Stop Posting the Conspiracy Rubbish

FabioPorkpie

Well-known member
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.

I think the problem is it looks like they are going to try and rush this one out to people like students before Xmas, so they can get a test to say they are virus free before heading home to Christmas with the grandparents, but the test may give a high number of false negatives so they go home with completely false sense of security.

Yesterday I was reading some PHE expert on public infectious disease screening talking about how they hadn’t been consulted at all and had basically been told ‘no thanks’ when they got in touch to offer their help. It’s just beyond comprehension the way these charlatans are running everything.
 

bear66

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.
No.
Sensitivity measures the proportion of positives that are correctly identified. Specificity measures the proportion of negatives that are correctly identified. If you set the test up to have few false negatives, you get a lot of false positives. It's viewed as preferable to have more false negatives and fewer false positives.

Screenshot_20201117-131843.jpg
 

Laughing

Well-known member
No.
Sensitivity measures the proportion of positives that are correctly identified. Specificity measures the proportion of negatives that are correctly identified. If you set the test up to have few false negatives, you get a lot of false positives. It's viewed as preferable to have more false negatives and fewer false positives.

View attachment 9043
Got it, so depending on why you are testing would dictate which way to go. For example if you are testing to send someone back into a care home you would want less false negatives in your test and accept the false positives to protect the care home.

If you just want to understand how prevalent the virus is you would want a decent balance.
 

Expat Smoggie

Active member
No.
Sensitivity measures the proportion of positives that are correctly identified. Specificity measures the proportion of negatives that are correctly identified. If you set the test up to have few false negatives, you get a lot of false positives. It's viewed as preferable to have more false negatives and fewer false positives.

View attachment 9043
false positives that are correctly identified-- hmmm so if they're not then I guess we blame it on the test or blame it on the operator of the test?
 

Foggysfplandiet3

Well-known member
I think the problem is it looks like they are going to try and rush this one out to people like students before Xmas, so they can get a test to say they are virus free before heading home to Christmas with the grandparents, but the test may give a high number of false negatives so they go home with completely false sense of security.

Yesterday I was reading some PHE expert on public infectious disease screening talking about how they hadn’t been consulted at all and had basically been told ‘no thanks’ when they got in touch to offer their help. It’s just beyond comprehension the way these charlatans are running everything.

It should be their grandparents getting the vaccinations before Christmas, not the students.
 

1finny

Well-known member
The data shows those people dying most are
The elderly, obese, BAME and socially less privileged.

Would be interesting if they prioritise those groups before others ;)
 

FabioPorkpie

Well-known member
It should be their grandparents getting the vaccinations before Christmas, not the students.

I don’t think students will be getting vaccinated any time soon.
My post was in regards to tests, not vaccines.
Absolutely the high risk groups should get vaccinated before the low risk ones
 

Statto1

Well-known member
OK, lets take this point by point.......

Some people who disagree with me actually try to ask questions or post data to back up their own point. You however don't do this and seem to suggest those of use providing publicly available data to support our argument as conspiracy theroists! What exactly is the conspiracy theory we are spreading?

2nd wave? The current excess death level for the UK is at the upper level over a 5 year period.

View attachment 8914

Has your man posted an updated version of this graph yet?
I would have thought he would have, seeing as there's been an ONS update?
You would think he would be keen to elaborate on his point further, with more detail to back it up?

Oh wait, no, I bet he hasn't, because he won't want to show the orange line above the blue one (and doesn't highlight how bad that blue one even is)
Anyway, I can help with that, and I've adjusted the ONS 2014 to 2019 figures for population changes, relative to the ONS yearly increases.
Funny thing is, when you do that, you realise that his blue line shouldn't have been that high in the first place, and has been overly smoothed, so it appears to have a wider range, naughty, naughty. He also had smoothed the line extents artificially high too, and doesn't show the reason why it spikes high and then dips low. His week 52 high should be more like 9k, to reflect 2015, the other years are less.

For week 45 Excess for 2020 is now 1670 over the 5 year average, or 1409 over a population adjusted 5 year average, and was 886 over last week too, no idea how he made his numbers up to get it to match this years, but it wasn't using ONS data, and certainly not in a transparent way.
.
With the covid deaths and cases still going up or even levelling, we're heading for at least 2000 excess per week, for at least a month, probably two when factoring in for crimbo. When factoring in what we've had, we're not getting out of this with less than another 30k excess, and wouldn't be surprised if total excess topped 100k for mid march to mid march.

1605638700695.png

1605638754774.png

1605639542516.png


Still don't think there's a second wave??
Those look like pretty big waves to me.
 

GazC_MFC

Well-known member
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.
He said the pandemic is over and there is no 2nd wave. He’s a nutter
 

cliverd

Member
Hi all,

Some interesting stats out from the ONS this morning:

1605791808994.png
No doubt COVID deaths have increased over the past few months, however they seemed to have replaced other causes of death as only 8 excess deaths occurred in October compared with 2019.

Another bit of interesting COVID information is PHE recent preprint on T-cell immunity;

Source; https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=immediate

Interesting that acknowledgment of prior immunity to COVID-19 is present in those who have never had the virus, likely through previous exposure to other coronaviruses.

1605791973565.png
 

rob_fmttm

Administrator
I started this thread as an appeal to ask people to stop posting all the COVID conspiracy stuff on fmttmboro - it has since been hijacked for several pages and several weeks.
- this is a warning to show some respect for all those that have had their lives wrecked this year by death and illness. You can be as pedantic as you wish with your graphs and stats but it won't bring them back and it will not prevent the crisis that many of our hospitals are now faced with once again.
I am making this post directed at certain individuals posting on this thread - please desist. One or two have been warned in the past, so take this as a final warning - please think about it and show some RESPECT
 

Tommy_Dickfingers

Well-known member
That's right.
As well as not being able to do things in everyday life, now a messageboard owner is telling people not to have a debate.

I've personally read a lot of what is on this thread and I wouldn't say that any of it is tinfoil hat bat s*** crazy, just people trying to explain their stance and viewpoint on this awful pandemic and it's many direct & side effects.
 

cliverd

Member
I started this thread as an appeal to ask people to stop posting all the COVID conspiracy stuff on fmttmboro - it has since been hijacked for several pages and several weeks.
- this is a warning to show some respect for all those that have had their lives wrecked this year by death and illness. You can be as pedantic as you wish with your graphs and stats but it won't bring them back and it will not prevent the crisis that many of our hospitals are now faced with once again.
I am making this post directed at certain individuals posting on this thread - please desist. One or two have been warned in the past, so take this as a final warning - please think about it and show some RESPECT
Not sure what aspects of my post are disrespectful?
 
Top
X