Relaxation of Restrictions, Part XI *Read OP For Mod Warnings*

Klonker

gozunda wrote: »

Only issue there is unlike PCR, the majority of antigen tests are known to be best used where someone is already symptomatic - they are not effective at identifying pre-symptomatic cases. 

The alternative is no test. Which would you prefer? Or we just never go back to the office.

Silentcorner

Silentcorner wrote: »

Of course he is...the use of antigens tests in care home facilities would have saved countless lives...he has to believe that he is right!

Would it? Not great sensitivity vs good specitivity. Can you actually say this would have caused a net saving of lives?

Follow the science etc.

Cordially,
The_Dazzler

Klonker

charlie14 wrote: »

I`m no expert on antigen tests, but even if NPHET were in favour of them I would still have major doubts. From any data I have seen self administered antigen tests results are very hit and miss and there detection levels of low viral loads are poor.
For concerts and matches I would see vaccination as a much more dependable alternative.

We'll need antigen testing even after we are vaccinated though for the rest of the year I'd imagine anyway. You can't ensure all have had a vaccine, I'm not even sure it's legal and Ireland have stated they won't go down that route anyway. Again it's not one or the other, it's antigen or nothing. People being vaccinated is a different aspect, they'll have vaccines or not, has nothing to do if antigen tests are used or not.

Boggles

Silentcorner wrote: »

The WHO does not encourage the use of lock downs, but sure, they are youtube grifters right?

Nope.

WHO recognizes that at certain points, some countries have had no choice but to issue stay-at-home orders and other measures

And Nope.

The World Health Organisation’s executive director of emergency programmes, Dr Mike Ryan has warned that giving dates for reopening society will not “drive anything”, getting down the number of Covid cases was what was the most important measure.

Speaking on RTÉ radio’s News at One, Dr Ryan said that the Government did not have many options while the number of cases remained at current levels. There was not much point in exiting lockdown only to lurch back, he added. There had to be trade-offs

Silentcorner

Deleted User wrote: »

Would it? Not great sensitivity vs good specitivity. Can you actually say this would have caused a net saving of lives?

Follow the science etc.

Cordially,
The_Dazzler

On the spot daily capability v a week turnaround for PCR...why wouldn't you use them...

Follow the numbers, our care homes were hit badly, not just once in the first wave last March/April but in the 2nd surge in Dec/Jan...our highly paid health bureaucrats couldn't come up with a strategy to protect the most vulnerable people to this virus....that is what our tax payers money is getting for us.

If they can't protect the most vulnerable in our society, why do we think these guys know what they are doing?

Well, we got a taste of that arrogance this week from Nolan....

normanoffside

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Would it? Not great sensitivity vs good specitivity. Can you actually say this would have caused a net saving of lives?

Follow the science etc.

Cordially,
The_Dazzler

The EU approved tests are all certified as having 90+% sensitivity for infectious cases.

Allinall

Allinall wrote: »

NPHET don’t extend closures.

The government do.

Yet another disingenuous offering, an honest take proving elusive as ever. You know I was referring to the government, don't pretend otherwise.

Boggles

Silentcorner wrote: »

On the spot daily capability v a week turnaround for PCR...why wouldn't you use them...

Why if you are symptomatic would you not just get a PCR test that is far more reliable?

Less than 24 hour turn around.

Silentcorner

Silentcorner wrote: »

On the spot daily capability v a week turnaround for PCR...why wouldn't you use them...

Follow the numbers, our care homes were hit badly, not just once in the first wave last March/April but in the 2nd surge in Dec/Jan...our highly paid health bureaucrats couldn't come up with a strategy to protect the most vulnerable people to this virus....that is what our tax payers money is getting for us.

If they can't protect the most vulnerable in our society, why do we think these guys know what they are doing?

Well, we got a taste of that arrogance this week from Nolan....

Antigen testing has low sensitivity. This means is not great at catching somebody with an active covid infection but if they do it is more than likely not a false negative.

Can you not see how something like this could ravage a nursing home?

charlie14

normanoffside wrote: »

Antigen tests are different to PCR.
PCR will detect very low levels of virus even dead virus long past when you are infectious.
Antigen tests are proven to be excellent at picking up cases when they are at their most infectious. That's when you are most likely to spread it to others.

You can be PCR positive for weeks and months but there is only a 4-8 day window when you are infectious and Antigen will pick it up in this window 90%+ of the time, almost 100% of the time when you test regularly..

Antigen tests have been shown in studies to be highly inaccurate when self administered, with an accuracy rate of just 65%. Mainly because how difficult and uncomfortable it is to swab properly. For that reason alone I would doubt them as even if people were to do it properly, I very much doubt they would do so on a daily basis.

They are also poor at detecting low viral loads. Low viral load is less transmittable than high loads, but that does not mean that it is still not transmittable. As I said, when it comes to the likes of games, concerts etc. I would view proof of vaccination as a much more reliable indicator than a antigen test result.

Silentcorner

Deleted User wrote: »

Antigen testing has low sensitivity. This means is not great at catching somebody with an active covid infection but if they do it is more than likely not a false negative.

Can you not see how something like this could ravage a nursing home?

You mean ravage a nursing home moreso....they have been ravaged with great loss of life.

My understanding is that they are precisely for catching people with active infections, they are not good at catching who had covid previously.

charlie14

charlie14 wrote: »

Antigen tests have been shown in studies to be highly inaccurate when self administered, with an accuracy rate of just 65%. Mainly because how difficult and uncomfortable it is to swab properly. For that reason alone I would doubt them as even if people were to do it properly, I very much doubt they would do so on a daily basis.

They are also poor at detecting low viral loads. Low viral load is less transmittable than high loads, but that does not mean that it is still not transmittable. As I said, when it comes to the likes of games, concerts etc. I would view proof of vaccination as a much more reliable indicator than a antigen test result.

I would take a different tack. It's great progress to get agreement on the need for any form of testing here. Baby steps

Silentcorner

Silentcorner wrote: »

You mean ravage a nursing home moreso....they have been ravaged with great loss of life.

My understanding is that they are precisely for catching people with active infections, they are not good at catching who had covid previously.

Your understanding would be wrong.

They have a sensitivity of 60-65%.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

I would take a different tack. It's great progress to get agreement on the need for any form of testing here. Baby steps

Indeed, that was not lost on me either, where the on going mantra on here was ranting and raving at people getting tested.

Now tests for everyone!

Allinall

Deleted User wrote: »

Yet another disingenuous offering, an honest take proving elusive as ever. You know I was referring to the government, don't pretend otherwise.

The original poster claimed-

"NPHET don't want to get things opened"

This is what I was responding to.

Doctor Jimbob

charlie14 wrote: »

Antigen tests have been shown in studies to be highly inaccurate when self administered, with an accuracy rate of just 65%. Mainly because how difficult and uncomfortable it is to swab properly. For that reason alone I would doubt them as even if people were to do it properly, I very much doubt they would do so on a daily basis.

They are also poor at detecting low viral loads. Low viral load is less transmittable than high loads, but that does not mean that it is still not transmittable. As I said, when it comes to the likes of games, concerts etc. I would view proof of vaccination as a much more reliable indicator than a antigen test result.

I don't have strong feelings either way on the antigen tests, but "self-administered tests aren't accurate" sounds an awful lot like last year's "people won't use masks properly".

NPHET have form for advising against things that could help because they aren't perfect.

gozunda

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

I think you have inadvertently supported Norman’s argument as opposed to your own with the quotes you have posted.

France are reopening outdoor dining on Tuesday.

NPHET are talking rubbish about hopefully, maybe, behave, sometime we can reopen

Still think Nphet are the bogeyman? :rolleyes:

But absolutely we should do everything France does - so we can be just like them ...

https://i.imgflip.com/598mwf.jpg

https://i.imgflip.com/598msp.jpg


https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/europe-reopens-icu-teams-stick-sick-dying-77284466

Silentcorner

Whats gas about Antigen tests is how the predictable posters defend the position of Nphet and the Government....but if this latest humiliating debacle prompts a turnabout in the use of Antigen testing those same posters will be congratulating Nphet and the Government on more prudent policy making....just like we saw a few short weeks ago!!!

Silentcorner

Deleted User wrote: »

Your understanding would be wrong.

They have a sensitivity of 60-65%.

The issue with the results is if they are not property administered, something health professionals who work in Care home facilities would have no issue in getting right.

Boggles

Silentcorner wrote: »

The issue with the results is if they are not property administered, something health professionals who work in Care home facilities would have no issue in getting right.

The advice for care home workers is if they are symptomatic is to not go to work and get a more reliable PCR test.

Silentcorner

Boggles wrote: »

The advice for care home workers is if they are symptomatic is to not go to work and get a more reliable PCR test.

And how did that work out?

No great surprise to see the shrillest voices in support of NPHET's ban on economic activity have suddenly developed a dogmatic abhorrence to the antigen tests which have been used so successfully to open up the UK (one can order free NHS antigen tests to be delivered next day in the post, there, to test the whole family before going somewhere. Test the family before their morning showers, and by the time breakfast is finished the results are ready).

I am absolutely convinced that if Holohan or Nolan came on the radio this lunchtime and declared that lying on your back and waving your arms and legs in the air stopped the virus, the streets of every town and village in the country would be blocked by people lying on their backs and waving their arms and legs in the air by the time the schools were let out. People who failed to lie on their backs and wave their arms and legs in the air would be denounced on boards.ie and people would be calling Liveline to report that their neighbours did not lie on their back for a sufficient amount of time.

Failing to wave your legs and arms in the air with sufficient vigour would be punishable by a €100 fine before Friday.

charlie14

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I don't have strong feelings either way on the antigen tests, but "self-administered tests aren't accurate" sounds an awful lot like last year's "people won't use masks properly".

NPHET have form for advising against things that could help because they aren't perfect.

The irony wasn`t lost on me that those that have been saying that "people won`t use masks properly" are now in favour of antigen tests where studies have shown them 35% inaccurate when self administered.

Boggles

Silentcorner wrote: »

And how did that work out?

Compared to care homes who used antigen testing on symptomatic workers, far better I would imagine.

Silentcorner

Well, if you pump enough fear into people you can get them to do almost anything!!!

gozunda

Klonker wrote: »

The alternative is no test. Which would you prefer? Or we just never go back to the office.

Ah I see a False dilemma fallacy ..

So the only alternative "no test" or else using Antigen test on people with no symptoms (as was suggested) which the majority of Antigen tests are not designed to do?

The thing is its not that the Antigen or nothing. Companies can organise professional antigen or other testing. Many already have.

We also have community testing. We have clinical testing. If you have no symptoms but have been a close contact get tested properly. if you have symptoms stay at home and get tested.

The take from this is we know that these tests are not suitable for those without symptoms. We also know that when self administered at home etc they show less than 60% sensitivity.

By all means use them if you wish but don't pretend its self administered antigen or nothing.

Boggles

Silentcorner wrote: »

Well, if you pump enough fear into people you can get them to do almost anything!!!

Cool, we have moved onto bad movie cliches.

Fear is the last thing any governance want in a pandemic, fear makes people irrational, people who pray on this fear with lies make them even more irrational.

The net results of that is simpletons claiming RTE eat babies and cretins firing fire works into peoples faces.

'the government are lying, come here and donate I have all the easy answers'.

Silentcorner

Silentcorner wrote: »

The issue with the results is if they are not property administered, something health professionals who work in Care home facilities would have no issue in getting right.

No. It's not, the sensitivity of the assay has more of an affect than how the test is administered. For the rapidness aspect, you are sacrificing sensitivity. I don't particularly care about antigen testing as it's the vaccines are the important thing. I am just saying from a clinical aspect, they are dog useless. Now if you could point me to a antigen test that had >90% sensitivity. I would be all ears.

Silentcorner

Silentcorner wrote: »

Well, if you pump enough fear into people you can get them to do almost anything!!!

I don't see what fear has to do with the sensitivity of an antigen test. Is there a correlation?

So much bad science in this thread.

Captain Havoc

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

He’s right though

The amount of people I’ve heard say they are content with a haircut this week is absurd. Like some weird Stockholm syndrome

I’d be more content if I had the freedom the french people have

The infantilism of the Irish public is complete

Do you known what is happening in France?



They have curfews. From next week, they're moving from 7pm to 9pm and on the 9th of June to 11pm, which will finish on the 30th of June, wow. They finished their travel restrictions a week before us. They do have indoor stuff like dining and sports coming back the same week we have outdoor dining coming back. It's not all that rosey though.