Faa recommends Covid testing for crew
03-06-2021, 11:04 AM
#51
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,289
Originally Posted by Speed Select
Whats the point of testing? Seriously?
If I have any “symptoms,” yet test negative (multiple times), I have to quarantine. If I’m asymptomatic and test positive, I have to quarantine. Is this virus so unlike any other respiratory virus in the history of life that we can’t use the time tested standard: don’t go out if you’re sick, go out again after 24 hours with no fever and improving symptoms.
Testing is so unreliable that I don’t see the point of it.
If I have any “symptoms,” yet test negative (multiple times), I have to quarantine. If I’m asymptomatic and test positive, I have to quarantine. Is this virus so unlike any other respiratory virus in the history of life that we can’t use the time tested standard: don’t go out if you’re sick, go out again after 24 hours with no fever and improving symptoms.
Testing is so unreliable that I don’t see the point of it.
03-06-2021, 11:11 AM
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2016
Position: NBC
Posts: 763
Originally Posted by rickair7777
Who says you have to quarantine if you test negative? That's a new one. They won't want you coming to work, etc. You're just out sick, that's all. People still get colds, flu, etc. Your friends and family may keep their distance.
03-06-2021, 02:09 PM
#53
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2020
Posts: 120
Originally Posted by Excargodog
Read the recommended statistical and public health literature or remain ignorant. Your option. If you refuse to even attempt to understand even the basics then nothing tanyone says on the subject will ever make sense. When you can at least start to ask coherent questions about Bayes Theorem of conditional probability and how they relate to mass screening using clinical tests I’ll get back to you. Until then you are wasting both your time and mine.
READ THIS:
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infecti.../covid19/85717
AMS :: Feature Column :: Does He Have It? : Sensitivity, Specificity, and COVID-19 Testing
READ THIS:
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infecti.../covid19/85717
AMS :: Feature Column :: Does He Have It? : Sensitivity, Specificity, and COVID-19 Testing
Ok I’m going to try this again, you keep dodging the reality of your situation. as Gordie H gets it. What does your theory have anything to do with real life? Who cares about the possibility of getting a small percentage wrong, of course they will be wrong, it’s not 100% exact. So, how are you going to test the people. You said I want people to be tested but not this way. Then how, is there another way?
03-06-2021, 02:16 PM
#54
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2020
Posts: 120
Originally Posted by Seneca Pilot
It isn't that testing doesn't work. It is that testing has a certain percentage of incorrect results. When you test only those likely to be infected you are testing a smaller group so that the percentage of incorrect test results yields a small raw number of false negatives/positives. As you test ever larger numbers of healthy people the same percentage of false results causes a much larger raw number of people to endure quarantine due to false positives and larger raw number of infected people to slip through the cracks due to the percentage of false negatives.
false negatives.
false negatives.
03-06-2021, 02:23 PM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Baja Vermont
Posts: 5,177
Because it’s not a few people, but as much as a third are in error. Please study some statistics and get back to us. When the incidence is few, the huge numbers of false positives and false negatives frown out the testing.
03-06-2021, 02:25 PM
#56
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2019
Posts: 1,538
Originally Posted by Minepza
So what? What is your argument? That we shouldn’t test everyone because a few people might get a false result? Does that make any sense?
The point is that testing people with low possibility of infection is pointless and increases the instances of false results in raw numbers. A small percentage of false results becomes a huge number when you needlessly test masses of people. We SHOULD test people with symptoms or specific suspected exposure. We SHOULD NOT test everyone.
03-06-2021, 02:26 PM
#57
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2020
Posts: 120
Originally Posted by Gordie H
You're not wrong, testing works. Might be a bit late in the game with the vaccine ramping up...as others have said.
Fedex seems to of had/has the best testing program (run by the company). Basically a voluntarily rapid test available 24/7 at all hubs and if you test positive, pulled off the trip with pay. If you pop pos the first time, you get it again and then confirmed by third pcr test. They've had it since last spring. I don't work there so I might have the details wrong but this is my general understanding.
Fedex seems to of had/has the best testing program (run by the company). Basically a voluntarily rapid test available 24/7 at all hubs and if you test positive, pulled off the trip with pay. If you pop pos the first time, you get it again and then confirmed by third pcr test. They've had it since last spring. I don't work there so I might have the details wrong but this is my general understanding.
03-06-2021, 02:41 PM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2020
Posts: 120
Originally Posted by Seneca Pilot
The point is that testing people with low possibility of infection is pointless and increases the instances of false results in raw numbers. A small percentage of false results becomes a huge number when you needlessly test masses of people. We SHOULD test people with symptoms or specific suspected exposure. We SHOULD NOT test everyone.
But really forget about the theory part, I’m failing to get how you don’t think it’s a good idea to test everyone. Is that you just not wanting to be tested? If this is the case then I would totally understand.
But throwing statistics to argue this makes zero sense, most everyone will get a correct result. You’re just testing someone, nobody knows if they have this virus it’s asymptotic until it’s too late.
03-06-2021, 02:45 PM
#60
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Baja Vermont
Posts: 5,177
Originally Posted by Minepza
Ok what does all this have to do with anything. Most everyone that will test will get a correct result. Why does it matter if you test everyone you’ll get more false results. And you don’t even know this, it’s just a theory.
But really forget about the theory part, I’m failing to get how you don’t think it’s a good idea to test everyone. Is that you just don’t want to be tested? If this is the case then I would totally understand. But throwing statistics to argue this makes zero sense, most everyone will get a correct result. You’re just testing someone, nobody knows if they have this virus it’s asymptotic until it’s too late.
But really forget about the theory part, I’m failing to get how you don’t think it’s a good idea to test everyone. Is that you just don’t want to be tested? If this is the case then I would totally understand. But throwing statistics to argue this makes zero sense, most everyone will get a correct result. You’re just testing someone, nobody knows if they have this virus it’s asymptotic until it’s too late.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
fireman0174
Major
4
02-20-2007 11:27 AM
AUS_ATC
Hangar Talk
0
03-08-2006 06:56 PM
