Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum

2020 Dumpster Fire (Enter at your own risk)


jk

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, UNDBIZ said:

Healthcare, jail, and LTC employees are tested pretty often (weekly?).  Also, if you live with someone who tested positive, it may be beneficial to get tested, hope you're positive, and shorten the quarantine time from 2 weeks beyond the end of your family member's quarantine to just 10 days from the positive test day.

If "pretty often" mean rarely...if ever then I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Oxbow6 said:

If pretty often mean almost rarely......I agree.

Hmm, depends on the position and provider maybe?  I've heard from one saying he's tested weekly, but maybe he's full of it or going to the free public testings.  State prisons are testing every 1-2 weeks and I thought LTC facilities in ND were weekly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Goon said:

One of my friends from college gets tested every week. He's yet to get COVID-19. He's not a healthcare professional. 

Has he won $500 from the UND Bookstore yet?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, UNDBIZ said:

Hmm, depends on the position and provider maybe?  I've heard from one saying he's tested weekly, but maybe he's full of it or going to the free public testings.  State prisons are testing every 1-2 weeks and I thought LTC facilities in ND were weekly.

So...if someone tests positive, how often do they get tested afterwards? What I'm curious about is we know that positive tests as a metric do not equal cases.

By what factor are positive tests higher than actually cases?  Is each case getting tested 2-3x while they are still positive? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, UNDBIZ said:

Hmm, depends on the position and provider maybe?  I've heard from one saying he's tested weekly, but maybe he's full of it or going to the free public testings.  State prisons are testing every 1-2 weeks and I thought LTC facilities in ND were weekly.

Most systems have their own protocol and in house hotlines to call. Those people determine your risk. Healthcare workers/providers rarely get tested even with exposure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bison06 said:

So...if someone tests positive on a Monday let's say, how often do they get tested afterwards? What I'm curious about is we know that positive tests as a metric do not equal cases.

By what factor are positive tests higher than actually cases?  Is each case getting tested 2-3x while they are still positive? 

Depends on the individual I suppose.  Some employers require employees to test negative prior to returning to work though.  The ND Dept of Health doesn't push positives to get retested, just to isolate for 10 days.

A positive case only shows up in the data once though, regardless of the number of times tested.  The number reported is based on the individual person, not the number of times a positive test comes back for that person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, UNDBIZ said:

Depends on the individual I suppose.  Some employers require employees to test negative prior to returning to work though.  The ND Dept of Health doesn't push positives to get retested, just to isolate for 10 days.

A positive case only shows up in the data once though, regardless of the number of times tested.  The number reported is based on the individual person, not the number of times a positive test comes back for that person.

Are you certain about this? I've heard different, though I very well could be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bison06 said:

Are you certain about this? I've heard different, though I very well could be wrong.

Can't guarantee against errors, but in ND the number of daily positives reported is not supposed to include repeat positives from active cases.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Nodak78 said:

Boston Bruins fans close your eyes.

Donald Trump is like having Brad Marchand as a team mate: You can't agree with all of the antics, but you love the output. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shawn-O said:

The polling organizations are having a hard-time getting their hands around a statistically relevant "likely voter" sample set.  And Wall Street knows it.   

 

That was the scenario 4 years ago more so than today.  Voter turnout was the lowest in decades and polls indicated a large contingent of ‘undecideds’ up to the end, of which most pundits mistakenly assumed would vote blue.  The landscape is flipped upside down this year.  So far early voting turnout is breaking records, and few undecideds exit.      
By and large, aggregated polling is relatively accurate.  Interesting read out of the Smithsonian:


Polls Are Still As Accurate As They Were 75 Years Ago

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/polls-are-still-accurate-they-were-75-years-ago-180968467/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Bison06 said:

And this is where politics gets in the way of reality.

This would be impossible to do at this point, but what would a logical person take as an approach given the above data set?

What REALLY bothers me is the bar chart on the NDDoH site showing the Deaths data I gave: They stop the bar chart Y-axis at 80 deaths and just write the "234" number on the 80+ bar. It completely blows the scale of reality. The 80+ bar should be nearly 4x as tall as the 70-79 but on that mis-scaled mess they're about the same. Grossly deceptive. 

Look for yourself: https://www.health.nd.gov/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/north-dakota-coronavirus-cases 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

What REALLY bothers me is the bar chart on the NDDoH site showing the Deaths data I gave: They stop the bar chart Y-axis at 80 deaths and just write the "234" number on the 80+ bar. It completely blows the scale of reality. The 80+ bar should be nearly 4x as tall as the 70-79 but on that mis-scaled mess they're about the same. Grossly deceptive. 

Look for yourself: https://www.health.nd.gov/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/north-dakota-coronavirus-cases 

That is bad.  Let them know.

https://ndhealth.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9XOCwgC3JJV33hP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jdub27 said:

I'd venture that a decent amount of Biden winning is already priced in based on recent polls.

That was my thought, too.  It seems that the market has traditionally surged initially when the President's party doesn't change on election day but seems to initially dip when there's a change in party .... before moderating after a few weeks. Markets above all else like predictability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Teeder11 said:

That was my thought, too.  It seems that the market has traditionally surged initially when the President's party doesn't change on election day but seems to initially dip when there's a change in party .... before moderating after a few weeks. Markets above all else like predictability.

not in 2016.  just the opposite.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Teeder11 said:

That was my thought, too.  It seems that the market has traditionally surged initially when the President's party doesn't change on election day but seems to initially dip when there's a change in party .... before moderating after a few weeks. Markets above all else like predictability.

Historically yes.  Will be interesting to how it responds to some of the regulation changes that will likely happen with a Harris/Biden win.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, homer said:

Historically yes.  Will be interesting to how it responds to some of the regulation changes that will likely happen with a Harris/Biden win.  

Lots of regulatory changes (additions) coming in a President Harris administration.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, homer said:

Historically yes.  Will be interesting to how it responds to some of the regulation changes that will likely happen with a Harris/Biden win.  

The impact/volatility will likely depend on how the Senate shakes out. If R's lose the WH but not the Senate, I wouldn't expect a large change. If the R's lose the WH and Senate, I could foresee some signfiicant negative volatility. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...