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

bucketybuck

Probes wrote: »

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

So first it was "Who cares" and now it is "Thats just an edge case". I can see where this is going.

Deleted User

Yes it is

Once again, no it isn't. Stop being childish and contribute productively.

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Show me the methodology by which a PCR test can discern between a dead and live virus sample in the nasal passages and throat. The PCR test will amplify whatever traces of virus it finds.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Once again, no it isn't. Stop being childish and contribute productively.

Show me the methodology by which a PCR test can discern between a dead and live virus sample in the nasal passages and throat. The PCR test will amplify whatever traces of virus it finds.

I linked a study that shows detection drops to 7% at 14 days post infection. I linked the multiple controls on reporting of positives associated with low viral load / high CT in the case of asymptomatic people / previous infection.

Probes

bucketybuck wrote: »

So first it was "Who cares" and now it is "Thats just an edge case". I can see where this is going.

Sorry, did you have an example or not?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I linked a study that shows detection drops to 7% at 14 days post infection. I linked the multiple controls on reporting of positives associated with low viral load / high CT in the case of asymptomatic people / previous infection.

Busy. is it peer reviewed?

podgeandrodge

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.

Deleted User wrote: »

You keep peddling this line and the fact remains that asymptomatic subjects generally aren't shedding virus. You present them like they're modern day Typhoid Marys.

Martina1991 wrote: »

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.

There had been a big prevalence study in Wuhan (if it can be believed ) that found no evidence of asymtomatic transmission.

A BMJ article I read said that "the duration of viral RNA shedding (interval between first and last positive PCR result for any sample) is shorter in people who remain asymptomatic, so they are probably less infectious than people who develop symptoms".

Recently, the UK Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies’ recommended that “Prioritising rapid testing of symptomatic people is likely to have a greater impact on identifying positive cases and reducing transmission than frequent testing of asymptomatic people in an outbreak area"

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

What's your point?

Let's assume you have a point. Whether they are infected or recently infectious, the PCR tests still demonstrate whether there is low or high presence of virus.

For instance, when there was 8,000 positive cases a day in January, this translated into 2,000 patients at the peak.

Where were you at the time arguing, "Well, PCR tests are unreliable because of the likelihood of false positives in certain communities, therefore the statistics are misleading and we shouldn't lock down".

You didn't say that then, because you would have looked stupid.

I think you can see where I'm going here, so I'll stop now.

Finding Dinosaur bone fossils isn't evidence that there are Dinosaurs roaming the land.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Finding Dinosaur bone fossils isn't evidence that there are Dinosaurs roaming the land.

Logical, sensible, reasoned, and well-thought out response to my point. :rolleyes:

eskimohunt

eskimohunt wrote: »

Logical, sensible, reasoned, and well-thought out response to my point. :rolleyes:

It is logical and sensible. If you are searching for artefacts that something existed then you can find evidence of it having existed. If you are searching for proof something exists then stop looking for artefacts.
In work at the moment I've got people mailing me about things which happened in 2017 and I'm replying to them that yes I confirm that was the case that it happened in 2017 but they are making a leap by assuming that that is what is causing the problem today in 2021.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

It is logical and sensible. If you are searching for artefacts that something existed then you can find evidence of it having existed. If you are searching for proof something exists then stop looking for artefacts.
In work at the moment I've got people mailing me about things which happened in 2017 and I'm replying to them that yes I confirm that was the case that it happened in 2017 but they are making a leap by assuming that that is what is causing the problem today in 2021.

Can you respond to my point, and not resort to some internal monologue.

Would it be fair to assume that the 8,000+ positive daily cases in January was indicative of high prevalence of infection in the community? Are you suggesting that the vast majority are just false positives?

Note that this translated into roughly the number of expected hospitalizations and deaths.

For instance, when there was 8,000 positive cases a day in January, this translated into 2,000 patients at the peak.

So whilst nobody would argue that false positives do crop up given the nature of PCR testing (and the number of cycles used), it in no way supplies evidence to the extreme conclusion that somehow PCR testing is itself an unreliable method of virus detection.

Part of me is coming to the conclusion that you do not really believe what you are saying.

eskimohunt

eskimohunt wrote: »

not resort to some internal monologue.

Why would I wish to engage with an obnoxious person like you?

Deeper Blue

[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/

That's one day.

Have a look at the previous 500 and come back to me.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Busy. is it peer reviewed?

Yes.

As is this one.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-75629-x
Note the chart below where positive is defined as CT over 37. Also note that the HSPC defines a CT of 30 as being weak positive, where an asymptomatic individual will not be reported as positive or contact traced.

Deeper Blue

Deeper Blue wrote: »

That's one day.

Have a look at the previous 500 and come back to me.

The day after a collective sh*t attack here about RTE fear mongering. Surely if it was that bad it would still be reflected there the very next morning

Deeper Blue

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The day after a collective sh*t attack here about RTE fear mongering. Surely if it was that bad it would still be reflected there the very next morning

At this stage I'm just assuming you're an RTE employee.

At least I hope you are because there's no other reason why someone would post such blinkered idiotic nonsense.

Deeper Blue

Deeper Blue wrote: »

At this stage I'm just assuming you're an RTE employee.

At least I hope you are because there's no other reason why someone would post such blinkered idiotic nonsense.

Nah mate. Just can’t let the “blame the messenger” schtik lie just because they only want to hear happy thoughts. Things are good and getting better. Does not mean we should not listen to potential warnings. I ignore most of them as there is little new on offer, but in fairness there was reason to be cautious about the delta variant. The data is now telling us, get those second doses out and it will be grand. Doesn’t mean it should be ignored

bucketybuck

Deeper Blue wrote: »

At this stage I'm just assuming you're an RTE employee.

At least I hope you are because there's no other reason why someone would post such blinkered idiotic nonsense.

Picking one single point in time and pretending that it disproves a wider issue is just unreal, its crazy that it even needs to be pointed out.

Tenger

[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/

There is a wonderful thing called the "off button" If RTE triggers you so much then stop looking at it.

I disconnected my TV years ago. Don't watch
RTE or read its website. (apart from the Toy Show with the kids) I get my news from multiple online sources. And I decide when I want to rwad the bad news, which invariably fills up news coverage.
Its the nature of the business.

eagle eye

Deleted User wrote:

Home page on RTE this morning.

How long are you banging this drum?
Clearly you don't like it so why keep visiting the site or listening to their news?

Ficheall

eagle eye wrote: »

How long are you banging this drum?
Clearly you don't like it so why keep visiting the site or listening to their news?

Think you may have quoted the wrong poster there, e_e.
raind isn't one of the ones who are painfully glued to RTE.

Klonker

RTE are our national broadcaster and whether some of us like it or not they are very influential. For a lot of the nation, particular in the more elderly, it's likely their only source of news and information.

Now you would think the national broadcaster in the EU country with highest vaccine take up in the elderly groups and the lowest average age of population would have regular experts or their own journalists on their shows to question against the need for such harsh restrictions but you'd be wrong. You'd be numerous times more likely to have people on the airwaves looking for even more harsh restrictions to be implemented here than against. I think it's reasonable for posters here to highlight and question this.

bucketybuck

Klonker wrote: »

I think it's reasonable for posters here to highlight and question this.

No, because early this morning Covid was not the headline on the website.

(It is right this very minute, but thats different because of reasons)

ginoginelli

eagle eye wrote: »

How long are you banging this drum?
Clearly you don't like it so why keep visiting the site or listening to their news?

Him and his ilk cant help themselves. It's their misery porn and they're hoplessly addicted.

They spend their day scouring the web for any scrap of negative news and then fervently post it here and moan orgasmically..

It's a bizarre paradox these poor souls are living.

Arghus

ginoginelli wrote: »

Him and his ilk cant help themselves. It's their misery porn and they're hoplessly addicted.

They spend their day scouring the web for any scrap of negative news and then fervently post it here and moan orgasmically..

It's a bizarre paradox these poor souls are living.

The poster is actually pointing out the opposite to that. That things aren't actually all bad. You guys agree with each other!

Three or four posters in a row there have missed the point of what Raind is trying to say.

Martina1991

https://twitter.com/stapalato/status/1404502055172050945?s=19

A thread with a little more detail from the hse antigen test working group.

"TL:DR - PCR remains the gold standard for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Missing virus present at low levels, as antigen tests often do, can miss seriously ill, infectious, or pre-infectious individuals. Performance in real world significantly differs from manufacturers data. "

"In meat processing plants, antigen test sensitivity was 51.9% compared with PCR. Looking at asymptomatic individuals with Ct values <=30 (equating to substantial viral load), test sensitivity of 68.9% did not meet WHO acceptiblity criteria (≥80% sensitivity)"

PCR always be the method others are compared to because it is the gold standard. New methods will always be compared to the gold standard. That is the most accurate way of measuring an analyte.

The downfall of PCR is that its "too sensitive ". There are procedures and protocols in place to reduce these incidences, yet the line of false positives being a significant factor in cases and prolonging restrictions is still trotted out. Its not true.

Here are findings that asymptomatic people in meant palnts with high viral loads were missed by antigen tests.

People and "experts" can debate til the cows come home. Its not going to change the results that people don't want to hear. There's the data. There's the findings. This is why decisions and policy are based on real world scientific data.

Arghus

Arghus wrote: »

The poster is actually pointing out the opposite to that. That things aren't actually all bad. You guys agree with each other!

Three or four posters in a row there have missed the point of what Raind is trying to say.

What Arghus said.

Both those who are offended by every single bit of news that does not focus on the positive and those who are offended by anyone looking at anything with a positive slant need to stand back and look at where we are with just a smidgen of objectivity

Martina1991

Martina1991 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/stapalato/status/1404502055172050945?s=19

A thread with a little more detail from the hse antigen test working group.

"TL:DR - PCR remains the gold standard for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Missing virus present at low levels, as antigen tests often do, can miss seriously ill, infectious, or pre-infectious individuals. Performance in real world significantly differs from manufacturers data. "

"In meat processing plants, antigen test sensitivity was 51.9% compared with PCR. Looking at asymptomatic individuals with Ct values <=30 (equating to substantial viral load), test sensitivity of 68.9% did not meet WHO acceptiblity criteria (≥80% sensitivity)"

PCR always be the method others are compared to because it is the gold standard. New methods will always be compared to the gold standard. That is the most accurate way of measuring an analyte.

The downfall of PCR is that its "too sensitive ". There are procedures and protocols in place to reduce these incidences, yet the line of false positives being a significant factor in cases and prolonging restrictions is still trotted out. Its not true.

Here are findings that asymptomatic people in meant palnts with high viral loads were missed by antigen tests.

People and "experts" can debate til the cows come home. Its not going to change the results that people don't want to hear. There's the data. There's the findings. This is why decisions and policy are based on real world scientific data.

I fear this “debate” will continue to circulate as some refuse to listen

hmmm

Martina1991 wrote: »

People and "experts" can debate til the cows come home. Its not going to change the results that people don't want to hear. There's the data. There's the findings. This is why decisions and policy are based on real world scientific data.

I'm not qualified to comment on the science, but how are multiple other countries using antigen tests while Ireland appears to be an outlier?

I notice that the Germans appear to be using these tests in places where you wouldn't normally be tested e.g. gyms, restaurants - what's wrong with that? Worst case they miss a positive case (which would have been missed anyway), best case they detect some cases.

AdamD

Deleted User wrote: »

I fear this “debate” will continue to circulate as some refuse to listen

I'm not going to debate the scientific data because I'm not a scientist but is it not pretty clear that scientists in other countries have come to a different conclusion regarding PCR tests than ours? So its hardly a clear cut debate.