Michael McNamara TD getting to the truth, Cases, PCR testing flaws.

ElTel

OscarMIlde wrote: »

There's no point in using the CT number, as there is no control gene to account for an ineffective swab. An early CT indicates a lot of viral material on the swab, and it can be extrapolated that a person definitely has active covid 10 circulating.

A late CT value indicates less viral material on the swab. The reasons for this can vary from an early stage infection were viral load hasn't climbed high yet, a diminishing infection where viral load has been significantly controlled by the immune system, or a poor swab where viral material wasn't picked up.

We also know that asymptomatic people spread covid 19 just as much (possibly more as they have no 'cue' to limit their social interactions) as symptomatic people, so any positives should be quarantining.

Thanks for the reply. Could you expand on the first sentence. Is there a control gene to account for an effective swab instead of an ineffective swab? I understand (I think!}and agree with the rest.

I'm just wondering if tracers could use the CT number to prioritize who to trace first. I'm assuming tracers don't get CT numbers at all.

Could you (or anyone else who is informed on these things) look at my other post in this thread (Post no 66) and point out my mistakes.

Martina1991

ElTel wrote: »

Thanks for the reply. Could you expand on the first sentence. Is there a control gene to account for an effective swab instead of an ineffective swab? I understand (I think!}and agree with the rest.

I'm just wondering if tracers could use the CT number to prioritize who to trace first. I'm assuming tracers don't get CT numbers at all.

Could you (or anyone else who is informed on these things) look at my other post in this thread (Post no 66) and point out my mistakes.

You're getting too caught up in the cycle threshold number. It has no value to contact tracers or the general public. It is only of concern in the laboratory.

It is the cut off labs use to say the sample is definitely positive or definitely negative. The threshold number isn't randomly chosen. It is decided based on the manufacturer or the assay and the controls.

If the lab says the virus is detected or not detected, that's it. That's the final result.

Stormyteacup

[QUOTE=OscarMIlde;114784838Irish labs are testing only close contacts of confirmed cases or symptomatic people so it's unlikely that anyone being tested isn't infectious.[/QUOTE]

Unlikely that anyone being tested isn’t infectious?

Stormyteacup

OscarMIlde wrote: »

When did I say everyone would be considered infectious? I meant any late positive CT value within the test cut off range (as in the CT value below which results are considered positive) should be considered infectious.

This is what I’m asking, with a 3% positivity rate why do you think everyone tested should be considered infectious? I genuinely am wondering have I missed something?

Stormyteacup

Martina1991 wrote: »

You're getting too caught up in the cycle threshold number. It has no value to contact tracers or the general public. It is only of concern in the laboratory.

It is the cut off labs use to say the sample is definitely positive or definitely negative. The threshold number isn't randomly chosen. It is decided based on the manufacturer or the assay and the controls.

If the lab says the virus is detected or not detected, that's it. That's the final result.

Fair enough - there needs to be a testing standard. But why the reluctance to inform the public what the threshold is? It definitely puts a different spin on positive case reporting if we all thought the PCR showed a positive from maybe two weeks forward..?

OscarMIlde

Stormyteacup wrote: »

This is what I’m asking, with a 3% positivity rate why do you think everyone tested should be considered infectious? I genuinely am wondering have I missed something?

I never said that. I said anyone who is tested and tests positive should be considered infectious. There are people in this thread arguing that those with a late CT value are false positives who have 'dead virus' and are no longer infectious. I am arguing against that false presumption.

OscarMIlde

ElTel wrote: »

Thanks for the reply. Could you expand on the first sentence. Is there a control gene to account for an effective swab instead of an ineffective swab? I understand (I think!}and agree with the rest.

I'm just wondering if tracers could use the CT number to prioritize who to trace first. I'm assuming tracers don't get CT numbers at all.

Could you (or anyone else who is informed on these things) look at my other post in this thread (Post no 66) and point out my mistakes.

There can't be a control gene to control for an effective swab. In other circumstances that RT-PCR is used for (say tissue or cells for research purposes, or blood/bone marrow for cancer diagnostics) you can control for the gene you are looking at being altered in comparison to a normal gene where levels should be the same regardless of conditions. Everything is relative to that control gene, as both genes being looked at are in the same sample type.

For example using RT-PCR to detect a mutated gene in Leukaemia. If the mutated gene was not detected in a patient following a bone marrow transplant, that result would be interpreted in line with the levels of a normal gene which should be detected in a normal bone marrow sample. If the control gene is below a certain threshhold you would know there was insufficient sample there to conclusively say the mutated leukaemia gene was actually undetectable. You would have to request a new sample to reach a definite conclusion.

In the case of a swab for detection of viral RNA any other viral gene looked at will be there in the same proportion as the original gene being looked at, so you would still not know whether it was due to low levels of virus actually being present or just due to the swab not picking it up.

Does this make sense?

Nonoperational

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Well we should be able to cope those are previous Irish Flu season figures I gave you.

Now on to your hospitalisations. You say were currently recording 70 to 100 hospitalisations a week, the problem is and it was highlighted by McNamara above those 70 or 100 aren't in fact hospitalisations from Covid. These are people who could have ended up in hospital from a car crash etc and may have no signs of Covid except for testing positive that tells us they had it sometime in the last couple of months, we don't know if they currently have it, it's not the reason there in hospital. Possibly some have active covid but I'd revise those hospitalisations down by 90% to estimate who's actually in hospital sick as a direct result of catching covid.
We know 9 out of 10 cases are false positives.
Your exponential growth estimate can't happen as we know the virus isn't that deadly.
Your also making the assumption that anybody going into hospital never comes out to free up capacity.

Your not on your own Professor Samuel McConkey is making the same mistake and Professor Nolan in also doing it in his charting. They both also base their figures on nobody having any underlying immunity from previous coronaviruses, that's completely wrong as we know plenty have as the virus has 0 effect on them.

McNamara knows enough about covid to skewer the 4 chaps in the dock this morning. He's been listening to all the experts over the last few weeks, looking forward to watching it.
They've very serious questions to answer this morning.

I'd like to make a point on this if I may.

I'm a doctor working on the front line through 2 large teaching hospitals in Ireland during the pandemic.
I've seen approximately 400 patients ?covid.
I have gotten covid myself as have 9 of my friends/collegues.
I have no vested interests. Nobody pays me under the table. Nobody tries to get me to push vaccines. I have no agenda.

I hate covid. It is ruining my job, ruining the teaching in my job, ruining meetings and conferences. Everything at work now is 'shut up and do what your told you're a covid hero thanks'. The restrictions are ruining my social and family life. I wish it was all a load of bollix and we cold forget about it.

In my honest experience really the vast majority of the above post is complete nonsense.
The vast vast majority, in fact well over 95%, of patients in hospitals with covid that I have seen are there with a primary diagnosis of Covid pneumonia or other serious manifestation of the disease. They have some of the dirtiest X-rays and CT scans I've ever seen. They have massive CRPs. Very abnormal bloods. People seem to miss the point that you have to be very very sick to be admitted to hospital with covid. We want you at home recovering at home. We are encouraged to send anyone home that doesn't need oxygen. Honestly almost none of the cases are 'oh he has a broken leg and is PCR positive". We also have many patients who never test positive but never test positive for anything else either and almost certainly have covid.

At the moment we have 35 patients with covid in our hospital. 32 of these are admitted recently through ED with problems breathing. 3 got it in hospital when in for other procedures.

I had covid as did 9 of my friends and colleagues. It wasn't a critical illness for 8 of us but we were very very shook for a week or so and one of those colleagues remains very sick. This is a preciously healthy person in their 40s.

Personally I'm actually in favour of having less restrictions, making sure the at risk really mind themselves and beefing up the hospital system. But Jesus is hard to read some of the blatant lies posted here as fact.

Our test positivity rate is less than 3% last time I checked. Despite all the "PCR is ****e, it picks up if you ever looked at covid" spouted as gospel, 97% of people test negative. We have to so bronchoscopy on some people to actually get a positive PCR test. This is in a preselected population with a high pre test probability because they have to exhibit symptoms of covid in the first place. You'd swear everyone in the country was a false positive. A complete lack of knowledge into the statistics of diagnostic tests.

Everyone is free to have their own opinions on how we should deal with this as a society. Basing things on hospital admissions and capacity makes sense to me.

Martina1991

Stormyteacup wrote:

Fair enough - there needs to be a testing standard. But why the reluctance to inform the public what the threshold is? It definitely puts a different spin on positive case reporting if we all thought the PCR showed a positive from maybe two weeks forward..?

There are rigorous standards in place at every stage.

The threshold may vary between lab and assay. Not every lab uses the same analysers.

Say a person was infectious and yet the person taking their swab didnt take a good sample i.e. Didn't go far enough up the nose or throat then there may be very little viral particles on the swab.

That sample may only flag as positive at a high ct because its taken that many cycles for the low viral load to multiply to a level that it can be detected.

Weak positives i.e. samples that flag as positve at a high ct will be repeated to confirm the result. So "false" positve swabs may not necessarily result in a positive case.

ElTel

Martina1991 wrote: »

You're getting too caught up in the cycle threshold number. It has no value to contact tracers or the general public. It is only of concern in the laboratory.

It is the cut off labs use to say the sample is definitely positive or definitely negative. The threshold number isn't randomly chosen. It is decided based on the manufacturer or the assay and the controls.

If the lab says the virus is detected or not detected, that's it. That's the final result.

Thanks Martina. Please bear with me.
There is a relationship between viral load and CT number though?

If a lab is given 3 samples A,B.C with viral loads of x,10x.100x the PCR test will return 3 different CT numbers? If the lab was only told the concentration of two samples could they infer the unknown sample concentration?

Another lab given identical samples might get different results but should arrive at the same concentration for the unknown sample?

OscarMIlde

ElTel wrote: »

Thanks Martina. Please bear with me.
There is a relationship between viral load and CT number though?

If a lab is given 3 samples A,B.C with viral loads of x,10x.100x the PCR test will return 3 different CT numbers? If the lab was only told the concentration of two samples could they infer the unknown sample concentration?

Another lab given identical samples might get different results but should arrive at the same concentration for the unknown sample?

It's a yes/no test not a quantitative test.

Martina1991

ElTel wrote:

Thanks Martina. Please bear with me. There is a relationship between viral load and CT number though?
If a lab is given 3 samples A,B.C with viral loads of x,10x.100x the PCR test will return 3 different CT numbers? If the lab was only told the concentration of two samples could they infer the unknown sample concentration?

Another lab given identical samples might get different results but should arrive at the same concentration for the unknown sample?

The lower the viral load, the more cycles it will take to detect it.

It doesnt matter if a sample came up as positve at cycle 10 or 20. Its still positive.
In your example, all three would come back positive. So what does it matter what the ct was.

There is no way to standardise the viral load on each swab because every person both taking the swab, and the person being swabbed cant be controlled. There isnt a way to inoculate a swab with an exact concentration of virus.

You can't differentiate between infectious/ non infectious/ low viral load/ badly taken swab. That isnt a limitation of the assay. That's just part of the process.

All the test tells you is: is the SARS CoV 2 virus on this swab yes or no.

ElTel

OscarMIlde wrote: »

There can't be a control gene to control for an effective swab. In other circumstances that RT-PCR is used for (say tissue or cells for research purposes, or blood/bone marrow for cancer diagnostics) you can control for the gene you are looking at being altered in comparison to a normal gene where levels should be the same regardless of conditions. Everything is relative to that control gene, as both genes being looked at are in the same sample type.

For example using RT-PCR to detect a mutated gene in Leukaemia. If the mutated gene was not detected in a patient following a bone marrow transplant, that result would be interpreted in line with the levels of a normal gene which should be detected in a normal bone marrow sample. If the control gene is below a certain threshhold you would know there was insufficient sample there to conclusively say the mutated leukaemia gene was actually undetectable. You would have to request a new sample to reach a definite conclusion.

In the case of a swab for detection of viral RNA any other viral gene looked at will be there in the same proportion as the original gene being looked at, so you would still not know whether it was due to low levels of virus actually being present or just due to the swab not picking it up.

Does this make sense?

I think so. Your normal sample sets a baseline or a bit like in radiation testing a blank sample gives your background level.

OscarMIlde

ElTel wrote: »

I think so. Your normal sample sets a baseline or a bit like in radiation testing a blank sample gives your background level.

Pretty much. In the case of a yes/no RT-PCR assay where a control gene is present, you'll normally have a set CT value the control gene must be under to regard a negative as truly negative. In other RT-PCR assays you might want to determine whether something is going up or down (very common in research where you might want to see whether gene expression changes under certain conditions). In this case you would determine the levels relative to the control gene, which should be unchanged by the experimental conditions selected.

In the case of covid 19 there is no control gene, so the CT value can only be judged as yes it is under the threshold for a positive (therefore we call it a positive) or it is above threshold so therefore called a negative. It could be a false negative if the swab was bad unfortunately. If no viral material is present at all no CT value will be there, as nothing will have amplified at all.

speckle

If we have a control gene for influenza tests, do we have one for even, sars-covid1/mers etc , if so how did they obtain it, did it take long and is it possible to do the same for sars-covid2? Are scientists/virologists doing this research already? In particular in Ireland?

mandrake04

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Very simple calculation for you, if we test 10000 people and 100 are positive. With a false positive rate of 2.5% how many cases have we.

The answer might surprise you as I know by your answer above your calculations are wrong.

10,000 tests, 100 indicate positive and if you assume false positive rate is 2.5% then true cases could only be either 97 or 98. (as you cant really have half a case)

mandrake04

Nonoperational wrote: »

I'd like to make a point on this if I may.

I'm a doctor working on the front line through 2 large teaching hospitals in Ireland during the pandemic.
I've seen approximately 400 patients ?covid.
I have gotten covid myself as have 9 of my friends/collegues.
I have no vested interests. Nobody pays me under the table. Nobody tries to get me to push vaccines. I have no agenda.

I hate covid. It is ruining my job, ruining the teaching in my job, ruining meetings and conferences. Everything at work now is 'shut up and do what your told you're a covid hero thanks'. The restrictions are ruining my social and family life. I wish it was all a load of bollix and we cold forget about it.

In my honest experience really the vast majority of the above post is complete nonsense.
The vast vast majority, in fact well over 95%, of patients in hospitals with covid that I have seen are there with a primary diagnosis of Covid pneumonia or other serious manifestation of the disease. They have some of the dirtiest X-rays and CT scans I've ever seen. They have massive CRPs. Very abnormal bloods. People seem to miss the point that you have to be very very sick to be admitted to hospital with covid. We want you at home recovering at home. We are encouraged to send anyone home that doesn't need oxygen. Honestly almost none of the cases are 'oh he has a broken leg and is PCR positive". We also have many patients who never test positive but never test positive for anything else either and almost certainly have covid.

At the moment we have 35 patients with covid in our hospital. 32 of these are admitted recently through ED with problems breathing. 3 got it in hospital when in for other procedures.

I had covid as did 9 of my friends and colleagues. It wasn't a critical illness for 8 of us but we were very very shook for a week or so and one of those colleagues remains very sick. This is a preciously healthy person in their 40s.

Personally I'm actually in favour of having less restrictions, making sure the at risk really mind themselves and beefing up the hospital system. But Jesus is hard to read some of the blatant lies posted here as fact.

Our test positivity rate is less than 3% last time I checked. Despite all the "PCR is ****e, it picks up if you ever looked at covid" spouted as gospel, 97% of people test negative. We have to so bronchoscopy on some people to actually get a positive PCR test. This is in a preselected population with a high pre test probability because they have to exhibit symptoms of covid in the first place. You'd swear everyone in the country was a false positive. A complete lack of knowledge into the statistics of diagnostic tests.

Everyone is free to have their own opinions on how we should deal with this as a society. Basing things on hospital admissions and capacity makes sense to me.

I'm not sure whether you can answer this? when discharging a patient does the hospital confirm that the patient has two clear negative swabs 24 hrs apart?

I know in first world countries like Australia and NZ this is true, if dead virus was detected more often than not then people would be spending a long time in hospital.

Nonoperational

mandrake04 wrote: »

I'm not sure whether you can answer this? when discharging a patient does the hospital confirm that the patient has two clear negative swabs 24 hrs apart?

I know in first world countries like Australia and NZ this is true, if dead virus was detected more often than not then people would be spending a long time in hospital.

No, usually not. Certainly not in the first wave in either of the hospitals I’ve worked in. Discharged when clinically well. If they needed to stay in hospital for longer due to complications, they may be reswabbed to facilitate movement to a non covid ward.

This is only my experience and may differ in places with less patients but swabs were tight and if the patient was well enough to go recover at home they went asap.

drunkmonkey

mandrake04 wrote: »

10,000 tests, 100 indicate positive and if you assume false positive rate is 2.5% then true cases could only be either 97 or 98. (as you cant really have half a case)

Your taking the 2.5% from the 100 cases, the 2.5% is from the 10,000 tests. See the problem now.

3xh

Nonoperational wrote: »

I'd like to make a point on this if I may.

I'm a doctor working on the front line through 2 large teaching hospitals in Ireland during the pandemic.
I've seen approximately 400 patients ?covid.
I have gotten covid myself as have 9 of my friends/collegues.
I have no vested interests. Nobody pays me under the table. Nobody tries to get me to push vaccines. I have no agenda.

I hate covid. It is ruining my job, ruining the teaching in my job, ruining meetings and conferences. Everything at work now is 'shut up and do what your told you're a covid hero thanks'. The restrictions are ruining my social and family life. I wish it was all a load of bollix and we cold forget about it.

In my honest experience really the vast majority of the above post is complete nonsense.
The vast vast majority, in fact well over 95%, of patients in hospitals with covid that I have seen are there with a primary diagnosis of Covid pneumonia or other serious manifestation of the disease. They have some of the dirtiest X-rays and CT scans I've ever seen. They have massive CRPs. Very abnormal bloods. People seem to miss the point that you have to be very very sick to be admitted to hospital with covid. We want you at home recovering at home. We are encouraged to send anyone home that doesn't need oxygen. Honestly almost none of the cases are 'oh he has a broken leg and is PCR positive". We also have many patients who never test positive but never test positive for anything else either and almost certainly have covid.

At the moment we have 35 patients with covid in our hospital. 32 of these are admitted recently through ED with problems breathing. 3 got it in hospital when in for other procedures.

I had covid as did 9 of my friends and colleagues. It wasn't a critical illness for 8 of us but we were very very shook for a week or so and one of those colleagues remains very sick. This is a preciously healthy person in their 40s.

Personally I'm actually in favour of having less restrictions, making sure the at risk really mind themselves and beefing up the hospital system. But Jesus is hard to read some of the blatant lies posted here as fact.

Our test positivity rate is less than 3% last time I checked. Despite all the "PCR is ****e, it picks up if you ever looked at covid" spouted as gospel, 97% of people test negative. We have to so bronchoscopy on some people to actually get a positive PCR test. This is in a preselected population with a high pre test probability because they have to exhibit symptoms of covid in the first place. You'd swear everyone in the country was a false positive. A complete lack of knowledge into the statistics of diagnostic tests.

Everyone is free to have their own opinions on how we should deal with this as a society. Basing things on hospital admissions and capacity makes sense to me.

Thank you for that, nonoperational.

Do you mind me asking, having caught it and being of the view there should be less restrictions, do you feel you can’t speak out publicly about it? For career prospect reasons.

I understand Dr. Feeley’s public stance was aided by his near retirement anyway and that he has great support from his colleagues still in medicine.

If you can do more to support the idea of having a proper debate like Dr. Feeley called for this week without fear of reprimand, it’d be welcome by many in the country, I feel.

Regarding the oireachtas meeting where Michael McNamara TD had it confirmed that hospitalisation figures include the Positive patient with the broken leg, if that is really such a small proportion and consistently so, the NPHET members present should really have been quick to state that. That whilst they’d ~100 patients that day in that category, X were in hospital primarily for Covid related reasons. I’m sure they had those numbers to hand and would be au-fait with the previous months’ numbers too?

Regards.

mandrake04

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Your taking the 2.5% from the 100 cases, the 2.5% is from the 10,000 tests. See the problem now.

The false positive rate is only relevant to positive results, applying a false positive rate of all tests is silly as 97% of all tests were negative in the first place.

Lets forget the 40,000 positive swabs in the hub and just work on reported cases.

Ireland has done 1,195,508 tests, 36,595 confirmed cases that's 3% are positive if you were to apply a 2.5% of false positive then you claim 29,887 of the 36,595 are false. Really?


Lets look at Australia and NZ both use the Cobas Tests Ireland uses.


Australia has done 7,696,270 tests, 27,109 confirmed cases that 0.35% positive. If you apply a false positive rate of 2.5% to 7,696,270 then Australia would have 192,409 false positives. LOL

NZ has done 970,641 tests, has 1848 confirmed cases that's 0.19% positive. If you apply 2.5% false positive rate to 970,641 tests that means 24,266 false positive's but they only have 1,800 confirmed cases.

drunkmonkey

mandrake04 wrote: »

The false positive rate is only relevant to positive results, applying a false positive rate of all tests is silly as 97% of all tests were negative in the first place.

Your wrong.

prunudo

3xh wrote: »

Thank you for that, nonoperational.

Do you mind me asking, having caught it and being of the view there should be less restrictions, do you feel you can’t speak out publicly about it? For career prospect reasons.

I understand Dr. Feeley’s public stance was aided by his near retirement anyway and that he has great support from his colleagues still in medicine.

If you can do more to support the idea of having a proper debate like Dr. Feeley called for this week without fear of reprimand, it’d be welcome by many in the country, I feel.

Regarding the oireachtas meeting where Michael McNamara TD had it confirmed that hospitalisation figures include the Positive patient with the broken leg, if that is really such a small proportion and consistently so, the NPHET members present should really have been quick to state that. That whilst they’d ~100 patients that day in that category, X were in hospital primarily for Covid related reasons. I’m sure they had those numbers to hand and would be au-fait with the previous months’ numbers too?

Regards.

Agreed, good post and good to hear a personal view from the front line. I feel alot of the uncertainty is actually caused by Nphets (and also the government) unwillingness to give straight answers, they don't do themselves any favours in trying to quell the public's mistrust of what they are being told.

Happydays2020

Does this really need its own thread?

Happydays2020

Nonoperational wrote: »

I'd like to make a point on this if I may.

I'm a doctor working on the front line through 2 large teaching hospitals in Ireland during the pandemic.
I've seen approximately 400 patients ?covid.
I have gotten covid myself as have 9 of my friends/collegues.
I have no vested interests. Nobody pays me under the table. Nobody tries to get me to push vaccines. I have no agenda.

I hate covid. It is ruining my job, ruining the teaching in my job, ruining meetings and conferences. Everything at work now is 'shut up and do what your told you're a covid hero thanks'. The restrictions are ruining my social and family life. I wish it was all a load of bollix and we cold forget about it.

In my honest experience really the vast majority of the above post is complete nonsense.
The vast vast majority, in fact well over 95%, of patients in hospitals with covid that I have seen are there with a primary diagnosis of Covid pneumonia or other serious manifestation of the disease. They have some of the dirtiest X-rays and CT scans I've ever seen. They have massive CRPs. Very abnormal bloods. People seem to miss the point that you have to be very very sick to be admitted to hospital with covid. We want you at home recovering at home. We are encouraged to send anyone home that doesn't need oxygen. Honestly almost none of the cases are 'oh he has a broken leg and is PCR positive". We also have many patients who never test positive but never test positive for anything else either and almost certainly have covid.

At the moment we have 35 patients with covid in our hospital. 32 of these are admitted recently through ED with problems breathing. 3 got it in hospital when in for other procedures.

I had covid as did 9 of my friends and colleagues. It wasn't a critical illness for 8 of us but we were very very shook for a week or so and one of those colleagues remains very sick. This is a preciously healthy person in their 40s.

Personally I'm actually in favour of having less restrictions, making sure the at risk really mind themselves and beefing up the hospital system. But Jesus is hard to read some of the blatant lies posted here as fact.

Our test positivity rate is less than 3% last time I checked. Despite all the "PCR is ****e, it picks up if you ever looked at covid" spouted as gospel, 97% of people test negative. We have to so bronchoscopy on some people to actually get a positive PCR test. This is in a preselected population with a high pre test probability because they have to exhibit symptoms of covid in the first place. You'd swear everyone in the country was a false positive. A complete lack of knowledge into the statistics of diagnostic tests.

Everyone is free to have their own opinions on how we should deal with this as a society. Basing things on hospital admissions and capacity makes sense to me.

I do think you have earned the right to your very valued opinion. In fact, this is where many people in the “middle” of this debate lie.

odyssey06

The false positive rate isn't 2.5% either.
"Our false positive rate can't be more than 0.2 per cent because we have those real-world data from the serial testing programs."
https://www.thesun.ie/news/5952976/coronavirus-irelands-covid-testing-system-one-false-positive-500/

As in, if it false positive rate was 2.5% we wouldn't have had periods of testing where our max number of positives was 0.2%.

The more I read about the PCR testing the more it looks like a red herring in terms of it somehow driving our increasing case count to any appreciable extent.

mandrake04

odyssey06 wrote: »

As in, if it false positive rate was 2.5% we wouldn't have had periods of testing where our max number of positives was 0.2%.

The more I read about the PCR testing the more it looks like a red herring in terms of it somehow driving our increasing case count to any appreciable extent.

You would imagine that false positives would be consistently 0.2%, like back in July there was 31,000 tests in a week and yielded 89 Positives. At 0.2% false postive 62 of the 89 are false.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113928715&postcount=1334

OscarMIlde

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Your wrong.

Are you actually claiming you know better than the scientist you are replying to?

Tij da feen

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Your wrong.

How is what they're saying wrong? Could you please explain how a false positive result is returned on a negative result?

drunkmonkey

Tij da feen wrote: »

How is what they're saying wrong? Could you please explain how a false positive result is returned on a negative result?

I'm saying how the way it's been calculated by them is wrong..

If you have 10,000 tests with 1000 positives and a false positive rate of 1% then you have 100 false positives.
What they've done is take the 1% from the 1000 positive tests to come up with 10 false positives. That is wrong.