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

kleiner feigling

kleiner feigling wrote: »

There's a fair bit of supposition there.
Surely it all depends on the number of cycles used. I can't comment on Israel stats.
Anyone have details of # cycles used in Ireland?
I think it's reasonable to understand how many false positives we're likely to have had at various stages over the past year?
The antigen and antibody tests could surely help in clarifying whether positive results are accurate or not.

In what world would someone use a less accurate test to check the accuracy of the more accurate test

https://www.hpsc.ie/a-z/respiratory/coronavirus/novelcoronavirus/guidance/outbreakmanagementguidance/PCR%20weak%20results%20guidance.pdf

Guidance
In general, someone who has had a previous positive test for SARS-CoV-2 should not be retested
within six months unless they develop symptoms suggestive of COVID-19. This statement
encompasses people who are identified as close contacts of COVID-19 cases but who are noted
to have tested positive in the previous six months. Exceptions may apply based on risk
assessment (for example if there is a specific concern about exposure to a particular variant that
is expected to evade the immune response to previously circulating variants)
The application of this guidance should take account of the epidemiological situation (time and
place) in which the sample is taken. In general terms, a high Ct value/low viral load result in an
asymptomatic person is more likely to represent residual RNA detection of no public health or
infection prevention and control (IPC) significance in a situation in which the incidence of infection
in the population is low and falling. Such a result is more likely to represent an early presymptomatic RNA detection that is of public health and IPC significance in a situation in which
the incidence of infection is high and increasing. Such a result is more likely to represent an
early pre-symptomatic positive in the context of a multiple tests reported as not-detected
in the preceding days, as for example in serial testing of hospitalised patients.

Highlighted is a part that may need revision for those vaccinated.

Vicxas

My god, Indias positivity rate was 25% yesterday

Lumen

Lumen wrote: »

This was answered by the MoH in Nov 2020.



Source: https://www.hse.ie/eng/about/personalpq/pq/2020-pq-responses/november-2020/pq-37051-20-michael-fitzmaurice.pdf

It was the first Google result for pcr cycles ireland

What wasn't included is that will the may run for 40-45 cycles, they are not automatically reported when they reach those levels

titan18

is_that_so wrote: »

They are not as high profile as other stuff and TBH there is no reason they can't open with the rest with the effective systems they set up last year.

Tbf, you can say that for a lot of stuff. Cinemas and gyms imo are in same category (indoors, other people etc, but quite safe considering systems that were put in place last year) but I'm not expecting them to open until June at this stage sadly. Hell, with them going on about an outdoor summer etc, it wouldn't be a shock at this stage if they didn't reopen even by June.

kleiner feigling

kleiner feigling wrote: »

Ok, but for example in this data 18% of positives appeared to be false. As we are now testing thousands per week, 18% or similar would skew the data significantly.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-56750460
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-56750460

Covid: 82% of positive rapid tests 'were correct'

Eg. in this scenario they used PCR tests to check the accuracy of rapid tests. PCR identified that 18% of rapid tests were false - the PCR was better at refining true positives

seamus

I'm always amused anytime someone comes in talking about "PCR", "lateral flow" and asking about numbers of cycles, as if they had a rashers what any of these words meant a year ago.

suicide_circus

Vicxas wrote: »

My god, Indias positivity rate was 25% yesterday

jayzus, they must be flat out on the pints are they?

kleiner feigling

kleiner feigling wrote: »

False positives in antigen tests are virtually zero.
Positives from these tests cannot be disputed ( it does produce false negatives).
Using PCR and Antigen tests in tandem.would give additional confidence in the data - PCR to screen, and antigen tests to confirm accuracy of positive results.

Your link just a couple of posts back shows where PCR identified 18% fewer positives than antigen testing. PCR turned 18% of the positives into negatives

kleiner feigling

Deleted User wrote: »

Your only link just a couple of posts back shows where PCR identified 18% fewer positives than antigen testing. PCR turned 18% of the positives into negatives

Hi, yeah just deleted this quoted one above - thanks for your clarification there

AlmightyCushion

kleiner feigling wrote: »

False positives in antigen tests are virtually zero.
Positives from these tests cannot be disputed ( it does produce false negatives).
Using PCR and Antigen tests in tandem.would give additional confidence in the data - PCR to screen, and antigen tests to confirm accuracy of positive results.

They are both close to zero for false positives.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/which-test-is-best-for-covid-19-2020081020734

For PCR:

The false positive rate — that is, how often the test says you have the virus when you actually do not — should be close to zero. Most false-positive results are thought to be due to lab contamination or other problems with how the lab has performed the test, not limitations of the test itself.

For antigen:

As with the molecular test, the false positive rate of antigen testing should be close to zero.

If you are happy with the antigen false positive rate then you should have no issue with the PCR false positive rate. Antigen tests also have the disadvantage of a much higher false negative rate.

Vicxas

suicide_circus wrote: »

jayzus, they must be flat out on the pints are they?

Flat out, they might even be sharing glasses at this rate.

WoollyRedHat

JTMan wrote: »

The Irish Times here and the Indo here have some leaks/news on the restriction lifting that will be announced this week.

- Times: Ministers are increasingly reluctant to announce anything for the month of May beyond the resumption of construction, the reopening of hairdressers and personal services, the phased return of retail and allowing in-person religious service.
- Indo: Relaxations in May would cover non-essential services, personal services, such as hairdressing and barbering, museums and galleries, and religious services.
- It is widely expected the beer gardens and outside dining will be allowed from June.
- The Government is planning to allow up to 50 people at mass and regular religious services from mid-May – but not for funerals or weddings.There will be no further increase in the number allowed to attend a funeral mass, which rises from just 10 to 25 from today.

You're going to have a hard time by getting people onboard with indoor religious gatherings while not allowing even outdoor hospitality. Can these services not be held outdoors? We have a history of that after all

mohawk

pjohnson wrote: »

Well those resisting are why everything has to stay shut.

Although I'm sure those who complain about it are the same ones complaining about it being shut

If you open stuff up for the vaccinated only. It would not be viable for many businesses to reopen because vast majority of their customer base won’t be vaccinated. Majority of who are vaccinated are older people. I know HCW and medically vulnerable are vaccinated but is there enough of them vaccinated to keep restaurants, shops, gyms operating. The economy needs people with disposable income spending and unfortunately many older people are living off the state pension (some of medically vulnerable that I know who have been vaccinated are on disability payment again that means limited disposable income).

So I can see why there hasn’t been such a push for reopening for vaccinated only.

kleiner feigling

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

They are both close to zero for false positives.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/which-test-is-best-for-covid-19-2020081020734

For PCR:


For antigen:


If you are happy with the antigen false positive rate then you should have no issue with the PCR false positive rate. Antigen tests also have the disadvantage of a much higher false negative rate.

Per the paper quoted in the article...

"If the goal of the test is to evaluate whether additional follow-up is needed or whether the patient should be treated as SARS-CoV-2–positive for the purpose of contact tracing, the test may not be providing the desired information and caution should be used in decision making. Because antibodies appear later in the course of infection, a combination of antibody testing and RT-PCR might be most useful for patients more remote from symptoms or exposure."

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M20-1495


Both obviously have their limitations

noplacehere

50 people at mass but not a funeral mass. **** right off. As someone who had a bereavement this lockdown in a MASSIVE church this is ridiculous. 50 people would still have been able to be one per every second pew ffs. If you are allowing 50 people it should be a max of 50 at masses and funerals only if social distancing allows (some churches are tiny I’ll allow).

Weddings aren’t as relevant to me but seriously, grieving is hard enough never mind watching 50 people coming out of Sunday mass while you are waiting with the 25 you had to ration out

I posted this already in a Ryan Tubridy thread. I'm hoping we won't see a fourth wave but...

On Saturday evening I was driving along the long stretch of canal between Leeson St. and Bluebell. All the way along, the grassy banks were absolutely thronged with hundreds of young folk and needless to say there was zero social distancing. I used to do this route as a regular commute to work, and whilst the sunshine would always bring a few gatherings on parts of the canal, I quite frankly have never seen quite this in my decades of passing by. The pubs being closed, of course, is a contributory factor, but the sheer concentration of people is, to my eyes, unprecedented. There's no attempt to police it, simply because it's in police-able and would not be a popular measure at this stage. Considering the most vulnerable have been vaccinated, I would hope this will not lead to consequences as serious as in past months, but I do believe there is going to be a further spike in this cohort which will muddy the waters for us all in the coming months.

is_that_so

mohawk wrote: »

If you open stuff up for the vaccinated only. It would not be viable for many businesses to reopen because vast majority of their customer base won’t be vaccinated. Majority of who are vaccinated are older people. I know HCW and medically vulnerable are vaccinated but is there enough of them vaccinated to keep restaurants, shops, gyms operating. The economy needs people with disposable income spending and unfortunately many older people are living off the state pension (some of medically vulnerable that I know who have been vaccinated are on disability payment again that means limited disposable income).

So I can see why there hasn’t been such a push for reopening for vaccinated only.

There is no reason why the approach we used last summer shouldn't be effective this summer without that much risk. Such passports, apart from for travel and maybe big events, are too unwieldy to apply at any national or local level.

Doctor Jimbob

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

You're going to have a hard time by getting people onboard with indoor religious gatherings while not allowing even outdoor hospitality. Can these services not be held outdoors? We have a history of that after all

I really can't understand the thought process at all. We're repeatedly told that the biggest risk is indoors, to the point where, according to the guidelines, people can't even meet in each other's gardens in case they end up going indoors - yet 50 people in a church is grand?

I can only assume it's either kite flying or a misunderstanding, because I really can't see the logic here.

AlmightyCushion

kleiner feigling wrote: »

Per the paper quoted in the article...

"If the goal of the test is to evaluate whether additional follow-up is needed or whether the patient should be treated as SARS-CoV-2–positive for the purpose of contact tracing, the test may not be providing the desired information and caution should be used in decision making. Because antibodies appear later in the course of infection, a combination of antibody testing and RT-PCR might be most useful for patients more remote from symptoms or exposure."

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M20-1495


Both obviously have their limitations

But you were talking about antigen testing not antibody testing. Your concerns were with PCRs false positive rate and said that we should be using antigen testing to validate it. That study shows that both PCR and antigen testing have the same false positive rate. It also shows that antigen tests have a much higher false negative rate so I'm not sure how you could use it to validate the PCR tests.

iamwhoiam

Deleted User wrote: »

I posted this already in a Ryan Tubridy thread. I'm hoping we won't see a fourth wave but...

On Saturday evening I was driving along the long stretch of canal between Leeson St. and Bluebell. All the way along, the grassy banks were absolutely thronged with hundreds of young folk and needless to say there was zero social distancing. I used to do this route as a regular commute to work, and whilst the sunshine would always bring a few gatherings on parts of the canal, I quite frankly have never seen quite this in my decades of passing by. The pubs being closed, of course, is a contributory factor, but the sheer concentration of people is, to my eyes, unprecedented. There's no attempt to police it, simply because it's in police-able and would not be a popular measure at this stage. Considering the most vulnerable have been vaccinated, I would hope this will not lead to consequences as serious as in past months, but I do believe there is going to be a further spike in this cohort which will muddy the waters for us all in the coming months.

This is a consequence of having nowhere else to go .If they opened beer gardens , opened outdoor dining , allowed people in your garden etc it would spread people out and they would not have the need to gather on canal banks

is_that_so

Deleted User wrote: »

I posted this already in a Ryan Tubridy thread. I'm hoping we won't see a fourth wave but...

On Saturday evening I was driving along the long stretch of canal between Leeson St. and Bluebell. All the way along, the grassy banks were absolutely thronged with hundreds of young folk and needless to say there was zero social distancing. I used to do this route as a regular commute to work, and whilst the sunshine would always bring a few gatherings on parts of the canal, I quite frankly have never seen quite this in my decades of passing by. The pubs being closed, of course, is a contributory factor, but the sheer concentration of people is, to my eyes, unprecedented. There's no attempt to police it, simply because it's in police-able and would not be a popular measure at this stage. Considering the most vulnerable have been vaccinated, I would hope this will not lead to consequences as serious as in past months, but I do believe there is going to be a further spike in this cohort which will muddy the waters for us all in the coming months.

Similar comments were posted last May, June, July and even August. Nothing happened.

WoollyRedHat

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I really can't understand the thought process at all. We're repeatedly told that the biggest risk is indoors, to the point where, according to the guidelines, people can't even meet in each other's gardens in case they end up going indoors - yet 50 people in a church is grand?

I can only assume it's either kite flying or a misunderstanding, because I really can't see the logic here.

The only logical explanation I can offer is that the majority of people who are mass going age will have received benefits of being vaccinated with at least one dose and a lot with two even, but it's introducng a religious exemption to reopening of indoor services and activities by stealth.

ETA: The above only holds true with Catholic services, does anyone have an demographic breakdown of those who attend religious services in Ireland by age or know where I can find this?

muddypuppy

gozunda wrote: »

Not exactly sure why the Italian embassy should be 'annoyed'. They currently have their own two tiered mandatory quarantine system.

Because Italy has home quarantine, which no one was really complaining about. People are complaining about hotel quarantine.

bucketybuck

iamwhoiam wrote: »

This is a consequence of having nowhere else to go .If they opened beer gardens , opened outdoor dining , allowed people in your garden etc it would spread people out and they would not have the need to gather on canal banks

That is some next level thinking, we are going to need a few months to disseminate this suggestion and consider what implications it might have. Level 5 restrictions + extra Tony modifications will need to stay in place until this is discussed.

funnydoggy

People texting into Neil Prendeville earlier saying that the crowds at Kennedy Quay in Cork at the weekend was a 'disgrace' etc. etc.

Jesus chríst there has been pent up demand since Christmas. Every time a group of 3 or more enjoy themselves outside, they get vilified and then just move indoors. That's where the spread happens. If they're outside in warm, breezy conditions, risk is relatively minimal. This outdoor party thing has been happening since the start of the pandemic, and each time, people scream outrage and no surge in cases happened.

Anyone down there in Cork for example (I was, Friday evening and Sunday morning) would know that it was a breezy weekend down there. COVID particles, if any, would be dissipated into the air. There were bubbles of people that *were* socially distant by the quay. Maybe not in the queues outside Goldbergs and The Idle Hour, but the owner/manager/staff of each premises were patrolling both queues, enforcing mask usage.

wes

mohawk wrote: »

So I can see why there hasn’t been such a push for reopening for vaccinated only.

Also, the only way for that to work would be needing an internal vaccine passport, which I think a lot of people do not support.

CalamariFritti

seamus wrote: »

I'm always amused anytime someone comes in talking about "PCR", "lateral flow" and asking about numbers of cycles, as if they had a rashers what any of these words meant a year ago.

So because we didnt know anything about a year ago we shouldn't be asking questions? What did you know about all this a year ago that allows you to be 'amused' now? Did we/you even know what a corona virus was? I didn't.

titan18

funnydoggy wrote: »

People texting into Neil Prendeville earlier saying that the crowds at Kennedy Quay in Cork at the weekend was a 'disgrace' etc. etc.

Jesus chríst there has been pent up demand since Christmas. Every time a group of 3 or more enjoy themselves outside, they get vilified and then just move indoors. That's where the spread happens. If they're outside in warm, breezy conditions, risk is relatively minimal. This outdoor party thing has been happening since the start of the pandemic, and each time, people scream outrage and no surge in cases happened.

Anyone down there in Cork for example (I was, Friday evening and Sunday morning) would know that it was a breezy weekend down there. COVID particles, if any, would be dissipated into the air. There were bubbles of people that *were* socially distant by the quay. Maybe not in the queues outside Goldbergs and The Idle Hour, but the owner/manager/staff of each premises were patrolling both queues, enforcing mask usage.

Don't know about Kennedy Quay but the Lough was bad. Not so much in a covid sense as i've stopped caring on that, but the litter and people pissing in the lanes/bushes there was a disgrace imo. I'd hate to live in one of the houses there as the smell of piss must have been insane.

Flowergirl201

Anyone got any idea how long the waiting time is to get a test, probably citywest?

funnydoggy

titan18 wrote: »

Don't know about Kennedy Quay but the Lough was bad. Not so much in a covid sense as i've stopped caring on that, but the litter and people pissing in the lanes/bushes there was a disgrace imo. I'd hate to live in one of the houses there as the smell of piss must have been insane.

I feel nauseous even reading that. That's disgusting. The quays were not as bad, as there was a massive rubbish bin opened for bottles and other rubbish.


Yuck!!