Stop Posting the Conspiracy Rubbish

Alvez_48

Well-known member
Yeah, I hears that.
These guys have written to Hancock.

https://www.channel4.com/press/news...s-failings-one-uks-largest-covid-testing-labs

Worth a read at @1finny and crew... Absolutely astounding really.

Is it any suprise our data is all over the place... It's ok though we mustn't worry about false positives.

'it doesn't matter if we have some false positives because the trend is what's important'. There are two massive flaws with that argument.

Firstly the false positive rate is not a constant.

Secondly the more we test the more likely we are to have the litany of failures found in the lab which increases the likelihood of false positive.

It's funny Yeadon was saying that exact thing several weeks ago @FabioPorkpie, how we're having to employ people who aren't qualified to do the work because of the volume, he's just a nutter according to some though. Several weeks later it's confirmed.
 
Last edited:

1finny

Well-known member
Human nature suggests the ‘test’ process will be fraught with risk.Once ‘targets’ are imposed from above there is the law of unintended consequences.
I’ve read nothing to convince me the current mass testing serves any purpose other than to convince the country that ‘leadership’ is doing something.
Hence ‘200000 tests a day’ and ‘500000 capacity - all designed to give comfort.
85000 people tested probably doesn’t cut it.

Pretty sure I’ve read WHO was against mass testing once a virus was moving fast.

This was circulating and is data up to 20th Nov (I think) basically saying ‘ ‘where are the excess deaths’?

For balance - they may still come.
 

Attachments

  • E0C17122-6C65-471D-8456-A7925EDB2C24.jpeg
    E0C17122-6C65-471D-8456-A7925EDB2C24.jpeg
    714.8 KB · Views: 4

Alvez_48

Well-known member
Human nature suggests the ‘test’ process will be fraught with risk.Once ‘targets’ are imposed from above there is the law of unintended consequences.
I’ve read nothing to convince me the current mass testing serves any purpose other than to convince the country that ‘leadership’ is doing something.
Hence ‘200000 tests a day’ and ‘500000 capacity - all designed to give comfort.
85000 people tested probably doesn’t cut it.

Pretty sure I’ve read WHO was against mass testing once a virus was moving fast.

This was circulating and is data up to 20th Nov (I think) basically saying ‘ ‘where are the excess deaths’?

For balance - they may still come.

It can't be up to the 20th mate... Unless they know the future... *Insert spooky noise here* 😉
 
The PCR test (and I have said it before) is garbage.


Oh wow. If those numbers are true and the LFT is indeed 99.7% accurate, that is showing that the PCR has a specificity about 97%, meaning 3 false positives per 100 (which went you mass test in such vast numbers, is a lot of false positives, and drives further lockdowns).

What's the link to those numbers please - is that from the liverpool city council website?
There needs to be a government response on this, the huge difference in % between the two tests cannot be swept under the carpet.
 

Alvez_48

Well-known member
To be fair @the_smog_chorus though this is important they aren't testing the same people. They should now give everyone who gets a PCR test a lateral flow test too to compare as a control
 

Alvez_48

Well-known member
Those numbers exactly in line with expected high false negatives of lateral flow testing. The reason the lateral flow test is deemed fit for purpose is that it finds 95% of the high viral load cases.

It's like you ignore the headline the lateral flow test is considered 99.7% accurate according to PHE .. bear if you see my post I actually consider the argument whereas you just immediately attempt to discredit it. Why don't you do the same for the PCR test?
 

FabioPorkpie

Well-known member
With these new rapid lateral flow tests that they’ve been banging out there are major concerns about false negatives - there is quite a lot written about the concerns over them currently, particularly from a false negative stand point.
 

bear66

Well-known member
It's like you ignore the headline the lateral flow test is considered 99.7% accurate according to PHE .. bear if you see my post I actually consider the argument whereas you just immediately attempt to discredit it. Why don't you do the same for the PCR test?
It is 99.7% accurate in that only 0.3% of positives aren't positive. 75% of positives, that PCR would pick up, aren't picked up by lateral flow tests. But, importantly, 95% of the possible 'superspreaders' are picked up.

I agree with you that it would have been more interesting for both groups to have been tested by both methods.
 

bear66

Well-known member
With these new rapid lateral flow tests that they’ve been banging out there are major concerns about false negatives - there is quite a lot written about the concerns over them currently, particularly from a false negative stand point.
It does make sense if there is evidence that those with high viral loads are more likely to pass on the infection. That is the justification of the test but I can see getting scientific evidence of this would be difficult.
 

RandySavage

Well-known member
It's like you ignore the headline the lateral flow test is considered 99.7% accurate according to PHE .. bear if you see my post I actually consider the argument whereas you just immediately attempt to discredit it. Why don't you do the same for the PCR test?
@bear66 has shares in Petri dish manufacturers?

👀
 

Statto1

Well-known member
This was circulating and is data up to 20th Nov (I think) basically saying ‘ ‘where are the excess deaths’?

For balance - they may still come.

They're already here.
They were here three weeks ago when the excess hit that top level line (which is already a catastrophe, played down by that graph),
Those that died and put the line where it was at the end caught it about 5-6 weeks ago, since then there has been nothing but rises in cases and covid deaths, and as R is above 1 and the growth rate 1-3%, then we're still going up (albeit slowly now).
Then they were predicted to increase further when that graph was last posted.
Well the stats came out today, and guess what happened?
Latest figures posted today on ONS (A week later than your graph)
Excess was 1670 for W/E 6 Nov (16% over 5 year average)
Excess was 1110 for W/E 30th Oct (11% over, which is what that horrendous graph only showed to, and deemed ok/ "only")

That graph showed we were at the max of last 6 years, up to 30th Oct and we're passed that now.
Still got another two weeks rises to come at least, seeing as deaths average was 320 back then and we're heading for 450 this week.
The brown and green line pretty much follow the red line, and the red line is a better predictor of the current situation than the two week old ONS data.
The cases line is a predictor of where the red line is going and that's been going up too
The daily growth and R are a predictor of where the cases are going and they're still going up too (albeit not as fast as before the gradually harsher measures were taken)

1605618035535.png
 

HarryVegas

Well-known member
Is it just me, or would anyone else here happily pay good money to watch this privileged, entitled streak of nowt get ragged up and down by four coppers?




Laurence Fox

@LozzaFox
· 22h
Just a quick one @MattHancock. I’m sure I don’t need to say this, but If you do try and take away the last vestiges of my personal freedom by trying to stick a needle in my arm without my consent, bring at least four police officers with you, you are going to need them.
 

Laughing

Well-known member
Aren't the false positives balanced by the false negatives, or have I got this wrong?

Balancing false positive/negative aside, I would have though that the more accurate the testing the better the data you have to make decisions on.
 
Top
X