Covid 19 Part XXXV-956,720 ROI (5,952 deaths) 452,946 NI (3,002 deaths) (08/01) Read OP

Goldengirl

Deleted User wrote: »

I feel you are threatened by my postings and seek to discredit them by any means possible.
The poster talks a good game.

You think that , don't want to burst your bubble :rolleyes:

Martina1991

Martina1991 wrote: »

Peddling what.

That asymptomatic spread occurs.

Here's what the CDC found.
A study using a decision analytical model estimated that more than half of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections were likely transmitted by individuals not presenting with symptoms
https://www.infectiousdiseaseadvisor.com/home/topics/covid19/cdc-determines-at-least-half-of-coronavirus-infections-transmitted-by-asymptomatic-individuals/

You only have to follow the links in the "evidence" you provide to see people querying the validity of the base assumptions made which lead to the claims by the Authors that pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects spread covid by wildfire. Try again.

Martina1991

Deleted User wrote: »

You only have to follow the links in the "evidence" you provide to see people querying the validity of the base assumptions made which lead to the claims by the Authors that pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects spread covid by wildfire. Try again.

I'm not trying anything.

I haven't said asymptomatic spread causes cases to spread like wildfire or become Typhoid Marys.

I'm saying asymptomatic spread occurs, and has been a significant proportion of cases. It cannot be minimised or dismissed as being unimportant that antigen tests miss these people.

Home page on RTE this morning.

Nothing but never ending covid fear porn



https://www.rte.ie/


And the news page also has never ending covid gloom

https://www.rte.ie/news/

Surely the covid only page has nothing but fear mongering given what we are being told here
https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/

Klonker

Martina1991 wrote: »

Asymptomatic cases can still spread the virus. Those asymptomatic people could also go on to develop symptoms and be at the beginning of their infection.

25% of cases are asymptomatic. That was back in march anyway. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/health/one-in-four-now-testing-positive-for-covid-19-are-asymptomatic-1.4508650%3fmode=amp

The fact that it missed half of the asymptomatic infected cases and still missed 20% of the highly infectious cases is a poor result.

It also stated there that these participants self swabbed but were supervised and the test was performed by professionals.

The performance would likely be worse if participants had done the test themselves from start to finish unsupervised.

That 50% of asymptomatic cases missed is when compared to the PCR. We know that the PCR is over sensitive and people can still show up positive for weeks and even months after they've had covid and have long recovered from. But the study is being presented like the PCR is 100% accurate and basing the antigen testing off of that. Its misleading and inaccurate.

Take the walk in centres here a few weeks back, some were having positivity rates of about 4%. If they were only picking up people who currently had covid, let's be generous here and say you have covid for 14 days, if we took that on a nationwide basis, we'd have about 200,000 infectious people in Ireland at any one time and over 14,000 people tested positive a day. Does anyone really think this is accurate? I think there is a fundamental underlying question on PCR v antigen testing. Are you happy to put a lot of people who are not infectious in isolation just so you can make sure all infectious people are isolated (PCR) or are you happy that you may miss a few infectious cases but you won't be needlessly isolating non infectious or recently recovered cases (antigen)? One is the more cautious approach so Ireland is obviously going to go with that one.

I don't know why Ireland need to do tests on PCR or antigen efficiency anyway, surely there are loads of international studies with larger case studies done already that we can use.

Klonker

Klonker wrote: »

That 50% of asymptomatic cases missed is when compared to the PCR. We know that the PCR is over sensitive and people can still show up positive for weeks and even months after they've had covid and have long recovered from. But the study is being presented like the PCR is 100% accurate and basing the antigen testing off of that. Its misleading and inaccurate.

Take the walk in centres here a few weeks back, some were having positivity rates of about 4%. If they were only picking up people who currently had covid, let's be generous here and say you have covid for 14 days, if we took that on a nationwide basis, we'd have about 200,000 infectious people in Ireland at any one time and over 14,000 people tested positive a day. Does anyone really think this is accurate? I think there is a fundamental underlying question on PCR v antigen testing. Are you happy to put a lot of people who are not infectious in isolation just so you can make sure all infectious people are isolated (PCR) or are you happy that you may miss a few infectious cases but you won't be needlessly isolating non infectious or recently recovered cases (antigen)? One is the more cautious approach so Ireland is obviously going to go with that one.

I don't know why Ireland need to do tests on PCR or antigen efficiency anyway, surely there are loads of international studies with larger case studies done already that we can use.

Your maths might make sense if those attending walk in centre were representative of the country as a whole. They were not. There were by and large people who thought they may have covid like symptoms or people who thought they may have been exposed to someone with covid but were not identified through contact tracing

bucketybuck

Deleted User wrote: »

Home page on RTE this morning.

Nothing but never ending covid fear porn

Thats just sad.

After 16 months you find one morning in June 2021 where Covid isn't the top story and present it like some sort of gotcha to the masses.

Give yourself some internet points there, you're doing good work.

Klonker

Deleted User wrote: »

Your maths might make sense if those attending walk in centre were representative of the country as a whole. They were not. There were by and large people who thought they may have covid like symptoms or people who thought they may have been exposed to someone with covid but were not identified through contact tracing

I knew there'd be someone going to make these points. Yes people like you outlined did attend but so did just regular members of the public. A lot of people who had symptoms or were close contacts were already getting tested through the normal HSE testing centres. The most careless, least likely to follow covid restrictions in society are also the most likely to catch covid and are also very unlikely to volunteer to go to a walk in test centre. My figures were also generous in estimating an infectious period of 14 days when in reality its closer to 7 days.

They are very rough figures I'm presenting but let's not kid ourselves that PCR positive cases gives a good reflection of infectious cases and they should not be the measure that antigen tests are measured against.

bucketybuck

bucketybuck wrote: »

Thats just sad.

After 16 months you find one morning in June 2021 where Covid isn't the top story and present it like some sort of gotcha to the masses.

Give yourself some internet points there, you're doing good work.

We have had never ending frothing for 24 hours here about RTE peddling covid hysteria, yet the very next morning not only is it not the top story, there is barely a mention on the entire home page.

Anything negative triggers a level of vitriol and outright unhealthy rage not at all in proportion the the level at which it actually exists.

TheDoctor

Deleted User wrote: »

Home page on RTE this morning.

Nothing but never ending covid fear porn



https://www.rte.ie/


And the news page also has never ending covid gloom

https://www.rte.ie/news/

Surely the covid only page has nothing but fear mongering given what we are being told here
https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/

"Variants increasing ability to dodge vaccines - Scally"

There you go. Didn't take any effort to find.

Klonker

Klonker wrote: »

I knew there'd be someone going to make these points. Yes people like you outlined did attend but so did just regular members of the public. A lot of people who had symptoms or were close contacts were already getting tested through the normal HSE testing centres. The most careless, least likely to follow covid restrictions in society are also the most likely to catch covid and are also very unlikely to volunteer to go to a walk in test centre. My figures were also generous in estimating an infectious period of 14 days when in reality its closer to 7 days.

They are very rough figures I'm presenting but let's not kid ourselves that PCR positive cases gives a good reflection of infectious cases and they should not be the measure that antigen tests are measured against.

I know not one single person who walked into a covid test centre just for the craic like. People didn't want to ring GP's /found out Mary had covid and sure didn't she call for tea last week / Johnny was out partying and didn't want to tell the contact tracers but gave the lads the heads up. Plus the initial centres were setup in areas with high incidence rates already. Now, people with symptoms are being sent to walk in centres without referral

TheDoctor

TheDoctor wrote: »

"Variants increasing ability to dodge vaccines - Scally"

There you go. Didn't take any effort to find.

Are the stories like magnets that draw the eyes to one type only?

I never said there were no negative stories on the covid page, I said, based on what you read here, you would expect nothing but fear mongering. Are only positive stories now permitted?

How about taking a look at what BBC say
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/coronavirus

Or NBC
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/coronavirus

How about German news
https://www.tagesschau.de/

Or maybe its those who believe anything negative at all is part of some relentless campaign of terror who are out of touch

Klonker

Deleted User wrote: »

I know not one single person who walked into a covid test centre just for the craic like. People didn't want to ring GP's /found out Mary had covid and sure didn't she call for tea last week / Johnny was out partying and didn't want to tell the contact tracers but gave the lads the heads up. Plus the initial centres were setup in areas with high incidence rates already. Now, people with symptoms are being sent to walk in centres without referral

You may not have known one person that did it but that does not mean it didn't happen. A lot of people may have just gone for a bit of peace of mind. Yes they were set up in places of high incidence rates but they weren't massively higher rates than the national average.

Anyway, international experts in the area like Michael Mina have stated that people can test positive on PCR tests months after infection and I'm sure they proof of such things. RTE had articles of people getting stuck abroad as they kept testing positive on PCR tests weeks after original infection. My original point that comparing antigen tests to PCR tests to show how good they are at picking up infections is not a good comparison ar we know that PCR tests are over sensitive.

JRant

Klonker wrote: »

You may not have known one person that did it but that does not mean it didn't happen. A lot of people may have just gone for a bit of peace of mind. Yes they were set up in places of high incidence rates but they weren't massively higher rates than the national average.

Anyway, international experts in the area like Michael Mina have stated that people can test positive on PCR tests months after infection and I'm sure they proof of such things. RTE had articles of people getting stuck abroad as they kept testing positive on PCR tests weeks after original infection. My original point that comparing antigen tests to PCR tests to show how good they are at picking up infections is not a good comparison ar we know that PCR tests are over sensitive.

The guidelines here say that you should wait at least 3 months after testing positive and recovering before another PCR test should be administered. That's how sensitive those tests are.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Your maths might make sense if those attending walk in centre were representative of the country as a whole. They were not. There were by and large people who thought they may have covid like symptoms or people who thought they may have been exposed to someone with covid but were not identified through contact tracing

That is not my opinion of the walk-in centre in Tullamore. PCR testing in a town with a high native ethnic population was always going to lead to high numbers of false positives from recovered infected people.

Klonker

JRant wrote: »

The guidelines here say that you should wait at least 3 months after testing positive and recovering before another PCR test should be administered. That's how sensitive those tests are.

Forgot about that. Very good point that further demonstrates the over sensitivity of the PCR test. Don't expect a rebute of that here or by Tony Holohan in front of the committee either.

Klonker

Klonker wrote: »

You may not have known one person that did it but that does not mean it didn't happen. A lot of people may have just gone for a bit of peace of mind. Yes they were set up in places of high incidence rates but they weren't massively higher rates than the national average.

Anyway, international experts in the area like Michael Mina have stated that people can test positive on PCR tests months after infection and I'm sure they proof of such things. RTE had articles of people getting stuck abroad as they kept testing positive on PCR tests weeks after original infection. My original point that comparing antigen tests to PCR tests to show how good they are at picking up infections is not a good comparison ar we know that PCR tests are over sensitive.

You may need to familiarise yourself with the protocols that exist here for PCR tests.

Klonker

Klonker wrote: »

Forgot about that. Very good point that further demonstrates the over sensitivity of the PCR test. Don't expect a rebute of that here or by Tony Holohan in front of the committee either.

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.

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

Its always better to inform yourself of the facts before making wild assumptions

Probes

Klonker wrote: »

Forgot about that. Very good point that further demonstrates the over sensitivity of the PCR test. Don't expect a rebute of that here or by Tony Holohan in front of the committee either.

They aren't overly sensitive, they need to test people before they become symptomatic and spread the virus. Who cares if you can still test positive weeks later?

Probes

Probes wrote: »

They aren't overly sensitive, they need to test people before they become symptomatic and spread the virus. Who cares if you can still test positive weeks later?

When Society is locked down because of false positives from those who have recovered then it matters a huge amount.
When an expensive PCR test is justified by Government for entry to the Country due to flawed evidence that Antigen tests don't work well then it matters a huge amount.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

When Society is locked down because of false positives from those who have recovered then it matters a huge amount.
When an expensive PCR test is justified by Government for entry to the Country due to flawed evidence that Antigen tests don't work well then it matters a huge amount.

But this is not the case, at all. Just an continuation of a lie that has gone on for months now

bucketybuck

Probes wrote: »

Who cares if you can still test positive weeks later?

I imagine you would indeed care if you were prevented from travelling because you had covid 6 months ago and a PCR test was still picking that up.

Klonker

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Its always better to inform yourself of the facts before making wild assumptions

What wild assumptions did I make? I'm not talking about people who tested positive on a HSE test and then getting tested again by the HSE again through track and trace. Take your own advice and don't be jumping to wild assumptions.

Let's look at this very plausible example:
I get infected with covid but have no symptoms so never get tested. 2 months later through test and trace I'm identified as a close contact and tets positive. I don't currently have covid but I'm testing positive due to my previous covid infection 2 months earlier? My contacts would then be traced and they too could test positive for Covid infections from months ago.

Do you think this is a plausible situation? What is gained from me being isolated? Is this what you call accurate testing?

Klonker

Probes wrote: »

They aren't overly sensitive, they need to test people before they become symptomatic and spread the virus. Who cares if you can still test positive weeks later?

What if I was never tested at the time as had no symptoms then I was tested months later and had to needlessly isolate for 10 days, missing work, social events etc. My close contacts would also have to isolate until they were tested needlessly too. I'd certainly care especially when a quicker, cheaper, more accurate test could be used instead to identify infectious cases.

Klonker

Klonker wrote: »

What wild assumptions did I make? I'm not talking about people who tested positive on a HSE test and then getting tested again by the HSE again through track and trace. Take your own advice and don't be jumping to wild assumptions.

Let's look at this very plausible example:
I get infected with covid but have no symptoms so never get tested. 2 months later through test and trace I'm identified as a close contact and tets positive. I don't currently have covid but I'm testing positive due to my previous covid infection 2 months earlier? My contacts would then be traced and they too could test positive for Covid infections from months ago.

Do you think this is a plausible situation? What is gained from me being isolated? Is this what you call accurate testing?

Read the guidance. Its covered

Probes

Klonker wrote: »

What if I was never tested at the time as had no symptoms then I was tested months later and had to needlessly isolate for 10 days, missing work, social events etc. My close contacts would also have to isolate until they were tested needlessly too. I'd certainly care especially when a quicker, cheaper, more accurate test could be used instead to identify infectious cases.

Boohoo mate, the greater good is that people don't die from the virus. Take your 10 days like everyone else.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

But this is not the case, at all. Just an continuation of a lie that has gone on for months now

It isn't a lie.

Probes

bucketybuck wrote: »

I imagine you would indeed care if you were prevented from travelling because you had covid 6 months ago and a PCR test was still picking that up.

That would be an edge case indeed, are there actually any examples of this happening?

Probes

Probes wrote: »

Boohoo mate, the greater good is that people don't die from the virus. Take your 10 days like everyone else.

Having lost co-workers to the hysteria rather than the virus I find your posting to be very offensive.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

It isn't a lie.

Yes it is. Lockdowns were put in place because of actual sick people, and had absolutely nothing to do with false positives.

Just because tests can result in detection of dead virus, does not mean it does always, or even often.

Down to 7% at 14 days post discharge in this study
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-68782-w