Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In 4 US state prisons, 3,300 inmates test positive, 96% without symptoms

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 649 posts

Re: In 4 US state prisons, 3,300 inmates test positive, 96% without symptoms

#21

Post by londons_explore »

tyingq wrote: post #14
alexbanks wrote: post #2

Before the deluge of "But wait two weeks" comments, I just want to ask at what point we accept that the potentially of totally asymptomatic cases is insanely high, far higher than anyone thought?

There's also the nuance of US state prison care quality. "Without symptoms" could just mean "not obviously gasping for air" .

"Not dead yet"

Re: In 4 US state prisons, 3,300 inmates test positive, 96% without symptoms

#22

Post by DanBC »

marcell wrote: post #3

I've been tracking the antibody study results in a spreadsheet, and they are suggesting a 10-20x undercount of cases in the official "confirmed" numbers. You can see the data I've collected here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16onEUBWIV5IqN1RCvTla...

What numbers are you using for sensitivity and specificity?

Re: In 4 US state prisons, 3,300 inmates test positive, 96% without symptoms

#23

Post by mkagenius »

The test seems so freaking flawed to me, if you test isolated ISS astronauts, you would get half of them infected. Or probably aliens are infected too. Maybe some people who are dead for million years are infected as well. No one freaking talks about the test being flawed (rtpcr).

Re: In 4 US state prisons, 3,300 inmates test positive, 96% without symptoms

#24

Post by cjlars »

alexbanks wrote: post #2

Before the deluge of "But wait two weeks" comments, I just want to ask at what point we accept that the potentially of totally asymptomatic cases is insanely high, far higher than anyone thought?

I'll venture a guess that by Wednesday the news cycle will be deep in the implications of very high asymptomatic case count... Assuming we don't start seeing contradicting evidence.

Re: In 4 US state prisons, 3,300 inmates test positive, 96% without symptoms

#25

Post by DoreenMichele »

londons_explore wrote: post #21
tyingq wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also the nuance of US state prison care quality. "Without symptoms" could just mean "not obviously gasping for air" .

"Not dead yet"

"Just their usual whining because that's what prisoners do. These are not the symptoms you are looking for. Move along."

Re: In 4 US state prisons, 3,300 inmates test positive, 96% without symptoms

#26

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

buboard wrote: post #16
marcell wrote: post #3

I've been tracking the antibody study results in a spreadsheet, and they are suggesting a 10-20x undercount of cases in the official "confirmed" numbers. You can see the data I've collected here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16onEUBWIV5IqN1RCvTla...

i don't understand the value of this multiplier. Case statistics are not an official census, it's incidental , depending on the criteria with which each region makes tests. Case numbers are unimportant, it's the total infections and consequent deaths that matter

You're probably right that they shouldn't be, but case statistics are regularly treated as an official census. I've seen many news articles in the vein that suchandsuch country is handling it better or worse because of their case numbers, or statistics like CFR that are computed from official case numbers.

Re: In 4 US state prisons, 3,300 inmates test positive, 96% without symptoms

#27

Post by DanBC »

nodesocket wrote: post #15

Isn't this a bit of promising news, means herd immunity is probably much deeper and larger than we are currently aware.

WHO says we can't assume previous infection means future immunity.

https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/immunity-p...

Re: In 4 US state prisons, 3,300 inmates test positive, 96% without symptoms

#30

Post by cies »

marcell wrote: post #3

I've been tracking the antibody study results in a spreadsheet, and they are suggesting a 10-20x undercount of cases in the official "confirmed" numbers. You can see the data I've collected here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16onEUBWIV5IqN1RCvTla...

I did similar calculations, and found the institutions in charge give us very unreliable data. The term "corona case" is very, very, ambiguous and cannot the understood as such without a detailed explanation on how the counting was done.

Thanks for sharing.

I found the peek in all-case mortality also very interesting, because that way counting is much more unambiguous: dead is dead.

They showed a clear diversion from the "average" in recent weeks, but... they did not show the stdev for the averages. Finally I found a chart that shows that "outliers" are not uncommon.

https://imgur.com/IPNiXRe

Post reply on HN