The 9am figures not disclosed yet?

[Andy_W]

Seriously why would I report her ? I know a lot of people who have done multiple LF tests that were negative and tested positive with the full test , so maybe she's actually talking from experience of them ,rather than someone just telling the masses what they should do .

Because they’re employees (working as a public service), meant to be following their employers guidance (who know better than a lone GP), for the good of public health, which should be a GP’s priority. Pretty much everyone in healthcare is using them all the time, so if your GP disagrees with this, then maybe they need to have a chat with their manager, or get some education on why they’re not “useless”.

Guidance to GP’s, as well as all healthcare and the public is to be pro-testing, of any kind, advising LFT’s after possible contact or as protection measures, and PCR if someone has symptoms.

LFT’s will pick up the vast majority of positives where people may not otherwise have got a PCR, for various reasons, or where they might be waiting for a PCR result.

To say “they’re useless” is idiotic, but I very much doubt your GP actually said that, and even if they did, they should maybe speak to someone who knows more than they do.

Over two million cases have been picked up by LFT’s and reported to the dashboard, and there will be even more picked up by LFT’s which haven’t been reported.

 

[Wez68]

Because they’re employees (working as a public service), meant to be following their employers guidance (who know better than a lone GP), for the good of public health, which should be a GP’s priority. Pretty much everyone in healthcare is using them all the time, so if your GP disagrees with this, then maybe they need to have a chat with their manager, or get some education on why they’re not “useless”.

Guidance to GP’s, as well as all healthcare and the public is to be pro-testing, of any kind, advising LFT’s after possible contact or as protection measures, and PCR if someone has symptoms.

LFT’s will pick up the vast majority of positives where people may not otherwise have got a PCR, for various reasons, or where they might be waiting for a PCR result.

To say “they’re useless” is idiotic, but I very much doubt your GP actually said that, and even if they did, they should maybe speak to someone who knows more than they do.

And why would I lie about her saying that ? did you actually read my post ? you know maybe just maybe she has dealt with a lot of people who have been negative with LFT,s and tested positive with a PCR , something that I have seen in the majority of people I know who have had Covid , hence her saying to get a PCR , I would much rather take that advice tbh .

 

[Randy]

Because they’re employees (working as a public service), meant to be following their employers guidance (who know better than a lone GP), for the good of public health, which should be a GP’s priority. Pretty much everyone in healthcare is using them all the time, so if your GP disagrees with this, then maybe they need to have a chat with their manager, or get some education on why they’re not “useless”.

Guidance to GP’s, as well as all healthcare and the public is to be pro-testing, of any kind, advising LFT’s after possible contact or as protection measures, and PCR if someone has symptoms.

LFT’s will pick up the vast majority of positives where people may not otherwise have got a PCR, for various reasons, or where they might be waiting for a PCR result.

To say “they’re useless” is idiotic, but I very much doubt your GP actually said that, and even if they did, they should maybe speak to someone who knows more than they do.

Over two million cases have been picked up by LFT’s and reported to the dashboard, and there will be even more picked up by LFT’s which haven’t been reported.

To be fair his GP post has some merit. When we were admitted for the birth of our new son my wife was asked of if she would take another PCR test even though we'd been in the hospital and not left the room for 10 hours at this point. She asked why because obviously neither of us had left the room and the only people entering were taking LFT tests every morning, masked up and in basic PPE. The midwife said, and I'm directly quoting her here, that the LFT tests were merely a box ticking exercise as far as they were concerned and weren't worth a thing. So my wife took the PCR test, I didn't have to, which was odd, but volunteered for one anyways given the nature of virus transmission in hospitals.

 

[Andy_W]

And why would I lie about her saying that ? did you actually read my post ? you know maybe just maybe she has dealt with a lot of people who have been negative with LFT,s and tested positive with a PCR , something that I have seen in the majority of people I know who have had Covid , hence her saying to get a PCR , I would much rather take that advice tbh .

I don't know, maybe as it seems far fetched. But I'm assuming the GP can understand their guidance, and the studies the guidance is based on (which is thousands upon thousands of tests/ cases), maybe I'm wrong and they don't understand it, or haven't read it. The guidance is there though, and written/ put in place by people who know far more than you, me or your GP.

But like I say, no matter what they did/ didn't say or what you or her think, if you/her think they're "useless" you're both just wrong, as LFT's have probably identified 3-5m cases, at least 24 hours before a PCR could, and in a lot of cases where PCR's would not have been taken at all. The effect this would have had on reducing other cases, hospitalisations, deaths and waves is absolutely massive when something is capible of exponential growth.

In an ideal world we would all get PCR's for the same cost and timings as LFT's, and then every single one of those get sequenced, but that's not possible or practical.

It's not binary, something does not need to be a 1 or a 0, to work/ not work, help/ not help, have a good use/ not have a good use. They should promote any risk reduction they can get, especially if it's quick, cheap, shown to work and there's no other fast alternative.

Why did she say get a PCR? Did you have symptoms? If so that's maybe why she said don't bother with an LFT and just do the PCR, as that's in line with the guidance. It doesn't make the "LFT's are useless" statement correct though, in a generic term, as that would just be wrong. An LFT might be pointless if someone has the main symtoms, and is going to isolate and get a PCR anyway, but that's an entirely different circumstance altogether, and hence has different guidance.

The guidance is below, direct from the NHS @ https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/testing/get-tested-for-coronavirus/

• PCR tests – mainly for people with symptoms, they're sent to a lab to be checked
• rapid lateral flow tests – only for people who do not have symptoms, they give a quick result using a device similar to a pregnancy test

 

[Andy_W]

To be fair his GP post has some merit. When we were admitted for the birth of our new son my wife was asked of if she would take another PCR test even though we'd been in the hospital and not left the room for 10 hours at this point. She asked why because obviously neither of us had left the room and the only people entering were taking LFT tests every morning, masked up and in basic PPE. The midwife said, and I'm directly quoting her here, that the LFT tests were merely a box ticking exercise as far as they were concerned and weren't worth a thing. So my wife took the PCR test, I didn't have to, which was odd, but volunteered for one anyways given the nature of virus transmission in hospitals.

See the post above.

The standard guidance doesn't say to get a PCR, when you don't have symptoms, but of course there could be situations where you would benefit from the additional reliability, like in your case.

The midwife's statement of "a box ticking excercise" is again, wrong, as proven by the 3-5m cases which LFT's have picked up prior to PCR. This is an extremly cheap, fast and simple risk reduction measure, which will pick up the majority of cases.

I could semi-understand it, if we had an instantanious, cheap and more reliable alternative to test and reduce the risk, but we don't, so you reduce the risk as and where you can, and take any risk reduction you can get, especially in a hospital. This is day one basics in any sort of risk management. They should hopefully understand this, but I expect they're pre-occupied with their own job, and chit chat like this is just meaningless, and needs to be understood in context, and compared to the alternatives.

I hear the same chit chat on sites when guys are whinging about the PPE they need to wear. In some instances it may not redcue their risk, and in some it would never save them from injury, but in the vast majority of instances it would, which is why it's used and why risks have reduced. The ultimate assesmant of the risk should be carried out by the most competent person to do it, which is often not the person required to take the measures, or even enforce them, and most of the time they only understand 5 pieces of a 10 piece puzzle.

Same applies for masks, ventialation, hand washing, social distancing. None of those work 100%, but anyone saying they're useless would be wrong. They're all very useful at reducing risk.

 

[Wez68]

See the post above.

The standard guidance doesn't say to get a PCR, when you don't have symptoms, but of course there could be situations where you would benefit from the additional reliability, like in your case.

The midwife's statement of "a box ticking excercise" is again, wrong, as proven by the 3-5m cases which LFT's have picked up prior to PCR. This is an extremly cheap, fast and simple risk reduction measure, which will pick up the majority of cases.

I could semi-understand it, if we had an instantanious, cheap and more reliable alternative to test and reduce the risk, but we don't, so you reduce the risk as and where you can, and take any risk reduction you can get, especially in a hospital. This is day one basics in any sort of risk management. They should hopefully understand this, but I expect they're pre-occupied with their own job, and chit chat like this is just meaningless, and needs to be understood in context, and compared to the alternatives.

I hear the same chit chat on sites when guys are whinging about the PPE they need to wear. In some instances it may not redcue their risk, and in some it would never save them from injury, but in the vast majority of instances it would, which is why it's used and why risks have reduced. The ultimate assesmant of the risk should be carried out by the most competent person to do it, which is often not the person required to take the measures, or even enforce them, and most of the time they only understand 5 pieces of a 10 piece puzzle.

The thing is ,as I stated , and I,ll be more specific for you ,out of 10 people I know who had covid ,8 of them had a negative LFT , before testing positive with a PCR which was taken either same day or following day , that's hardly picking up the majority is it .

A department within the company I work for were testing their staff Daily with LF,s and again the majority of staff who had Covid were not detected by the daily testing ,so I,ll put my trust in a GP who actually speaks something resembling the truth .

 

[Andy_W]

The thing is ,as I stated , and I,ll be more specific for you ,out of 10 people I know who had covid ,8 of them had a negative LFT , before testing positive with a PCR which was taken either same day or following day , that's hardly picking up the majority is it .

A department within the company I work for were testing their staff Daily with LF,s and again the majority of staff who had Covid were not detected by the daily testing ,so I,ll put my trust in a GP who actually speaks something resembling the truth .

Low sample size, but it sounds far fetched. Did they all have symptoms?

The PCR detects a wider range (and is a better test, carried out by professionals), but doesn't necessarily mean somebody is still infectious. The LFT is designed to fit a specific range, and for those who do not have symptoms. The LFT might miss a little at the start, and a fair chunk long after, but for the key phase in the middle of peak infectiousness, the accuracy is great.

Most I know who have had symptoms, have been positive on PCR (the test desgined for people who have symptoms).
I know loads of aysmtomatic people who were picked up on LFT, who were not even contempalting getting a PCR, as they had no symptoms (the test designed for routine, quick testing, aimed at picking up those who otherwise wouldn't be getting a PCR).

You seem to be missing what each test is designed to do, and what the pro's/ con's of each are, and you're thinking about things in too much of a binary way.

Truth? Do you think the 5m people confirmed positive by LFT's are not real, or the results have been faked? How many of that 5m do you think were going to get a PCR?

 

[Wez68]

Low sample size, but it sounds far fetched. Did they all have symptoms?

The PCR detects a wider range (and is a better test, carried out by professionals), but doesn't necessarily mean somebody is still infectious. The LFT is designed to fit a specific range, and for those who do not have symptoms. The LFT might miss a little at the start, and a fair chunk long after, but for the key phase in the middle of peak infectiousness, the accuracy is great.

Most I know who have had symptoms, have been positive on PCR (the test desgined for people who have symptoms).
I know loads of aysmtomatic people who were picked up on LFT, who were not even contempalting getting a PCR, as they had no symptoms (the test designed for routine, quick testing, aimed at picking up those who otherwise wouldn't be getting a PCR).

You seem to be missing what each test is designed to do, and what the pro's/ con's of each are, and you're thinking about things in too much of a binary way.

Truth? Do you think the 5m people confirmed positive by LFT's are not real, or the results have been faked? How many of that 5m do you think were going to get a PCR?

Sounds far fetched !! Jesus just because it doesn’t fit into your facts and figures ,your starting to sound like the member on here who claims all Staffordshire bull terriers are killing machines ………

 

[Randy]

See the post above.

The standard guidance doesn't say to get a PCR, when you don't have symptoms, but of course there could be situations where you would benefit from the additional reliability, like in your case.

The midwife's statement of "a box ticking excercise" is again, wrong, as proven by the 3-5m cases which LFT's have picked up prior to PCR. This is an extremly cheap, fast and simple risk reduction measure, which will pick up the majority of cases.

I could semi-understand it, if we had an instantanious, cheap and more reliable alternative to test and reduce the risk, but we don't, so you reduce the risk as and where you can, and take any risk reduction you can get, especially in a hospital. This is day one basics in any sort of risk management. They should hopefully understand this, but I expect they're pre-occupied with their own job, and chit chat like this is just meaningless, and needs to be understood in context, and compared to the alternatives.

I hear the same chit chat on sites when guys are whinging about the PPE they need to wear. In some instances it may not redcue their risk, and in some it would never save them from injury, but in the vast majority of instances it would, which is why it's used and why risks have reduced. The ultimate assesmant of the risk should be carried out by the most competent person to do it, which is often not the person required to take the measures, or even enforce them, and most of the time they only understand 5 pieces of a 10 piece puzzle.

Same applies for masks, ventialation, hand washing, social distancing. None of those work 100%, but anyone saying they're useless would be wrong. They're all very useful at reducing risk.

Only relaying what she said Andy.

 

[Pak_Doo_Ik]

Seriously why would I report her ? I know a lot of people who have done multiple LF tests that were negative and tested positive with the full test , so maybe she's actually talking from experience of them ,rather than someone just telling the masses what they should do .

Yes , and clog up the system ? I doubt it very much especially if you get a kit sent to your home , seriously I,m surprised if some people actually leave there homes on here ,such is the fear they are projecting

Low sample size, but it sounds far fetched. Did they all have symptoms?

The PCR detects a wider range (and is a better test, carried out by professionals), but doesn't necessarily mean somebody is still infectious. The LFT is designed to fit a specific range, and for those who do not have symptoms. The LFT might miss a little at the start, and a fair chunk long after, but for the key phase in the middle of peak infectiousness, the accuracy is great.

Most I know who have had symptoms, have been positive on PCR (the test desgined for people who have symptoms).
I know loads of aysmtomatic people who were picked up on LFT, who were not even contempalting getting a PCR, as they had no symptoms (the test designed for routine, quick testing, aimed at picking up those who otherwise wouldn't be getting a PCR).

You seem to be missing what each test is designed to do, and what the pro's/ con's of each are, and you're thinking about things in too much of a binary way.
ra
Truth? Do you think the 5m people confirmed positive by LFT's are not real, or the results have been faked? How many of that 5m do you think were going to get a PCR?

Cmon Andy, you claim to work in statistics and yet you're readily dismissing a word of mouth statement from a fictional character on a message board and choosing to believe instead your own mantra of tried and tested scientific research. I take back eberything I have said about you, you are a charlatan and Wez whats his face should be advising the goverment.

And to back up his point he do you explain this;

8 out of 10 Lateral Flow Tests fail to detect Covid
8 out of 10 Cats prefer Whiskas
8 out of 10 Cats 10 Countdown

You see its all in the research!!!

 

[Andy_W]

Sounds far fetched !! Jesus just because it doesn’t fit into your facts and figures ,your starting to sound like the member on here who claims all Staffordshire bull terriers are killing machines ………

They're not my facts and figures, they're the facts and figures of the data and studies put in place to give the employer (NHS), their employees (your GP, nurses, those working on covid wards etc) and the general pulic the best guidance.

Will the guidance be correct on every occasion? No.
Is it possible for guidance to be correct on every occasion? Probably not.
Does it need to be, to have a massive effect? No.
Does the guidance make sense for the different tests? Yes.
Are the tests designed to meet seperate criteria and circumstances? Yes.
Should the tests be used in a way opposite to the guidance? In most circumstances no.

I would expect those in charge of risk within the NHS probably know what they're doing, and basing it on the most comprehensive reasearch.

Every employee of any company should work to the risk assessment, and methods approved by those who know far more than them. If they think there's a problem, then maybe flag that up the chain, rather than offer out comments or advice to the public, which contradicts those who know the most, and which could be easily misinterpreted.

I don't think your comparison is accuratte, as you've raised it as another binary point, and risk is not binary.

 

[Chris_Boro]

Oof 120k new cases.

 

[Billy Horner]

Today's headline analysis:

• 119,789 new cases reported in 24-hour period, up from yesterday's 106,122
• 7-day average for new cases increases by 4.9% to 96,376 per day, following 4.5% increase yesterday (and 22nd daily increase in the past 23 days)
• 7-day average for new cases is 52.5% higher than one week ago (from 58.9% higher yesterday) and 100.3% higher than two weeks ago (from 89.3% higher yesterday and 41.8% higher 7 days ago)
• 147 new deaths within 28 days of a positive test reported in 24-hour period, up from 140 yesterday
• 7-day average for new deaths within 28 days of a positive test increases by 0.1% to 112.0 per day, following 3.0% decrease yesterday
• 7-day average for new deaths within 28 days of a positive test is 2.2% lower than one week ago (from 2.6% lower yesterday) and 8.2% lower than two weeks ago (from 7.6% lower yesterday and 5.4% lower 7 days ago)

Record reported new cases for the 5th time in the past 9 days.

 

[Billy Horner]

Today's headline analysis:

• 122,186 new cases reported in 24-hour period, up from yesterday's 119,789
• 7-day average for new cases increases by 4.3% to 100,539 per day, following 4.9% increase yesterday (and 23rd daily increase in the past 24 days)
• 7-day average for new cases is 47.5% higher than one week ago (from 52.5% higher yesterday) and 104.4% higher than two weeks ago (from 100.3% higher yesterday and 52.7% higher 7 days ago)
• 137 new deaths within 28 days of a positive test reported in 24-hour period, down from 147 yesterday
• 7-day average for new deaths within 28 days of a positive test increases by 3.3% to 115.7 per day, following 0.1% increase yesterday
• 7-day average for new deaths within 28 days of a positive test is 2.1% higher than one week ago (from 2.2% lower yesterday) and 2.5% lower than two weeks ago (from 8.2% lower yesterday and 4.6% lower 7 days ago)

Record reported new cases for the 6th time in the past 10 days. 7-day average for new cases above 100,000 for the first time during pandemic.

 

[SmallTown]

Today's headline analysis:

• 122,186 new cases reported in 24-hour period, up from yesterday's 119,789
• 7-day average for new cases increases by 4.3% to 100,539 per day, following 4.9% increase yesterday (and 23rd daily increase in the past 24 days)
• 7-day average for new cases is 47.5% higher than one week ago (from 52.5% higher yesterday) and 104.4% higher than two weeks ago (from 100.3% higher yesterday and 52.7% higher 7 days ago)
• 137 new deaths within 28 days of a positive test reported in 24-hour period, down from 147 yesterday
• 7-day average for new deaths within 28 days of a positive test increases by 3.3% to 115.7 per day, following 0.1% increase yesterday
• 7-day average for new deaths within 28 days of a positive test is 2.1% higher than one week ago (from 2.2% lower yesterday) and 2.5% lower than two weeks ago (from 8.2% lower yesterday and 4.6% lower 7 days ago)

Record reported new cases for the 6th time in the past 10 days. 7-day average for new cases above 100,000 for the first time during pandemic.

And that's without NI cases

 

[Wez68]

I take it the majority of people on here are triple jabbed ,if so why don’t you all stop panicking and stressing over COVID and just get on with your lives as much as possible ,as the worry and stress is going to have a big effect on your life ,we are only here once ,make the most of it ,because if COVID doesn’t go away ,just think of all the time you have lost and will never get back ,please enjoy Christmas ,go to the match etc ,you have done all you can to protect yourselves ,Merry Christmas and happy new year to you all

 

[Chris_Boro]

And that's without NI cases

It's only number of tests that are unavailable, cases were reported.

 

[Chris_Boro]

I take it the majority of people on here are triple jabbed, if so why don’t you all stop panicking and stressing over COVID and just get on with your lives as much as possible, as the worry and stress is going to have a big effect on your life, we are only here once, make the most of it, because if COVID doesn’t go away, just think of all the time you have lost and will never get back, please enjoy Christmas, go to the match etc, you have done all you can to protect yourselves, Merry Christmas and happy new year to you all

Fixed, now I can stop panicking.

 

[Pak_Doo_Ik]

I take it the majority of people on here are triple jabbed ,if so why don’t you all stop panicking and stressing over COVID and just get on with your lives as much as possible ,as the worry and stress is going to have a big effect on your life ,we are only here once ,make the most of it ,because if COVID doesn’t go away ,just think of all the time you have lost and will never get back ,please enjoy Christmas ,go to the match etc ,you have done all you can to protect yourselves ,Merry Christmas and happy new year to you all

And dont forget Wezza matey don’t do lfts as they useless

 

[Wez68]

And dont forget Wezza matey don’t do lfts as they useless

A bit like your comment really ,what a bunch of Fannys some of you are on here ,I bet some of you are scared to leave the house