The Bobcat Nation

wbtfg wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 18, 2020 1:21 pm

bobcat99 wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 18, 2020 10:45 am

So now that the masks are "mandatory", we see health places across the state cancel testing they had planned for asymptomatic individuals.

Now we'll definitely see the amount of positive cases decrease lol. It's totally just a coincidence though.

Is there a link for this?

As a result, the state may cancel some of its surveillance testing, Bullock said.

91catAlum wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 18, 2020 2:38 pm

wbtfg wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 18, 2020 1:21 pm

bobcat99 wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 18, 2020 10:45 am

So now that the masks are "mandatory", we see health places across the state cancel testing they had planned for asymptomatic individuals.

Now we'll definitely see the amount of positive cases decrease lol. It's totally just a coincidence though.

Is there a link for this?

Several things come up if you just Google it. But here's a couple for you.

As a result, the state may cancel some of its surveillance testing, Bullock said.

https://www.ktvq.com/news/coronavirus/u ... as-working

Great Falls Benefis is done with asymptomatic testing:
https://www.kulr8.com/coronavirus/benef ... c7956.html

91catAlum wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 18, 2020 2:38 pm

wbtfg wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 18, 2020 1:21 pm

bobcat99 wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 18, 2020 10:45 am

So now that the masks are "mandatory", we see health places across the state cancel testing they had planned for asymptomatic individuals.

Now we'll definitely see the amount of positive cases decrease lol. It's totally just a coincidence though.

Is there a link for this?

Several things come up if you just Google it. But here's a couple for you.

As a result, the state may cancel some of its surveillance testing, Bullock said.

https://www.ktvq.com/news/coronavirus/u ... as-working

Great Falls Benefis is done with asymptomatic testing:
https://www.kulr8.com/coronavirus/benef ... c7956.html

wbtfg wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 18, 2020 3:32 pm

91catAlum wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 18, 2020 2:38 pm

wbtfg wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 18, 2020 1:21 pm

bobcat99 wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 18, 2020 10:45 am

So now that the masks are "mandatory", we see health places across the state cancel testing they had planned for asymptomatic individuals.

Now we'll definitely see the amount of positive cases decrease lol. It's totally just a coincidence though.

Is there a link for this?

Several things come up if you just Google it. But here's a couple for you.

As a result, the state may cancel some of its surveillance testing, Bullock said.

https://www.ktvq.com/news/coronavirus/u ... as-working

Great Falls Benefis is done with asymptomatic testing:
https://www.kulr8.com/coronavirus/benef ... c7956.html

The story says that asymptomatic testing is stopping because of the increased lag time from the lab in Denver. Now a two week turn around time isn’t effective for quarantining and stopping the spread.

91catAlum wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 18, 2020 3:49 pm

wbtfg wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 18, 2020 3:32 pm

91catAlum wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 18, 2020 2:38 pm

wbtfg wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 18, 2020 1:21 pm

bobcat99 wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 18, 2020 10:45 am

So now that the masks are "mandatory", we see health places across the state cancel testing they had planned for asymptomatic individuals.

Now we'll definitely see the amount of positive cases decrease lol. It's totally just a coincidence though.

Is there a link for this?

Several things come up if you just Google it. But here's a couple for you.

As a result, the state may cancel some of its surveillance testing, Bullock said.

https://www.ktvq.com/news/coronavirus/u ... as-working

Great Falls Benefis is done with asymptomatic testing:
https://www.kulr8.com/coronavirus/benef ... c7956.html

The story says that asymptomatic testing is stopping because of the increased lag time from the lab in Denver. Now a two week turn around time isn’t effective for quarantining and stopping the spread.

Yep and that's reasonable. But it's stopping on the same day that Bullock ordered the mask mandate. So positive cases are going to drop simply based on reduced testing, but it's going to look like it was the masks. Or at least it's going to make it impossible to tell how much difference the mask mandate made.

wbtfg wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 18, 2020 3:58 pm

91catAlum wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 18, 2020 3:49 pm

wbtfg wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 18, 2020 3:32 pm

91catAlum wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 18, 2020 2:38 pm

wbtfg wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 18, 2020 1:21 pm

bobcat99 wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 18, 2020 10:45 am

So now that the masks are "mandatory", we see health places across the state cancel testing they had planned for asymptomatic individuals.

Now we'll definitely see the amount of positive cases decrease lol. It's totally just a coincidence though.

Is there a link for this?

Several things come up if you just Google it. But here's a couple for you.

As a result, the state may cancel some of its surveillance testing, Bullock said.

https://www.ktvq.com/news/coronavirus/u ... as-working

Great Falls Benefis is done with asymptomatic testing:
https://www.kulr8.com/coronavirus/benef ... c7956.html

The story says that asymptomatic testing is stopping because of the increased lag time from the lab in Denver. Now a two week turn around time isn’t effective for quarantining and stopping the spread.

Yep and that's reasonable. But it's stopping on the same day that Bullock ordered the mask mandate. So positive cases are going to drop simply based on reduced testing, but it's going to look like it was the masks. Or at least it's going to make it impossible to tell how much difference the mask mandate made.

Per usual, people will see what they want to see. Haha

thefrank1 wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 19, 2020 11:56 am

Not sure why its a bad idea. With a testing backlog of two weeks, testing doesn't perform a preventative function. Masks will. I try not to speculate on others intentions.

TomCat88 wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 19, 2020 11:02 am

If Bullock is putting out the mask mandate due to prior knowledge of testing backlogs it appears to be a bad plan. Not saying he did that, but it seems like a bad idea. It’ll be interesting to see if someone from Pureview or some other testing facility comes forward as a whistleblower. I know I would.

91catAlum wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 19, 2020 1:54 pm

TomCat88 wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 19, 2020 11:02 am

If Bullock is putting out the mask mandate due to prior knowledge of testing backlogs it appears to be a bad plan. Not saying he did that, but it seems like a bad idea. It’ll be interesting to see if someone from Pureview or some other testing facility comes forward as a whistleblower. I know I would.

I was being a bit facetious with the conspiracy stuff, I'm sure it's not. But it sucks we're not gonna be able to tell whether the mask mandate was effective or not, and to what degree, when the numbers go down. Because they will go down now with reduced testing and masking. It's just going to continue the divisiveness, I think. The right will say of course it went down, we reduced our testing, masks are the devil. The left will say masks were the key the whole time, we all knew it last January, will blame Trump for not doing a national mask mandate, and praise Bullock for doing one 4 months in.

onceacat wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 19, 2020 10:10 pm

91catAlum wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 19, 2020 1:54 pm

TomCat88 wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 19, 2020 11:02 am

If Bullock is putting out the mask mandate due to prior knowledge of testing backlogs it appears to be a bad plan. Not saying he did that, but it seems like a bad idea. It’ll be interesting to see if someone from Pureview or some other testing facility comes forward as a whistleblower. I know I would.

I was being a bit facetious with the conspiracy stuff, I'm sure it's not. But it sucks we're not gonna be able to tell whether the mask mandate was effective or not, and to what degree, when the numbers go down. Because they will go down now with reduced testing and masking. It's just going to continue the divisiveness, I think. The right will say of course it went down, we reduced our testing, masks are the devil. The left will say masks were the key the whole time, we all knew it last January, will blame Trump for not doing a national mask mandate, and praise Bullock for doing one 4 months in.

Thats only partly true. The positive test rate of asymptomatic people is (for obvious reasons) really low. I'd love to see if someone has numbers on how low, but I can't find it quickly. At any rate, if the positivity rate of symptomatic & at risk testing drops, we will have a pretty high confidence that the mask mandate worked. If the symptomatic positivity rate keeps going up, we will have a pretty good idea that the mask mandate didn't work.

Ending the out of state testing is a bummer, but it doesn't mean that our current testing percentages are useless by a long stretch.

Cat Grad wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 20, 2020 6:47 am

onceacat wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 19, 2020 10:10 pm

91catAlum wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 19, 2020 1:54 pm

TomCat88 wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 19, 2020 11:02 am

If Bullock is putting out the mask mandate due to prior knowledge of testing backlogs it appears to be a bad plan. Not saying he did that, but it seems like a bad idea. It’ll be interesting to see if someone from Pureview or some other testing facility comes forward as a whistleblower. I know I would.

I was being a bit facetious with the conspiracy stuff, I'm sure it's not. But it sucks we're not gonna be able to tell whether the mask mandate was effective or not, and to what degree, when the numbers go down. Because they will go down now with reduced testing and masking. It's just going to continue the divisiveness, I think. The right will say of course it went down, we reduced our testing, masks are the devil. The left will say masks were the key the whole time, we all knew it last January, will blame Trump for not doing a national mask mandate, and praise Bullock for doing one 4 months in.

Thats only partly true. The positive test rate of asymptomatic people is (for obvious reasons) really low. I'd love to see if someone has numbers on how low, but I can't find it quickly. At any rate, if the positivity rate of symptomatic & at risk testing drops, we will have a pretty high confidence that the mask mandate worked. If the symptomatic positivity rate keeps going up, we will have a pretty good idea that the mask mandate didn't work.

Ending the out of state testing is a bummer, but it doesn't mean that our current testing percentages are useless by a long stretch.

Here's the problem with all the discussions relative data (at least from a professional perspective). Until the data has been peer reviewed and the journal editors have approved the large volumes of studies and have actually replicated the tests, all you have is a collection of useless datum. That is to say, where we are now is similar to presenting a scientific study to a group of journalists who, in all probability, haven't taken Stat 101 and could no more explain basic stat vocabulary let alone read the various and assorted statistical measures being applied to said tests than frequent online chatroom posters. Hell, what poster here, in all honesty, can explain the differences between a z-test, t-test, chi-square, whether the experiementer ought to run a one-tailed or two-tailed anova. In fact, I'd venture very few could actually look at the tests and correctly read the findings and agree whether or not the fu*cking test is even statistically significant. Christ man...

All the reporters are doing is looking at the datum. What is the starting point? They don't have a clue as to what they are even talking about as they don't even have access to the actual data and even if they did, they can't read it let alone explain it in layman's terms.

CelticCat wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 20, 2020 9:55 am

Oh man, flashbacks to my Stat classes at MSU. I remember all the words you said, but what they mean exactly...

The Butcher wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 20, 2020 10:27 am

CelticCat wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 20, 2020 9:55 am

Oh man, flashbacks to my Stat classes at MSU. I remember all the words you said, but what they mean exactly...

I still have nightmares from Stats 217!

bobcat99 wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 18, 2020 10:45 am

So now that the masks are "mandatory", we see health places across the state cancel testing they had planned for asymptomatic individuals.

Now we'll definitely see the amount of positive cases decrease lol. It's totally just a coincidence though.

ibleedblue wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 20, 2020 10:39 am

bobcat99 wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 18, 2020 10:45 am

So now that the masks are "mandatory", we see health places across the state cancel testing they had planned for asymptomatic individuals.

Now we'll definitely see the amount of positive cases decrease lol. It's totally just a coincidence though.

That’s exactly what’s happening. MT doesn’t have the capacity to test asymptotic individuals as that was taking 7-10 days for results, if not longer. Now they are only testing symptomatic individuals moving forward. Our testing in the last few days, because of this, has been cut in half. Funny that the positive cases have also been cut in half. But let the masses tell ya “masks are working”

ibleedblue wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 20, 2020 10:39 am

bobcat99 wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 18, 2020 10:45 am

So now that the masks are "mandatory", we see health places across the state cancel testing they had planned for asymptomatic individuals.

Now we'll definitely see the amount of positive cases decrease lol. It's totally just a coincidence though.

That’s exactly what’s happening. MT doesn’t have the capacity to test asymptotic individuals as that was taking 7-10 days for results, if not longer. Now they are only testing symptomatic individuals moving forward. Our testing in the last few days, because of this, has been cut in half. Funny that the positive cases have also been cut in half. But let the masses tell ya “masks are working”