Hawaii... WTF?
09-25-2020, 04:22 PM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Posts: 667
This whole idea of testing before getting on the plane is great in theory, except not everyone is required to get the test. People can still opt for quarantine on arrival. Just imagine loading up with your significant other, paying for the test and having United sit someone in the middle seat between you that’s opting to quarantine vs test. That person getS both of you sick and everyone else within a row or 2 sick and next thing we know, a few days later we have 10 plus “negative” people walking around spreading it about the island. Hawaii will get a small spike and tie to to people who tested negative before departing and close the whole program down.
09-25-2020, 04:55 PM
#42
Banned
Joined APC: Feb 2020
Position: Gummed
Posts: 1,060
Originally Posted by tonsterboy5
This whole idea of testing before getting on the plane is great in theory, except not everyone is required to get the test. People can still opt for quarantine on arrival. Just imagine loading up with your significant other, paying for the test and having United sit someone in the middle seat between you that’s opting to quarantine vs test. That person getS both of you sick and everyone else within a row or 2 sick and next thing we know, a few days later we have 10 plus “negative” people walking around spreading it about the island. Hawaii will get a small spike and tie to to people who tested negative before departing and close the whole program down.
09-26-2020, 09:25 AM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Posts: 667
Originally Posted by Phins2right
This is the attitude that will prevent the recovery
09-26-2020, 11:24 AM
#44
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2020
Posts: 91
Originally Posted by tonsterboy5
what’s that? Pointing out a major flaw in the the policy? The idea of testing before going to a place is great but how effective will it be if immediately after your test you are stuck on a plane for 6 hours hours next to someone who didn’t test?
09-26-2020, 11:36 AM
#45
Perennial Reserve
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,504
Originally Posted by tonsterboy5
what’s that? Pointing out a major flaw in the the policy? The idea of testing before going to a place is great but how effective will it be if immediately after your test you are stuck on a plane for 6 hours hours next to someone who didn’t test?
Antibody tests one week after first symptoms only detected 30% of people who had COVID-19. Accuracy increased in week 2 with 70% detected, and was highest in week 3 (more than 90% detected). Little evidence was available after week 3. Tests gave false positive results in 2% of those without COVID-19.
Results from IgG/IgM tests three weeks after symptoms started suggested that if 1000 people had antibody tests, and 50 (5%) of them really had COVID-19 (as we might expect in a national screening survey):
- 58 people would test positive for COVID-19. Of these, 12 people (21%) would not have COVID-19 (false positive result).
- 942 people would test negative for COVID-19. Of these, 4 people (0.4%) would actually have COVID-19 (false negative result).
If we tested 1000 healthcare workers (in a high-risk setting) who had had symptoms, and 500 (50%) of them really had COVID-19:
- 464 people would test positive for COVID-19. Of these, 7 people (2%) would not have COVID-19 (false positive result).
- 537 people would test negative for COVID-19. Of these, 43 (8%) would actually have COVID-19 (false negative result).
We did not find convincing differences in accuracy for different types of antibody test.
Results from IgG/IgM tests three weeks after symptoms started suggested that if 1000 people had antibody tests, and 50 (5%) of them really had COVID-19 (as we might expect in a national screening survey):
- 58 people would test positive for COVID-19. Of these, 12 people (21%) would not have COVID-19 (false positive result).
- 942 people would test negative for COVID-19. Of these, 4 people (0.4%) would actually have COVID-19 (false negative result).
If we tested 1000 healthcare workers (in a high-risk setting) who had had symptoms, and 500 (50%) of them really had COVID-19:
- 464 people would test positive for COVID-19. Of these, 7 people (2%) would not have COVID-19 (false positive result).
- 537 people would test negative for COVID-19. Of these, 43 (8%) would actually have COVID-19 (false negative result).
We did not find convincing differences in accuracy for different types of antibody test.
Assume that an RT-PCR test was perfectly specific (always negative in people not infected with SARS-CoV-2) and that the pretest probability for someone who, say, was feeling sick after close contact with someone with Covid-19 was 20%. If the test sensitivity were 95% (95% of infected people test positive), the post-test probability of infection with a negative test would be 1%, which might be low enough to consider someone uninfected and may provide them assurance in visiting high-risk relatives. The post-test probability would remain below 5% even if the pretest probability were as high as 50%, a more reasonable estimate for someone with recent exposure and early symptoms in a “hot spot” area.
But sensitivity for many available tests appears to be substantially lower: the studies cited above suggest that 70% is probably a reasonable estimate. At this sensitivity level, with a pretest probability of 50%, the post-test probability with a negative test would be 23% — far too high to safely assume someone is uninfected.
But sensitivity for many available tests appears to be substantially lower: the studies cited above suggest that 70% is probably a reasonable estimate. At this sensitivity level, with a pretest probability of 50%, the post-test probability with a negative test would be 23% — far too high to safely assume someone is uninfected.
The problem is that Baye’s Theorem eats you alive when you use medical tests for general screening of asymptomatic individuals. As a PR gimmick or a way to let ignorant politicians step back from Draconian edicts, they may have some utility, but every test is a trade off between sensitivity and specificity and current tests aren’t going to give the separation people think they will between infected and uninfected.
09-27-2020, 05:12 PM
#46
Aspiring PSA Captain
Joined APC: Sep 2020
Posts: 824
Originally Posted by YangGang2020
This has been pointed out repeatedly. Their response is that the layered approach will still have some virus slip through but it will be manageable. the virus is already in the Hawaii community. It is important to give options as not everybody is willing to test.
Merle
09-29-2020, 02:08 PM
#49
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2020
Posts: 91
Originally Posted by saxman66
Just had some FA's post that they all got fined for eating...outside. A few of them walk to get food to go. They find a park bench to eat on. They all got ticketed with a court dates. I'm not sure if they actually have to show up to court or just pay the fine. They said, flight crew are their biggest violators...(yeah, no $$it) They probably know this, knowing that flight crews won't be able to come back to fight the court case.
09-29-2020, 05:58 PM
#50
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Position: Bus FO
Posts: 82
Originally Posted by tonsterboy5
what’s that? Pointing out a major flaw in the the policy? The idea of testing before going to a place is great but how effective will it be if immediately after your test you are stuck on a plane for 6 hours hours next to someone who didn’t test?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
