TYB and to all the
Holocough Survivors out there,
We Are With You
Fuck, more bullshit. Ridiculous, with the symptomatic and asymptomatic spread.
I'll back up and do a transcript of this section, as it's
complete bullshit
And I know my math/health/testing shit.
Relates to:
>>8867349 (PB)
Please anons, go back to that post, and look at the hits from Fake Daniel. How hard is that post being hit? Why?
Cool bakes, good times, am on a 15-20 min lag with the livestream, had to step away.
Oh Fuck, he just said "Ambassador Birx" again! (regarding testing)
RE: >>8867406 (PB)
Here is quote:
"You would have a lot of those millions of tests already being done, I think Ambassador Birx has estimated that we have another million tests a week just one one platform that could be done if the machines were utilized more fully" - Admiral Giroir
Does he have some requirement, as an Admiral, to address an Ambassador a certain way, by some code am not aware of?
Ok, this is just ridiculous!
Here's the quote:
RE Question to Admiral Giroir on testing, he said:
"It is the guidelines, I tried to be a little specific about this on Friday and we all tried to. Number one is you need to test everyone who is symptomatic, right, and you need to overtest them, because ..(q), we're talking any symptoms that would be consistent with COVID, right, so, and there's a wide range of symtoms. You want to test them, and you want to overtst. We talked about the approximate metric with Ambassador Birx, uh, fully supports, this is a good metric, you want to get about one positive for every ten tests, then you know you over-sampled. Second, and this is a really important part of the strategy, is because so many people are asymptomatic, there's no way you can test enough people to pull one asymptomatic out of 300 people in the population, so the strategy which [with sic] Ambassador Birx offered, and I've talked to Epidemiologists across the country, and they've go 'wow, I wish I would have thought of that' is to really focus on the vulnerable population where the know that the asymptomatic rate could be much higher than the rest of the population. And this is what my office does, during normal times, focusing on the underserved populations, particularly in inner cities and urban areas. They have a higher rate, because of overcrowding, they can't tele-work, they're subject to a lot of co-morbid conditions. Nursing homes, we all know about nursing homes, and there's symptomatic and asymptomatic spread. And finally some of our Indigenous populations in the Indian Health Service. So this is a very very important layer that most of the models and people don't talk about, because that's where we're going to pick up the asymptomatic caricatiuratoon (wtf word was that?) when you do that. That's when you focus on track and trace."
Based post anon. ty.
Chekk'd
Seriously, pick this apart.
What is the "approximate metric"?
Ok, got it, if we get a 1/10 hit, testing front-line and those most suspect, vs my neighbors who are all just faggots hunkered down for little reason, which would be 1/100 or 1/1000, ok got that.
Why would the rate of asymptomatic among the vulnerable population be any higher than rest of pop. Actually, it would be opposite. If they're sensitive and vulnerable, and exposed, they're on a fucking ventilator if they choose to ignore POTUS suggested HCQ cure.
WTF do the Indians have to do with this stats-wise? Is Liz Warren lobbying for her peeps here?
This is making little real sense. Lots of word salad, and have sat in enough boardrooms to know when shit is being slung…
ty anon, Ambassador at Large.
Wonder what sort of legal ramifications come along with being an Ambassador.
Appreciate the sauce.
In a sick way, you've nailed it anon!
Dont' be stooopid, or am I not following you?
When your "BLUE Testing Meter" reads RED 50% of the time when it's actually BLUE, and BLUE 50% of the time when it's actually RED…
That's a completely unreliable meter. If Actual Blue is measured as Blue 98% of the time, and gives a false-positive 2% of the time, that's a whole nother stats.
Do you understand testing anons?
False positives?
False negatives?
Look at breast cancer testing as an example, hundreds of papers/studies on the topic. Or lung cancer as another example (with CT scans authorized for chronic smokers, a 'vulnerable population').
This is so basic, Wiki suffices:
In medical testing, and more generally in binary classification, a false positive is an error in data reporting in which a test result improperly indicates presence of a condition, such as a disease (the result is positive), when in reality it is not present, while a false negative is an error in which a test result improperly indicates no presence of a condition (the result is negative), when in reality it is present. These are the two kinds of errors in a binary test (and are contrasted with a correct result, either a true positive or a true negative.) They are also known in medicine as a false positive (respectively negative) diagnosis, and in statistical classification as a false positive (respectively negative) error.[1] A false positive is distinct from overdiagnosis,[2] and is also different from overtesting.[3]
In statistical hypothesis testing the analogous concepts are known as type I and type II errors, where a positive result corresponds to rejecting the null hypothesis, and a negative result corresponds to not rejecting the null hypothesis. The terms are often used interchangeably, but there are differences in detail and interpretation due to the differences between medical testing and statistical hypothesis testing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_positives_and_false_negatives
In Bill's pocket methinks..
Now we know how Lindsey Graham is COMPD.
Smoke to flush out these rats.
No worries, sorry to go all scruffdawwg on ya, bit riled with the bullshit tonight.
>Hes really talking him up so later when he comes before the senate..
Ok, that would be 5D chess, and redeem Graham. As his words stand, at this point, he's a traitor. Even POTUS if far more careful with his congratulatory words, he has categories.
Want to believe you anon, but skeptical at this point, and say Lindsey is a complete faggot.
Keep up your good work anon, and don't shit the bred again (think you lurned!)
e-bake, incoming.. don't shit the bred anons!