Join Early Retirement Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-16-2021, 03:31 PM   #421
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
audreyh1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Rio Grande Valley
Posts: 38,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by harllee View Post
Yes here in NC where I live. I don't know about masks but my friends say they were not ever in the same room with their maid so hopefully all will be OK for them. The scary thing to me is that the maid tested negative twice one week and then 3 days later tested positive. I don't know what kind of test it was.
Seems like testing negative several times before testing positive is quite common. You have to have enough virus to be detected by whatever test. It shows yet again that preemptive testing does not work and can’t be used for real-time screening. Just because you tested negative today doesn’t mean you weren’t infected 2 or 3 days ago, and might be infectious tomorrow.
__________________
Retired since summer 1999.
audreyh1 is offline  
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 01-16-2021, 03:58 PM   #422
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Koolau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Leeward Oahu
Posts: 17,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by audreyh1 View Post
Seems like testing negative several times before testing positive is quite common. You have to have enough virus to be detected by whatever test. It shows yet again that preemptive testing does not work and can’t be used for real-time screening. Just because you tested negative today doesn’t mean you weren’t infected 2 or 3 days ago, and might be infectious tomorrow.
It would seem that all the "negatives-which-are-actually-positive" would argue for a more sensitive test. True enough, but then we might get into more false positives. Let's hope the vaccine makes this issue an interesting footnote in history - sooner rather than later. YMMV
__________________
Ko'olau's Law -

Anything which can be used can be misused. Anything which can be misused will be.
Koolau is offline  
Old 01-16-2021, 04:06 PM   #423
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by harllee View Post
Here is a scary story--friends decided to keep having their long time maid to come every 2 weeks. Last Saturday when the maid came she said she had not felt well earlier in the week but she tested negative twice and was feeling better so it was probably allergies so my friends let her clean the house. Then the maid gets very sick and tests positive on Tuesday. Yesterday contact tracers call my friends and tell them they have been exposed, they must be tested and have to quarantine for 14 days. My friends are waiting for their tests results now. Just shows that a negative test (or two of them) does not really mean anything.
This provides me an argument in the current environment that that no body needs a maid. Minimize exposure in a pandemic.
__________________
Took SS at 62 and hope I live long enough to regret the decision.
foxfirev5 is offline  
Old 01-16-2021, 04:16 PM   #424
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
audreyh1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Rio Grande Valley
Posts: 38,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koolau View Post
It would seem that all the "negatives-which-are-actually-positive" would argue for a more sensitive test. True enough, but then we might get into more false positives. Let's hope the vaccine makes this issue an interesting footnote in history - sooner rather than later. YMMV
Perhaps. But you are always going to have a delay between getting infected and testing positive. And learning that you are infected before you can infect other looks really iffy.

You have to test, and wait say 5 days isolated for symptoms. And maybe then test again, before you can feel fairly confident you aren't a carrier. You can't just test every day or two and go about your regular business thinking you won't infect others.
__________________
Retired since summer 1999.
audreyh1 is offline  
Old 01-16-2021, 04:22 PM   #425
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Posts: 5,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by audreyh1 View Post
Seems like testing negative several times before testing positive is quite common. You have to have enough virus to be detected by whatever test. It shows yet again that preemptive testing does not work and can’t be used for real-time screening. Just because you tested negative today doesn’t mean you weren’t infected 2 or 3 days ago, and might be infectious tomorrow.
Audrey--this makes sense to me. So all those people who got tested right before visiting family at Christmas were just fooling themselves and their families. They could still be infectious and give the virus to their families. Which is one of the reasons we are in this terrible spike.
harllee is offline  
Old 01-16-2021, 04:33 PM   #426
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
audreyh1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Rio Grande Valley
Posts: 38,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by harllee View Post
Audrey--this makes sense to me. So all those people who got tested right before visiting family at Christmas were just fooling themselves and their families. They could still be infectious and give the virus to their families. Which is one of the reasons we are in this terrible spike.
Exactly. Well before Christmas the White House had demonstrated quite clearly how daily testing did not prevent a significant outbreak when folks aren't taking other precautions. It simply does not work unless timely isolation is also used and gatherings outside a strict bubble are avoided.

Yes, fooling themselves is a great description.
__________________
Retired since summer 1999.
audreyh1 is offline  
Old 01-16-2021, 04:45 PM   #427
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Orlando
Posts: 2,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastWest Gal View Post
They absolutely would. We’re talking about a few RNA base pairs different. Much less different than the annual flu shot. There are two proteins in the flu virus capsule to which we make antibodies: hemagglutinin and neuraminidase. Hence the designation H1N1 etc. They guess which one. And the process takes many months. mRNA vaccine technology is much quicker.

The process for both the flu vaccine and a changing COVID vaccine does not change. The only thing that changes is the slightly but significantly different viral component, the two proteins, in the case of the flu, the mRNA in the case of coronavirus.

With mRNA vaccine some of the cells in our body are instructed to produce spike protein. Our body recognizes it as a foreign protein, “thinks” it is a virus and develops an immune response. But the rest of the viral RNA isn’t there so there is no actual virus. A second exposure, a second dose, boosts that immune response. But because there is no replicating virus, only a small amount of the protein is made, and our cells don’t get destroyed, and we don’t get disease.
Thank you for the explanation. Very interesting!
Buckeye is offline  
Old 01-16-2021, 05:31 PM   #428
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Someplace Warm
Posts: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by audreyh1 View Post
Seems like testing negative several times before testing positive is quite common. You have to have enough virus to be detected by whatever test. It shows yet again that preemptive testing does not work and can’t be used for real-time screening. Just because you tested negative today doesn’t mean you weren’t infected 2 or 3 days ago, and might be infectious tomorrow.
Regarding the vaccines, various folks are talking about first evidence that while the vaccination may protect (most) vaccinated folks from getting ill, it does not prevent them from getting infected, and potentially infecting others. That would be really unfortunate, since it would just increase the number of asymptomatic spreaders, and would also mean that vaccinations do not primarily help reduce the prevalence of the virus. So un-vaccinated folks and those unlucky ones for whom the vaccination does not produce immunity will continue to be in danger. Add to this that we don't know how long immunity (due to exposure or vaccination) lasts, and we still have an uphill climb.
Leo1277 is offline  
Old 01-16-2021, 05:47 PM   #429
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: St. Charles
Posts: 3,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo1277 View Post
Regarding the vaccines, various folks are talking about first evidence that while the vaccination may protect (most) vaccinated folks from getting ill, it does not prevent them from getting infected, and potentially infecting others. That would be really unfortunate, since it would just increase the number of asymptomatic spreaders, and would also mean that vaccinations do not primarily help reduce the prevalence of the virus. So un-vaccinated folks and those unlucky ones for whom the vaccination does not produce immunity will continue to be in danger. Add to this that we don't know how long immunity (due to exposure or vaccination) lasts, and we still have an uphill climb.
Can you provide a little back-up to the bolded comment above? Everything I have read says "we just don't know, because it was not tested"
__________________
If your not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Never slow down, never grow old!
CardsFan is online now  
Old 01-16-2021, 05:49 PM   #430
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Posts: 572
Quote:
Originally Posted by audreyh1 View Post
Seems like testing negative several times before testing positive is quite common. You have to have enough virus to be detected by whatever test. It shows yet again that preemptive testing does not work and can’t be used for real-time screening. Just because you tested negative today doesn’t mean you weren’t infected 2 or 3 days ago, and might be infectious tomorrow.
With all tests, the limit has to be set somewhere.

That's say they set the limit at 50.
So someone with 49 is "negative" and someone with 51 is "positive".
And yet, most logical people would say that both individuals are infected.

With some of the reporting I have read from Taiwan, their CDC briefing actually tells the level when discussing cases.

.
retire-early is offline  
Old 01-16-2021, 06:13 PM   #431
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Someplace Warm
Posts: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardsFan View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo1277 Regarding the vaccines, various folks are talking about first evidence that while the vaccination may protect (most) vaccinated folks from getting ill, it does not prevent them from getting infected, and potentially infecting others.
Can you provide a little back-up to the bolded comment above? Everything I have read says "we just don't know, because it was not tested"
Thanks for being careful about this question, it is a sensitive topic and we are only learning very slowly and should be mindful about this. One of the places where I read this was here: https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/14/healt...ntl/index.html From that article:
Quote:
<snip>
But early insight from the next stage of the study shows that some people with existing immunity carry high levels of virus and could transmit the virus to others.
Hopkins highlighted this during an interview with the BBC's Today program on Thursday.
"We found people with very high amounts of virus in their nose and throat swabs, that would easily be in the range which would cause levels of transmission to other individuals."
Hopkins stressed that people who had previously caught Covid-19 still needed to obey social distancing rules to avoid transmitting the disease.
<snip>
"The concerning finding is that some people who have Covid antibodies appear to still be able to carry the coronavirus and could spread it to others. This means that the vast majority of the population will either need to have natural immunity or have been immunised for us to fully lift restrictions on our lives,"
<snip>
Leo1277 is offline  
Old 01-16-2021, 06:50 PM   #432
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: St. Charles
Posts: 3,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo1277 View Post
Thanks for being careful about this question, it is a sensitive topic and we are only learning very slowly and should be mindful about this. One of the places where I read this was here: https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/14/healt...ntl/index.html From that article:
OK. But the referenced study had no content about vaccinated people, only those that had contracted the virus, where as your original quote talked specifically about vaccinations.

There could/may be a difference.
__________________
If your not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Never slow down, never grow old!
CardsFan is online now  
Old 01-16-2021, 07:09 PM   #433
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Posts: 5,297
Now that more people are being vaccinated can't the scientists start tracking the vaccinated people to find out whether or not they are infecting people. It seems like tracking could answer this question pretty quickly.
harllee is offline  
Old 01-16-2021, 07:19 PM   #434
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Someplace Warm
Posts: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardsFan View Post
OK. But the referenced study had no content about vaccinated people, only those that had contracted the virus, where as your original quote talked specifically about vaccinations.There could/may be a difference.
You are right, and since there aren't so many vaccinated people yet, it may take a while before there is enough good statistics about them. The study talks about people with antibodies, and from that one may think whether they got their antibodies through vaccination or "natural" exposure would be similar.

As I understand, it is common in various other diseases that the reduction rate for serious disease through vaccination is often higher than the reduction rate for spreading the same disease. But that part I must have read a long time ago and I don't have a reference ready - any epidemiologists or infections disease experts among us who can comment?
Leo1277 is offline  
Old 01-16-2021, 07:26 PM   #435
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Someplace Warm
Posts: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by harllee View Post
Now that more people are being vaccinated can't the scientists start tracking the vaccinated people to find out whether or not they are infecting people. It seems like tracking could answer this question pretty quickly.
Yes; except that we should not expect widespread tracking, considering how well this has worked for preventive contact tracing purposes so far. But it may be particularly useful to continue to follow the original 30,000 (?) volunteers for each of the vaccines and study their antibody status over time, whether their immunity decreases with time and they continue to not get infected, etc. And since theses volunteers have been part of a formal system and are used to formal self-observation, they may be easier to track for all kinds of things including whether they believe they infected anybody. I hope, but expect, that the vaccine companies are doing that.
Leo1277 is offline  
Old 01-16-2021, 09:21 PM   #436
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by retire-early View Post
With all tests, the limit has to be set somewhere.

That's say they set the limit at 50.
So someone with 49 is "negative" and someone with 51 is "positive".
And yet, most logical people would say that both individuals are infected.

With some of the reporting I have read from Taiwan, their CDC briefing actually tells the level when discussing cases.

.
An interesting point to remember.
tmm99 is online now  
Old 01-16-2021, 09:43 PM   #437
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
audreyh1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Rio Grande Valley
Posts: 38,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by retire-early View Post
With all tests, the limit has to be set somewhere.

That's say they set the limit at 50.
So someone with 49 is "negative" and someone with 51 is "positive".
And yet, most logical people would say that both individuals are infected.

With some of the reporting I have read from Taiwan, their CDC briefing actually tells the level when discussing cases.

.
I’m not sure that’s how it works.
__________________
Retired since summer 1999.
audreyh1 is offline  
Old 01-17-2021, 01:38 AM   #438
Administrator
Alan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N. Yorkshire
Posts: 34,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by harllee View Post
Now that more people are being vaccinated can't the scientists start tracking the vaccinated people to find out whether or not they are infecting people. It seems like tracking could answer this question pretty quickly.
This is happening in the UK. Thousands of hospital workers have been vaccinated and they continue to be tested twice a week as part of their job. By end of February it should be known if any of those vaccinated become carriers without getting sick.
__________________
Retired in Jan, 2010 at 55, moved to England in May 2016
Enough private pension and SS income to cover all needs
Alan is offline  
Old 01-17-2021, 07:50 AM   #439
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Posts: 5,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan View Post
This is happening in the UK. Thousands of hospital workers have been vaccinated and they continue to be tested twice a week as part of their job. By end of February it should be known if any of those vaccinated become carriers without getting sick.
Thanks Alan, this will be very important info to know--please keep us updated
harllee is offline  
Old 01-17-2021, 08:06 AM   #440
Moderator
sengsational's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 10,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koolau View Post
It would seem that all the "negatives-which-are-actually-positive" would argue for a more sensitive test. True enough, but then we might get into more false positives. Let's hope the vaccine makes this issue an interesting footnote in history - sooner rather than later. YMMV
Many of us here are familiar with doing a calculation with high precision, then rounding the result to three significant figures. In my statics class, where 10 problems were the semester grade, if you answered 23.126 instead of 23.13, you dropped a letter grade.

It seems that calling for more precision in test technology isn't the answer, because how and when the sample is taken is critical. It's probably the weak link in preventing transmission. In other words, taking one sample from one body site on one day and doing a "precision" test on it (the gold standard is the PCR test) isn't as effective as doing two or five "less precise" tests (that return results more quickly and cost a tiny fraction of the PCR test) that hit various sites that harbor virus, and sites likely to allow virus to exit in a way another person can acquire it. But even testing multiple sites, and getting results in a few minutes, the determination will be imperfect. But the test itself is not to blame, as much as our inability to put a swab in the "right place".
sengsational is offline  
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Anybody doing debit/credit spreads? Florida Active Investing, Market Strategies & Alternative Assets 1 08-31-2008 01:35 PM
TIPS&Treasury spreads Fido,VG,SellDirect lazyday FIRE and Money 1 01-27-2006 09:07 AM
Hidden costs of stock fund commissions/spreads? ESRBob FIRE and Money 6 04-19-2004 05:43 PM

» Quick Links

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:18 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.