|
Forums34
Topics48,341
Posts812,981
Members9,208
| |
Most Online1,046
Aug 24th, 2023
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 1,031 Likes: 2
Has a lot to Say!
|
Has a lot to Say!
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 1,031 Likes: 2 |
[
When (Condition A is met) Then (Action B is taken). The conditions referred to are subjective assessments, not data points.
If (Condition A is met) Then (Action B is taken). Personally I think it is 17 Angels that can dance on the head of a pin What would be wrong with an approach that said something like: Condition 1: When (National case incidence < 20/100,000) And (R rate less than .4) And (50% population have had 2nd Vacc) And (70% population have had 1st Vacc) Then (Exit Lockdown) Condition 2: When (R rate exceeds .7 for any 5-day period) Then (Return to Lockdown) Or "The sooner you lot get yourselves vaccinated and behave yourselves with the hygiene protocols, the sooner we can come out of lockdown, and if you get complacent we'll go straight back in." Perfect.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 35,774 Likes: 468
Tricky Dicky Member of the Inner Circle
|
|
Tricky Dicky Member of the Inner Circle
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 35,774 Likes: 468 |
Or just leave it to Darwin, he had it right  Stop nannying everybody for goodness sake it's evolution not anything new.. Aids and the clap demonstrated exactly the same story, it being some people are risk takers and others are frightened of their own shadow twas ever thus. Most take the centre ground and have an even chance of survival, death is not a frightening thing and inevitable anyway so buckle up chill and enjoy the time we have especially in the Morgan. All the theorizing in the world won't prevent anyone killing themselves if they are not too bothered and that is exactly what we are witnessing right now.
2009 4/4 Henrietta
1999 Indigo Blue +8
2009 4/4 Sport Green prev
1993 Connaught Green +8 prev
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 26,748 Likes: 419
Member of the Inner Circle
|
|
Member of the Inner Circle
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 26,748 Likes: 419 |
I'm with Tim for clarity on SMART goals & Richard for common sense.
JohnV6
2022 CX Plus Four
2025 MG ZS EV aka Trigger
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,221 Likes: 123
Charter Member
|
|
Charter Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,221 Likes: 123 |
Don’t forget that the published dates (other than 8th March) are the earliest dates.
Paul
Costock, UK
2014 4/4 Rolls Royce Garnet Red
Disco 5
Teddy - 17h1 Irish Draught cross
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 15,794 Likes: 14
Formerly known as Aldermog Member of the Inner Circle
|
|
Formerly known as Aldermog Member of the Inner Circle
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 15,794 Likes: 14 |
[
On what dataset are you basing your 50% false positive estimate? Your article is a very thorough rundown of the many possible weaknesses of the testing approach but doesn't appear to have any analysis of actual test results to demonstrate that your concerns are actually valid in real-world conditions.
Tim, the Video is interesting, but the interviewer is part of the great US Conspiracy community. Everything that is said in the interview is true, but spun. She also ignores the fact that Primers have evolved as more about the virus genome is known and that the parts of the viral RNA being targeted are selected to ensure specificity. So the PCR test, as used today in the UK, is reasonably accurate in detecting Coronavirus RNA, but it is subject to so many possible sources of error that I believe it is reporting far to many false positives. Specifically: Sampling Error: sticking a swab up your nose in the hope of collecting viable viral particles is the first source of error: if trained medics do it then it is less prone to error. The test can be "gamed" by using a nasal spray before sampling to rinse the nose and back of the throat. Why would anyone do that? Because they feel OK and don't want to self isolate for 10 days, especially if they don't get paid. Timing: Following infection viral load rises and falls, with peak shedding about a week after infection. Sampling too early or too late will cause an erroneous result. Screening: People are getting tested almost at will: there is no proper review of symptoms and possible exposure. My position is that a positive PCR test should be followed up with a Lateral Flow test and a review of symptoms. Viral Debris: The PCR test cannot differentiate between dead viral junk that is of no risk to anyone and live RNA. Going back to timing anyone who has had mild covid will test positive for several weeks after they are no longer infectious. It is also possible to pick up viral debris from the air, which is why face masks are important in places like a supermarket. Cycle Time (CT) The video talks about cycle times of 45: in the UK 35 is used, but most Virologists believe anything more than 30 indicates the method is being abused to get a result. Cycle Times are not reported: anyone who tests positive and is asymptomatic should be told the CT number and if it is over 30 demand a lateral flow test and a clinical review. The lateral flow test is cheap, takes 30 minutes and looks at the proteins on the viral envelope, not the RNA. Taken all together it is my professional opinion that upto 50% of reported COVID cases are false positives, but there are no real data to confirm my estimate or the ONS data. It could be 20%, it could be 50%. The only 100% certain way to confirm a PCR positive test is by using classical virology methods, these are expensive and take time. Why does this matter? Because very important decisions are being made based on PCR Testing numbers that are unconfirmed by any other method. We have about 10,000 positive PCR tests a day. The impact of returning the kids to school is critical, if there is a surge then the Government MAY have to delay steps 2, 3 and 4. But it is also possible that there may be a surge but without any increase in hospitalisations or deaths. That all this depends on a method that is flawed is a concern.
Peter,
66, 2016 Porsche Boxster S
No longer driving Tarka, the 2014 Plus 8...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,148
Has a lot to Say!
|
|
Has a lot to Say!
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,148 |
[
On what dataset are you basing your 50% false positive estimate? Your article is a very thorough rundown of the many possible weaknesses of the testing approach but doesn't appear to have any analysis of actual test results to demonstrate that your concerns are actually valid in real-world conditions.
Tim, the Video is interesting, but the interviewer is part of the great US Conspiracy community. Everything that is said in the interview is true, but spun. She also ignores the fact that Primers have evolved as more about the virus genome is known and that the parts of the viral RNA being targeted are selected to ensure specificity. So the PCR test, as used today in the UK, is reasonably accurate in detecting Coronavirus RNA, but it is subject to so many possible sources of error that I believe it is reporting far to many false positives. Specifically: Sampling Error: sticking a swab up your nose in the hope of collecting viable viral particles is the first source of error: if trained medics do it then it is less prone to error. The test can be "gamed" by using a nasal spray before sampling to rinse the nose and back of the throat. Why would anyone do that? Because they feel OK and don't want to self isolate for 10 days, especially if they don't get paid. Timing: Following infection viral load rises and falls, with peak shedding about a week after infection. Sampling too early or too late will cause an erroneous result. Screening: People are getting tested almost at will: there is no proper review of symptoms and possible exposure. My position is that a positive PCR test should be followed up with a Lateral Flow test and a review of symptoms. Viral Debris: The PCR test cannot differentiate between dead viral junk that is of no risk to anyone and live RNA. Going back to timing anyone who has had mild covid will test positive for several weeks after they are no longer infectious. It is also possible to pick up viral debris from the air, which is why face masks are important in places like a supermarket. Cycle Time (CT) The video talks about cycle times of 45: in the UK 35 is used, but most Virologists believe anything more than 30 indicates the method is being abused to get a result. Cycle Times are not reported: anyone who tests positive and is asymptomatic should be told the CT number and if it is over 30 demand a lateral flow test and a clinical review. The lateral flow test is cheap, takes 30 minutes and looks at the proteins on the viral envelope, not the RNA. Taken all together it is my professional opinion that upto 50% of reported COVID cases are false positives, but there are no real data to confirm my estimate or the ONS data. It could be 20%, it could be 50%. The only 100% certain way to confirm a PCR positive test is by using classical virology methods, these are expensive and take time. Why does this matter? Because very important decisions are being made based on PCR Testing numbers that are unconfirmed by any other method. We have about 10,000 positive PCR tests a day. The impact of returning the kids to school is critical, if there is a surge then the Government MAY have to delay steps 2, 3 and 4. But it is also possible that there may be a surge but without any increase in hospitalisations or deaths. That all this depends on a method that is flawed is a concern. Excellent analysis 👏👏
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 11,861 Likes: 137
Scruffy Oik Member of the Inner Circle
|
|
Scruffy Oik Member of the Inner Circle
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 11,861 Likes: 137 |
Taken all together it is my professional opinion that upto 50% of reported COVID cases are false positives, but there are no real data to confirm my estimate or the ONS data.
There's plenty of data out there, for example: https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/stati.../excess-mortality-in-england-latest.htmlWe know from this dataset that c. 117,588 people have died with Covid-19 mentioned on the death certificate. That might not be the primary cause of death, but we also know that the excess deaths figure (ie those who have died over and above the number we would expect to have died) is 98,232. So this raises a couple of interesting questions. 117,588 - 98,232 = 19,536, ie the number of people with Covid who would have died anyway. But those 98k people weren't expected to die, and if the false positive rate is 50% then what did 49,000 people die of? Is there some hidden lethal disease out there that is finishing people off that we don't know about? For me, Occam's Razor is useful here. Either the false positive rate is around what the ONS reckons it is, so a massive proportion of the 117k death really were down to Covid, or the false positive rate is what you estimate it to be, meaning that there's a mysterious unknown factor out there that has killed nearly 50 thousand people who have died from something other than Covid and whom weren't expected to die as part of normal mortality causes. Alternatively, we could raise the possibility that although the false positive rate may be very high, this is only reflected in tests which do not lead to mortality that has C19 mentioned - ie the people all remained healthy, didn't die, and so didn't figure at all in the mortality data. The total number of recorded cases so far in the UK is just over 4 million and total deaths just over 120k to date. If we accept the ONS estimate of negligible false positives then we see that the death rate is 0.03 or 3% - which is broadly in line with expectations. If on the other hand we posit a 50% false positive rate then the true number of C19 cases is actually closer to 2 million - indicating that we have a death rate of 6%, meaning C19 is a much more lethal virus than we thought. I respect your professional opinion, but frankly I'm much more convinced by the ONS data. Your alternative seems much too scary for me, I want to be able to go back down the pub!
Tim H.
1986 4/4 VVTi Sport, 2002 LR Defender, 2022 Mini Cooper SE
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 9,285 Likes: 69
Needs to Get Out More!
|
|
Needs to Get Out More!
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 9,285 Likes: 69 |
In my mind the stats on hospital admissions is a clearer indication of Covid spread. It is a far more accurate measure than the simple tests due to their reduced accuracy and haphazard use.
Vaccination is a major game changer. It will allow us to return to some form of normality albeit accepting a risk level that is low. It is unlikely to be zero!
Mitigating factors in the UK will be people not having vaccinations and irresponsible behaviour. It will take time to readjust back. How will outbreaks be dealt with? Localised task forces?
Travel.....UK will open back up. Foreign travel? Depends entirely on how the visited countries deal with their pandemic.
There is light at the end of the tunnel, faint at the moment but the dimmer switch is being turned. Our behaviour is the key backed up by clear scientific evidence.
Plus Four MY23 Furka Rouge
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 15,794 Likes: 14
Formerly known as Aldermog Member of the Inner Circle
|
|
Formerly known as Aldermog Member of the Inner Circle
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 15,794 Likes: 14 |
Tim,
I don't believe the false positives are evenly distributed across society. When the sample is taken in a clinical setting at the time someone is showing symptoms I feel the false positive rate is more likely to be where the ONS and PHE say it is.
I think the majority of false positives, or "symptomless cases" are amongst the mass of the public who are advised to take a test for whatever reason at home or a walk/drive in centre.
So, 117,588 people have died with COVID mentioned on the death certificate. Some of these deaths are so recorded because a death reported as with covid needs no further investigation, reducing workload in the hospital system. I think that we should deduct the recorded deaths from the total number of "positive cases" and say that of the 3.8 million positives the number that really had COVID, recording real symptoms, is probably less than 2 millions.
We will never know the real figures, there will be endless postmortems and scientific publications over the next few years, but for most of us the bottom line is get vaccinated, and then get back to normal life.
Peter,
66, 2016 Porsche Boxster S
No longer driving Tarka, the 2014 Plus 8...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 11,861 Likes: 137
Scruffy Oik Member of the Inner Circle
|
|
Scruffy Oik Member of the Inner Circle
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 11,861 Likes: 137 |
for most of us the bottom line is get vaccinated, and then get back to normal life.
Completely agree with this - but I think it will be a new normal, emphasising good hygiene more than we used to, which is no bad thing anyway - witness the dramatic reduction/eradication of flu cases. Accepting that not all the 117,000 died of Covid, it remains that excess deaths are at around 98,000, ie that many people have died who would not normally be expected to do so. If these deaths were not caused by Covid, then what? Accepting your estimate of 2 million true cases leaves a death rate of 4.9%, which indicates that C19 really is a very nasty disease indeed and underlines the need to maintain good hygiene protocols as well as ensuring the highest possible number of people get fully vaccinated as soon as possible.
Tim H.
1986 4/4 VVTi Sport, 2002 LR Defender, 2022 Mini Cooper SE
|
|
|
|
|
