Testing Megathread Part 4 - See OP for threadbans

drunkmonkey

Martina1991 wrote: »

Restrictions are easing without the need for these tests anyway. I just don't think there's a need for them.

I'd agree to a certain degree but as long as social distancing is promoted, face coverings are mandatory, indoor activities are off the cards, outdoor events like concerts are banned I think it's necessary to have a cheap and effective solution to enable normality.

Martina1991

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Here's another person that disagrees with Tony and yourself

Professor Mark Ferguson, director general of Science Foundation Ireland, and chief scientific advisor to the Government.
"Prof Ferguson said home antigen tests are perfectly fine and usually accurate in determining if someone is infectious with Covid-19 at the moment of testing."

I don't see why your following Tony's lead on this one, you understand testing and you know these have a pretty good chance of picking up a transmissible case.

Ah yes the Ferguson report.

I thought it was interesting that there's an asterisk at the top of the report denoting that 2 of the 5 members on the committee didn't agree with it.

I've seen people misinterpret this report as a green light for the government to just start using these tests here, there and everywhere.

What it recommends in the report is:
Establish a number of major pilot / feasibility programmes focused on testing in priority target areas, that collect core, common outcome data sets including data on sampling, compliance, retention, accuracy, cost, acceptability and behavioural change, which will rapidly inform future widespread deployment of rapid testing.

Yes it makes sense that first studies should be set up and their use should be rigorously tested and evaluated for all settings people want it to be used.

They shouldn't be just handed out without determining if they are of any use. That would be a waste of time and money.

ACitizenErased

Reports that serial testing of nursing homes is to end due to scarcity of cases

Martina1991

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Reports that serial testing of nursing homes is to end due to scarcity of cases

That's great news.

It's incredible the effect the vaccine has had, when you think of the position we were in a year ago.

drunkmonkey

Martina1991 wrote: »

Ah yes the Ferguson report.

Ah yes, the one delivered this week?, from my reading of the q&a we need to move fast and everyone is in favour.

I found it interesting that if a positive antigen test was captured the HSE can do a pcr test to get the person within their governance. It's thought it will help getting them onboard.

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Ah yes, the one delivered this week?, from my reading of the q&a we need to move fast and everyone is in favour.

Well except you know who, but I found it interesting that if a positive antigen test was captured the HSE can do a pcr test to get the person within their governance. It's their sweetener to get them onboard.
The main thing I'm seeing is keeping the HSE in control of the data, I suspect this is NPHET's motivation in trying to mislead people about the effectiveness of antigen testing.
He who controls the data controls the narrative.

Christ almighty

drunkmonkey

Deleted User wrote: »

Christ almighty

Needed some rewording was working at the time, I'm confused as to why NPHET won't embrace it and actively rail against their use. Have you any idea?

0lddog

drunkmonkey wrote: »

.... I'm confused as to why NPHET won't embrace it and actively rail against their use. Have you any idea?

Their attitude mirrors their attitude towards mask wearing early on in this whole shambles.


Its an attitude with many parallels to the 'not invented here' attitude that blinkers many design engineers

Chuzzle7

0lddog wrote: »

Their attitude mirrors their attitude towards mask wearing early on in this whole shambles.


Its an attitude with many parallels to the 'not invented here' attitude that blinkers many design engineers

I can see why nphet are worried with these rapid tests. I think rapid tests give people a false sense of security. Covid can feel like a cold in some people. The worry is having these people doing a self test at home with a negative result and off they go about their normal business. I think the tests can be very dangerous, people just do not understand. The amount of idiots who still can't wear a mask properly. It will be the same with these rapid tests.

drunkmonkey

They're very easy use especially with the latest guidance, now you just need to swab the inside of your nose, put it in the solution for 60 seconds, drop it onto the test strip cassette and that's it your done.
If you have a transmittable case of Covid the odds are close to 100% it will be detected. Masks are a different beast altogether, the hesitancy was over the danger of secondary transmission, now they can clearly see they're being misused yet still insist on their use which is counter productive in stopping the spread.

Martina1991

drunkmonkey wrote: »

They're very easy use especially with the latest guidance, now you just need to swab the inside of your nose, put it in the solution for 60 seconds, drop it onto the test strip cassette and that's it your done.
If you have a transmittable case of Covid the odds are close to 100% it will be detected. Masks are a different beast altogether, the hesitancy was over the danger of secondary transmission, now they can clearly see they're being misused yet still insist on their use which is counter productive in stopping the spread.

The clinical performance of those tests always uses a specific cohort of people with covid symptoms that are suspected as having the disease.

They go looking for cases where they are likely to find them.
That's why they all come out with claims of 95-100% accuracy.

When these tests are independently tried on real people that's when you see the performance is much worse because these manufacturers purposely omit asymptomatic people from their trials.

It would bring their accuracy stats down and no one would buy a test with 50% sensitivity because that wouldn't sell very well.

Martina1991

Martina1991 wrote: »

The clinical performance of those tests always uses a specific cohort of people with covid symptoms that are suspected as having the disease.

They go looking for cases where they are likely to find them.
That's why they all come out with claims of 95-100% accuracy.

When these tests are independently tried on real people that's when you see the performance is much worse because these manufacturers purposely omit asymptomatic people from their trials.

It would bring their accuracy stats down and no one would buy a test with 50% sensitivity because that wouldn't sell very well.

These antigen tests are reviewed by an Institute on behalf of the German Health Ministry. They remove tests from their official lists which are do not meet the Manufacturer's claims or perform poorly.
If someone isn't shedding they aren't going to test negative on these tests but also won't be infecting others.

These tests work perfectly fine for their intended purpose and the CMO is not serving the interests of the public by seeding fear, uncertainty and doubt.

drunkmonkey

These are all approved for use in the EU a lot of countries have embraced them, the UK Government is currently running a campaign to encourage more people to use the freely available ones.
These are coming Martina regardless of what NPHET and the HSE say, still confused why your still knocking them, there's clear benefits over doing nothing.

Martina1991

Deleted User wrote: »

These tests work perfectly fine for their intended purpose and the CMO is not serving the interests of the public by seeding fear, uncertainty and doubt.

Their intended purpose is to be used on symptomatic people.

These tests aren't toys to be played with.

If someone has plans to meet their friends and says, well I'll do a test just to see.
A positive result tells you something.
A negative result tells you nothing. You can still be infected.

Happydays2020

drunkmonkey wrote: »

These are all approved for use in the EU a lot of countries have embraced them, the UK Government is currently running a campaign to encourage more people to use the freely available ones.
These are coming Martina regardless of what NPHET and the HSE say, still confused why your still knocking them, there's clear benefits over doing nothing.

I am tempted to buy some just to annoy Tony.

Martina1991

Martina1991 wrote: »

Their intended purpose is to be used on symptomatic people.

These tests aren't toys to be played with.

If someone has plans to meet their friends and says, well I'll do a test just to see.
A positive result tells you something.
A negative result tells you nothing. You can still be infected.

No, that is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
You are either mistaken or wilfully propagating incorrect information.
They are being used daily with Health Ministry approval in care homes, factories and schools across Europe to catch those who are infected earlier but are unaware yet of being infected.

Martina1991

drunkmonkey wrote: »

These are all approved for use in the EU a lot of countries have embraced them, the UK Government is currently running a campaign to encourage more people to use the freely available ones.
These are coming Martina regardless of what NPHET and the HSE say, still confused why your still knocking them, there's clear benefits over doing nothing.

Approved for the purpose for what they're made for!

The UK bought an absolute sh*t laid of them before they even knew of they worked. They're dolling them out for free because they have them piled up.

Let them come for whoever wants to burn a hole in their pocket.
There are hundreds of companies jumping on the bandwagon to sell them.
All of them saying they're 100% great.


This is what they're like in the real world.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32485618/

https://www.dovepress.com/evaluation-of-analytical-performance-of-seven-rapid-antigen-detection--peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-IJGM

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4848

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jmv.26830
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD013705/full

drunkmonkey

Martina1991 wrote: »

Their intended purpose is to be used on symptomatic people.

These tests aren't toys to be played with.

If someone has plans to meet their friends and says, well I'll do a test just to see.
A positive result tells you something.
A negative result tells you nothing. You can still be infected.

Seriously, that's just more misinformation. Your odds of getting infected off a healthy person with no symptoms and has a clear antigen test are close to 0.
If they test positive they know to avoid the party.
I don't think you get that most people don't bother going for a test when they feel healthy.

Your spinning these as dangerous the same as Tony and your both wrong.

Martina1991

Deleted User wrote: »

They are being used daily with Health Ministry approval in care homes, factories and schools across Europe to catch those who are infected earlier but are unaware yet of being infected.

They were being used here too on care homes and factories because they are vulnerable, prone to outbreaks and can easily have controlled, monitored serial testing.

That is using them for a worthy purpose.

Johnny and Mary using them to go to the pub is a waste of resources.

drunkmonkey

Martina1991 wrote: »

Approved for the purpose for what they're made for!

The UK bought an absolute sh*t laid of them before they even knew of they worked. They're dolling them out for free because they have them piled up.

Let them come for whoever wants to burn a hole in their pocket.
There are hundreds of companies jumping on the bandwagon to sell them.
All of them saying they're 100% great.


This is what they're like in the real world.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32485618/

https://www.dovepress.com/evaluation-of-analytical-performance-of-seven-rapid-antigen-detection--peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-IJGM

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4848

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jmv.26830
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD013705/full

Ahh it's conspiracy so they can use up all the antigen tests they bought..:rolleyes:

drunkmonkey

Martina1991 wrote: »

Johnny and Mary using them to go to the pub is a waste of resources.

It's their life and their money. If it helps protect someone let them at it and open the pubs, how about 2 antigen tests before they go in, would you allow them have a sup after 2?

Martina1991

Martina1991 wrote: »

Johnny and Mary using them to go to the pub is a waste of resources.

Whose resources? They are being paid for by the person using them who sees a genuine and unarguable value in self-testing.

Martina1991

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Seriously, that's just more misinformation. Your odds of getting infected off a healthy person with no symptoms and has a clear antigen test are close to 0.
If they test positive they know to avoid the party.
I don't think you get that most people don't bother going for a test when they feel healthy.

Your spinning these as dangerous the same as Tony and your both wrong.

The irony of you accusing me of misinformation.

Asymptomatic transmission is real and those people are capable of spreading the virus.
Do you have anything to back up an asymptomatic person incorrectly testing negative on an antigen test won't infect someone.

The chief medical officer of the department of health is wrong and drunkmonkey is right.

I don't think so.

Martina1991

Deleted User wrote: »

Whose resources? They are being paid for by the person using them who sees a genuine and unarguable value in self-testing.

It would be a waste of resources if the hse had to fund free antigen testing for the public.

Martina1991

Martina1991 wrote: »

Asymptomatic transmission is real and those people are capable of spreading the virus.

Those who aren't shedding virus may fail an Antigen test but are highly unlikely to infect others. You are an unashamed FUD Merchant.

drunkmonkey

Martina1991 wrote: »

Asymptomatic transmission is real and those people are capable of spreading the virus.

The chief medical officer of the department of health is wrong and drunkmonkey is right.

I don't think so.

Have you anything to back up your statement that people with no symptoms and pass a simple swab in the nose antigen test are capable of infecting someone. You must have seen as you claimed it, what is the risk of infection from these healthy people?

The CMO is wrong and it's not the first time he's not been forthcoming with the truth.

Martina1991

Martina1991 wrote: »

It would be a waste of resources if the hse had to fund free antigen testing for the public.

German Government completely disagrees with you. Antigen Tests are available to everyone in Germany free of charge at Doctor's surgeries and public testing locations.
What level of arrogance do you possess to think that you are right and that the German Health Ministry is wrong.

Happydays2020

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Those who aren't shedding virus may fail an Antigen test but are highly unlikely to infect others. You are an unashamed FUD Merchant.

What does FUD mean?

Martina1991

Deleted User wrote: »

German Government completely disagrees with you. Antigen Tests are available to everyone in Germany free of charge at Doctor's surgeries and public testing locations.
What level of arrogance do you possess to think that you are right and that the German Health Ministry is wrong.

I didn't say they weren't. If Germany have reviewed and approved a test for that use then fine.

They are not all the same. Every manufacturer differs. You can't say just because Germany are using one brand on the public that Ireland should use this one from Lidl and it will perform the same.

JMNolan

Martina1991 wrote: »

Approved for the purpose for what they're made for!

The UK bought an absolute sh*t laid of them before they even knew of they worked. They're dolling them out for free because they have them piled up.

Let them come for whoever wants to burn a hole in their pocket.
There are hundreds of companies jumping on the bandwagon to sell them.
All of them saying they're 100% great.


This is what they're like in the real world.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32485618/

https://www.dovepress.com/evaluation-of-analytical-performance-of-seven-rapid-antigen-detection--peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-IJGM

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4848

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jmv.26830
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD013705/full

Did you even read your own links? They confirm that the tests do exactly what they purport to do. You're up there with Trump when it comes to nonsense.