Old Oct 2, 20, 12:39 pm
  #51  
RCyyz
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Body in Downtown YYZ, heart and mind elsewhere
Programs: UA 50K, refugee from AC E50K, Marriott Lifetime Plat
Posts: 5,042
Originally Posted by canadiancow View Post
So only 20% of the eventual-positives were not caught immediately, and they were all caught after 7 (not 14) days.

Granted, this is a self-selecting set of people who clearly treat the virus more seriously, but if these results hold up to more scrutiny, AC will have data (as opposed to general fear-mongering) to lean on the government.
I'd like to read the actual paper from the scientists at McMaster as opposed to a marketing-speak press release. Sadly, I don't think the paper has made it to the pre-release servers, let alone get published for real.

So, based on a press release ...

AC is implying that approximately 1% of pax were positive for COVID-19. That's roughly 130 people. Of the 130 people, 20% did not test positive immediately but did test positive 7 days later.

If (IF ... if if if if if if ...) this is true, it might indicate that the test used is not sensitive enough. It's a huge IF that needs to be clarified. I'm willing to bet that the McMaster scientists discuss this very point in their paper. Sadly, AC jumped the gun and issued a press release instead of letting the scientists publish their paper first.

The problem here is that 20% of the (eventual) positives were allowed to pass Go. That's 26 people who, on average (effective R0 = 1.5), go on to infect another 39 people who go on to infect another 58.5 people who go on to infect another 87.75 people and before you know it, we have a thousand more cases to deal with.

AC's press release implies that everything is fine. The math indicates there may be another perspective to this.

I applaud AC for sponsoring this study. But they should let the scientists do their thing, then issue press releases after the science has been fully disclosed.
RCyyz is offline