Covid 19 Part XXIII-33,444 in ROI(1,792 deaths) 9,541 in NI(577 deaths)(22/09)Read OP

caveat emptor

Some ICUs in Madrid are full.

This already generates a very difficult problem for us to solve.
We may be sending a non-infected person to catch the virus just because they have a cold,
and send asymptomatic infected to the clean area. It has already happened to us several times.
A person who comes for any ailment, you go to a clean area, you do the PCR like everyone else and it comes out positive.
This puts health workers and patients at risk ”, indicate health workers.
That the pictures are less severe, or even asymptomatic, does not mean that the virus is now less lethal.
“A few days ago, a 19-year-old girl came to us with anxiety, that led to cardiac arrest and she died right there.
She died of a massive thrombus. I have already had four cardiac arrests of people under 25 years of age due to thrombi,
people who did not present unusual external symptoms ”.

https://twitter.com/DrZoeHyde/status/1308372692857356288?s=20

polesheep

landofthetree wrote: »

But that's literally how it gets into nursing homes.

You don't think rules around staff doing overtime in multiple facilities would be useful? You prefer to think that staff partying in Oliver Bond is the issue?

ACitizenErased

Fairly big development in the last hour.
HSE admits that 70-80 cases per day (for 10000 tests) are false positives.
Christ.
https://twitter.com/DavQuinn/status/1308493818027741184?s=20

polesheep

Arghus wrote: »

Illustrative again of how "just isolate the vulnerable" is easier said than done.

No, illustrative of how those responsible cannot protect those that are obviously the most vulnerable.

GooglePlus

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Fairly big development in the last hour.
HSE admits that 70-80 cases per day (for 10000 tests) are false positives.
Christ.
https://twitter.com/DavQuinn/status/1308493818027741184?s=20

Probably good reason to keep an eye hospitalisations and ICU admissions primarily over cases. How are they going?

How do they know false positives are false positives in order to provide that 70-80 figure?

fritzelly

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Fairly big development in the last hour.
HSE admits that 70-80 cases per day (for 10000 tests) are false positives.
Christ.
https://twitter.com/DavQuinn/status/1308493818027741184?s=20

That means nearly every day half (and maybe more) of all these positive cases are not positive yet we are killing the economy

jojofizzio

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Fairly big development in the last hour.
HSE admits that 70-80 cases per day (for 10000 tests) are false positives.
Christ.
https://twitter.com/DavQuinn/status/1308493818027741184?s=20

Ah FFS:rolleyes:

ACitizenErased

Based on the HSE response just now... we've had approx 600 false positives in the last 7 days..........

gmisk

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Fairly big development in the last hour.
HSE admits that 70-80 cases per day (for 10000 tests) are false positives.
Christ.
https://twitter.com/DavQuinn/status/1308493818027741184?s=20

Is it really though?
Tests can give false negatives as well as false positives.
David Quinn acting like he has just uncovered a massive story....he really hasn't.

DangerScouse

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Based on the HSE response just now... we've had approx 600 false positives in the last 7 days..........

:rolleyes:

ACitizenErased

gmisk wrote: »

Is it really though?
Tests can give false negatives as well as false positives.

We're using such a high PCR cycle I'm fairly certain the chances of false negatives are quite low.

GooglePlus

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Based on the HSE response just now... we've had approx 600 false positives in the last 7 days..........

You didn't mention the fact that they retest weak positives so this reduces false positives overall and unlikely that they're as high as you say.

2ndcoming

From the Twitter of the Director of the Iona Institute. Ask me hole.

Here's a more substantiated explanation for anyone who still prefers their info in more than the out of context clippings of articles from lunatics' twitter pages.

https://modernsocietyinitiative.org/latest-research/f/rr-why-false-positives-arent-driving-the-rise-in-covid-cases

ACitizenErased

DangerScouse wrote: »

:rolleyes:

You want the math? Read the HSE response. For every 10,000 there's 70-80.
We've done 90,000 past 7 days.
Multiply 70-80 by 7.
Between 490 and 560.
Am I wrong?

gmisk

GooglePlus wrote: »

You didn't mention the fact that they retest weak positives so this reduces false positives overall and unlikely that they're as high as you say.

Exactly

Goldengirl

Widdensushi wrote: »

Will ye stop, what few dubs haven't been down the last few months will be down

nah too far far away !

fritzelly

GooglePlus wrote: »

You didn't mention the fact that they retest weak positives so this reduces false positives overall and unlikely that they're as high as you say.

Where has it been said they are doing that? Going by the twitter attachment they are not doing it

GooglePlus

ACitizenErased wrote: »

You want the math? Read the HSE response. For every 10,000 there's 70-80.
We've done 90,000 past 7 days.
Multiply 70-80 by 7.
Between 490 and 560.
Am I wrong?

Yes, you're wrong. You didn't read the thing fully. They retest weak positives, so the figure for false positives quoted there is likely lower

ACitizenErased

GooglePlus wrote: »

You didn't mention the fact that they retest weak positives so this reduces false positives overall and unlikely that they're as high as you say.

It says that it is incredibly difficult to distinguish between weak positives and false positives because the PCR cycle rate of 35-40 is so high. De Gascun spoke about this in his tweets.
https://twitter.com/CillianDeGascun/status/1305252480213803008?s=20

growleaves

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Based on the HSE response just now... we've had approx 600 false positives in the last 7 days..........

What :eek:

GooglePlus

fritzelly wrote: »

Where has it been said they are doing that? Going by the twitter attachment they are not doing it

It's on the photo attached on the tweet, the actual release from the HSE, not the tweet. Click into it.

ACitizenErased

GooglePlus wrote: »

Yes, you're wrong. You didn't read the thing fully. They retest weak positives, so the figure for false positives quoted there is likely lower

https://twitter.com/CillianDeGascun/status/1305252480213803008?s=20

manofwisdom

manofwisdom wrote: »

Can someone tell me what number of cases per 100,00 population does it take for a county to go into Level 3 or down to Level 1?

Level 1 is fantasy. 2021.


Level 3 I would say over 100 per 100,000 with a decent percentage of community transmission.

gmisk

ACitizenErased wrote: »

We're using such a high PCR cycle I'm fairly certain the chances of false negatives are quite low.

Is this like you were sure there would be no second wave? And then you said there was always going to be a second wave?

ACitizenErased

gmisk wrote: »

Is this like you were sure there would be no second wave? And then you said there was always going to be a second wave?

What? I know how PCR works. Read the tweets by De Gascun.

gmisk

growleaves wrote: »

What :eek:

Read the full thing....it's BS they regularly retest weak positives.
There are also likely to be false negatives

ACitizenErased

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Fairly big development in the last hour.
HSE admits that 70-80 cases per day (for 10000 tests) are false positives.
Christ.
https://twitter.com/DavQuinn/status/1308493818027741184?s=20

Ivor Cummins will absoloutely love this.

ACitizenErased

gmisk wrote: »

Read the full thing....it's BS they regularly retest weak positives.
There are also likely to be false negatives

How are you calling a HSE response BS? Did you not read De Gascuns Twitter thread? They can't distinguish between low load and false positives.


"A high Ct value (indicating a low virus burden) does not and cannot distinguish between a virus load on the way up (e.g. in a pre-symptomatic individual), a virus load on the way down (e.g. in a recovering individual), a poorly taken specimen, and a false positive result."

fritzelly

GooglePlus wrote: »

It's on the photo attached on the tweet, the actual release from the HSE, not the tweet. Click into it.

No it doesn't

"it is often not possible to distinguish between true positives and false positives"

Azatadine

Jaysus.....Thomas Ryan got a fair old hauling over the coals there on Prime Time by the Oxford professor......challenged him on every single thing he said. He was often speechless.....

DangerScouse

Azatadine wrote: »

Jaysus.....Thomas Ryan got a fair old hauling over the coals there on Prime Time by the Oxford professor......challenged him on every single thing he said. He was often speechless.....

At her stupidity....

GooglePlus

ACitizenErased wrote: »

What? I know how PCR works. Read the tweets by De Gascun.

Fair play but did you read what you shared at all?

"although these numbers are likely to be reduced when retesting low (weak) positives."

They say it's not always possible to distinguish the low from high but what I'm saying is, the 70-80 figure is inflated and your figures are too.

The hospitalisations are proof enough and this is just going to make people complacent. Look across Europe and at home, false positives are a non story if there are plenty of true positives alongside them.

lukas8888

Tomas Ryan taken completely taken apart by Oxford professor on prime time.

Arghus

polesheep wrote: »

No, illustrative of how those responsible cannot protect those that are obviously the most vulnerable.

It can be illustrative of both things.

CIARAN_BOYLE

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Based on the HSE response just now... we've had approx 600 false positives in the last 7 days..........

False positives show up as low viral load positives. These get retested. They aren't included in the daily numbers.

Martina1991

ACitizenErased wrote:

Very interesting thread. Some believe that since June, our testing methods have changed, and a higher amount of false positive tests are being returned.

That is statistical speculation.

There are different platforms used in labs throughout the country. To imply that during the summer, all labs using different assays suddenly decided to increase the cycle threshold in an attempt to find more positive cases is highly unlikely. Testing methods do not just change unless new information or methods are developed by the manufacturer.

ACitizenErased wrote:

Fairly big development in the last hour. HSE admits that 70-80 cases per day (for 10000 tests) are false positives. Christ.

That reply doesnt make sense and it looks like whoever wrote that HSE reply misunderstood the analytical specificity.

A FP rate of say 1% doesnt mean 1% of all tests are false. It means 1% of positives may be false.

Eg. If 10,000 tests were carried out and 100 of them were positive, then 1% of the 100 were false positives. Thats 1 false pos result out of 9,900.

Think about it. 70 to 80 cases a day suddenly being false results. That doesnt sound right.

ACitizenErased

GooglePlus wrote: »

Fair play but did you read what you shared at all?

"although these numbers are likely to be reduced when retesting low (weak) positives."

They say it's not always possible to distinguish the low from high but what I'm saying is, the 70-80 figure is inflated and your figures are too.

The hospitalisations are proof enough and this is just going to make people complacent. Look across Europe and at home, false positives are a non story if there are plenty of true positives alongside them.

If you want to ignore what the HSE and De Gascun say then shoot.
Not sure what the last point has to do with anything, 340 - 80 is still = 260, a big number.

landofthetree

Numbers in hospital and ICU have been doubling every 2 weekssince late August.

That's why we are at level 3 in Dublin.

Even if they have been 80 false positives a day we would still be at level 3.

Plumbthedepths

Azatadine wrote: »

Jaysus.....Thomas Ryan got a fair old hauling over the coals there on Prime Time by the Oxford professor......challenged him on every single thing he said. He was often speechless.....

Do you mind me asking for a few examples? Haven't access to a TV at the moment.

ACitizenErased

Martina1991 wrote: »

That is statistical speculation.

There are different platforms used in labs throughout the country. To imply that during the summer, all labs using different assays suddenly decided to increase the cycle threshold in an attempt to find more positive cases is highly unlikely. Testing methods do not just change unless new information or methods are developed by the manufacturer.

That reply doesnt make sense and it looks like whoever wrote that HSE reply misunderstood the analytical specificity.

A FP rate of say 1% doesnt mean 1% of all tests are false. It means 1% of positives may be false.

Eg. If 10,000 tests were carried out and 100 of them were positive, then 1% of the 100 were false positives. Thats 1 false pos result out of 9,900.

Think about it. 70 to 80 cases a day suddenly being false results. That doesnt sound right.

They're hardly letting some random intern answer PCR testing questions, surely?

ACitizenErased

landofthetree wrote: »

Numbers in hospital and ICU have been doubling every 2 weekssince late August.

That's why we are at level 3 in Dublin.

Even if they have been 80 false positives a day we would still be at level 3.

Exactly, numbers are still big. 340 - 80 is still 260 cases today, a big number. Just thought it was mad the HSE would post something like that.

GooglePlus

ACitizenErased wrote: »

If you want to ignore what the HSE and De Gascun say then shoot.
Not sure what the last point has to do with anything, 340 - 80 is still = 260, a big number.

You literally made the point I made, so you got it after all. False positives aside, true positives are still high and on the rise.

I'm not ignoring what the HSE are saying, I'm just not picking what suits to share here.

Thierry12

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Very interesting thread. Some believe that since June, our testing methods have changed, and a higher amount of false positive tests are being returned.
https://twitter.com/kilkelly/status/1307052803957960704?s=20

That's been obvious for a very long time with those 0.5%-1.0% prevalence rates out of 10,000 tests carried out, people out perfect healthy playing rugby, soccer etc that tested positive, were always a false positive.

Tests are 99% specificity and we were at 1% prevalence, makes sense that ;-)

Money wasted on those tests is criminal

Absolute rubbish

Yes and no crap, they are as vague as can be

Don't tell us anything about viral load, who's contagious, who's not contagious, tell us **** all

If we could test to see did we have the virus before upon that negative pcr result would be nice too, some peace of mind

We can't do those tests either as those antibody tests don't work past a few months, we need some kind of T Cell test, but we are not sure how they work, more rubbish

We also dont know how long immunity lasts so t cell and antibody tests are pointless, but we have vaccines out soon, even though we dont know how long immunity will last from them either

What do we expect, we all went to the same schools and I didn't know any genius

dubdaymo

lukas8888 wrote: »

Tomas Ryan taken completely taken apart by Oxford professor on prime time.

Yes, indeed, it was a joy to watch, at long last, someone take him to the cleaners - and despite the host's PC encrusted interruptions.

ACitizenErased

GooglePlus wrote: »

You literally made the point I made, so you got it after all. False positives aside, true positives are still high and on the rise.

I'm not ignoring what the HSE are saying, I'm just not picking what suits to share here.

I never said they weren't

DangerScouse

lukas8888 wrote: »

Tomas Ryan taken completely taken apart by Oxford professor on prime time.

The woman made a complete fool of herself. Thank god she's not in charge of our health policy.

Goldengirl

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Based on the HSE response just now... we've had approx 600 false positives in the last 7 days..........

Let's see how this pans out before jumping to conclusions.
One point though , after all the lies and misinformation by that man and the Iona Institute, why would you be even reading tweets by DAVID QUINN ...Ugh !

lukas8888

dubdaymo wrote: »

Yes, indeed, it was a joy to watch, at long last, someone take him to the cleaners - and despite the host's PC encrusted interruptions.

She made him look like he was a first year undergraduate,getting a dressing down from the professor.

caveat emptor

False negatives higher therefore indicating more people get a negative result when they infect have the virus (false negative)
vs those who receive a positive result and do not have the virus (false positive)

Net result undercounting of people who have the virus.

Watson etal (2020) Interpreting a COVID-19 TestResult No test gives a 100% accurate result; tests need to be evaluated to determine their sensitivity and specificity, ideally by comparison with a ‘gold standard.’ The lack of such a clear-cut gold-standard for COVID-19 testing makes evaluation of test accuracy challenging. A systematic review of the accuracy of COVID-19 tests reported false negative rates of between 2% and 29%, equating to sensitivity of 71%-98%, based on negative RT-PCR tests which were positive on repeat testing. The use of repeat RT-PCR testing as gold standard is likely to underestimate the true rate of false negatives since quantities of the virus to be successfully amplified and detected. The amount of virus in a swab is likely to vary between patients, sample location  nasal, throat or sputum  and through time as infection progresses.
infected individuals by this method, but may not always be feasible.

Link:
https://hselibrary.ie/what-is-the-false-negative-rate-for-swab-tests-for-covid-19-and-are-there-more-reliable-ways-of-testing-are-rectal-swab-tests-effective-in-detecting-covid-19-for-patients-presenting-with-gastrointes-2/

lukas8888

DangerScouse wrote: »

The woman made a complete fool of herself. Thank god she's not in charge of our health policy.

Tell me you were watching a different debate.