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

gozunda

Timmy O Toole wrote: »

70,000 spectators at an indoor event in Texas this morning, not a mask to be seen. No negative test or proof of vax needed.

Texas atm ...

Slightly over 50 percent of the state’s population over the age of 16 — about 11.3 million people have been vaccinated for COVID-19 with one dose and 37 percent have been fully vaccinated.

So at similar levels of vaccinations to the UK, Israel etc for opening up

Stormyteacup

Ficheall wrote: »

The 70% of people who then have covid and think and act like they don't.

But if antigen testing was being used by people who have no symptoms (which is a simple message to convey), then by your logic without the testing 100% of those people would have covid and think and act like they don’t.

It’s a quick and cheap tool. Personally I think they should be freely available and administered by someone trained, but in absence of that, once an explanation for their use is clear, then there really are no drawbacks I can see.

is_that_so

Stormyteacup wrote: »

It’s a quick and cheap tool. Personally I think they should be freely available and administered by someone trained, but in absence of that, once an explanation for their use is clear, then there really are no drawbacks I can see.

There's nothing preventing anyone using them just a question of trusting what they might say to you!

prunudo

wadacrack wrote: »

Even Gerry Killeen now believes the "end is in sight" inspit os fueling panic the last few weeks.

https://twitter.com/killeen_gerry/status/1391376665629102085

I'm lost for words, the sooner these self serving experts crawl back under the rocks they came from the better.

Dank Janniels

This is probably overthinking too much but the "snake oil comment" was probably his response to the fact Lidl were advertising charcoal, sausages and the testing kit together. As in invite everyone over for a BBQ and sure take the test and see if you have the virus, and as a leading health official in the country he is critical of people disregarding the advice.
Like is it not abit peculiar a budget supermarket selling them? Do chemists sell them? Why is there not a promotional campaign on how to use them?

is_that_so

wadacrack wrote: »

Even Gerry Killeen now believes the "end is in sight" in spite of fuelling panic the last few weeks.

https://twitter.com/killeen_gerry/status/1391376665629102085

Speaking of GAVI and COVAX some thoughts on the EU's next moves with the surplus.

Within a matter of months, supply of vaccines around the EU is set to outstrip demand. It’s a sudden reversal from the halting vaccinations and uneven delivery schedules of the past few months. That means “Team Europe” is set to start diverting doses to less fortunate countries.

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-europe-excess-coronavirus-vaccine-doses/

Stormyteacup

is_that_so wrote: »

There's nothing preventing anyone using them just a question of trusting what they might say to you!

I can understand the worry about people not following regulations/advice (and tbf we’ve been bombarded with stories in the media pointing at various groups flouting restrictions since this started).

But in this instance, consider who is using an antigen test? It’s voluntary and you’ve spent money on it - it’s likely you’re a conscientious person, and a positive result would lead to your changing your plans.

Maybe you do want to put your mind at ease ahead of meeting up with someone, but if you were never going to take a PCR ahead of your visit and your welcome to place of visit with or without test, what is the harm of catching a few more positive cases?

If these were widely available with clear instructions on use, there would be cases caught in the multiples of what’s been caught in MHQ.

lawred2

gozunda wrote: »

Simply asked several times now. This is your original comment and subsequent posts

Where are you getting this from?







So again whats your source for the allegation or is it just made up ?

Of course it was f*cking "made up". Jesus Christ. It was a trite quip..

"Allegation"

You think you're running your own court of law here or what!?

Ficheall

Stormyteacup wrote: »

by your logic without the testing 100% of those people would have covid and think and act like they don’t.

No... by my logic, 100% of those people would think and act like they didn't know whether they had covid or not.

lawred2

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Quite bizarre comment

No truck with public health officials referring to widely used antigen tests as "snake oil" no?

lawred2

Stormyteacup wrote: »

I can understand the worry about people not following regulations/advice (and tbf we’ve been bombarded with stories in the media pointing at various groups flouting restrictions since this started).

But in this instance, consider who is using an antigen test? It’s voluntary and you’ve spent money on it - it’s likely you’re a conscientious person, and a positive result would lead to your changing your plans.

Maybe you do want to put your mind at ease ahead of meeting up with someone, but if you were never going to take a PCR ahead of your visit and your welcome to place of visit with or without test, what is the harm of catching a few more positive cases?

If these were widely available with clear instructions on use, there would be cases caught in the multiples of what’s been caught in MHQ.

No, quite clearly you are a fool who is to be derided and degraded by all your betters.

Ficheall

lawred2 wrote: »

Of course it was f*cking "made up". Jesus Christ. It was a trite quip..

Trite, sure, but "quip" implies wit.


Your remark was just a dishonest swipe attempting to undermine.

lawred2

Ficheall wrote: »

Trite, sure, but "quip" implies wit.


Your remark was just a dishonest swipe attempting to undermine.

another heroic defender of virtue

personally I'm struggling to understand why a public health official would have such a toxic and acerbic reaction to the sale of antigen test kits.

maybe it was a lidl thing..

daydorunrun

gozunda wrote: »

"Ah come on" is a persuasive argument is it? Ok ...

But yes supermarkets and their advertising is supposed to be held to strict standards. Odd some don't seem to be pointing that out. But no matter.

Sorry if the use of common parlance offends you, didn’t realise this was a professional debating forum.

I used that phrase as when I post I’m aware it’s my opinion and not necessarily fact- everything you post is presented (like a few others here) as fact.

is_that_so

lawred2 wrote: »

another heroic defender of virtue

personally I'm struggling to understand why a public health official would have such a toxic and acerbic reaction to the sale of antigen test kits.

maybe it was a lidl thing..

Not seeing any of this in this quote from him. All concern and fear as usual!

He said such tests only have a role to play in "strictly controlled circumstances" where the result is not going to lead to "inappropriate reassurance".

The CMO added that he was "really concerned" that people would feel safe [after getting a negative Covid result using these tests] when they may not be.

He feared they might then undertake activities "they should not be [undertaking] and put people at risk".

The concern was that someone could buy a pound of sausages, charcoal for a barbeque and an antigen test and think "great - [now we] don't have to follow restrictions," Dr Holohan said.

is_that_so

Two further deaths, 514 new cases

is_that_so

Hospital numbers can be very static at weekends but 31 in ICU is terrific to see , with no new ICU admissions.

gozunda

lawred2 wrote: »

Of course it was f*cking "made up". Jesus Christ. It was a trite quip.."Allegation" You think you're running your own court of law here or what!?

Another 'quip' - I see. Post a comment about "vested interest" in relation to a public figure . Make a series of smart 'quips when asked for a source. Then throw an indignant reply. Get it.

Last time I checked the (non legal) definition of word "allegation" is the 1. "act of alleging something. 2. a positive assertion especially of misconduct.

Think we can leave that there then ...

Jim_Hodge

lawred2 wrote: »

Probably half pissed while entertaining...

Restrictions are only for the plebs

lawred2 wrote: »

No truck with public health officials referring to widely used antigen tests as "snake oil" no?

It was another trite comment and an allegation that you used to undermine the man. And not the first time you've done so. You've sniped at him rather than actually discuss what has you so riled.

Neither this nor the suggestion he had vested interests were humorous or went any way towards a proper comment on his statement.

Maybe had you discussed the 'truck' you have with it it would have been more worthwhile.

gozunda

daydorunrun wrote: »

Sorry if the use of common parlance offends you, did realise this was a professional debating forum.

I used that phrase as when I post I’m aware it’s my opinion and not necessarily fact- everything you post is presented (like a few others here) as fact.

Nope. No funnily enough not offended at all. Just the "ah come on" made no sense in context of the comment and the discussion tbf.

Martina1991

K

lawred2 wrote: »

another heroic defender of virtue

personally I'm struggling to understand why a public health official would have such a toxic and acerbic reaction to the sale of antigen test kits.

maybe it was a lidl thing..

Replace the word antigen with HIV, influenza, hepatitis, glucose, thyroid etc etc.

IVDs shouldn't be in the hands of the public and on sale in supermarkets. Its dangerous.

Baggly

lawred2 wrote: »

No, quite clearly you are a fool who is to be derided and degraded by all your betters.

Mod

Threadbanned.

Boggerman12

is_that_so wrote: »

Two further deaths, 514 new cases

5th way on the way!

Stormyteacup

lawred2 wrote: »

No, quite clearly you are a fool who is to be derided and degraded by all your betters.

It really is frustrating that some have so little faith in the majority to do the right thing. The minority will always exist, it’s why we have a police service and prisons.

Moreso when it’s those that are dictating policy that have decided we will all loose the run of ourselves given some personal responsibility.

Stormyteacup

Martina1991 wrote: »

K
Replace the word antigen with HIV, influenza, hepatitis, glucose, thyroid etc etc.

IVDs shouldn't be in the hands of the public and on sale in supermarkets. Its dangerous.

But if it was marketed as an illness indicating tool, like a thermometer or a blood pressure/oxygen monitor, glucose test, home STI kit or DNA kit and explained it’s not for use by anyone with symptoms and that the false negative rate is high, why is it such a bad idea?

As it is now, it costs the government nothing and could potentially catch some cases that wouldn’t have otherwise been caught.

Ficheall

Stormyteacup wrote: »

But if it was marketed as an illness indicating tool, like a thermometer or a blood pressure/oxygen monitor, glucose test, home STI kit or DNA kit and explained it’s not for use by anyone with symptoms and that the false negative rate is high, why is it such a bad idea?

Would you also include the recommendation that anyone with a negative result then get a more reliable test?

Lumen

Stormyteacup wrote: »

But if it was marketed as an illness indicating tool, like a thermometer or a blood pressure/oxygen monitor, glucose test, home STI kit or DNA kit and explained it’s not for use by anyone with symptoms and that the false negative rate is high, why is it such a bad idea?

I bet if you asked 100 people on the street to explain their understanding of "false positive rate" you get a success rate of about 10%, and that would include a load of false positives from people guessing.

What you want from a quick, cheap test like this is zero or very low false negatives. False positives aren't a problem - you can just refer people who test positive for a PCR test to confirm. Nobody is going to bother confirming a negative result.

Martina1991

Stormyteacup wrote: »

But if it was marketed as an illness indicating tool, like a thermometer or a blood pressure/oxygen monitor, glucose test, home STI kit or DNA kit and explained it’s not for use by anyone with symptoms and that the false negative rate is high, why is it such a bad idea?

As it is now, it costs the government nothing and could potentially catch some cases that wouldn’t have otherwise been caught.

If it was marketed saying this device is not for use on people with covid symptoms and not very good for those without symptoms, that wouldn't sound very appealing. I don't think supermarkets should be selling unapproved medical devices.


A supermarket is selling a diagnostic test for an infectious virus that people are doing it themselves.

It hasn't been approved by the HSE or the government for use and people are wondering why health officials are concerned.

podgeandrodge

Martina1991 wrote: »

K
Replace the word antigen with HIV, influenza, hepatitis, glucose, thyroid etc etc.

IVDs shouldn't be in the hands of the public and on sale in supermarkets. Its dangerous.

How are they "dangerous"? Why have other countries allowed (and encouraged) the sale of them? Or have I misunderstood? US FDA rolled them out for home use?

Stormyteacup

Lumen wrote: »

I bet if you asked 100 people on the street to explain their understanding of "false positive rate" you get a success rate of about 10%, and that would include a load of false positives from people guessing.

What you want from a quick, cheap test like this is zero or very low false negatives. False positives aren't a problem - you can just refer people who test positive for a PCR test to confirm. Nobody is going to bother confirming a negative result.

Ideally yes, and false positives are not a problem obviously.

I think you’re doing the general public a disservice by assuming a lack of understanding re false negatives. But even if that proved to be true - it’s easy to explain to people the only result of the test that matters is a positive one (assuming having no symptoms when taking the test is also clear).

If you get a negative result = continue as you are regarding precautions, but positive result = further action necessary.