When will this shit end?

[Crazyfool01]

Sadly we have passed the 50,000 deaths number today ..... not something we need to forget ...... each one of those has family that  have been impacted by this horrible bloody virus ... amongst the good news over the past few days its worth taking time out to think about them .... RIP 

[Crazyfool01]

5 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

You’ve learnt how to do it 😝

595 deaths is a sobering number. 

Probably next week we’d expect to see benefits. 

not quite there yet .... need to work out how to screenshot the page and not the entire screen  

[Chapple12345]

8 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

so when do we think the national lockdown effect will start showing a reduction in cases added to the tiers ?  2 weeks after ?

I think cases are currently in plateau and they haven't skyrocketed as far as France (been consistent 20000-26000 for a while now) so hopefully end of this week/start of next we'll see the benefits but hopefully the tiers have started doing their role in the worst effected areas 

[Ozanne]

5 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

not quite there yet .... need to work out how to screenshot the page and not the entire screen  

Shift, command and 4 will do it. 

[Crazyfool01]

1 minute ago, Chapple12345 said:

I think cases are currently in plateau and they haven't skyrocketed as far as France (been consistent 20000-26000 for a while now) so hopefully end of this week/start of next we'll see the benefits but hopefully the tiers have started doing their role in the worst effected areas 

yep the tiers seem to be working at the moment but we arent seeing any drop in numbers because of the added numbers from the south growing  from areas that were in lowest tiers before .... so we won't see any drops until the national lockdown starts to have an effect on the numbers .....the way I see it  its like a set of the old weighing scales ..... with North and south at the two ends 

[Crazyfool01]

2 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Shift, command and 4 will do it. 

Thanks  

[mikegday]

46 minutes ago, Copperface said:

Good news.......I think.

 

So putting them numbers into real life (think I’ve got my sums right)

False positives - For every 300 positive results, 1 will be incorrect if processed outside a lab (1 in every 2000 if processed in lab)

False negatives - For every 300 people with the virus, 69 will actually test negative (15 if the 300 all had high viral loads)

So it’s true you are much more likely to test negative falsely than testing positive falsely. Quite a worry that’s so many people with the virus would test negative??

[Copperface]

1 minute ago, mikegday said:

 

False negatives - For every 300 people with the virus, 69 will actually test negative (15 if the 300 all had high viral loads)

 

Blimey. Is that what it says? That's a bit worrying.

[zahidf]

4 minutes ago, mikegday said:

So putting them numbers into real life (think I’ve got my sums right)

False positives - For every 300 positive results, 1 will be incorrect if processed outside a lab (1 in every 2000 if processed in lab)

False negatives - For every 300 people with the virus, 69 will actually test negative (15 if the 300 all had high viral loads)

So it’s true you are much more likely to test negative falsely than testing positive falsely. Quite a worry that’s so many people with the virus would test negative??

I think the number of fasle negatives may be lower than that I would hope! But even if it is, its about reducing the disease not totally elimination.

[zahidf]

19 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

Howdy,

It's in the ballpark for rapid tests. While they are not as sensitive as PCR, the general feeling is that they are sensitive enough to identify infectious individuals, hence their greater utility for screening when things are opened up. The specificity is important as when case numbers are low, the more specific a test is, the fewer false positive it picks up (when case numbers are high, false negative are more the problem). 

Thanks!

[ShakeyCrash]

22 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

so when do we think the national lockdown effect will start showing a reduction in cases added to the tiers ?  2 weeks after ?

We (Wales) are starting to see the effects of it now. Also out of lockdown (still restrictions but we can see one other household etc), so nervous to see if Drakeford has played a blinder (cases come down and stay low till new year) or not (cases ramp back up)

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/health/clear-signs-wales-fire-break-19256373

 

[mikegday]

3 minutes ago, Copperface said:

Blimey. Is that what it says? That's a bit worrying.

Using that stat of 76.8% sensitivity. Though the 95% sensitivity if high viral load, is interesting. What’s the definition of high viral load? How many people with the virus, have a high viral load? I hope I’m wrong, because that false negative seems huge!

[parsonjack]

4 minutes ago, Copperface said:

Blimey. Is that what it says? That's a bit worrying.

23.2% of people with Covid will test as negative.

[Toilet Duck]

7 minutes ago, mikegday said:

So putting them numbers into real life (think I’ve got my sums right)

False positives - For every 300 positive results, 1 will be incorrect if processed outside a lab (1 in every 2000 if processed in lab)

False negatives - For every 300 people with the virus, 69 will actually test negative (15 if the 300 all had high viral loads)

So it’s true you are much more likely to test negative falsely than testing positive falsely. Quite a worry that’s so many people with the virus would test negative??

This is false negative according to a PCR test, however, many of those that get a positive PCR result may not be infectious (which is probably more useful to us at this stage). When case numbers are low, false negative results become less of an issue (false positives become the bigger problem). However, both false negatives and false positives can be reduced even further by taking more than one test. If they take 15 minutes and cost a few quid each, then we should be using them for more than a single snapshot of what infection levels look like at any given point in time. So, repeat testing drives those numbers of false results down considerably and make the tests very useful. 

[Crazyfool01]

5 minutes ago, ShakeyCrash said:

We (Wales) are starting to see the effects of it now. Also out of lockdown (still restrictions but we can see one other household etc), so nervous to see if Drakeford has played a blinder (cases come down and stay low till new year) or not (cases ramp back up)

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/health/clear-signs-wales-fire-break-19256373

 

hopefully the lockdowns / firebreaks act as some kind of reminder to people  ..... although im not so sure they will ... it seems like personal responsibility is low amongst those we need to be persuading to take a little more ... 

[efcfanwirral]

29 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

You’ve learnt how to do it 😝

595 deaths is a sobering number. 

Probably next week we’d expect to see benefits. 

Are those hospitalisation numbers levelling off or is there a data issue?

6 minutes ago, zahidf said:

I think the number of fasle negatives may be lower than that I would hope! But even if it is, its about reducing the disease not totally elimination.

I guess its a case of these tests would simply not happen if it wasn't for these new ones - so every one picked up by these is an improvement on where we were, and those false negatives would've been carrying on as normal anyway but those positive ones who isolate is a win?

Can argue "more risky behaviour" of the false negatives but that only logically leads to "lock down everyone forever" because we'll never get rid of it completely. 

[priest17]

Wow talk about a news story being perfect for a website

https://metalinjection.net/its-just-business/ticketmaster-will-require-fans-be-vaccinated-or-tested-within-72-hours-to-enter-shows?fbclid=IwAR0gHpLEqrG9lBjncEX6IuxRP2cTMnBlUUpqeieYOHuvOZqiR4N4uTsinzc

 

[SheffJeff]

39 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

not quite there yet .... need to work out how to screenshot the page and not the entire screen  

At least you'd not left any 'embarrassing' tabs open... thats always my fear.

[mikegday]

2 minutes ago, SheffJeff said:

At least you'd not left any 'embarrassing' tabs open... thats always my fear.

You’ve just reopened old wounds for me!

[steviewevie]

27 minutes ago, parsonjack said:

23.2% of people with Covid will test as negative.

Friend of mine had symptoms and took two tests, first was negative, second was positive.

[TGCarr]

 

[parsonjack]

32 minutes ago, priest17 said:

Wow talk about a news story being perfect for a website

https://metalinjection.net/its-just-business/ticketmaster-will-require-fans-be-vaccinated-or-tested-within-72-hours-to-enter-shows?fbclid=IwAR0gHpLEqrG9lBjncEX6IuxRP2cTMnBlUUpqeieYOHuvOZqiR4N4uTsinzc

 

The problem with this ref Glastonbury, and vaccinations aside, is the window of coverage for a test being shorter than the festival.  A negative test may be sufficient guarantee that you're not going to be infectious for 24-48 hours, but much less so for 5-6 days.

Edited November 11, 2020 by parsonjack

[zahidf]

1 hour ago, mikegday said:

Using that stat of 76.8% sensitivity. Though the 95% sensitivity if high viral load, is interesting. What’s the definition of high viral load? How many people with the virus, have a high viral load? I hope I’m wrong, because that false negative seems huge!

High viral load Insinuates its more infectious? So potentially the false negatives could be less infectious 

[JoeyT]

1 hour ago, TGCarr said:

 

You love to see it.

[Fuzzy Afro]

1 hour ago, TGCarr said: