Am I reading this right that about 90% of CV test given to Texans have been negative to date?

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

Almost 116K Tests administered with ~11,900 positives (current cases + deaths)?

Whereas NY has a much higher positive rate to tests given: 35-40%.

Explanations?

Assumption would be different test kits and different (or misused) protocols.

Second would be the number of people with allergies that is more prevalent here currently.

Lastly, statistics -

Suppose the disease occurs in 1% of the population.
When the disease occurs, the test detects it 99% of the time.
When the disease doesn't occur, the test says it's present 1% of the time.
You get tested and the test comes back positive. What's the probability you actually have the disease?

The answer is 50%

So it could be COVID is more widely spread in NY, so more of the population is affected.

I have been asking this for several weeks.

I think it is very interesting.

Crocs said:

---

The tests are difficult to administer and the lady at your local CVS isn't the most skilled in the world, so there's probably a lot of false negatives

---

Some truth to that, but presumably this is a problem everywhere.

Exsurge Domine said:

---

Keller6Ag91 said:

---

Am I reading this right that about 90% of CV test given to Texans have been negative to date?

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

Almost 116K Tests administered with ~11,900 positives (current cases + deaths)?

Whereas NY has a much higher positive rate to tests given: 35-40%.

Explanations?

---

New York is a hotspot, there are limited tests and each state is giving them to those most likely to have the coronavirus.

---

Understood. But are we giving them out here for people complaining of "minor systems" like headaches or a cough?

Regardless, our numbers aren't materializing at the level or scope of NY State.

This is an interesting site of CDC numbers. They're lagging a week, but informative nonetheless. Interesting that CDC has Flu info comparisons as well.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/COVID19/index.htm

80% of the 5000 COVID deaths were individuals 65 and older. I'd love seeing the deaths captured with info around pre-existing conditions (like smoking, weight, etc). I know there are ALWAYS exceptions to the rule.

Quote:

---

Understood. But are we giving them out here for people complaining of "minor systems" like headaches or a cough?

---

No. But if a significantly higher proportion of New Yorkers with qualifying symptoms have the virus, their positive rates will still be significantly higher even if they were to have the same eligibility criteria as Texas or another place.

Population A. 100 people. 50 with qualifying symptoms. 25 do not have the virus. 25 have the virus.
Population B. 100 people. 30 with qualifying symptoms. 25 do not have the virus. 5 have the virus.

A perfect test results in 50% rate in Pop. A and 16.7% rate in Pop. B.

We decided to get one for my wife with very minimal symptoms for different reasons.

1. We probably go out to get food and grocery shop more than most
2. Her breathing was a bit heavy / congested
3. Not everyone who gets Corona even has symptoms
4. There was no line, drive thru
5. Curiosity of what would come back and the experience

Got the negative call 4-5 days after test

Premium said:

---

We decided to get one for my wife with very minimal symptoms for different reasons.

1. We probably go out to get food and grocery shop more than most
2. Her breathing was a bit heavy / congested
3. Not everyone who gets Corona even has symptoms
4. There was no line, drive thru
5. Curiosity of what would come back and the experience

Got the negative call 4-5 days after test

---

I wonder, especially if she is on the mend or even 100% now....do you wish it would have come back positive so you'd "have it over with"?

The test stinks and more people have had this than we thought.

dermdoc said:

---

The test stinks and more people have had this than we thought.

---

If true in Texas, it also means many who have it are relatively asymptomatic.

dermdoc said:

---

The test stinks and more people have had this than we thought.

---

That would not explain geographic variability positive/negative rates absent showing Texas or wherever has decided to focus use on a particularly terrible test and/or Texas or wherever is particularly bad at administering the test.

Have to get deep into the nasopharynx. There have been issues with folks just swabbing into the nare.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

The test stinks and more people have had this than we thought.

---

That would not explain geographic variability positive/negative rates absent showing Texas or wherever has decided to focus use on a particularly terrible test and/or Texas or wherever is particularly bad at administering the test.

---

Disagree. I just think the test is not good.

And imho, the only thing that explains California and even Washington is prior immunity.

dermdoc said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

The test stinks and more people have had this than we thought.

---

That would not explain geographic variability positive/negative rates absent showing Texas or wherever has decided to focus use on a particularly terrible test and/or Texas or wherever is particularly bad at administering the test.

---

Disagree. I just think the test is not good.

---

Come on, Doc. A bad test everywhere doesn't explain different test results in different geographic locations.

dermdoc said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

The test stinks and more people have had this than we thought.

---

That would not explain geographic variability positive/negative rates absent showing Texas or wherever has decided to focus use on a particularly terrible test and/or Texas or wherever is particularly bad at administering the test.

---

Disagree. I just think the test is not good.

And imho, the only thing that explains California and even Washington is prior immunity.

---

From a % positive standpoint, Washington has been pretty much the same. High 80's to 91ish% negative. Besides timeframe, I think the only thing Washington really did different is that before (1-2 weeks prior) the soft stay in place order, many people were already starting to WFH and wind down. The first order just formalized it.

Thomas Ford 91 said:

---

Here in Trophy Club (pop. ~ 10,000) we had 3 people hospitalized with it about a month ago. Those people were extremely social. Like, being social is in their job description. I expected it to blow up here, but since then, we've only had 4 more people test positive.

This is not a community of social distancers or precaution takers. Where are all the sick people?

---

Exactly. And California does not fit.

Snap E Tom said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

The test stinks and more people have had this than we thought.

---

That would not explain geographic variability positive/negative rates absent showing Texas or wherever has decided to focus use on a particularly terrible test and/or Texas or wherever is particularly bad at administering the test.

---

Disagree. I just think the test is not good.

And imho, the only thing that explains California and even Washington is prior immunity.

---

From a % positive standpoint, Washington has been pretty much the same. High 80's to 91ish% negative. Besides timeframe, I think the only thing Washington really did different is that before (1-2 weeks prior) the soft stay in place order, many people were already starting to WFH and wind down. The first order just formalized it.

---

What if the "test" stinks?

Aust Ag said:

---

Premium said:

---

We decided to get one for my wife with very minimal symptoms for different reasons.

1. We probably go out to get food and grocery shop more than most
2. Her breathing was a bit heavy / congested
3. Not everyone who gets Corona even has symptoms
4. There was no line, drive thru
5. Curiosity of what would come back and the experience

Got the negative call 4-5 days after test

---

I wonder, especially if she is on the mend or even 100% now....do you wish it would have come back positive so you'd "have it over with"?

---

Yes, absolutely. Kind of hoping she had it at the time before the results so we could all get over it.

Texas is not testing.

wxguy95 said:

---

Assumption would be different test kits and different (or misused) protocols.

Second would be the number of people with allergies that is more prevalent here currently.

Lastly, statistics -

Suppose the disease occurs in 1% of the population.
When the disease occurs, the test detects it 99% of the time.
When the disease doesn't occur, the test says it's present 1% of the time.
You get tested and the test comes back positive. What's the probability you actually have the disease?

The answer is 50%

So it could be COVID is more widely spread in NY, so more of the population is affected.

---

your math is off

Exsurge Domine said:

---

Keller6Ag91 said:

---

Am I reading this right that about 90% of CV test given to Texans have been negative to date?

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

Almost 116K Tests administered with ~11,900 positives (current cases + deaths)?

Whereas NY has a much higher positive rate to tests given: 35-40%.

Explanations?

---

New York is a hotspot, there are limited tests and each state is giving them to those most likely to have the coronavirus.

---

This is the correct answer!

TheAngelFlight said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

The test stinks and more people have had this than we thought.

---

That would not explain geographic variability positive/negative rates absent showing Texas or wherever has decided to focus use on a particularly terrible test and/or Texas or wherever is particularly bad at administering the test.

---

Disagree. I just think the test is not good.

---

Come on, Doc. A bad test everywhere doesn't explain different test results in different geographic locations.

---

if you are worried about running out of tests, then you only administer one to a patient you will admit to the hospital. Higher likelihood of a positive result (NYC).

If you aren't afraid of running out of tests you let anyone who wants one and will pay for one get it - This causes lower positive rate. (Texas)

Way off.

agsalaska said:

---

Texas is not testing.

---

While I think I get where you're going with this, (120K tests to date for a 23.7M population), does this mean we don't have test kits available for people with symptoms or don't have many people with symptoms. Based on the 90% negative testing, it sure seems like the latter.