Covid 19 Part XXXIV-249,437 ROI(4,906 deaths) 120,195 NI (2,145 deaths)(01/05)Read OP

Ha Long Bay

normanoffside wrote: »

You don't seem to understand what I am saying at all.
They are advising not to be tested if you had tested positive in the previous six months because you can still show positive from that infection up to 6 months later.

People who are asymptomatic may be PCR positive now or have been covid positive (bit not tested) in the previous 6 months.

PCR testes in such circumstances are not fit for purpose.

I'm out. Take it to the conspiracy theory threads if you believe what you just posted that PCR testing here is picking up cases of people who were infected 6 months ago in the popup test centers.

mandrake04

mollser wrote: »

How much does a pcr test cost, out of interest?

I used to work for Abbott, Siemens, Hamilton etc.

Just for reagents and consumables such as processing plates, tips, 96 well Amplification plates it’s costs about €3000 - €3500 for a full batch of 94 samples... so roughly €30 - €40 per test.

That cost doesn’t factor in instrumentation that depending on size is in hundreds of ‘000s of €

Smaller cartridge based NAT tests have cheaper more rapid instrumentation that can run single test in less than than say 45 mins but these are €200 per test.

Then you have to pay lab staff and those who collected sample etc.

Wolf359f

normanoffside wrote: »

The problem is that PCR tests catch past infections. I already know of at least 6 people who have had covid and test positive on PCR up to 3 months after they have recovered. That's also why people are now considered negative automatically after 10 days (Previously they were continually tested until negative or 'recovered').

That's why The HSPC denotify any 'case' where they were already positive in the previous 6 months.

These test centres are in many case catching people who had covid weeks or months ago.

normanoffside wrote: »

You really have no idea what you are talking about.
I know at least 5 people who caught Covid, had symptoms and isolated for 10-14 days as told but more than a month after recovery were still testing positive on a PCR test.

This is why Antigen tests should be used in such circumstances.

Is it going to be knowing at least 4 people in your next post?
At least be consistent

normanoffside

Hạ Long Bay wrote: »

I'm out. Take it to the conspiracy theory threads if you believe what you just posted that PCR testing here is picking up cases of people who were infected 6 months ago in the popup test centers.

Be out all you want but even Gerry Killeen says the same as I have been saying.

https://twitter.com/killeen_gerry/status/1376211852997373953

Wolf359f

Hạ Long Bay wrote: »

I'm out. Take it to the conspiracy theory threads if you believe what you just posted that PCR testing here is picking up cases of people who were infected 6 months ago in the popup test centers.

We had people saying the same pre-second wave about a 'casedemic', how ****ing deluded they were. (unfortunatly)

AdamD

normanoffside wrote: »

Be out all you want but even Gerry Killeen says the same as I have been saying.

https://twitter.com/killeen_gerry/status/1376211852997373953

Is he suggesting we can disolve our covid problem in water? Everyone off to Atlantis?

Corholio

normanoffside wrote: »

but even Gerry Killeen says the same as I have been saying.

I don't think that helps your argument at all to be honest. Killeen would whore any thought around to get some press.

normanoffside

Corholio wrote: »

I don't think that helps your argument at all to be honest. Killeen would whore any thought around to get some press.

You really think Asymptomatic 'carriers' are a real source of worry in terms of infection spread?

purplefields

AdamD wrote: »

Is he suggesting we can disolve our covid problem in water? Everyone off to Atlantis?

Had to look it up, but soluble = (of a problem) able to be solved

(and paucisymptomatic means presenting a few symptoms, rather than none at all)

Renjit

AdamD wrote: »

Is he suggesting we can disolve our covid problem in water? Everyone off to Atlantis?

We just need Kong to defeat it and a little help from tap water drinking kid :P

AlmightyCushion

normanoffside wrote: »

You really think Asymptomatic 'carriers' are a real source of worry in terms of infection spread?

From November 2020:
https://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-most-coronavirus-cases-spread-from-people-without-symptoms-2020-11?r=US&IR=T

"You get one person who's asymptomatic and infected, and then all of a sudden four or five people in that gathering are infected," Fauci said last month. "That's the exact scenario that you're going to see in Thanksgiving."

From June 2020:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/10/dr-anthony-fauci-says-whos-remark-on-asymptomatic-coronavirus-spread-was-not-correct.html

The World Health Organization’s remark that transmission of the coronavirus by people who never developed symptoms was rare, “was not correct,” White House health advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci said Wednesday.

“And we know from epidemiological studies that they can transmit to someone who is uninfected even when they are without symptoms.”

The video you posted earlier was from January 2020. He has since changed his stance.

podgeandrodge

theballz wrote: »

Full on rave with about 200 teenagers in terenure, going on hours no Garda in sight

where abouts in Terenure?

Corholio

normanoffside wrote: »

You really think Asymptomatic 'carriers' are a real source of worry in terms of infection spread?

I pay no attention to Killeen from the stuff he's been saying the past year. He adores the very mention of his name in these posts I bet.

GooglePlus

normanoffside wrote: »

You really think Asymptomatic 'carriers' are a real source of worry in terms of infection spread?

And what do you know other than second hand information from out of context clippings on twitter sites?

Asymptomatic spread is a thing but we don't know near enough about it, that's why it's important to capture these cases.

There's an abundance of articles online that might veer too far from the twitterverse for you, but they make it clear that these cases can impact spread.

What do you have against testing potential asymptomatic cases?

GooglePlus

podgeandrodge wrote: »

where abouts in Terenure?

Bushy Park they said earlier

Ha Long Bay

Wolf359f wrote: »

We had people saying the same pre-second wave about a 'casedemic', how ****ing deluded they were. (unfortunatly)

Just find it so bizarre this theory of NPHET\Government wanting to find cases to keep the country in a lockdown instead of thinking that's a good idea to setup testing in hot spots to try and get numbers down and open sooner.

I personally hate lockdown as every other single person on this thread but it must be so much tougher if you spend your days always focusing on the negative and reading believing and reposting tweets from people with sheep wearing masks for their profile pic.

WoollyRedHat

GooglePlus wrote: »

Bushy Park they said earlier

Good spot for a rave in fairness.

WoollyRedHat

Hạ Long Bay wrote: »

Just find it so bizarre this theory of NPHET\Government wanting to find cases to keep the country in a lockdown instead of thinking that's a good idea to setup testing in hot spots to try and get numbers down and open sooner.

I personally hate lockdown as every other single person on this thread but it must be so much tougher if you spend your days always focusing on the negative and reading believing and reposting tweets from people with sheep wearing masks for their profile pic.

People complained about lack of measures in place to help get us out of this and about the default reaction being to lock everything down without being proactive in implementing measures to help us avoid this happening and now that they are being more proactive with this to help control spread, people are still complaining, it's astonishing.

The pop-up centres are not a conspiracy which seeks to keep people in perpetual restrictions, they are the opposite of this, I wish people would stop spamming the thread with unsubstantiated rubbish. And can I just make it very clear, the people who present themselves at these centres are not compelled to do so, they do it out of choice because they acknowledge the value of having such a resource, they attend of their own free will.

Wolf359f

Hạ Long Bay wrote: »

Just find it so bizarre this theory of NPHET\Government wanting to find cases to keep the country in a lockdown instead of thinking that's a good idea to setup testing in hot spots to try and get numbers down and open sooner.

I personally hate lockdown as every other single person on this thread but it must be so much tougher if you spend your days always focusing on the negative and reading believing and reposting tweets from people with sheep wearing masks for their profile pic.

I'll admit we had a lack of testing this time last year. All the talk was testing testing testing, we'll never be able to test as much as we need (remember reagents been in short supply, using German labs etc...). The labs scaled up to a level we never though possible. Testing capacity doesn't seem to be an issue, using excess capacity to test random people in the public is a good thing.

There was talk about if we had stalled or were entering another wave, but NPHET didn't know, if the extra cases were coming from extra tests, so they start popup testing to see the spread in the community.
How that's a bad thing, I don't know. If it picks up out of control spread in the community and they act quickly and stop a surge, that's good. If it picks up cases they would statistically expect, that's good, no hidden surge brewing.

Pussyhands

Oh I see Anthony O'Connor is back on Twitter again.

He never lasts too long after "deleting" his twitter. Must have done it 4 or 5 times at this stage. A huge attention whore.

Ha Long Bay

Wolf359f wrote: »

I'll admit we had a lack of testing this time last year. All the talk was testing testing testing, we'll never be able to test as much as we need (remember reagents been in short supply, using German labs etc...). The labs scaled up to a level we never though possible. Testing capacity doesn't seem to be an issue, using excess capacity to test random people in the public is a good thing.

There was talk about if we had stalled or were entering another wave, but NPHET didn't know, if the extra cases were coming from extra tests, so they start popup testing to see the spread in the community.
How that's a bad thing, I don't know. If it picks up out of control spread in the community and they act quickly and stop a surge, that's good. If it picks up cases they would statistically expect, that's good, no hidden surge brewing.

I think its a good use of any spare testing capacity to target areas of high positivity to try and get a handle on it and reduce overall case numbers.

Like anything during this it's very easy to turn it into a negative or put a spin on it that "they" are trying to find cases to keep restrictions in place and its swallowed whole by some people.

FintanMcluskey

Wolf359f wrote: »

I'll admit we had a lack of testing this time last year. All the talk was testing testing testing, we'll never be able to test as much as we need (remember reagents been in short supply, using German labs etc...). The labs scaled up to a level we never though possible. Testing capacity doesn't seem to be an issue, using excess capacity to test random people in the public is a good thing.

There was talk about if we had stalled or were entering another wave, but NPHET didn't know, if the extra cases were coming from extra tests, so they start popup testing to see the spread in the community.
How that's a bad thing, I don't know. If it picks up out of control spread in the community and they act quickly and stop a surge, that's good. If it picks up cases they would statistically expect, that's good, no hidden surge brewing.

The issue I have with the extra testing is that it will only serve to prolong restrictions.

This notion NPHET are all of a sudden going to use it as a way to relax restrictions is pure fantasy. History has shown NPHET are ultra conservative. That’s not a conspiracy, that’s how it’s been.

We’ve been at more or less max restrictions for over 3 months based on case numbers now, and your trying to suggest they will stop using case number’s when case numbers inevitably rise due to extra testing?

So if the metric used to justify restrictions is increased, it will suddenly be used to relax restrictions?

Not following the logic

WoollyRedHat

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

The issue I have with the extra testing is that it will only serve to prolong restrictions.

This notion NPHET are all of a sudden going to use it as a way to relax restrictions is pure fantasy. History has shown NPHET are ultra conservative. That’s not a conspiracy, that’s how it’s been.

We’ve been at more or less max restrictions for over 3 months based on case numbers now, and your trying to suggest they will stop using case number’s when case numbers inevitably rise due to extra testing?

So if the metric used to justify restrictions is increased, it will suddenly be used to relax restrictions?

Not following the logic

If the result of the strategy is that it starts to drive down the numbers in areas of high incidence, would you not agree that this is a positive outcome? Until we reach a significant mass of people vaccinated, I can't see how such supports can be seen as a bad thing.

FintanMcluskey

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

If the result of the strategy is that it starts to drive down the numbers in areas of high incidence, would you not agree that this is a positive outcome? Until we reach a significant mass of people vaccinated, I can't see how such supports can be seen as a bad thing.

That would only work if schools close.

Closing schools is not something we should do in Ireland again

Wolf359f

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

The issue I have with the extra testing is that it will only serve to prolong restrictions.

This notion NPHET are all of a sudden going to use it as a way to relax restrictions is pure fantasy. History has shown NPHET are ultra conservative. That’s not a conspiracy, that’s how it’s been.

We’ve been at more or less max restrictions for over 3 months based on case numbers now, and your trying to suggest they will stop using case number’s when case numbers inevitably rise due to extra testing?

So if the metric used to justify restrictions is increased, it will suddenly be used to relax restrictions?

Not following the logic

So you don;t see how extra testing will find new cases who will in turn pass it on? You could argue that NPHET are advising, while we have capacity, test, test and test, so they can stop chains of transmission to shorten lockdown.
Excess testing will of course fine more cases, but will cause less and less cases (not picked up in testing centers) down the road. There's a certain number of people out there infected with Covid, regardless of how many tests we do today and detect them today, that is a fixed amount. Test none, still the same number out there unknown. Test more, find more. The testing doesn't create infections, they are just detecting them.

I swear some on here are following the Trump logic and seeing testing more causes cases. Covid cases it, testing just detects them.

WoollyRedHat

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

That would only work if schools close.

Closing schools is not something we should do in Ireland again

I'm confused how you are extrapolating this, could you expand?

Testing centers have been a huge success in South Korea and have had the desired effect to drive down infection. Article: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41271-020-00258-7

Conclusions:

Efficient and effective management of COVID-19 screening centers and of the screening system and its use for mass COVID-19 testing was a major reason for South Korea’s success flattening the curve on COVID-19 cases.

Geographic distribution of COVID-19 screening centers shows concentration around big cities with high population density. Drive-through screening centers operate around big cities and along the major highways with high volumes of traffic. Some areas may require more drive-through screening centers, and better balance in distribution of COVID-19 screening centers across the country.

For infectious diseases with high risk of infection, such as COVID-19, advanced screening centers (models C, D, and E) proved to be more effective and efficient in the prevention of COVID-19 than the traditional screening centers (models A and . Drive-through centers might be most effective in large countries or in the outskirts of cities. In addition, the ‘glove-walled walk-through screening centers’ can be effective at public health centers or their branches in local communities. Even without blocking borders, South Korea’s aggressive screening at Incheon Airport in South Korea showed outstanding results for preventing the transmission through importation and will be effective at airports or other ports.

South Korea benefited from establishing COVID-19 screening centers in all administrative areas to prevent the spread of community infection. It will be important elsewhere, as in South Korea, to establish an infectious disease delivery system that can lead to 'Test-Treat-Track'.

FintanMcluskey

Wolf359f wrote: »

I swear some on here are following the Trump logic and seeing testing more causes cases. Covid cases it, testing just detects them.

There is 2 options for a refuting an argument here.

Tin foil hat wearer or Trump logic.

Bottom line is logic no longer supports your defence of lockdown to prevent lockdown.

Your trying to suggest NPHET are going to ditch the most conservative approach across the EU and test our way out of lockdown?

WoollyRedHat

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

There is 2 options for a refuting an argument here.

Tin foil hat wearer or Trump logic.

Bottom line is logic no longer supports your defence of lockdown to prevent lockdown.

Your trying to suggest NPHET are going to ditch the most conservative approach across the EU and test our way out of lockdown?

I just quoted a research article that explains the success of an effective screening programme, thoughts?

hynesie08

PTH2009 wrote: »

All the decision makers could piss on the street and get away with it

The excuse would be 'its for science and to see what way the wind flows etc

What??

FintanMcluskey

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

I'm confused how you are extrapolating this, could you expand?

Testing centers have been a huge success in South Korea and have had the desired effect to drive down infection. Article: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41271-020-00258-7

Ironically the South Korea government approved the rapid antigen tests, they may not have the data that NPHET do on its limitations.

Ireland is using lockdown as its primary measure to control Covid, that’s not going to change