Alabama: 5 players tested Positive for COVID

[EnviroSciGuy]

No they were not. That's a bogus positivity rate. # of tests/positives. UNC would currently have .45% positive. The actual # of positives. (137/30000)

Positivety rate is good for spinning things.
Example. 100 football players, tested every 2 weeks. 50 are infected, then recover. In 8 weeks, your positivity rate is 9%, not the 50% that were ill. If 20 get ill, your positivity rate is 3% not 20%. Looks much better.

Looks much better? Is that what matters here, or hundreds of people in close proximity testing positive?

 

[RandomGuy]

Looks much better? Is that what matters here, or hundreds of people in close proximity testing positive?

Universities have been using positivity rates for football players so they can present a low positive #.. It doesnt change the # positive, but folks looking see a single digit #, and think.. ohh that's low. Yeah. I think its dishonest, but that's what they are doing. I'm with you.

 

[rrlbees]

No they were not. That's a bogus positivity rate. # of tests/positives. UNC would currently have .45% positive. The actual # of positives. (137/30000)

Positivety rate is good for spinning things.
Example. 100 football players, tested every 2 weeks. 50 are infected, then recover. In 8 weeks, your positivity rate is 9%, not the 50% that were ill. If 20 get ill, your positivity rate is 3% not 20%. Looks much better.

this is where it came from.

 

[RandomGuy]

this is where it came from.

They tested 954, with 130 positive. The 130 is the important #. If they tested 135, it would be 99% If they tested 4500, it would be 2.8%, the exact same as the week before.

Its a ridiculous # to use without context. Some folks probably think 13% of the student body are infected. Since July 20, 0.55% of the student body has been infected. I think you need bricks in your head to bring students to campus, but using a # like 13.6% , with any intent on a false narrative, is dishonest. Since July 20 its 166 students. 5 employees, this week.

UNC covid dashboard

Tableau Public

public.tableau.com

 

[rrlbees]

They tested 954, with 130 positive. The 130 is the important #. If they tested 135, it would be 99% If they tested 4500, it would be 2.8%, the exact same as the week before.

Its a ridiculous # to use without context. Some folks probably think 13% of the student body are infected. Since July 20, 0.55% of the student body has been infected. I think you need bricks in your head to bring students to campus, but using a # like 13.6% , with any intent on a false narrative, is dishonest. Since July 20 its 166 students. 5 employees, this week.

UNC covid dashboard

Tableau Public

public.tableau.com

some people may not know what it means but I know what positivity rate is so it made sense to me. I’m sure many others know also but I’m sure many don’t.

 

[EnviroSciGuy]

Universities have been using positivity rates for football players so they can present a low positive #.. It doesnt change the # positive, but folks looking see a single digit #, and think.. ohh that's low. Yeah. I think its dishonest, but that's what they are doing. I'm with you.

This actually came up earlier in another thread. It takes a good amount of digging to figure out what is being represented by the numbers, and sometimes (and for some states) it's very difficult to be sure.

 

[RandomGuy]

some people may not know what it means but I know what positivity rate is so it made sense to me. I’m sure many others know also but I’m sure many don’t.

it just bugs the h3ll out of me. Folks read 2 sentences, and draw conclusions from that. Some use it to make it look like less football players are positive. That # can be/is used to fit an agenda/narrative. The actual # of humans is the important part. Not the percentage of how many freaking tests you ran. Its an over reported, useless variable.

***Like enviro just said. Sometimes that's all you can find. It's a USELESS #. Just tell me the # of positives. A variable so easily manipulated/erratic? Who cares?

BTW.Bees, in the article you linked, they didn't mention the 130 students positive. (the single most important variable) Just the 500 or so in isolation/quarantine, and the rate.. Often how it goes.

 

[rrlbees]

it just bugs the h3ll out of me. Folks read 2 sentences, and draw conclusions from that. Some use it to make it look like less football players are positive. That # can be/is used to fit an agenda/narrative. The actual # of humans is the important part. Not the percentage of how many freaking tests you ran. Its an over reported, useless variable.

***Like enviro just said. Sometimes that's all you can find. It's a USELESS #. Just tell me the # of positives. A variable so easily manipulated/erratic? Who cares?

BTW.Bees, in the article you linked, they didn't mention the 130 students positive. (the single most important variable) Just the 500 or so in isolation/quarantine, and the rate.. Often how it goes.

my opinion positivity rate isn’t useless and is used to make a lot of decisions in states. You test 100 people and 20 are positive, very bad. 1 is positive, very good.

 

[RandomGuy]

my opinion positivity rate isn’t useless and is used to make a lot of decisions in states. You test 100 people and 20 are positive, very bad. 1 is positive, very good.

In the end, its the # of positives. Its often used for spin- why I don't like it.

 

[Vorony]

At this rate we will achieve Herd by Labor day. Not sure what these kids are thinking. So glad this is the generation that will be taking care of us

This is also the generation that’s been screaming the loudest on social media all summer - lecturing “boomers” about taking things seriously and wearing a mask. Ironic.

 

[hoopsupstate]

my opinion positivity rate isn’t useless and is used to make a lot of decisions in states. You test 100 people and 20 are positive, very bad. 1 is positive, very good.

What is helping New York with their .7 positivity rate is that the numbers are so low you can contact trace and keep potential cases from infecting other people. That’s the whole point. NY is in control if the virus instead of the virus being in control of NY.

 

[RandomGuy]

According to the WHO, positivity rate is to see if you are testing enough. Should hover around 5%. If its higher you are not, and indicates spread. If you want to use it for seeing if you are running enough tests? OK.

You can tell if it's spreading by the increase in positives. Positivety rate is about testing. (and offers cover). # of positives is the important #.

 

[upperdeck]

so one thing you dont know about UNC.. where were these kids before they came back to campus.. You dont even know where they got sick.. Were they kids living locally before school ramped up testing? Each school has X number of kids coming back and mingling and Y number of kids living on campus and Z number living off campus. every school us different.

 

[GreekFreak]

This is also the generation that’s been screaming the loudest on social media all summer - lecturing “boomers” about taking things seriously and wearing a mask. Ironic.

That would be the same generation that partied like it's 1999 on spring break when the pandemic was just cranking up.

 

[EnviroSciGuy]

so one thing you dont know about UNC.. where were these kids before they came back to campus.. You dont even know where they got sick.. Were they kids living locally before school ramped up testing? Each school has X number of kids coming back and mingling and Y number of kids living on campus and Z number living off campus. every school us different.

Are you suggesting perhaps a negotiation with the virus? Maybe explaining to it that it doesn't count as much if not contracted directly on campus? Let UNC know so that they can salvage their semester.

 

[upperdeck]

no but people assume these kids got sick because of going back to school.. thats a leap without proof..

I know the numbers at some schools were that 30-50% of the campus stays around during the summer and that 50-75% of the kids were coming back whether school was in person or virtual.

Kids have been around college campuses having parties all summer. The big change is that at many schools the kids now have to be tested and that was always gonna pop the numbers up in a place that is target rich.

Its like the Frat house that had the issue.. Those kids might well have been there all along and some kid got sick and spread it around.. That was gonna happen whether school opened or not, but the first leap is hey why didnt they stay virtual. If 50% of the kids are living off campus no matter where the schooling takes place going in person isnt really changing things all that much.

I have sat thru enough of these meetings the last few months to know the issues are much more than in person vs virtual, while that seems to be the thing many people want to point at. Its really testing and many schools are ignoring it even in NY

 

[Bayside44]

no but people assume these kids got sick because of going back to school.. thats a leap without proof..

I know the numbers at some schools were that 30-50% of the campus stays around during the summer and that 50-75% of the kids were coming back whether school was in person or virtual.

Kids have been around college campuses having parties all summer. The big change is that at many schools the kids now have to be tested and that was always gonna pop the numbers up in a place that is target rich.

Its like the Frat house that had the issue.. Those kids might well have been there all along and some kid got sick and spread it around.. That was gonna happen whether school opened or not, but the first leap is hey why didnt they stay virtual. If 50% of the kids are living off campus no matter where the schooling takes place going in person isnt really changing things all that much.

I have sat thru enough of these meetings the last few months to know the issues are much more than in person vs virtual, while that seems to be the thing many people want to point at.

A lot of these kids signed leases and are out of their parents house, virtual school or not.

 

[upperdeck]

A lot of these kids signed leases and are out of their parents house, virtual school or not.

yes. and many never went home especially the foreign kids

 

[EnviroSciGuy]

no but people assume these kids got sick because of going back to school.. thats a leap without proof..

I know the numbers at some schools were that 30-50% of the campus stays around during the summer and that 50-75% of the kids were coming back whether school was in person or virtual.

Kids have been around college campuses having parties all summer. The big change is that at many schools the kids now have to be tested and that was always gonna pop the numbers up in a place that is target rich.

Its like the Frat house that had the issue.. Those kids might well have been there all along and some kid got sick and spread it around.. That was gonna happen whether school opened or not, but the first leap is hey why didnt they stay virtual. If 50% of the kids are living off campus no matter where the schooling takes place going in person isnt really changing things all that much.

I have sat thru enough of these meetings the last few months to know the issues are much more than in person vs virtual, while that seems to be the thing many people want to point at. Its really testing and many schools are ignoring it even in NY

Ah, the Trumpian "it's testing!" argument. No need for all of the verbiage above... we can keep this very simple: if you have a few cases (identified via testing or not), and many people in close proximity, cases will skyrocket.

Game over.

 

[upperdeck]

yes the point being those kids are gonna live close together whether the school is in person and whether the school is even in session for some. I am sure SU ran the numbers and had a good idea how many kids never left in the spring/summer.

 

[EnviroSciGuy]

yes the point being those kids are gonna live close together whether the school is in person and whether the school is even in session for some. I am sure SU ran the numbers and had a good idea how many kids never left in the spring/summer.

Not necessarily true, and even if it is, it wouldn't be on the school.

This is all actually very simple.

 

[RandomGuy]

Based on your link, the total # of tests (dividend) obviously went up. What's concerning is that the relative percentage of positive tests (quotient) jumped - higher than back in July.

A jump in positivity is a signal that something's up ... based on a snapshot of virus activity. It's not intended to be a randomized, double-blind study controlling for types of tests, subjects, sample size, counterfactuals, etc.

Mehh. In a small sample size it seems ridiculous. Week ending July 27, 11% positivity. Not a cause for alarm, because only 13 positive. With the same 13 positives it drops to 8.6% the following week. Positivity is 11% for the combined 23 previous weeks. Not a cause for alarm, because its less than 5 positives per week.

The positivity rate went up 2% from their average. Should also not be a big concern, but it is, because the rate barely told us a thing.

The number of weekly cases went up by TEN times. Its the number of positives that tell the story.

Right or wrong? I will continue to despise positivity rate. lol. Alone, it does not tell the story.

 

[RandomGuy]

For those that think positivty rate is important. (not me). 24 hour pissitivity rate is 22%.. More importantly, 89 new cases in 1 day. As a percent of the student body, 1.7%. UNC was at 0.45%

 

[Modern Coac]

People down South do not believe in science. They view science as a form of Yankee socialistic witchcraft. So there is little hope of this season being played.

 

[dollarbill44]

People down South do not believe in science. They view science as a form of Yankee socialistic witchcraft. So there is little hope of this season being played.

I wish I had a brush as broad as yours. I could paint my house in one pass.