It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Many new cases share a surprising common risk factor - A previous positive test for COVID-19

page: 1
26
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:
+7 more 
posted on May, 24 2020 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Curiously enough, the CDC’s state and national totals for cases and deaths match up well with what we’ve gathered from states at the COVID Tracking Project. So do its national testing totals. Only when you dig into the state-level testing data—where discrepancies skew in both directions—do things begin to go awry.

The data sets have one known major difference: Some states report the total number of people tested, while the CDC reports every test, even if a single person is tested more than once.
State and Federal Data on COVID-19 Testing Don’t Match Up

That’s right…the CDC has been including retest results in previously confirmed COVID-19 cases with their daily reported 'new cases'. But this problem isn’t just with the CDC’s reporting, many states are doing the same.

Consider the following stories:

• FL couple tests positive 7 times total
• FL woman tests positive twice
• CA man tests positive 6 times
• NM couple test positive 10 times total
• MO woman tests positive 4 times
• TN man tests positive 7 times

With patients being retested -- often multiple times over a long period of time -- the inclusion of their retest data with ‘new case’ data begs the question:

How many reported daily ‘new cases’ are actually ‘old cases’?

It’s hard to say as many states don’t report the data separately. However, in Florida, this data can be found in the county level reports -- something they’ve only recently began publishing.

But, thanks to this recent change (despite being buried within lengthy county reports) we have a 10-day glimpse at how much this mish-mashing of data is currently skewing the daily ‘new case’ numbers reported.

I chose the three hardest hit Florida counties as a large sample for comparison: Palm Beach, Dade, & Broward counties.

By comparing 10 crossover days -- which appear within the first 10 days of county reports since retests have been excluded -- we can get an idea of how dramatic an effect it has on the number of ‘new cases’ reported:





SOURCE: County Reports (County reports excluding retests begin in the May 3 report ‘county_reports_20200503_0941.pdf’ which can then be used to compare with the days prior to that change.)

If this sampling is any reflection on most states that include retests in their daily ‘new cases,’ then about 40% of ‘new cases’ reported by them (and the CDC) are actually OLD cases.

Unfortunately, few states are forthcoming about what the data they report actually represents. But, Florida has been, uh, transparent — thanks, in part, to a local Orlando reporter who pressed Governor De Santis on this issue on two occasions. On April 27, Louis Bolden, reported the following:

“DeSantis touted the number of people tested for coronavirus in Florida, but as News 6 reported last week, when you look at our population of roughly 22 million people, the number the governor gave would be over 1% of the population tested.

It isn't true.

We asked the governor if re-tests are included in that number.

“Yeah so they are, it’s a good, good question,” DeSantis said. “So yes it does include that, because what happens is, you’ll have health care workers, some of them don’t ever test positive, but some have been tested multiple times, because they may have had an exposure, so its not unique individuals, it’s total tests,” the governor said.”

(AND)

“The number of re-tests is not included on the state’s dashboard. We asked the governor if it was misleading not to point out the number of re-tests.

“It’s not misleading, because the labs report, they dump the numbers to the department of health. So what the department of health does, is they put it on the dashboard immediately so that people have the information,” DeSantis said. “On the second page, if you look it says, it explains how some people are re-testing.”

The governor showed how in the fine print of the state’s 537-page daily report it reads, “people tested on multiple days will be included for each day a new result was received."

But an explanation about re-tests is not on the state’s very colorful dashboard that provides testing numbers at a glance.

Link
On May 6, the same reporter wrote a follow up article on the question of retests:

“Are retests included in that number?" we asked.

“Yeah so they are, it’s a good question,” Gov. DeSantis said.

Here's what a retest is.

If you have a test for COVID-19 and it’s positive, the Florida Department of Health recommends 14 days of isolation, after that, you should have another test.

Twenty-four hours later you should have another test to make sure you’re negative.

All of those test results go into the number on the state’s dashboard, even though it’s one person.

(AND)

We asked the governor the same day if the state would update the dashboard to show the number of people tested minus re-tests.

“And actually you know what we can do, I’m going to see if they can parse it a little bit more,” the Governor said. “So I want just the fresh tests, I think that’s better.”

There was a change.

The state changed the title on the dashboard from "total tests" to "total people tested.”

Unfortunately, that could be even more confusing, because the number still includes retests.

(AND)

After more than a week of multiple phone calls and emails, we asked the Florida Department of Health if they could give us the number of unique people who have been tested.

We are still waiting.

Either they don't know the number or they aren't releasing it.

We have been asking the governor and the Florida Department of Health the question for weeks, but despite repeated emails and phone calls we still do not have a clear answer.

Link

Lastly, now that many states and the CDC are also including serum antibody test results with their 'new case' data, the number of ‘new cases’ and ‘total cases’ reported in the U.S. becomes even less credible.



edit on 5/24/2020 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 24 2020 @ 02:22 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Hmmm I wonder of it's like votes in elections, the numbers are skewed to favour corporate interests.



posted on May, 24 2020 @ 02:45 AM
link   
You know. I wondered all along what was so specious special about this "6 feet" rule. I mean, it logically makes sense to distance yourself from potentially sick people, right? Of course it does! But why 6 feet? Why so specifically 6 feet? Why doesn't it change with new information?

Makes me kinda wonder if they needed 6 feet of space between people (for whatever reason) from the get go and now have never changed it because they can't.

Incidentally, I noticed my wireless keyboard gets a little flaky depending on where it is.
edit on 24-5-2020 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2020 @ 02:48 AM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders




posted on May, 24 2020 @ 03:16 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

It's called "Cooking the books" but don't be suspicious of what's
going on. Just hunker down stay in your house and shut up.

Don't pay any attention when nursing homes with the most
vulnerable residents are forced to house corvid positive patients.
That in turn contributes to around half of the death count
in California and New York being in those nursing homes.

Never mind that mainstream media completely ignores
the decisions both those governors Cuomo and Newsom made
that caused death. Oh just an honest mistake nothing
nefarious going on there.

Oh but open up? Nothing at all to be suspicious about if we
seem to be fighting it tooth and nail. It's not because we're
democrats trying to ruin Trump That's just more conspiracy
theory. See what happens when you think? Ya Phfff open up
get outta here and go back to your house and be frightened
like a good little subject.
edit on 24-5-2020 by carsforkids because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2020 @ 05:07 AM
link   
Creed....dude......

thanks for that one, buddy

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed



posted on May, 24 2020 @ 05:20 AM
link   
"How many reported daily ‘new cases’ are actually ‘old cases’?"

How is a reinfection not a new case? Do you really think it makes sense to treat it as not a new infection, when the person got over the previous infection just to get it again? What would we alternatively refer to this as?


a reply to: MotherMayEye



posted on May, 24 2020 @ 05:22 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Great thread, Mom... good research and very well explained!!!

So there is very obviously an effort to inflate the numbers. I can't believe anything less than this is deliberate and calculated.

And interestingly enough, there seems to be an effort to discourage testing for antibodies. There was a recent ATS thread by a member who told of his experience requesting an antibody test, and being told they weren't accurate enough "yet" and not to waste his/her time.

My husband told me yesterday that his work was looking at having everyone who works in the field tested for antibodies, and they were told it's "too soon," because the virus has not run its course. This made no sense to me (or them), but it was through Concentra, which I think is mostly for industrial injuries and physicals and work related things. They may go through Quest Diagnostics instead. They think the virus rampaged through their shop in February, and just want to be able to tell their customers that their guys are not infectious when they go out on jobs.

Whether intended or unintended, the end result is the same: Ever increasing positive tests (new patients), but little to no antibody tests (past patients now immune).



posted on May, 24 2020 @ 05:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: hombero
"How many reported daily ‘new cases’ are actually ‘old cases’?"

How is a reinfection not a new case? Do you really think it makes sense to treat it as not a new infection, when the person got over the previous infection just to get it again? What would we alternatively refer to this as?


a reply to: MotherMayEye



They aren't reinfections. Good gravy...these are people that test positive, then they are retested -- often multiple times -- until they get two negative tests in a row. After that, don't have to be isolated anymore.


One infection with multiple tests...not reinfections.



edit on 5/24/2020 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2020 @ 06:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
You know. I wondered all along what was so specious special about this "6 feet" rule. I mean, it logically makes sense to distance yourself from potentially sick people, right? Of course it does! But why 6 feet? Why so specifically 6 feet? Why doesn't it change with new information?

Makes me kinda wonder if they needed 6 feet of space between people (for whatever reason) from the get go and now have never changed it because they can't.

Incidentally, I noticed my wireless keyboard gets a little flaky depending on where it is.


Perhaps six feet is enough space between people for CC cameras and AI programs to make identification quick, accurate and with new data such as body temperature and GPS location, just a thought.

A far as the numbers go, reinfection may be people who are still infected, but had a negative test in between positive tests. Maybe these people have consistently taken inaccurate tests, maybe most testing is flawed to begin with.

Obviously, for whatever reasons, the numbers from the test data are not accurate. There is the theory that some states are padding the data with inflated numbers to get more fed money, this is one way to cook the numbers and make it look worse.

The response to this whole ordeal is so unorganized, nothing they say is certain in my eyes. Tests, treatments, possible vaccines, methods to prevent contagion in public, infection - reinfection, death and "recovered" numbers, all given without hard proof of the accuracy of the data points.
edit on 24-5-2020 by MichiganSwampBuck because: For Clarity



posted on May, 24 2020 @ 06:07 AM
link   
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

They aren't reinfections. Where are people getting that? Not once in the OP does 'reinfection' appear in any of the sources or my post.

Yes, one infection can have a negative test...that's why they want two negative tests two days in a row before they are *allowed* out of isolation...they aren't being reinfected though.

It's like people with HIV can test positive many times for the same infection.




edit on 5/24/2020 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2020 @ 06:20 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Sorry for my inaccuracy on that point, but my basic post still stands (I believe). It seems safe to say that the whole thing is a complete mess and most of the reports are inaccurate or incomplete.

At least you pointed that out and responded to it, thanks.
edit on 24-5-2020 by MichiganSwampBuck because: Added extra comments



posted on May, 24 2020 @ 06:24 AM
link   
Pandemic? $2.3 trillion "lost"?
Simple accounting errors.
Oh gosh darn it, we'll fix it next time.



posted on May, 24 2020 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: hombero
"How many reported daily ‘new cases’ are actually ‘old cases’?"

How is a reinfection not a new case? Do you really think it makes sense to treat it as not a new infection, when the person got over the previous infection just to get it again? What would we alternatively refer to this as?


a reply to: MotherMayEye



We're not necessarily talking about a reinfection. We're talking about people who are being tested and retested to see if they've cleared the virus.



posted on May, 24 2020 @ 08:20 AM
link   
I can tell you from what I know personally, in Georgia, the State numbers are being manipulated.

The CDC numbers are weeks behind.

The data is as they say a mess from analytical point of view (at least in Georgia which is the only State I have first hand knowledge of).

I'm wondering what your take is? Are you (along with the Atlantic) lamenting our unpreparedness to deal with the pandemic? Our lack of planning for testing and reporting?

When you say "less credible" ... are you saying within an error range?

How much of the data doesn't include retests? How much has been underreported? Those facts aren't available either.

To say it's "less credible" is very vague ... are you suggesting anything specific?



posted on May, 24 2020 @ 08:28 AM
link   
So this whole thing has royally exposed the Centers for Disease Control hasn't it?

They basically have one function, and they can't handle it. So what good are they? I am pretty sure the postmortem of this will see them crying in congress making claims that they'd have done better if only they had more money, but I'm also pretty sure that time and again their rules and regs and red tape just plain got in the way of timely response.

They also seem to have inadequate means of record keeping too and lack of some kind of infrastructure and system for reliably keeping and organizing that data.

Where have they been spending all the money they've been getting from us thus far? Perhaps an audit is in order.



posted on May, 24 2020 @ 08:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
So this whole thing has royally exposed the Centers for Disease Control hasn't it?

They basically have one function, and they can't handle it. So what good are they? I am pretty sure the postmortem of this will see them crying in congress making claims that they'd have done better if only they had more money, but I'm also pretty sure that time and again their rules and regs and red tape just plain got in the way of timely response.

They also seem to have inadequate means of record keeping too and lack of some kind of infrastructure and system for reliably keeping and organizing that data.

Where have they been spending all the money they've been getting from us thus far? Perhaps an audit is in order.


Royally exposed the CDC? That's one take on it, surely. Vastly oversimplified of course.

The Trump Administration has been targetting the CDC for budget cuts, has meddled with their procedures, and has disregarded their warnings. Also, the methods of reporting have been controlled by the White House as well, to keep them in line with the President's "message."

That's another take on it. If you're interested in the budget, it's available online. I doubt that though; you're merely trying to move the responsibility from the Trump regime to the CDC.

That's okay; it's an opinion.

edit on 24-5-2020 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on May, 24 2020 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: hombero

Because it's not a reinfection. If you have 3 tests for the SAME infection, that is counted as 3 new cases. It's not, it's one new case.



posted on May, 24 2020 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
You know. I wondered all along what was so specious special about this "6 feet" rule. I mean, it logically makes sense to distance yourself from potentially sick people, right? Of course it does! But why 6 feet? Why so specifically 6 feet? Why doesn't it change with new information?

Makes me kinda wonder if they needed 6 feet of space between people (for whatever reason) from the get go and now have never changed it because they can't.

Incidentally, I noticed my wireless keyboard gets a little flaky depending on where it is.

That is how far infected droplets usually can travel. Depending on the conditions/setting they can travel further. But that's where 6 feet comes from.



posted on May, 24 2020 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: hombero

Because it's not a reinfection. If you have 3 tests for the SAME infection, that is counted as 3 new cases. It's not, it's one new case.


But not universally; the retests have been excluded in some cases.

Which makes the data more dirty, but doesn't invalidate it.




top topics



 
26
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join