Jump to content

Please consider disabling your adblocker for CreditBoards if you have not already done so.  This site depends on advertising revenue to stay online.


Corona virus and credit reports

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, cashnocredit said:

 

 

 

 

Love the different headlines in the Dailymail v Today. Today's article is more accurate.

 

You do realize that Nasal Swab Covid tests don't have a stellar sensitivity. Good ones are 80%, maybe 90% and only then during a few days around when symptoms appear. He had 4 nasal swab PCR tests 3 of which were negative and 1 a weak positive. Not enough for a positive diagnosis but also insufficient to rule out Covid.

 

Antibody tests vary more but good ones are well above 90%. Assuming the patient produces the Ig/m type antibodies that the test checks. There are more sensitive but complex tests that the Dr. will be undergoing.

 

Also, while the virus usually infects the lungs it can also infect the gastrointestinal tract.

 

It's currently unknown whether Covid can be spread by flatulence aerosols. Seems unlikely but who knows. Certainly not WHO.

 

Hate to have to wear 2 masks!  :)

 

The construction of the second would be rather interesting but at least you wouldn't have to look at it. At least under normal circumstances.

 

Point was that both his and NBC's proclamations were that he has/had coronavirus (look at his tweets and the text NBC displayed underneath his image on the screen), even though this rather essential fact hadn't been established.

 

28387672-8511769-Fair_spoke_to_the_Today 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cv91915 said:

 

Point was that both his and NBC's proclamations were that he has/had coronavirus (look at his tweets and the text NBC displayed underneath his image on the screen), even though this rather essential fact hadn't been established.

 

28387672-8511769-Fair_spoke_to_the_Today 

 

 

Media stated facts are sometimes not actual facts but probabilistic or worse, just beliefs based on whatever others they hang with believe. The media likes to state certainties but life often doesn't provide certainties.

 

Even if he had been positive on a PCR test it's not absolutely definitive he had Covid-19, just very highly probable. Same with negative results. Not an absolute assurance that he didn't have Covid-19. The value of the news article is not that he never had Covid-19 which he may or may not have had, but the reality of test uncertainty.

 

Many are not aware of just how uncertain many medical diagnostics are. People sometimes get treated for cancer that don't have cancer. Some disease diagnoses one can be quite certain of, others not so much. To get a positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 RNA fragments you have to get the stuff in the back of your throat. Some people just don't produce that much virus load in that location. A pretty large number of Covid-19 people never spread it to anyone else including close family members while others spend an hour in a room a tens of people get it.

 

Rather interesting bug.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, cashnocredit said:

 

 

 

 

Love the different headlines in the Dailymail v Today. Today's article is more accurate.

 

You do realize that Nasal Swab Covid tests don't have a stellar sensitivity. Good ones are 80%, maybe 90% and only then during a few days around when symptoms appear. He had 4 nasal swab PCR tests 3 of which were negative and 1 a weak positive. Not enough for a positive diagnosis but also insufficient to rule out Covid.

 

Antibody tests vary more but good ones are well above 90%. Assuming the patient produces the Ig/m type antibodies that the test checks. There are more sensitive but complex tests that the Dr. will be undergoing.

 

Also, while the virus usually infects the lungs it can also infect the gastrointestinal tract.

 

It's currently unknown whether Covid can be spread by flatulence aerosols. Seems unlikely but who knows. Certainly not WHO.

 

Hate to have to wear 2 masks!  :)

 

The construction of the second would be rather interesting but at least you wouldn't have to look at it. At least under normal circumstances.

https://milliman-cdn.azureedge.net/-/media/milliman/pdfs/articles/everything-you-think-you-know.ashx

 

From Milliman Actuaries: MedInsight. On page 4 it talks about "How Covid-19 Testing (or lack thereof) Impact Research Outcomes" See graph where less testing may result in a higher percentage of reported deaths.

From Milliman MedInsight Actuariares 

 

 

https://milliman-cdn.azureedge.net/-/media/milliman/pdfs/articles/everything-you-think-you-know.ashx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Topic Under Special Surveillance Please be aware that management is watching this topic closely and it is at high risk of being closed.  Any members who violate our terms of service once this tag has been applied to a thread will be immediately warned and, depending on the mood of the administrators, may be restricted from posting for 24 hours.  Please consider your response carefully.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.





  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      179,016
    • Most Online
      2,046

    Newest Member
    DaRedScorpion
    Joined

About Us

Since 2003, creditboards.com has helped thousands of people repair their credit, force abusive collection agents to follow the law, ensure proper reporting by credit reporting agencies, and provided financial education to help avoid the pitfalls that can lead to negative tradelines.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines