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

Glenomra

He looked like a lost sheep.

caveat emptor

lukas8888 wrote: »

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

She looked and sounded locked.

She came out with "What would Joyce say?"

Also "Do you know what it's like to be locked down in India?"

Great points.

Glenomra

Showed how inept our so called 'experts ' are.

What Username Guidelines

ACitizenErased wrote: »

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."

Funny how the CEO of the HSE tweeted something you immediately rubbished and now you ask how someone “can call a HSE response BS”.

This kind of info is dangerous if not verified and you can see the comments are all from Ivor Cummins fans with links to the spectator. There’s few people mentioning 1% of positives in the comments but they’re being drowned out by Iona institute fans.

Unbelievable confirmation bias at play here.

Martina1991

ACitizenErased wrote:

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

They said the FP rate is 0.7% to 0.8%

0.7/10,000 tests = 70
0.8/10,000 tests = 80

Thats where they got those numbers but dividing by the total number of tests isn't right.

It should be 0.7 or 0.8 divided by the number of positive swabs.

lulublue22

ACitizenErased wrote: »

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.

Whats mad is despite posters indicating how you have misinterpreted the information you persist in claiming you are right. It’s almost as bad as the we are all dead doom and gloomers. We are seeing an uptick in cases on the cusp of winter - as is the rest if Europe. Downplaying our case numbers to the tune if 600 cases is as bad as overhyping them by 600. You follow each post of numbers with a it’s not as bad as ....... We only had ........People need to remain vigilante hospital and ICU numbers are showing a steady increase. Positivity is better than negativity but a bit of realism would go a long way.

hynesie08

caveat emptor wrote: »

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.





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/

So you're saying that more people have it and the death numbers have still plummeted..... That's brilliant.

Goldengirl

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?

They are discussing it on Prime Time now .

What Username Guidelines

Goldengirl wrote: »

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 HIGGINS ...Ugh !

Hope you mean Quinn, Higgins is a national treasure

GooglePlus

ACitizenErased wrote: »

I never said they weren't

My point is that we shouldn't be focusing on making arseways calculations off the back of a dodgy tweet, that brings you to the conclusion that 600 tests last week were false negatives.

Neither you or I have a clue about false negatives, as is clear from Martina1991's post, which you conveniently ignored.

She may be wrong too but what's your opinion on what she has said?

niallo27

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.

One false positive from 10,000 would mean its 99.99% accurate, I don't believe its that high. 100 false positives from 10,000 would still mean 99% accurate.

ACitizenErased

What Username Guidelines wrote: »

Funny how the CEO of the HSE tweeted something you immediately rubbished and now you ask how someone “can call a HSE response BS”.

This kind of info is dangerous if not verified and you can see the comments are all from Ivor Cummins fans with links to the spectator. There’s few people mentioning 1% of positives in the comments but they’re being drowned out by Iona institute fans.

Unbelievable confirmation bias at play here.

1) The Paul Reid tweet was rubbish, that has been confirmed, by the ICU numbers last night.
2) It's an official HSE press response, not the word of some guy on Twitter.

owlbethere

God, the hse have been hammering out the message of keeping your close contacts low since the beginning of the lockdown lifting. Here they are today further reinforcing Irelands position and urging people to keep our close contacts low. If people don't know it now, they never will.

growleaves

Lol the cries of "You're not an epidemiologist" turn into cries that Oxford University's top epidemiologist is a thicko. I didn't see the interview but I'm sure she's as dumb as a pile of bricks.

But then DangerScouse prefers poetry I assume since he's (unconsciously?) quoting Yeats and 'In the Bleak Midwinter' upthread.

Atlantic Dawn

Watching Tonight Show now, HSE is coming out a complete shambles, lots of empty posts not filled, ICU capacity not increased.

Goldengirl

ACitizenErased wrote: »

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

The quoted tweet by David Quinn which you posted does not give the full picture , no surprise there .
Go into the tweet Googleplus suggested and read the full thread .

DangerScouse

lukas8888 wrote: »

Tell me you were watching a different debate.

Maybe you where. She sounded angry and made no decent points at all. He squatted her away like the idiot she is.

OscarMIlde

ACitizenErased wrote: »

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

It's still detecting the viral RNA though. 35 to 40 cycles for RT-PCR isn't some insanely high level, it's fairly standard for many diagnostic RT-PCR tests. It's also very clear from the curve whether it's a real amplification or not. The main issue with the covid 19 test is the lack of a control gene to control for poor swabs, and there's no real way around that issue.

I find the estimate of false positives hard to believe, especially as there is no better way to detect covid 19 than PCR based methods, so I'm not sure how anyone would determine whether a weak positive is false or not. I'm guessing these 'false positives' are people who are weakly infectious or on the mend, and not people who have never contracted covid 19 at all. I would work routinely with blood and don't get false positives, and there's far greater amount of starting material to work with.

Martina1991

niallo27 wrote:

One false positive from 10,000 would mean its 99.99% accurate, I don't believe its that high. 100 false positives from 10,000 would still mean 99% accurate.

It is. A 0.7% to 0.8% false positive rate means the test has a specificity of 99.2% to 99.3%.
Specificity meaning the tests ability to detect the virus when it is present.

ACitizenErased

Goldengirl wrote: »

The quoted tweet by David Higgins which you posted does not give the full picture , no surprise there .
Go into the tweet Googleplus suggested and read the full thread .

I've read the full thread numerous times, hence why I keep quoting it. It says that they cannot distinguish between false positives and low viral loads because the Ct rate of the PCR that Ireland uses is so high.

lukas8888

lukas8888 wrote: »

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

the scowl on him in the end frame .

Just cos she came off abit nutty doesn't mean she's without merit, she's a professor in Oxford FFS, ryan was taken to task especially when asked if we should lock down for other respiratory illnesses .he's like O'Neil and the others, in love with their own legends. These lads are socially awkward lab dwellers who never get a moment in the limelight, they're loving the chance to get credibility by spouting the most fearsome hypothesis in efforts to get a grant!!
yes clever on paper and in their field but it's all going pear shaped in how they come accross.

TonyMaloney

What Username Guidelines wrote: »

Funny how the CEO of the HSE tweeted something you immediately rubbished and now you ask how someone “can call a HSE response BS”.

This kind of info is dangerous if not verified and you can see the comments are all from Ivor Cummins fans with links to the spectator. There’s few people mentioning 1% of positives in the comments but they’re being drowned out by Iona institute fans.

Unbelievable confirmation bias at play here.

Earlier we had to contend with a scientific article from him that claimed Spain was actually grand right now, and the outbreak was over.

wadacrack

lukas8888 wrote: »

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

Not really. Embarrassing behavior from a professor tbh. Bizzare bringing up India to guilt trip Ryan

Goldengirl

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.....

Yes , she was talking about herd immunity ...

ACitizenErased

Martina1991 wrote: »

It is. A 0.7% to 0.8% false positive rate means the test has a specificity of 99.2% to 99.3%.
Specificity meaning the tests ability to detect the virus when it is present.

Does a specificity of 99.2 to 99.3 mean that 0.7 to 0.8% of people who don't have the disease (IE whatever's left over after the actual positives) test positive? I thought the specificity of a test is its ability to designate an individual who does not have a disease as negative. Which means that it designates 99.2-99.3 of those who don't have it as negative, the rest as positive?

Allinall

rusty cole wrote: »

the scowl on him in the end frame .

Just cos she came off abit nutty doesn't mean she's without merit, she's a professor in Oxford FFS, ryan was taken to task especially when asked if we should lock down for other respiratory illnesses .he's like O'Neil and the others, in love with their own legends. These lads are socially awkward lab dwellers who never get a moment in the limelight, they're loving the chance to get credibility by spouting the most fearsome hypothesis in efforts to get a grant!!
yes clever on paper and in their field but it's all going pear shaped in how they come accross.

Bit like the Oxford professor.

https://tennesseestar.com/2020/09/19/growing-research-indicates-many-covid-19-cases-might-not-be-infectious-at-all/

declanflynn

rusty cole wrote: »

the scowl on him in the end frame .

Just cos she came off abit nutty doesn't mean she's without merit, she's a professor in Oxford FFS, ryan was taken to task especially when asked if we should lock down for other respiratory illnesses .he's like O'Neil and the others, in love with their own legends. These lads are socially awkward lab dwellers who never get a moment in the limelight, they're loving the chance to get credibility by spouting the most fearsome hypothesis in efforts to get a grant!!
yes clever on paper and in their field but it's all going pear shaped in how they come accross.

ur one was a total nutter, where the f did rte find her

gmisk

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Watching Tonight Show now, HSE is coming out a complete shambles, lots of empty posts not filled, ICU capacity not increased.

Not true it increased at peak of virus from 255 to 354.
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/intensive-care-units-cannot-cope-with-another-wave-of-covid-19-1.4348703
Not sure what numbers are now, but I think half the battle is getting trained staff.

Azatadine

declanflynn wrote: »

ur one was a total nutter, where the f did rte find her

The Oxford professor you mean?

declanflynn

Azatadine wrote: »

The Oxford professor you mean?

yeah!

LessOutragePlz

declanflynn wrote: »

ur one was a total nutter, where the f did rte find her

Total nutter because she went against the narrative that is being pushed by rte and many others at the moment?

ACitizenErased

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Does a specificity of 99.2 to 99.3 mean that 0.7 to 0.8% of people who don't have the disease (IE whatever's left over after the actual positives) test positive? I thought the specificity of a test is its ability to designate an individual who does not have a disease as negative. Which means that it designates 99.2-99.3 of those who don't have it as negative, the rest as positive?

A specificity of 99% means at least 99% of real negatives will produce a negative result.

<link dump removed>

lukas8888

DangerScouse wrote: »

Maybe you where. She sounded angry and made no decent points at all. He squatted her away like the idiot she is.

Presume you meant 'swatted', if you think he came out ahead on their exchanges your delusional.

Goldrickssan

Open the pubs

ACitizenErased

Deleted User wrote: »

A specificity of 99% means at least 99% of real negatives will produce a negative result.

So 1% of actual negatives come back positive. That's a big number, no?

TonyMaloney

Deleted User wrote: »

<link dump removed>

were you just thumbing through the Tennessee Star when you stumbled upon this article, Woody?

declanflynn

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Total nutter because she went against the narrative that is being pushed by rte and many others at the moment?

another nut case

LessOutragePlz

lukas8888 wrote: »

Presume you meant 'swatted', if you think he came out ahead on their exchanges your delusional.

Ah sure the likes of him and Luke O'Neill are god's that can do no wrong how dare a professor challenge him on his viewpoints & opinions and call him out on his bullshiit.

LessOutragePlz

declanflynn wrote: »

another nut case

Who?

declanflynn

lukas8888 wrote: »

Presume you meant 'swatted', if you think he came out ahead on their exchanges your delusional.

he did come out ahead of the Indian nut job

ceadaoin.

TonyMaloney wrote: »

were you just thumbing through the Tennessee Star when you stumbled upon this article, Woody?

Actually it's from the new york times originally. I posted it a couple of weeks ago but as usual with anything that goes against the narrative and suggests things may not be so bad, crickets

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html

declanflynn

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Who?

You

TonyMaloney

TonyMaloney wrote: »

were you just thumbing through the Tennessee Star when you stumbled upon this article, Woody?

USA doing a lot of testing.

Good to compare notes.:P

TonyMaloney

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Who?

pretty sure Dec was talking to me

relax

Azatadine

declanflynn wrote: »

another nut case

The Oxford professor is a nut case? Come on now.....

About time our esteemed professors were challenged by peers. Far too much bias and unchallenged theories out there at the moment.

Gods Gift

Professor Luke o neill just sold the company he co founded for €400 million.

OscarMIlde

ACitizenErased wrote: »

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."

Exactly. Those are results at the limit of detection. They are barely detecting any covid 19 RNA. However, they are detecting some covid 19 RNA. If there was control gene you could definitively say 'that swab was good enough so we can say there is barely any virus detected from the late CT'. Then ponder what that means in real terms. The virus invades a cell, takes over it's machinery to create viral copies of itself, which then spill out and invade neighbouring cells. If a swab produces a weak result that we know from a control gene is definitely not due to a poor swab, we still don't know whether that low viral amount is due to A) a newly infected person where virus is still multiplying within cells and yet to reach the limit of detection, or whether it is a patient in recovery where viral levels are diminished due to the bodies immune response.

We are in an even more invidious position with covid 19 as there is no control gene to control for a poor swab, so now we add option C) to our list of possibilities, the patient has high levels of covid 19, but the swab didn't gather enough sample to effectively detect.

Now, given that most people being tested are either close contacts of confirmed cases or symptomatic people, and the RT-PCR test is not erroneously amplifying non-specific sequences, I would be fairly confident this discussion of false positives is a complete red herring. Mainly propagated by people extrapolating too much with the little knowledge they have.

fritzelly

Martina1991 wrote: »

They said the FP rate is 0.7% to 0.8%

0.7/10,000 tests = 70
0.8/10,000 tests = 80

Thats where they got those numbers but dividing by the total number of tests isn't right.

It should be 0.7 or 0.8 divided by the number of positive swabs.

Saying different here
https://thecritic.co.uk/matt-hancock-obstinate-or-innumerate/

The 0.8 is on the total tested