The Dude wrote:is that FDA approved?

momadance wrote:WV Governor not mincing words lol.

https://twitter.com/CalebJHull/status/1 ... 9098226688

heyeaglefn wrote:

The Dude wrote:is that FDA approved?

Not yet it sounds like.

About COVID-19 Testing by Quest Diagnostics
Quest Diagnostics is at the forefront of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, working to broaden access to laboratory insights to help us all lead healthier lives. We provide both molecular diagnostic and antibody serology tests to aid in the diagnosis of COVID-19 and immune response. Our COVID-19 test services are based on tests that have received or are expected to receive FDA emergency use authorization and which also meet our high standards for quality. 

The serology antibody tests run by Quest Diagnostics are either approved by the FDA under an emergency use authorization, or were released for use under the FDA guidance, "Policy for Diagnostic Tests for Coronavirus Disease-2019 during the Public Health Emergency," updated March 16, 2020, and have not been reviewed by the FDA.

Bucky wrote:what am i missing? has the video been edited?

heyeaglefn wrote:

The Dude wrote:is that FDA approved?

Not yet it sounds like.

About COVID-19 Testing by Quest Diagnostics
Quest Diagnostics is at the forefront of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, working to broaden access to laboratory insights to help us all lead healthier lives. We provide both molecular diagnostic and antibody serology tests to aid in the diagnosis of COVID-19 and immune response. Our COVID-19 test services are based on tests that have received or are expected to receive FDA emergency use authorization and which also meet our high standards for quality. 

The serology antibody tests run by Quest Diagnostics are either approved by the FDA under an emergency use authorization, or were released for use under the FDA guidance, "Policy for Diagnostic Tests for Coronavirus Disease-2019 during the Public Health Emergency," updated March 16, 2020, and have not been reviewed by the FDA.

jamiethekiller wrote:irregardless of what model the administration put their faith in. there hasn't been a single published one that said "this won't be so bad." they've all ranged from this is fucking awful to a large chunk of our population is going to die.

the fact that the federal government has been completely wishy washy on the entire thing and gave carte blanche or no guidance to the states is the reason why this is still escalating.

Bucky wrote:yep, cops are in uncharted waters here. I've had similar discussions with a few. for the most part, they don't see that they have legal authority to uphold executive orders. it's a very gray area.

Rev_Beezer wrote:Money is way more important than people to too many of us. I’m just amazed that people will lie to themselves and latch on to crappy conspiracies because it’s what they want.

Nobody better ever tell me that people get wiser as they age ever again. Children, I tell you....

jerseyhoya wrote:To me it seems like people are getting very caught up in trends than levels, when levels are probably at least as important.

New York is improving rapidly, and New Jersey seems like it's getting better. But we're still adding more several multiples more cases per day in NJ than they are in Florida, to pick a state that is almost 3x our population and gets criticized a lot, while our test positivity rate is still higher. Our curve is 'bending' more, but our curve is shitty.

The whole thing at the start was we wanted to flatten the curve so our healthcare system wouldn't get overwhelmed. Most places in the country have flattened their curve, and now they're getting yelled at for not 'bending' the curve down. NYC is bending their curve down because it did the bad thing where the curve went nuts and tons of people died. I don't think most places are ready to reopen because I don't think there's been much planning on how to actually do that safely. And I wish people would hold off for another week or two most areas to see sustained improvement and also allow testing to continue to improve. But in a lot of places the level of infections never really got that bad to begin with so a lack of improvement still puts them in a better spot than places that are rapidly improving.

[img]

Seemed like at the beginning people were arguing for doing the blue one with the longer plateau. I guess maybe in some places the blue will become new red zones as they try to open back up. And we're more vulnerable to that because so little is being done to set up contact tracing and other things to prevent outbreaks. But feels like goalposts are moving to give credit to places like NYC where things were genuinely terrible and have improved to be still quite bad compared to almost anywhere else in the country, and chastising the places that never got bad.

Eem wrote:The increased testing IS coming back less overall. 9% of tests were reported as positive yesterday, the lowest of the year

Bucky wrote:what am i missing? has the video been edited?

Uncle Milty wrote:

Eem wrote:The increased testing IS coming back less overall. 9% of tests were reported as positive yesterday, the lowest of the year

I keep seeing this as good news in different places and struggle to accept it as such.

momadance wrote:

Bucky wrote:what am i missing? has the video been edited?

Turn your hearing aid up.

Eem wrote:

Uncle Milty wrote:

Eem wrote:The increased testing IS coming back less overall. 9% of tests were reported as positive yesterday, the lowest of the year

I keep seeing this as good news in different places and struggle to accept it as such.

I mean, I dunno what you'd be looking for

If we did 250K tests and all 250K came back positive, it'd be awful news inasmuch as there'd be 250K new cases, but "good" news in that we'd be closer to herd immunity. If we did 250K tests and 0 came back positive but the disease was still spreading, we aren't catching cases.

If you do more tests, you're going to catch more cases on the fringe but probably will "catch" a lot of negative tests too. This shows we're not just testing very symptomatic people anymore. We're testing mild symptomatic/no symptoms as well.

We're still not doing enough, but the rate of positive tests going down likely means we're headed in the right direction and we're not missing as many potential "hot spots."

Uncle Milty wrote:

Eem wrote:

Uncle Milty wrote:

Eem wrote:The increased testing IS coming back less overall. 9% of tests were reported as positive yesterday, the lowest of the year

I keep seeing this as good news in different places and struggle to accept it as such.

I mean, I dunno what you'd be looking for

If we did 250K tests and all 250K came back positive, it'd be awful news inasmuch as there'd be 250K new cases, but "good" news in that we'd be closer to herd immunity. If we did 250K tests and 0 came back positive but the disease was still spreading, we aren't catching cases.

If you do more tests, you're going to catch more cases on the fringe but probably will "catch" a lot of negative tests too. This shows we're not just testing very symptomatic people anymore. We're testing mild symptomatic/no symptoms as well.

We're still not doing enough, but the rate of positive tests going down likely means we're headed in the right direction and we're not missing as many potential "hot spots."

I dunno what I'm looking for in those numbers either.

We've expanded testing beyond just those with moderate to severe symptoms. The percentage positive decreasing strikes me as a "No duh!" moment.

I don't know what a "good" percentage is as we test a broader (but not broad enough) range but 9% doesn't sound like it to me. For example if 9% of people carried HIV in the 80s I think I might have joined a monastery instead of dating.