Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[Todd_is_God]

2 minutes ago, Shipa said:

While it may be the case that 91% of positive results are false positives, and that may be what she meant, it is not what she said. 0% of "covid cases" are false positives, if they were they would be false positives and not covid cases.

There is a reason covid cases is in inverted commas, which you appear to have missed.

[Shipa]

She could have said 91% of false positives, but has chosen to use "covid cases" in a sensationalist manner, in what appears to be an attempt to play down the number of actual infections.

[Todd_is_God]

12 minutes ago, Shipa said:

She could have said 91% of false positives, but has chosen to use "covid cases" in a sensationalist manner, in what appears to be an attempt to play down the number of actual infections.

Why would she say 91% of false positives are false positives?

She's used the term "Covid Cases" because at no point do the government acknowledge each day that not all positive results are infectious cases. They are represented as such, hence "covid cases" is perfectly fair.

The 91% example is extreme, I agree, especially without context of which date(s) she is referring to, but I don't see it as any more sensational or clickbait-esque that when the media were all over the German R rate "soaring" because of the meat processing plant.

Both sides are at it.

Look at the example I gave on the previous page. In that particular example a 0.8% FPR still leaves 1,500 genuine cases, which is not insignificant, but nowhere near the 2,900 that would be reported and used to calculate cases per 100k and implement localised restrictions.

My response to Hancock would be the same as it is to the SG. Why won't you be honest about the FPR, and what are you doing to verify the results before implementing restrictions.

I don't think that is unreasonable, and, particularly when the potential consequences of restrictions are considered, it is something we should all be wanting to know.

Edited September 18, 2020 by Todd_is_God

[G51]

8 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

Why would she say 91% of false positives are false positives?

She's used the term "Covid Cases" because at no point do the government acknowledge each day that not all positive results are infectious cases. They are represented as such, hence "covid cases" is perfectly fair.

The 91% example is extreme, I agree, especially without context of which date(s) she is referring to, but I don't see it as any more sensational or clickbait-esque that when the media were all over the German R rate "soaring" because of the meat processing plant.

Both sides are at it.

Look at the example I gave on the previous page. In that particular example a 0.8% FPR still leaves 1,500 genuine cases, which is not insignificant, but nowhere near the 2,900 that would be reported and used to calculate cases per 100k and implement localised restrictions.

My response to Hancock would be the same as it is to the SG. Why won't you be honest about the FPR, and what are you doing to verify the results before implementing restrictions.

I don't think that is unreasonable, and, particularly when the potential consequences of restrictions are considered, it is something we should all be wanting to know.

I'm far from an expert on this, but I remember reading something similar a few months back. I don't recall it exactly, but it was along the lines of if you use the Bayesian theory for inferential statistics, assuming a nationwide infection rate of 2% and FPR of 1%, your chances of actually having the virus in the event of a positive test is actually quite low if a really significant number of tests are being carried out. BUT it doesn't take into account the fact that you'll have other reasons for knowing if you have COVID, such as symptoms etc.

Inferential statistics is a fascinating subject that I'm desperate to get into.

EDIT: Found the thread - it was by Brian Burke of ESPN, oddly enough: https://twitter.com/bburkeESPN/status/1297611571099627520?s=20

Edited September 18, 2020 by G51

[Robin.Hood]

32 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

Genuinely think that's what they mean to do despite the term "lockdown" being banded about. 

I like this. Lockdown lol. A good few didnt give a f**k before. Especially the old c***s. Lockdown in winter will be great.

Get them queuing back outside again in the rain and cold weather. I am all for this.

People still seem to struggle how to put on a mask properly :-(. Social distancing? Lol good one.

I'm excited for the next lockdown.... can imagine work will be quiet... maybe people might start buying soap again ( it was a thing) 

[Shipa]

8 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

Why would she say 91% of false positives are false positives?

She's used the term "Covid Cases" because at no point do the government acknowledge each day that not all positive results are infectious cases. They are represented as such, hence "covid cases" is perfectly fair.

The 91% example is extreme, I agree, especially without context of which date(s) she is referring to, but I don't see it as any more sensational or clickbait-esque that when the media were all over the German R rate "soaring" because of the meat processing plant.

Both sides are at it.

Look at the example I gave on the previous page. In that particular example a 0.8% FPR still leaves 1,500 genuine cases, which is not insignificant, but nowhere near the 2,900 that would be reported and used to calculate cases per 100k and implement localised restrictions.

My response to Hancock would be the same as it is to the SG. Why won't you be honest about the FPR, and what are you doing to verify the results before implementing restrictions.

I don't think that is unreasonable, and, particularly when the potential consequences of restrictions are considered, it is something we should all be wanting to know.

Sorry, worded my last post badly, should have said 91% of positives being false, but I still feel the tweet has been worded in a way that is at is least misleading. There does need to be more honesty and less knicker wetting from all sides, this situation should be beyond political point scoring, but I won't hold my breath on that.

[Todd_is_God]

Just now, Shipa said:

There does need to be more honesty and less knicker wetting from all sides, this situation should be beyond political point scoring, but I won't hold my breath on that.

This we can agree on

[madwullie]

Just now, Todd_is_God said:

This we can agree on

 

[Todd_is_God]

5 minutes ago, G51 said:

I'm far from an expert on this, but I remember reading something similar a few months back. I don't recall it exactly, but it was along the lines of if you use the Bayesian theory for inferential statistics, assuming a nationwide infection rate of 2% and FPR of 1%, your chances of actually having the virus in the event of a positive test is actually quite low if a really significant number of tests are being carried out. BUT it doesn't take into account the fact that you'll have other reasons for knowing if you have COVID, such as symptoms etc.

Inferential statistics is a fascinating subject that I'm desperate to get into.

EDIT: Found the thread - it was by Brian Burke of ESPN, oddly enough: https://twitter.com/bburkeESPN/status/1297611571099627520?s=20

This is true. Naturally if a person has covid symptoms and returns a positive test then it's fairly likely they are infected and infectious.

When asked if the SG knew whether or not the positive results they get back come from people with or without symptoms, the answer was "no"

I'd argue we should now be at a stage where "symptoms yes/no" and "cycles to achieve positive" should be known and digested by the government, if not read out to us.

[G51]

Just now, Todd_is_God said:

This is true. Naturally if a person has covid symptoms and returns a positive test then it's fairly likely they are infected and infectious.

When asked if the SG knew whether or not the positive results they get back come from people with or without symptoms, the answer was "no"

I'd argue we should now be at a stage where "symptoms yes/no" and "cycles to achieve positive" should be known and digested by the government, if not read out to us.

I don't think there's much question that it's fairly dismal at this stage that only elementary data is being given to the public. There's been a recent trend to move towards 14-day incidence rate/100k population, but it's still a very basic measure. This is true across the West though, it's not specific to the UK.

I'm a little surprised we don't see more focus on hospital patients admitted / patients in ICU, which I would have thought would be more instructive.

 

[Todd_is_God]

21 minutes ago, G51 said:

I don't think there's much question that it's fairly dismal at this stage that only elementary data is being given to the public. There's been a recent trend to move towards 14-day incidence rate/100k population, but it's still a very basic measure. This is true across the West though, it's not specific to the UK.

I'm a little surprised we don't see more focus on hospital patients admitted / patients in ICU, which I would have thought would be more instructive.

We did when the focus was on flattening the curve. Now "cases" are the biggest show in town, they rarely get a look in. Hancock did mention that the number of admissions was doubling every 8 days over the last few weeks, but they are still relatively low.

Reducing the covid patients in hospital to only include those who have tested positive in the last 28 days is a welcome move, however it's not ideal as it could still include those who are in for something else entirely, and have happened to test positive in the last 28 days. This will more than likely be a small number of people, but I don't understand why it appears to be so difficult to accurately log how many patients are actively receiving treatment in a hospital for covid-19 at any one time. If simply changing from one inaccurate method to another one (however less inaccurate it may be) is the best that can be come up with after 6 months, it doesn't really inspire much confidence.

I don't believe it's a conspiracy or anything like that. It's just an amazing lack of competence, and a desire to repeatedly accept the worst case scenarios delivered by the likes of Ferguson as fact (with no consideration that they may be wrong and another scenario may be right), that has resulted in an absolute clusterfuck that they are struggling to get out of.

Both WM and the SG were elected on the basis of delivering one thing - Brexit and Independence respectively. Neither were equipped to handle any sort of curveball and that has been abundantly clear over the last 6 months.

Edited September 18, 2020 by Todd_is_God

[mizfit]

England talking about a 2 week rolling lockdown.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

The main problem with collective wellbeing is that there's a massive gap between people who suffer most from Covid and those who low risk from Covid but who are suffering from the restrictions. 
The initial lockdown was tolerable to address a severe and urgent problem, but continuing to trash the futures of the working age population is not an acceptable way to muddle through this. 
I also have to say that a few prominent examples aside, I am yet to see any evidence of mass non-compliance. 

I would have thought that having the police called to 600 illegal house parties last weekend was evidence enough.

Clearly there are still a hard core of morons who don't give a flying f**k.

[Shipa]

7 minutes ago, mizfit said:

England talking about a 2 week rolling lockdown.

Hopefully meaning restrictions, such as in some areas now, rather than the full March style lockdown?

[Donathan]

England talking about a 2 week rolling lockdown.

What’s a rolling lockdown?

[Gaz]

1 minute ago, Donathan said:

What’s a rolling lockdown?

No Limp Bizkit allowed for one

[Todd_is_God]

6 minutes ago, Donathan said:

What’s a rolling lockdown?

A two week one, which actually lasts months.

Followed by a safe re-opening, then another lockdown.

Probably.

[D.A.F.C]

FFS

[Guest bernardblack]

This whole thing has been an absolute shitshow

[Billy Jean King]

This is true. Naturally if a person has covid symptoms and returns a positive test then it's fairly likely they are infected and infectious.
When asked if the SG knew whether or not the positive results they get back come from people with or without symptoms, the answer was "no"
I'd argue we should now be at a stage where "symptoms yes/no" and "cycles to achieve positive" should be known and digested by the government, if not read out to us.

It doesn't help when 27% of all booked tests are made by people without symptoms and hence should not be tested. A pre testing screening process would help.