Controversial Covid post

FabioPorkpie said:
I really don’t think it’s that complex, and that that the implications of the guidance are fairly straight forward 😂
You don’t understand me and I don’t understand you so I think it’s another to file under ‘those topics that probably won’t be resolved one way or an other over texts’.
As you were 👍
Click to expand...

Overall with regards to test versus positive numbers.

1. A variety of PCR tests are used at large number or labs. Overall the false positive rate is quoted much lower on all these tests than the false positive. (False positive about 1-3%, lab false negative 10-15% with a real life rate higher due to poor swab technique)
2. The majority of people having community tests should have an index symptom - so there is some clinical context
3. We know that there are asymptomatic spreaders that are unlikely to get tested

There is an urban myth that this PCR is just picking up regular coronavirus, whereas it is a specific test developed for this coronavirus.

In practice, we have seen a number of patients have a negative swab, but a positive deep tracheal aspirate following intubation and ventilation.

Overall, the likelihood is that community numbers are higher than the government numbers.
 
Ravshoutsatbeck said:
Overall with regards to test versus positive numbers.

1. A variety of PCR tests are used at large number or labs. Overall the false positive rate is quoted much lower on all these tests than the false positive. (False positive about 1-3%, lab false negative 10-15% with a real life rate higher due to poor swab technique)
2. The majority of people having community tests should have an index symptom - so there is some clinical context
3. We know that there are asymptomatic spreaders that are unlikely to get tested

There is an urban myth that this PCR is just picking up regular coronavirus, whereas it is a specific test developed for this coronavirus.

In practice, we have seen a number of patients have a negative swab, but a positive deep tracheal aspirate following intubation and ventilation.

Overall, the likelihood is that community numbers are higher than the government numbers.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply 👍
1-3%? That’s pretty high? I’ve read reports claiming it was thought to be around 0.5% ish but have seen anything up to 4% be suggested. That said, an article in the lancet reported it was unknown in the U.K. only a few weeks ago.

One of the things I’ve had an issue with, is why the government don’t simply come out and shut the PCR test false positive argument down by announcing what the FPR is? Surely that would be the end of it?
That said, several of the voices who have been banging the false positive drum use figures of around the 1-3% to illustrate their issues with the test, so that’s consistent with what you say.

Regarding the false negative rate, I fully appreciate this is an issue too. I’ve got two family in the Netherlands who have almost certainly had covid, every single marker and symptom hit, at the wrong time of year, right the way through to pneumonia, yet multiple test have comeback as negative. As they are both recovered now, they can joke about having had that famous ‘summer flu’ that goes round in June every year....

I know what you are saying about index symptom in community testing, but there are plenty of people who are testing as part of research, or targeted testing in university etc without symptom, or even lying about the symptoms in order to get a test. Of course, all such cases could (and should) come back negative.

Anyway, thanks for your information.

Please don’t be disheartened by chat on an internet forum where many people come to discuss everything and nothing. I think some of us are just looking to gain an understanding of some things that don’t add up, rather than denial of the severity or very real implications on the NHS of this virus.
My wife and several family members and friends work in various medical professions across 3 hospitals in the area I live, and thankfully things aren’t too bad here, currently. However, with the students having gone back here slightly later than in most of the country, maybe that will change soon. Hope not!

Keep up the good work! 👍
 
@Ravshoutsatbeck good news though my man, hospital admissions are now flat in the NW and NE so you should just about make it through without having to cancel those electives. 👍🏻

Fingers crossed viral interference phenomenon holds up and the flu doesn't come to town this year.
 
Last edited:
RandySavage said:
Insinuating personal insults about a lack of intelligence.
😂
How do you suppose all this 'borrowing' is paid back? By you? Or by my kids and their friends? It's obvious you aren't worried about future generations you are only bothered about a virus with a survival rate of 99%.

Also newsflash, the virus isn't going away and won't be eradicated even with a vaccine.
Click to expand...
A country with a sovereign currency and a floating exchange rate doesn't need to borrow or tax to fund public spending. This sounds counterintuitive, but public finances don't behave like household budgets. The government, via the central bank, can simply spend the money into existence. If they don't borrow then future generations don't need to repay.
 
RandySavage said:
Someone on here was asking for proof that suicides are on the increase.
This is just London.
Click to expand...

Suicides will increase, the biggest cause of stress is losing a loved one, and that's on the increase (covid)
Then there's the increase in the death figures of the general population stressing people (covid)
Then there's loss of jobs (covid impact)
The job impact is likely to effect the suicide bracket the most (ages 20-60), where as this bracket also doesn't have many covid deaths, so they don't die of it, they just have the longer stress of it.

Take covid away, suicide figures will go down
Increase covid figures, then suicides will go up
An increase in covid in this country is guaranteed with less restrictive measures in this country, this is proven, as is a decrease follows restrictions.
An increase in covid will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever equal less measures being in place, so we're equal to what we had before covid, the only way to get the economy fully open is to take away every single restriction, in every single country, and keep social movement up at 100%, in every single country. It's not going to happen, nowhere has done this, nowhere has been anywhere near doing this and nowhere will do it, as nowhere can do it. Forget it. Stop banging your broken drum, it broke in March and is getting more battered by the day.

The only way to get back to normal (or close to normal) is to get covid under control (restrictions), so that it can then be tracked and traced (with a working track and trace system). Countries have managed to do this, and there is a better chance of it as track and trace gets better, but it has to be under control first, track and trace at this point is likely a total waste of time, the idea should be not to let it get like this, should have been a lock down a month ago, we should have learnt this the first time around.

Once it's under control, then things will calm down, track and trace can be used (if we use one that works), and then the economy will get back on track (as well as it can with brexit), then suicides will normalise.
 
We will see who is on the right side of the fence in the next few years.

I'd even go as far to say as I think some people perversely like the current restrictions and hand holding from government but they'd never admit it outside their own head.

As for your suicide explanation, because of covid? No, because of lockdowns.
 
RandySavage said:
We will see who is on the right side of the fence in the next few years.

I'd even go as far to say as I think some people perversely like the current restrictions and hand holding from government but they'd never admit it outside their own head.

As for your suicide explanation, because of covid? No, because of lockdowns.
Click to expand...
Actually you could give credence to both. Every suicide is it’s own story. It’s impossible to know every story.
 
FabioPorkpie said:
Then the government release a guide for health professionals about interpreting PCR test results and it seems, pretty clearly, to throw up some pretty huge questions. It opens the door to questioning the majority of test results, does it not?
that’s not to say those results are all wrong, but it is saying that they cannot be taken to be right, either, without clinical context and evaluation of the person.

Yet nobody is interested? It’s not in the media, and nobody, absolutely nobody on here has a comment on it? No matter which side of the debate you sit on, surely you can acknowledge that this is interesting? Why is this ignored, given the potential implications of what it says?
Why does it all have to be so black and white - you believe everything and question nothing and you are a good citizen
Click to expand...

Test works, but people can interpret results wrong, very easily, but an example below of why this can happen for positive cases in the UK:
Cases went up, then more people died
Cases went down, then less people died
Cases stayed flat, deaths stayed flat/ reduced slightly
Cases went back up, then more people died
The cases have predicted the deaths for 8 months in the UK (case relies on positive test, so test works, that's put that to bed)

A problem we have is people should not look at the death/ case graphs if they're not skilled with numbers, basic example:
Timeframe 1: 10 deaths, 10 cases
Timeframe 2: 10 deaths, 100 cases
Looks like it got weaker right? Or the test has changed right? Nope.

Timeframe 1: 10 deaths, 50 cases (only found 50 cases as we only tested 100 people, there was actually 1000 cases)
Timeframe 2: 10 deaths, 100 cases (only found 100 cases as we only tested 500 people, there was actually 1500 cases)
Ahh, but now it got weaker right (10 deaths v 1000 cases) or (10 deaths v 1500 cases), or the test has changed right? Nope.

Scenario 1: 10 deaths, 50 cases (only found 50 cases as we only tested 100 people, there was actually 1000 cases, 100 nurses, no gear, no experience)
Scenario 2: 10 deaths, 100 cases (only found 100 cases as we only tested 500 people, there was actually 1500 cases, 100 nurses, some gear, some experience))
So the tests didn't get worse, we just got better at detecting the cases, and got better at treating the cases.

Problem is all of that cannot be shown on one graph, but people look at the graph and don't get why we had more deaths before from "less cases" and now have less deaths from "more cases". We don't have more cases, we have just found more of the cases, and the cases we do get, we know how to treat better and have more resources to treat them better (for now).

What we've not got better at is stopping the cases/ deaths (too slow to react to increases)
What we've not got better at is tracking and tracing the cases/ deaths

Is it perfect? No
Does it need to be perfect? No
Has the quality of the test changed? No

Has the amount of tests per expected case increased? Yes
Does this effect how we interpret the data? Yes
Does it mean the test doesn't work? No

The test could be 50% accurate and it would still be fine for planning a response, if you knew it's accuracy was 50%. Obviously it's more accurate than this, and the more accurate the better.

Test more
React to test % positive faster
Track and trace better
 
RandySavage said:
That tactic worked on me in April. It won't again. 🤓
Click to expand...

Project fear like brexit was project fear you mean? Oh wait, no, that turned out to be project fact didn't it.

It's just facts, the stats are facts. You subliminally realise this as you relate these stats and numbers to there being a problem, and you realise this problem is causing fear.

Just accept it, sometimes it's ok to be scared, there's something to be scared about (for a lot of the population, ie those at risk or those that have family at risk or have to care for those at risk).
 
RandySavage said:
Lockdowns work? Exactly how? The entire world locked down and the virus still spread whilst it was.

Liken it to putting a lid on a boiling pan of water. It's going to blow the lid off of the pan eventually. Leave the pan lid off a little bit (current social distancing measures and masks) and the pan will eventually boil dry.
Click to expand...

Turn down the gas, until it's under control.
 
Statto1 said:
Test works, but people can interpret results wrong, very easily, but an example below of why this can happen for positive cases in the UK:
Cases went up, then more people died
Cases went down, then less people died
Cases stayed flat, deaths stayed flat/ reduced slightly
Cases went back up, then more people died
The cases have predicted the deaths for 8 months in the UK (case relies on positive test, so test works, that's put that to bed)

A problem we have is people should not look at the death/ case graphs if they're not skilled with numbers, basic example:
Timeframe 1: 10 deaths, 10 cases
Timeframe 2: 10 deaths, 100 cases
Looks like it got weaker right? Or the test has changed right? Nope.

Timeframe 1: 10 deaths, 50 cases (only found 50 cases as we only tested 100 people, there was actually 1000 cases)
Timeframe 2: 10 deaths, 100 cases (only found 100 cases as we only tested 500 people, there was actually 1500 cases)
Ahh, but now it got weaker right (10 deaths v 1000 cases) or (10 deaths v 1500 cases), or the test has changed right? Nope.

Scenario 1: 10 deaths, 50 cases (only found 50 cases as we only tested 100 people, there was actually 1000 cases, 100 nurses, no gear, no experience)
Scenario 2: 10 deaths, 100 cases (only found 100 cases as we only tested 500 people, there was actually 1500 cases, 100 nurses, some gear, some experience))
So the tests didn't get worse, we just got better at detecting the cases, and got better at treating the cases.

Problem is all of that cannot be shown on one graph, but people look at the graph and don't get why we had more deaths before from "less cases" and now have less deaths from "more cases". We don't have more cases, we have just found more of the cases, and the cases we do get, we know how to treat better and have more resources to treat them better (for now).

What we've not got better at is stopping the cases/ deaths (too slow to react to increases)
What we've not got better at is tracking and tracing the cases/ deaths

Is it perfect? No
Does it need to be perfect? No
Has the quality of the test changed? No

Has the amount of tests per expected case increased? Yes
Does this effect how we interpret the data? Yes
Does it mean the test doesn't work? No

The test could be 50% accurate and it would still be fine for planning a response, if you knew it's accuracy was 50%. Obviously it's more accurate than this, and the more accurate the better.

Test more
React to test % positive faster
Track and trace better
Click to expand...

That was a very long winded and hugely patronising way of saying ‘there were many more cases than were detected back in March/April.’

Yeah thanks for clearing up that point....The one which was never in question and everybody accepted 6 months ago.
And highlighting how genuine cases translate to deaths. Again, never in question.
 
RandySavage said:
Staggering..
Click to expand...

Exam Stress, Struggling to live away from home, financial issues, general undiagnosed mental health issues, drug use. Plenty of triggers unfortunately for the student population, which people don't think of when they think students have an easy life.

In my head (but I may be wrong) a lot of these seemed to happen in the first few months of term, so whether it's the struggling to adapt to the new experience element / been free reign which results in maybe hitting it too hard and suffering the negative mental health as a result, I'm not sure.
 
Statto1 said:
Project fear like brexit was project fear you mean? Oh wait, no, that turned out to be project fact didn't it.

It's just facts, the stats are facts. You subliminally realise this as you relate these stats and numbers to there being a problem, and you realise this problem is causing fear.

Just accept it, sometimes it's ok to be scared, there's something to be scared about (for a lot of the population, ie those at risk or those that have family at risk or have to care for those at risk).
Click to expand...

The analysis of data and conclusions drawn from it, are only as good as the validity of the data being input and propagated.

The issue some people have, myself included, is the quality of data we are being fed, and the narrative attached to it. Such as yesterday’s headline grabbing ‘96 thousand cases per day’.
Now that is way higher than all other case tracking data, such as Zoe and ONS, which are normally fairly similar, with a slight lag between them.
The modelling used would appear to be a little flawed. Some night say is this deliberate? Modelling has been fairly spectacularly wide of the mark throughout this, in SOME aspects, which is a shame, given it’s driving policy (or has been previously.... who knows now?)

Of course, that doesn’t mean the 96 thousand cases per day is correct, or won’t be correct on the future. But if it isn’t and if it is wildly out, then why? And why is it given such far reaching audience?
 
FabioPorkpie said:
That was a very long winded and hugely patronising way of saying ‘there were many more cases than were detected back in March/April.’

Yeah thanks for clearing up that point....The one which was never in question and everybody accepted 6 months ago.
And highlighting how genuine cases translate to deaths. Again, never in question.
Click to expand...

It highlights how data can be misinterpreted, wasn't totally directed at you, it's an example.

It also shows the PCR test is proven to work, proven as it predicted increasing and decreasing covid deaths, or did you just ignore that bit?

The trick is knowing what that pass rate means, and how to relate it to actual cases and how that relates to likely deaths, and how those figures change over time with better treatment and actual cases in the uk/ test positives in the UK.

The test could have 5% accuracy or a 95%, and you could still model from that, if you knew it was 5% or 95% and if you have a large enough sample size.
 
Jostler said:
Exam Stress, Struggling to live away from home, financial issues, general undiagnosed mental health issues, drug use. Plenty of triggers unfortunately for the student population, which people don't think of when they think students have an easy life.

In my head (but I may be wrong) a lot of these seemed to happen in the first few months of term, so whether it's the struggling to adapt to the new experience element / been free reign which results in maybe hitting it too hard and suffering the negative mental health as a result, I'm not sure.
Click to expand...
Historically too if you are the autism spectrum which has previously been under diagnosed and probably still is this adjustment will be harder for them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top