Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Testing Megathread Part 4 - See OP for threadbans

Options
1…34689…24

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    normanoffside
    Registered Users Posts: 10,047 ✭✭✭✭normanoffside


    Chuzzle7 wrote: »
    Well people cannot be trusted to do the right thing. We know that already. Using these tests won't be any different and you will have people thinking they are free from covid with a negative result and will do whatever they want.

    As has already been pointed out, that hasn't widely happened with the approximate 96% of those who had negative PCR tests throughout this last year.

    Things are opening up now and these tests should make things a bit safer but people will still follow the rules for the large part.
    The people who don't follow rules won't be taking any test.


  • Options
    #153
    Chuzzle7
    Site Banned Posts: 52 ✭✭Chuzzle7


    normanoffside wrote: »
    As has already been pointed out, that hasn't widely happened with the approximate 96% of those who had negative PCR tests throughout this last year.

    Things are opening up now and these tests should make things a bit safer but people will still follow the rules for the large part.
    The people who don't follow rules won't be taking any test.

    You're very trusting of people. I would be worried with someone walking around with "just a cold" and relying on these tests.


  • Options
    #154
    normanoffside
    Registered Users Posts: 10,047 ✭✭✭✭normanoffside


    Chuzzle7 wrote: »
    You're very trusting of people. I would be worried with someone walking around with "just a cold" and relying on these tests.

    They are extremely accurate in detecting symptomatic infections


  • Options
    #155
    Chuzzle7
    Site Banned Posts: 52 ✭✭Chuzzle7


    normanoffside wrote: »
    They are extremely accurate in detecting symptomatic infections

    If the sample is taken correctly.


  • Options
    #156
    0lddog
    Registered Users Posts: 3,292 ✭✭✭0lddog


    Anyone else feel that a certain poster here would like to ban diabetics from using blood glucose meters ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    xhomelezz
    Registered Users Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭xhomelezz


    Chuzzle7 wrote: »
    If the sample is taken correctly.

    At the right time as well.


  • Options
    #158
    Chuzzle7
    Site Banned Posts: 52 ✭✭Chuzzle7


    xhomelezz wrote: »
    At the right time as well.

    Yes of course. They're very similar to those pregnancy tests. Some tests can pick up if you're pregnant early and some you have to wait a few more days and test again. These tests are no different. I hate the thought of them and people it to self diagnose themselves with not having covid.


  • Options
    #159
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    normanoffside wrote: »
    It's a mystery to me. NPHET are either extremely thick or else there is something more sinister going on.

    There's ALWAYS something more sinister going on from the fearmongers on this forum.

    Jesus, antigen testing is next to useless for detecting asymptomatic infection and people would use these when asymptomatic, get a negative, and think they're grand to go to house parties. Or they are symptomatic, they're not used properly, and they get a negative result and think they're not contagious.

    That's the point the CMO was making. It's really not that hard to comprehend but some people have it in their head that there is this grand conspiracy when truth is they can't be bothered their arse to actually listen to what is being said instead of taking one quote out of context.


  • Options
    #160
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,827 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Interesting that is what you took from the contributions I provided.


  • Options
    #161
    WoollyRedHat
    Registered Users Posts: 10,462 ✭✭✭✭WoollyRedHat


    Testing, testing, 1,2,3.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    normanoffside
    Registered Users Posts: 10,047 ✭✭✭✭normanoffside


    Faugheen wrote: »

    Jesus, antigen testing is next to useless for detecting asymptomatic infection and people would use these when asymptomatic, get a negative, and think they're grand to go to house parties. Or they are symptomatic, they're not used properly, and they get a negative result and think they're not contagious.

    How do you determine someone has an asymptomatic infection?

    Do people with no symptoms not generally think they are not contagious?

    How does using an antigen tests change any of this?


  • Options
    #163
    WoollyRedHat
    Registered Users Posts: 10,462 ✭✭✭✭WoollyRedHat


    normanoffside wrote: »
    How do you determine someone has an asymptomatic infection?

    Do people with no symptoms not generally think they are not contagious?

    How does using an antigen tests change any of this?

    By doing a PCR test on them. Study in Arizona showed the specificity was as as low as 32 percent when used on people who did not show symptoms:

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/11/02/health/coronavirus-testing-quidel-sofia.amp.html%3f0p19G=0232


  • Options
    #164
    normanoffside
    Registered Users Posts: 10,047 ✭✭✭✭normanoffside


    WoollyRedHat wrote: »
    By doing a PCR test on them. Study in Arizona showed the specificity was as as low as 32 percent when used on people who did not show symptoms:

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/11/02/health/coronavirus-testing-quidel-sofia.amp.html%3f0p19G=0232

    So you should do a PCR test on everyone who has no symptoms?
    That's not much use when they have somewhere to go today.

    Also what % of those Asymptomatic infections are not actually infections but showing up historic and residual fragments of the virus?


  • Options
    #165
    Wolf359f
    Registered Users Posts: 5,850 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    normanoffside wrote: »
    So you should do a PCR test on everyone who has no symptoms?
    That's not much use when they have somewhere to go today.

    Also what % of those Asymptomatic infections are not actually infections but showing up historic and residual fragments of the virus?

    You do know the difference between a positive swab and a positive case?
    If PCR picked up an historic infection, the CT count would be well over the recommended amount, so it should be retested again. There is clear guidelines, either it's retested on a different machine or they compare the CT count from test 1 to test 2 and ultimately, it doesn't come up as a case.

    This misconception about labs running high CT counts and picking up historic infections has been brought up time and time again. There's a guideline for that specific scenario.


  • Options
    #166
    normanoffside
    Registered Users Posts: 10,047 ✭✭✭✭normanoffside


    Wolf359f wrote: »
    You do know the difference between a positive swab and a positive case?
    If PCR picked up an historic infection, the CT count would be well over the recommended amount, so it should be retested again. There is clear guidelines, either it's retested on a different machine or they compare the CT count from test 1 to test 2 and ultimately, it doesn't come up as a case.

    This misconception about labs running high CT counts and picking up historic infections has been brought up time and time again. There's a guideline for that specific scenario.

    It's a real thing. I know several people who continued to test positive using PCR in some cases months after they had recovered.

    (I work in a job that requires people to travel and they couldn't get a negative PCR in order to be able to fly)


  • Options
    #167
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,201 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    How much is a every 5 x PCR test costing the taxpayer versus the Lidl special of €24.99
    €2500? Between pop up test centers, doctors, lab staff, etc?


  • Options
    #168
    Wolf359f
    Registered Users Posts: 5,850 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    How much is a every 5 x PCR test costing the taxpayer versus the Lidl special of €24.99
    €2500? Between pop up test centers, doctors, lab staff, etc?

    You honestly believe we've spent €2.3bil on testing in a year?
    A quick google suggests the test and trace system cost the state €280mil last year.


  • Options
    #169
    embraer170
    Registered Users Posts: 2,434 ✭✭✭embraer170


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    How much is a every 5 x PCR test costing the taxpayer versus the Lidl special of €24.99
    €2500? Between pop up test centers, doctors, lab staff, etc?

    I don't know about Ireland but a PCR test in France/Germany is estimated to cost between €40-50 to provide. A professionally provided antigen test less than €15.


  • Options
    #170
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,201 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    Wolf359f wrote: »
    You honestly believe we've spent €2.3bil on testing in a year?
    A quick google suggests the test and trace system cost the state €280mil last year.

    The UK one cost £37 billion. I doubt we done it for €280mil, have you a link?


  • Options
    #171
    WoollyRedHat
    Registered Users Posts: 10,462 ✭✭✭✭WoollyRedHat


    normanoffside wrote: »
    So you should do a PCR test on everyone who has no symptoms?
    That's not much use when they have somewhere to go today.

    Also what % of those Asymptomatic infections are not actually infections but showing up historic and residual fragments of the virus?

    Yes because antigen tests that have authorization by the EU are only useful when used with people who have symptoms, 32% specificity e.g. Quiddel against asymptomatic infections is crap.

    And of course it also depends on the context, as in, do they need a test? If they have been in close contact with someone who has tested positive, they should ring their GP. If they are looking for peace of mind, they should also ring their GP and ask to get tested. Or if they are living in an area with high incidence of Covid then they can avail of the walk-in centres, far more practical. Would get on a plane that had 32% reliability of getting you from A to B? I wouldn't.

    As to your second question, I don't have the data, but I imagine it's quite low, due to protocols in place as other poster has alluded to. Also our cases were miniscule last summer, where were all the false positives then? Kind of puts a hole in that theory


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    Wolf359f
    Registered Users Posts: 5,850 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    The UK one cost £37 billion. I doubt we done it for €280mil, have you a link?

    Well that's the figure based on here
    I wouldn't compare it to the UK one, there's been a lot of controversy around companies winning UK contracts for the NHS that failed to deliver.


  • Options
    #173
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,201 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    Wolf359f wrote: »
    Well that's the figure based on here
    I wouldn't compare it to the UK one, there's been a lot of controversy around companies winning UK contracts for the NHS that failed to deliver.

    €116 per test, I don't see any mention of payments to GP's for consultations/referrals that would be a minimum of €30 extra per test, Paul Reid estimated €450 million at the end of September and forecast €700 million this year for t&t.


  • Options
    #174
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,201 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    WoollyRedHat wrote: »
    Would get on a plane that had 32% reliability of getting you from A to B? I wouldn't.

    78% of Antigen tests are incorrect on healthy people?


  • Options
    #175
    Wolf359f
    Registered Users Posts: 5,850 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    €116 per test, I don't see any mention of payments to GP's for consultations/referrals that would be a minimum of €30 extra per test, Paul Reid estimated €450 million at the end of September and forecast €700 million this year for t&t.

    Read the article:
    In response to a Freedom of Information request, the HSE confirmed that it spent a further €19 million on swabbing and referrals.
    Either way, it's not €500 per test as you alluded to.


  • Options
    #176
    LostinKildare
    Registered Users Posts: 990 ✭✭✭LostinKildare


    WoollyRedHat wrote: »
    Yes because antigen tests that have authorization by the EU are only useful when used with people who have symptoms, 32% specificity (from the one in Lidl) against asymptomatic infections is crap.

    What? You earlier linked to a NYT article about an antigen test with only 32% specificity wrt asymptomatic infections --- Quidel's Sofia. That is not the test sold by Lidl.


  • Options
    #177
    normanoffside
    Registered Users Posts: 10,047 ✭✭✭✭normanoffside


    According to the European Commission the Test sold in Lidl has 93.8% sensitivity and 100% specificity

    https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/default/files/preparedness_response/docs/covid-19_rat_common-list_en.pdf


  • Options
    #178
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,201 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    Wolf359f wrote: »
    Read the article:

    Either way, it's not €500 per test as you alluded to.

    €116 is still staggering, Lidl cost to Antigen test everyone on the way into Electric Picnic €350k with a 15 minute turnaround, HSE cost €8.12 million and the festival will be over by the time you get a result.


  • Options
    #179
    Wolf359f
    Registered Users Posts: 5,850 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    €116 is still staggering, Lidl cost to Antigen test everyone on the way into Electric Picnic €350k with a 15 minute turnaround, HSE cost €8.12 million and the festival will be over by the time you get a result.

    It's still not €500 as you said it was.
    Cheapest solution is still vaccines, some cost more than others, but 2 jabs and you're done. Let's just focus on that and not get distracted by another less reliable way out of this pandemic.


  • Options
    #180
    WoollyRedHat
    Registered Users Posts: 10,462 ✭✭✭✭WoollyRedHat


    LostinKildare wrote: »
    What? You earlier linked to a NYT article about an antigen test with only 32% specificity wrt asymptomatic infections --- Quidel's Sofia. That is not the test sold by Lidl.

    Sorry I have reworded my post. I can't find data on accuracy of RAT on asymptomatic people, because it hasn't been produced by the company, because that is not it's intended purpose, it's only for those exhibiting symptoms in a limited timeframe.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    WoollyRedHat
    Registered Users Posts: 10,462 ✭✭✭✭WoollyRedHat


    If Elllume gets authorization from the EU to sell their product in Europe, and Lidl were to subsequently to stock, I think that would be an entirely different prospect, and then stance should change. But until then, the product has little use to the general populace as the majority who will buy the Boson Biotech test will not have symptoms.


Advertisement