Domestic Travel Covid Testing
02-09-2021, 11:44 AM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,316
Originally Posted by rickair7777
I'm not entirely ruling out the possibility that they're doing this with the ulterior motive of killing airline aviation for political (control) or climate (carbon) purposes.
Woah, did I just hear a “conspiracy” from you?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fAN1bo1HAwo
They have been pushing this for months. Actually, the Commons Project was founded just before Covid started.
02-09-2021, 12:08 PM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Baja Vermont
Posts: 5,177
Originally Posted by DarkSideMoon
Pete is pretty good about following data, even when not politically expedient, I’d be surprised if this got past the “we’re researching it as an option” phase.
02-09-2021, 12:28 PM
#46
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,504
hthttps://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...635-0/fulltext
https://asm.org/Articles/2020/Novemb...t-the-Whole-St
AN EXCERPT:
Rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for respiratory viruses historically have specificities of 98-99%, so false positive rates of 1-2% can be expected. Even small imperfections in specificity lead to large numbers of false positive results when tests are deployed on a large scale. If the prevalence of infection is low, a large proportion of positive results will be false positives. As has been recently demonstrated in Nevada skilled nursing facilities, such applications may produce test outcomes resulting in more problems than benefits. Using the manufacturer’s performance characteristics for the Abbott BinaxNOW COVID-19 test, we modeled the percentage of tests that will be positive and the occurrence of false positive results at different prevalence rates of COVID-19.
Percentage of positive test results, as well as rate of false positive results, at different prevalence rates of COVID-19 using Abbott BinaxNOW COVID-19 test performance characteristics of 98.5% specificity.
At a prevalence of 0.2% nationwide (based on hospital and college asymptomatic screening data), one in every 59 tests will be positive, and 89% of those results will be a false positive result. If this test were used for everyone in the U.S. on one day, there would be approximately 5.5 million positive results, 4.9 million of which would be false positives
Percentage of positive test results, as well as rate of false positive results, at different prevalence rates of COVID-19 using Abbott BinaxNOW COVID-19 test performance characteristics of 98.5% specificity.At a prevalence of 0.2% nationwide (based on hospital and college asymptomatic screening data), one in every 59 tests will be positive, and 89% of those results will be a false positive result. If this test were used for everyone in the U.S. on one day, there would be approximately 5.5 million positive results, 4.9 million of which would be false positives
this is the current COVID caseload in the US is about 9 million people. That’s out of 330 million people. But that is existing cases that have already been identified and aren’t going to be traveling. The daily NEW cases are averaging maybe 125,000 a day:
That means there are at most about a million people out there late enough after exposure to start to be infectious and recent enough from exposure to STILL be infectious. A million out of 330 million is an effective prevalence of 1 out of 330 or 0.3%. For the above example, 84% of the positives would be false positives GIVEN THE MANUFACTURERS OWN FIGURES.
Given the actual values found in the field with tests done by non professionals, the actual number of true positives would go down while the number of false positives would remain unchanged making the predictive value of a positive test even lower that the already pretty bad values.
This isn’t rocket science, it isn’t conspiratorial theory, it isn’t even new - it’s basic probability and statistics. This is Bayes Theorem. It has been around far longer than any of us. Bayes was a statistician who died in 1761.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Thomas-Bayes
Last edited by Excargodog; 02-09-2021 at 01:11 PM.
02-09-2021, 03:47 PM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Position: Guppy Gear Slinger
Posts: 1,852
Well, this is sheer lunacy, in my opinion. If you're going to require an (unreliable) covid test for domestic airline travel, why not require a test every time someone steps out of their house? If you wanted to absolutely kill the travel industry, this is one way to start.
I hope that saner heads will prevail. While the American people voted for an administration to take covid more seriously than the last bunch of inept clowns, I really really hope that we haven't simply replaced one set of morons (deniers) with another set (over-reactors.)
I don't believe this is part of some 'concerted effort' to 'kill aviation because climate change.' Most politicians aren't *that* stupid. I think this is mainly a consequence of the classic failings of the political class, which is the frantic desire to 'be seen to be doing something,' even if that something makes no scientific sense.
Nitwits.
I hope that saner heads will prevail. While the American people voted for an administration to take covid more seriously than the last bunch of inept clowns, I really really hope that we haven't simply replaced one set of morons (deniers) with another set (over-reactors.)
I don't believe this is part of some 'concerted effort' to 'kill aviation because climate change.' Most politicians aren't *that* stupid. I think this is mainly a consequence of the classic failings of the political class, which is the frantic desire to 'be seen to be doing something,' even if that something makes no scientific sense.
Nitwits.
02-09-2021, 04:03 PM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: 767/757 CA
Posts: 2,610
Originally Posted by Turbosina
Well, this is sheer lunacy, in my opinion. If you're going to require an (unreliable) covid test for domestic airline travel, why not require a test every time someone steps out of their house? If you wanted to absolutely kill the travel industry, this is one way to start.
I hope that saner heads will prevail. While the American people voted for an administration to take covid more seriously than the last bunch of inept clowns, I really really hope that we haven't simply replaced one set of morons (deniers) with another set (over-reactors.)
I don't believe this is part of some 'concerted effort' to 'kill aviation because climate change.' Most politicians aren't *that* stupid. I think this is mainly a consequence of the classic failings of the political class, which is the frantic desire to 'be seen to be doing something,' even if that something makes no scientific sense.
Nitwits.
I hope that saner heads will prevail. While the American people voted for an administration to take covid more seriously than the last bunch of inept clowns, I really really hope that we haven't simply replaced one set of morons (deniers) with another set (over-reactors.)
I don't believe this is part of some 'concerted effort' to 'kill aviation because climate change.' Most politicians aren't *that* stupid. I think this is mainly a consequence of the classic failings of the political class, which is the frantic desire to 'be seen to be doing something,' even if that something makes no scientific sense.
Nitwits.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
