not be taking too much hold.  If these numbers are raw then the rate is likely lower as false positives can be as high or higher than 1% of the tests. 

https://www.uky.edu/coronavirus/covid-19-testing-results

 

 

UK testing as of 8/20:

22,190 Tests, 248 Positive, 1.1% Positivity rate

Also from UK: 

They are focusing on the Greek organizations as it appears those had positivity rate of around 3%.  Also, over 600 non-student tests, only 5 have been been positive. 

https://www.uky.edu/coronavirus/covid-19-testing-results

UofL changed its policy as of today and will require proactive testing of all on-campus students, faculty and staff. 

UofL numbers thus far (prior to mandatory testing for on-campus):

2,621 Tests,  53 Positive, 2.0% Positivity Rate

https://louisville.edu/coronavirus/testing-results

 

Given that these statistics come from a known population with known criteria for testing and likely have few retests of individuals so far this is probably a good view of the real situation in Kentucky as opposed to the state-wide numbers that swing wildly daily and have no known criteria for testing and not even broken in detail as far as the testing numbers. 

Some people believe the daily reports of positivity rate indicate we have somewhere around 5 to 7% or more of our entire population "infected".  But this seems to be not even close to a much controlled end-to-end testing method result such as UKs (and hopefully UofLs in the next week or two).  The actual positivity rate looks to be around 1% before false positives are accounted for.  And that could be a noticeable amount of the reported positives.  

The over number of cases is a factor of overall testing effort - more tests, more cases.  As to why the positivity number fluctuates - one has to look at the details behind the testing.  The age groups, the reason for testing, the repeats, the reason that any test is being done, etc. 

Basically the reporting of "cases" and "positivity rates" is essentially meaningless without an understanding of the underlying testing methodology and and understanding of the sample population that the tests come from.   At least the college level testing should provide some level of insight that is impossible to glean from the state-wide reporting.

 

 

 

University of Alabama reporting over 560 COVID-19 positive cases since classes resumed last week.

1 hour ago, nkypete said:

University of Alabama reporting over 560 COVID-19 positive cases since classes resumed last week.

They have about 41,000 students and staff. 560 is 1.4% of the that. Sounds about right. 

1 hour ago, swamprat said:

They have about 41,000 students and staff. 560 is 1.4% of the that. Sounds about right. 

https://www.al.com/news/2020/08/alabama-updates-covid-19-testing-results-for-college-students.html

To date, more than 75,000 students attending colleges in Alabama have been tested through the GuideSafe program. Those tests have yielded a 0.75 percent rate of positivity or approximately 563 students,

...

Notre Dame, conversely, tested nearly 12,000 students before returning. Only 0.28 percent (33 students) were positive, Notre Dame announced the day classes began Aug. 10.

These seem to be the 'real' positivity rates - less than 1%.  Not 3, not 5, not 7 or 10% of the overall population, but less than or around 1% are coming up positive (but likely asymptomatic in most cases). 

These university testing efforts are yielding much more accurate picture of this "pandemic"  than any other numbers it seems. 

1 hour ago, Bluegrasscard said:

These seem to be the 'real' positivity rates - less than 1%.  Not 3, not 5, not 7 or 10% of the overall population, but less than or around 1% are coming up positive (but likely asymptomatic in most cases). 

These university testing efforts are yielding much more accurate picture of this "pandemic"  than any other numbers it seems. 

That's not what the positive rates show, at least how I understand it. It's a positive rate of those who have been tested, not the total population. 

24 minutes ago, TheDeuce said:

That's not what the positive rates show, at least how I understand it. It's a positive rate of those who have been tested, not the total population. 

Actually the positive rate of the tests - that may map multiple tests over a period of time to the same person.  Also, its unknown how the population of tests are generated. 

But I bet most people assume this "positivity rate" is just the percent of PEOPLE positive in an area since they assume "cases' == "people".  This was clearly heard last night during the JCPS board meeting. 

These university test results, where the criteria for testing is known,  are giving a much clearer view of the real world.  Its hard to say what picture the state-wide "cases" and "PR" number mean at all without understanding the details of the underlying tests criteria. 

1 minute ago, Bluegrasscard said:

Actually the positive rate of the tests - that may map multiple tests over a period of time to the same person.  Also, its unknown how the population of tests are generated. 

But I bet most people assume this "positivity rate" is just the percent of PEOPLE positive in an area since they assume "cases' == "people".  This was clearly heard last night during the JCPS board meeting. 

These university test results, where the criteria for testing is known,  are giving a much clearer view of the real world.  Its hard to say what picture the state-wide "cases" and "PR" number mean at all without understanding the details of the underlying tests criteria. 

Any numbers can be interpreted a number of ways. I'm not sure how you could say college testing numbers are a better view of the "real world" when they are a fraction of a fraction of the numbers (population) in the real world. Not to mention, we can't say for months how young people aren't affected at the same rate and then in the same breath say this is a better reflection of "reality." 

6 minutes ago, TheDeuce said:

Any numbers can be interpreted a number of ways. I'm not sure how you could say college testing numbers are a better view of the "real world" when they are a fraction of a fraction of the numbers (population) in the real world. Not to mention, we can't say for months how young people aren't affected at the same rate and then in the same breath say this is a better reflection of "reality." 

In terms of the young people impact - A positive test may still qualify as "not affected" if the person is asymptomatic and has no ill effects.  It would be interesting to get a metric of the positives as to how many were asymptomatic and never developed an illness.  They may have been exposed, fought it off and never would have known about it without a mandatory test in those cases. 

The college tests provide a good "snapshot" since the test covers 100% of the potential sample population.  At best, the current statewide numbers are grabbing about 1% of the potential sample population each week.   Also we know the criteria for the college tests - its mandatory.  The criteria for test in the state-wide numbers is unknown.  Even age break out of the tests is unknown or not published.  Very nebulous specific on the thing that actually drives the numbers - tests.  

5 minutes ago, Bluegrasscard said:

In terms of the young people impact - A positive test may still qualify as "not affected" if the person is asymptomatic and has no ill effects.  It would be interesting to get a metric of the positives as to how many were asymptomatic and never developed an illness.  They may have been exposed, fought it off and never would have known about it without a mandatory test in those cases. 

The college tests provide a good "snapshot" since the test covers 100% of the potential sample population.  At best, the current statewide numbers are grabbing about 1% of the potential sample population each week.   Also we know the criteria for the college tests - its mandatory.  The criteria for test in the state-wide numbers is unknown.  Even age break out of the tests is unknown or not published.  Very nebulous specific on the thing that actually drives the numbers - tests.  

You're looking for something in the college numbers that isn't there, IMO.