Coronavirus 2019-nCoV

[C0|dB|00ded]

I hope you self quarrantining. Because obviously u think u covid. Anything else than full quarantine would be criminal.

I satisfied the 10-day quarantine. Even turned down a hot little thing for a date. I experienced the full penalty. And it was likely all for naught.

[C0|dB|00ded]

I got exposed Oct 31, had light fever on Nov 3rd, lasted a couple days. I still have shortness of breath.

Well fk, pin. Why didn't you share that with the forum when you first experienced it? :(

What's your oxygen saturation?

Some people have shortness of breath long after they "recover" from the illness - hence the term, "Long Haulers".

[ShockerFever]

I satisfied the 10-day quarantine. Even turned down a hot little thing for a date. I experienced the full penalty. And it was likely all for naught.

How are you doing all of this socializing and dating while hunkering down from the insidious alien virus? Tinder? Facebook?

[Kung Wu]

One clue that you're off is that 72% is less than the lowest probability of one occurrence happening. That would be impossible.

98% is higher than the greatest probability of any one event happening. That's impossible.

72% is the chance that both tests are accurate. Every test adds more potential error, and the accuracy cannot be higher than the number of either individual probability.

98% is the chance that at least one test is accurate. This probability doesn't tell you which of the two are accurate or inaccurate -- you only know that at least one is, and possibly both.

Example: 98% is the chance that: Both tests are accurate (72%+), or test 1 is accurate and test 2 isn't (8%+), or test 1 is inaccurate and test 2 is accurate (18%).

[MikeKennedyRulZ]

Anyone thinking that the FDA holds companies to such a high standard makes me laugh. The FDA is as easily bribed as any other government agency these days. Between the crap they let through and the excessive protections they grant, we're at their mercy, good or bad.

Hiden Joe is going to make it all better. He is going to hold the government accountable and fix everything. If he can't he will just say he has a disease and resign. Great leadership strategy huh? He's your president folks. Good luck. Lol!

[C0|dB|00ded]

How are you doing all of this socializing and dating while hunkering down from the insidious alien virus? Tinder? Facebook?

Online yeah lol.

[SB Shock]

I satisfied the 10-day quarantine. Even turned down a hot little thing for a date. I experienced the full penalty. And it was likely all for naught.

I would think you want to be extra safe for the sake of science and go ahead and quarantine for at least 21 days, and if you want to be extra safe for 35 days because science tells us there are some (albeit a small number) who can be toxic for up to 5 weeks. I would be disappointed if you are just doing the bare minimum.

[ShockerFever]

Online yeah lol.

But you’re still meeting up with them?

Seems careless.

[C0|dB|00ded]

98% is higher than the greatest probability of any one event happening. That's impossible.

72% is the chance that both tests are accurate. Every test adds more potential error, and the accuracy cannot be higher than the number of either individual probability.

98% is the chance that at least one test is accurate. This probability doesn't tell you which of the two are accurate or inaccurate -- you only know that at least one is, and possibly both.

Example: 98% is the chance that: Both tests are accurate (72%+), or test 1 is accurate and test 2 isn't (8%+), or test 1 is inaccurate and test 2 is accurate (18%).

I can't answer this thoroughly at the moment, and I could be wrong, but I'll give a quick explanation on what I think the statistic value is implying.

Let's say you are in a gunfight and the first gunfighter has an 80% chance of blasting your ass. Then you have another fight scheduled where the opponent has a 90% chance of plugging you. If you participate in both gunfights, there's a 98% chance you are getting shot. I listed the formula I followed and it's self-explanatory, but it could be the wrong one.

*Edit* Reread your post again and I agree, knowing to a 98% certainty that ONE of the tests is accurate could be problematic unless BOTH agree. Then I'm 98% certain with the conclusion. If my serology test is positive I'm ****ed. So I guess I'm hoping the serology test is negative.

Okay, I gotta run. This is too complicated to be thinking about in a hurried fashion. I have no doubt you will nail my ass to a wall if I've made a mistake. I wouldn't have it any other way. CB is not built for math battles.

[C0|dB|00ded]

But you’re still meeting up with them?

Seems careless.

OMG lol. Such interesting replies. Why now?

I have stated prior that I take calculated risks meeting women to maintain my sanity. I have met a couple in a park for a friendly chat, one had already been positive last January. The other I had a short-term relationship w/ and was only with her alone at her home and in a hotel once. The other was a GF that I had going into the pandemic that cooled due to several reasons. I've not been in a restaurant/bar/church/movie/family gathering since last February/March. Well, I have been in a restaurant for carryout of course. Mask engaged at all times. And I enter stores w/ a mask. And I have gone to the chiropractor/dentist a few times. So even in my anal Covid world, I've opened myself for infection.

Lots of socialization over the phone/text.

You're not gonna find me a hypocrite though, so don't even try.

[MikeKennedyRulZ]

Online yeah lol.

Porn doesn't count cold.

[pinstripers]

Well fk, pin. Why didn't you share that with the forum when you first experienced it? :(

What's your oxygen saturation?

Some people have shortness of breath long after they "recover" from the illness - hence the term, "Long Haulers".

I did

[Kung Wu]

Let's say you are in a gunfight and the first gunfighter has an 80% chance of blasting your ass. Then you have another fight scheduled where the opponent has a 90% chance of plugging you. If you participate in both gunfights, there's a 98% chance you are getting shot. I listed the formula I followed and it's self-explanatory, but it could be the wrong one.

This is correct because "at least one" is sufficient here. "One bullet hits me" is all you care about.

But these tests are two different types of events with negative/positive and accurate/inaccurate outcomes.

IMO all you should care about is antibodies. With a positive you are 90% sure you have 'em. 90% is an A.

[wufan]

How are you doing all of this socializing and dating while hunkering down from the insidious alien virus? Tinder? Facebook?

Grinder.

[wufan]

98% is higher than the greatest probability of any one event happening. That's impossible.

72% is the chance that both tests are accurate. Every test adds more potential error, and the accuracy cannot be higher than the number of either individual probability.

98% is the chance that at least one test is accurate. This probability doesn't tell you which of the two are accurate or inaccurate -- you only know that at least one is, and possibly both.

Example: 98% is the chance that: Both tests are accurate (72%+), or test 1 is accurate and test 2 isn't (8%+), or test 1 is inaccurate and test 2 is accurate (18%).

Well played. I get two different answers for o a question. I pick the one I like best. 98% of the time.