Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[Todd_is_God]

An excellent thread about the 'issues' with rapid tests vs PCR tests, along the lines of what was being briefly discussed earlier.

This quote, from the NY Times article also stands out

"The researchers were also unable to grow the coronavirus out of samples from volunteers whose P.C.R. tests had C.T. values above 27. “If I don’t have live virus, I am not infectious at all,” Dr. Harris said."

In the UK we use a Ct of 45 to determine a case.

Edited November 5, 2020 by Todd_is_God

[beardy]

8 hours ago, Todd_is_God said:

In the UK we use a Ct of 45 to determine a case.

Is there any proof of this or is it just speculation?

[Todd_is_God]

29 minutes ago, beardy said:

Is there any proof of this or is it just speculation?

https://t.co/w5DV5PaZXd?amp=1

 

[beardy]

30 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

https://t.co/w5DV5PaZXd?amp=1

 

I get that they can test up to 45 cycles but that document states

Results where:  

• the Ct value is ≥ 40 and/or

• there is an abnormal assay curve and/or

• the clinical context makes the positive result highly unexpected

should be considered interim or held until reviewed by a laboratory clinician. Laboratories will undertake the following actions: 

 

This says to me that they have a threshold below 40 and double check those above 40.

 

[Bairnardo]

Sorry stopped reading at mental health strategy.   Its a shambles.  
Now in the real world today I had to deal with more mental health patients that wait for it, yet again had been failed by mental health services, (not their fault, they don't have staff) local authority council services etc etc.
In the real world, the word salad pish coming from SG etc just doesn't work.
Unless you spend money on training properly qualified staff and empower them to do their jobs properly then you're pissing against the wind.
If i refer an under 18 to mental health services it takes 9 months to be seen.  If I refer an adult urgently it takes 8 weeks at best, that's where we are mental health care wise in this country.  Its quite frankly a bloody joke.
And if you want to talk about addictions then let's discuss the SG's Road to Recovery that has given us one of the worst results in the western world.

Just to go back to the point I was making about "lip service" the other night. INO the reason they do this is to distract from what you have already pointed out... The service is broken beyond repair and 15 million is farting against thunder.

The best and correct way to alleviate mental health issues is at source. The same as in risk assessment 101. This thing we want to do will cause damage to peoples mental health. The very first question that needs asked is, do we absolutely need to do the thing.

Now in the case of covid, by f**k that's a hard balance to strike. But I bet we are talking about winter lockdown in harsher terms 6 months from now when it all comes out in the wash.

I honestly dont know if lockdown are strictly needed, but if we ever approached "cure is worse then the problem" in summer, then we will blitz past that this time, at least in terms of the wellbeing of the general population.

[madwullie]

3 minutes ago, beardy said:

I get that they can test up to 45 cycles but that document states

Results where:  

• the Ct value is ≥ 40 and/or

• there is an abnormal assay curve and/or

• the clinical context makes the positive result highly unexpected

should be considered interim or held until reviewed by a laboratory clinician. Laboratories will undertake the following actions: 

 

This says to me that they have a threshold below 40 and double check those above 40.

 

I've seen Todd imply stuff about these tests before and I'm, trying to do a bit of reading to understand them. 

The vast majority what I'm reading says that, although a low CT number is indicitive of a poorer outcome, there is no absolute cut off number at which a person stops being infectious. 

A few people have said things like someone withoit a mask and a ct of say 30 is more likely to infect than someone with a ct of 20 wearing a mask. 

Could be completely wrong, but just doesn't seem as cut and dried as us using a faulty method for testing.  

[Billy Jean King]

I see NI to be allowed 1000 in to their playoff final. About 1 in 19 of the seats so pretty much similar to the RC "crowd" tomorrow at about 1 in 21.

[Todd_is_God]

47 minutes ago, madwullie said:

I've seen Todd imply stuff about these tests before and I'm, trying to do a bit of reading to understand them. 

The vast majority what I'm reading says that, although a low CT number is indicitive of a poorer outcome, there is no absolute cut off number at which a person stops being infectious. 

I've seen a few studies now where it is has been reported that it is extremely rare to be able to culture the virus where the Ct is greater than 33. If there is no live virus, you aren't infectious.

Even with regards to @beardy's post above, the amplification between 33 & 40 is absolutely huge (from 2³³ to 2⁴⁰)

None of which really matters, though, when you use a test method such as PCR to do something it wasn't designed to do.

With the rapid tests now apparantly available to begin to be used in large quantities, the Government have a choice: do they want to identify infectious people, or do they want to identify viral RNA? What they can't do, though, is both. So what is the goal?

Using PCR tests to test the effectiveness of the rapid tests isn't sound, either. I suspect the government will have a hard time winning people over with the accuracy of the rapid tests, though, as they have built their entire response to date on PCR testing. They've done very little to date explaining their limitations so I don't see how they can start doing so now without the standard hysterical "fudging the numbers" cries that have accompanied every correction of their flawed figures so far.

Edited November 6, 2020 by Todd_is_God

[NotThePars]

15 million is such a paltry number that it’s almost funny. What’s that when it’s broken down to each individual person suffering from mental health problems? One quarter of the way towards paying for one semi competent therapy session. Cool!

 

[Steven W]

26 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said:

I see NI to be allowed 1000 in to their playoff final. About 1 in 19 of the seats so pretty much similar to the RC "crowd" tomorrow at about 1 in 21.

Interesting. Well done NI. 

If Belfast was in Scotland it would probably be in Tier 3, and so were it played over here there would be zero attendees. (And they'd be waiting a long time until they ever were to reach Tier 1).

They should also be panicking like f**k about people using public transport to get to the game

[Raithie]

Not sure what other health boards have been doing around the country but as of 7pm tonight NHS Fife will suspend all routine hospital visits. 

[Bairnardo]

So far I have only read this thread, plus the article on the BBC as regards mass testing.

But it seems monumentally stupid to dismiss this as being a worthwhile one, of many, required barriers to prevent covid getting out of control. It sounds, at the very least, worth a try.

[Todd_is_God]

3 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

So far I have only read this thread, plus the article on the BBC as regards mass testing.

But it seems monumentally stupid to dismiss this as being a worthwhile one, of many, required barriers to prevent covid getting out of control. It sounds, at the very least, worth a try.

It's abhorrently expensive, but it is the best way to detect infectious people, whilst allowing the rest of the population to get on with life normally.

The question may well be to what extent is it needed, and is it needed all the time, or only once there is a noticeable increase in hospital admissions for the disease?

[Bairnardo]

1 minute ago, Todd_is_God said:

It's abhorrently expensive, but it is the best way to detect infectious people, whilst allowing the rest of the population to get on with life normally.

The question may well be to what extent is it needed, and is it needed all the time, or only once there is a noticeable increase in hospital admissions for the disease?

It certainly seems like it might offer a much quicker hit in terms of a "circuit break" than 2 or 3 or more weeks of enhanced restrictions. 

[Todd_is_God]

11 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

It certainly seems like it might offer a much quicker hit in terms of a "circuit break" than 2 or 3 or more weeks of enhanced restrictions. 

I think the goals of the two are very different, so a comparison is a bit unfair.

But, let's say we do get this immune response boosting vaccine soon. The use of these tests alongside it before, say, gigs, conventions etc might be really useful, depending on the prevelance as a whole. If I was going to the darts in May, for example, and the prevelance is very low, they might be a bit of a waste of money. If I was going to the darts in December, however, when you might expect a higher prevelence, then it would allow the event to go ahead as normal. The football and summer festivals etc are outdoors - they might not need them outwith "flu season."

Other things such as voluntary mask wearing and distancing (which will happen regardless), enhanced hygiene via the use of sprays & gels, less time spent in offices etc would work alongside said vaccine and tests to allow life to pretty much be as it was.

In terms of cost, that is another issue (a tax increase? Increase on ticket prices?), but that seems like a far more achieveable goal than "zero covid" and one that could be achieved within the next 6 months.

Edited November 6, 2020 by Todd_is_God

[renton]

26 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

So far I have only read this thread, plus the article on the BBC as regards mass testing.

But it seems monumentally stupid to dismiss this as being a worthwhile one, of many, required barriers to prevent covid getting out of control. It sounds, at the very least, worth a try.

I guess the problem is with the number of false negatives in the quick turnaround tests. Anything from 30-50% based on reports.

That means you can't use them to tell people they are negative, only that they are positive. You could use it, in conjunction with other restrictions to quickly isolate and break potential chains of infections, thus radically shortening the time span you'd have to live with any level of restrictions.

However, in it's current format you couldn't replace other restrictions with it. It would surely though be pretty useful in high prevelance areas to get them under control.

[Todd_is_God]

1 hour ago, renton said:

I guess the problem is with the number of false negatives in the quick turnaround tests. Anything from 30-50% based on reports.

Define "false negative"

You can't use PCR tests to verify these rapid tests.

See the NY Times article. None of the "false negatives" were able to culture the virus. If there is no live virus, is it really a false negative?

It's the opposite of calling weak PCR positives "false positives."

I don't think any of us expect journalists to understand the nuances of what the tests can and can't show, but they need to be careful with what they publish, especially early on, if they lack the understanding to pick apart reports etc properly.

It's always harder to correct a misconception at a later point in time. Erroneously destroying public confidence in them, before they are even used, could be disastrous.

PCR testing was flawed in the method it was being used (remember JL saying they were "a bit rubbish" as they can't tell you who is currently infectious), but it was accepted as there was nothing else. 

Now that something else is becoming available that can identify those who are infectious, whilst ignoring those infected weeks ago but still have viral RNA in their system, then that should become the primary tool for testing the public at large, and PCR testing can be used for its intended purpose - confirming the diagnosis of patients presenting to hospital with tell tale symptoms such as the glassy lungs.

Edited November 6, 2020 by Todd_is_God

[101]

Now Covid from Mink ffs thought they had ditched that cruel practice

[Billy Jean King]

Now Covid from Mink ffs thought they had ditched that cruel practice

It's a worrying development given how many Mink naturalise after escaping from farms. Loads of them around Argyll

[Billy Jean King]

Define "false negative"
You can't use PCR tests to verify these rapid tests.
See the NY Times article. None of the "false negatives" were able to culture the virus. If there is no live virus, is it really a false negative?
It's the opposite of calling weak PCR positives "false positives."
I don't think any of us expect journalists to understand the nuances of what the tests can and can't show, but they need to be careful with what they publish, especially early on, if they lack the understanding to pick apart reports etc properly.
It's always harder to correct a misconception at a later point in time. Erroneously destroying public confidence in them, before they are even used, could be disastrous.
PCR testing was flawed in the method it was being used (remember JL saying they were "a bit rubbish" as they can't tell you who is currently infectious), but it was accepted as there was nothing else. 
Now that something else is becoming available that can identify those who are infectious, whilst ignoring those infected weeks ago but still have viral RNA in their system, then that should become the primary tool for testing the public at large, and PCR testing can be used for its intended purpose - confirming the diagnosis of patients presenting to hospital with tell tale symptoms such as the glassy lungs.

From what's being reported it appears a positive rapid test will be followed by a regular swab / lab test in an attempt to legitimize the positive result. From the reporting it looks like the second test is due to members of the public seeking assurance before embarking on 14 days self isolation. Presumably this is also in an attempt to assess the reliability of a rapid test the govt have already spent hundreds of millions buying.