Covid 19 Part XX-26,644 in ROI (1,772 deaths) 6,064 in NI (556 deaths) (08/08)Read OP

Oranage2

Rob A. Bank wrote: »

Looking for information ...

If a traveler from Texas visits his/her ancestral home and distant relatives in Ireland, having ignored the 14 day isolation, and then tests positive for Covid. I have no doubt that he/she would be recorded as a travel related case.

However if he/she infected some of the relatives... would they be recorded as 'travel related' or just a local cluster ?

Community transmission, if that person goes to a restaurant and others test positive then it could be labeled a cluster

froog

Deleted User wrote: »

False negative rate is likely higher than false positive

if the final result was above 10% even it would be somewhat useful. but 5% positive result with such a high potential of those to be incorrect one way or the other is completely useless. certainly not any kind of basis to claim "we know likely 250k in ireland were infected with COVID-19".

froog

froog wrote: »

certainly more than 26,000, that's pretty certain. but claiming 10 times that based on a flawed antibody test is bad science.

Just for clarity, a test with 5% false positive rate, will have 5% of positive results incorrect, not 5 percent of all tests

https://www.cochrane.org/news/new-cochrane-review-assesses-how-accurate-antibody-tests-are-detecting-covid-19

caveat emptor

Rob A. Bank wrote: »

Looking for information ...

If a traveler from Texas visits his/her ancestral home and distant relatives in Ireland, having ignored the 14 day isolation, and then tests positive for Covid. I have no doubt that he/she would be recorded as a travel related case.

However if he/she infected some of the relatives... would they be recorded as 'travel related' or just a local cluster ?

I know it’s a fairly unlikely example but More likely the Texan would be asymptomatic or preSymptomatic and no one would know how they got it.

They reckon 50% are asymptomatic and the 6 to 14 day incubation means a lot of potential for silent spread.

In fact the numbers we see today are not representative of what’s out there as it takes time for people to become symptomatic and get a test.

What Username Guidelines

random_banter wrote: »

Which reporter?

Any indication of where in Wexford the cases have popped up?

Wouldn’t be anything to do with the uproar in March/April about a certain plane full of workers would it?

spookwoman

random_banter wrote: »

Which reporter?

Any indication of where in Wexford the cases have popped up?

I don't know how reputable the reporter is and best to get the info confirmed before spreading it around.

fritzelly

What Username Guidelines wrote: »

Wouldn’t be anything to do with the uproar in March/April about a certain plane full of workers would it?

Keelings was my first thought too

https://www.hotpress.com/culture/residents-in-new-coronavirus-hotspot-have-been-going-to-work-22824272

Storm 10

Fair play to them they will bring us back a present


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/portuguese-police-disperse-groups-of-young-irish-holidaymakers-1.4320267?mode=amp

Boggles

Rob A. Bank wrote: »

Looking for information ...

If a traveler from Texas visits his/her ancestral home and distant relatives in Ireland, having ignored the 14 day isolation, and then tests positive for Covid. I have no doubt that he/she would be recorded as a travel related case.

However if he/she infected some of the relatives... would they be recorded as 'travel related' or just a local cluster ?

Close contact of a confirmed case I'd imagine.

What Username Guidelines

fritzelly wrote: »

Keelings was my first thought too

There was an article today about residents at a direct provision centre from the dog food plant so all residents being tested. Some were still going to work in other jobs via bus while awaiting testing/results. One worker who is a fruit picker for keelings was refusing to go to work though until tested and given the all clear.

Gruffalux

Storm 10 wrote: »

Fair play to them they will bring us back a present


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/portuguese-police-disperse-groups-of-young-irish-holidaymakers-1.4320267?mode=amp

Assholes

lawrencesummers

Gruffalox wrote: »

Assholes

You can be sure if they won’t follow the “travel for essential reasons” guideline they won’t follow the 14 day isolation upon return.

political analyst

I don't know if this was already posted but - any thoughts?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-swiss-visor/swiss-doctor-pans-plastic-visors-after-covid-19-hits-restaurant-workers-idUSKCN24F239#:~:text=ZURICH%20(Reuters)%20%2D%20The%20top,a%20false%20sense%20of%20security%E2%80%9D.&text=%E2%80%9CPeople%20who%20wore%20visors%20got%20infected.%E2%80%9D

caveat emptor

Deleted User wrote: »

False negative rate is likely higher than false positive

Based on what? I wonder why you never post links?
The fact that every piece of information you need to say the opposite in the hope someone believes your weighty opinion?

Of course Irish Examiner could be fake news or MSM.
Fair play for that person calling the bullcrap for what it was.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-31004784.html

However, a recent seminar given by the Irish College of General Practitioners for its members heard that there is a mistaken belief
that “there is a reliable blood antibody test to see if you have had Covid”.

The seminar, given by a consultant immunologist at a Dublin hospital last week, heard that the test to be administered by the Irish population is likely to return
with a false positive rate of 5%.

Taking Ireland’s population of 4.9m that would see a return of roughly 240,000 false positive cases involving people who have not actually been infected with the virus.

Boggles

political analyst wrote: »

I don't know if this was already posted but - any thoughts?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-swiss-visor/swiss-doctor-pans-plastic-visors-after-covid-19-hits-restaurant-workers-idUSKCN24F239#:~:text=ZURICH%20(Reuters)%20%2D%20The%20top,a%20false%20sense%20of%20security%E2%80%9D.&text=%E2%80%9CPeople%20who%20wore%20visors%20got%20infected.%E2%80%9D

Visors are shít?

Boggles

I'd rate the anti body testing up their with a lidl pregnancy test TBH.

50 fúcking 50.

podgeandrodge

I'm convinced, without any scientific reasoning, that the opening of schools will lead to significant surge in cases. I'm also worried that they will bring it to their parents who will bring it to their friends etc etc. I know there are views out there that kids aren't spreading it, but I'm dubious.

Pubs on the other hand are not a concern. I know this because even at times that I've been in any way concerned about the virus, I feel perfectly safe again once I've been in the pub for at least 2 hours.

castletownman

Considering the beaches around me in Wexford have been thronged with Dubs virtually every weekend over the summer, I wouldn't be surprised if it spread that way.

Last weekend I was bringing the dog for a walk around Cahore (that we do regularly), and I would say you could count the locals on one hand. Very little social distancing to be seen among them and not to mention the usual ignorant, dangerous driving on the narrow rural roads.

A lot of "staycationers" (see: Dubs) are having parties in their holiday homes, getting taxis to some of the local bars that are serving food, congregating outside the premises in groups (which is harder to control), and resuming the partying all night. It is an annual pilgrimage so to speak, and something you get used to living in a coastal area, but you'd think there'd be some semblance of common sense in this year of all years.

Christ I sound like a curtain-twitcher now.

caveat emptor

caveat emptor wrote: »

Based on what?
The fact that every piece of information you need to say the opposite in the hope someone believes your weighty opinion?

Of course Irish Examiner could be fake news or MSM.
Fair play for that person calling the bullcrap for what it was.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-31004784.html

I did. I over simplified a bit but:
“results from IgG/IgM tests three weeks after symptoms started suggested that if 1000 people had antibody tests, and 50 (5%) of them really had COVID‐19 (as we might expect in a national screening survey):

‐ 58 people would test positive for COVID‐19. Of these, 12 people (21%) would not have COVID‐19 (false positive result).

‐ 942 people would test negative for COVID‐19. Of these, 4 people (0.4%) would actually have COVID‐19 (false negative result).“

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD013652/full

I will take that over a journalist’s obvious misinterpretation and over simplification of a speech

branie2

At least we have no deaths again

tom1ie

podgeandrodge wrote: »

I'm convinced, without any scientific reasoning, that the opening of schools will lead to significant surge in cases. I'm also worried that they will bring it to their parents who will bring it to their friends etc etc. I know there are views out there that kids aren't spreading it, but I'm dubious.

Pubs on the other hand are not a concern. I know this because even at times that I've been in any way concerned about the virus, I feel perfectly safe again once I've been in the pub for at least 2 hours.

lol!

JP Liz V1

stephenjmcd wrote: »

https://twitter.com/ShamimMalekmian/status/1291055268944588801?s=19

Is this a direct provision centre (hotel) for Keelings workers?

drunkmonkey

branie2 wrote: »

At least we have no deaths again

First you get the money then you get the women.

lawrencesummers

political analyst wrote: »

I don't know if this was already posted but - any thoughts?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-swiss-visor/swiss-doctor-pans-plastic-visors-after-covid-19-hits-restaurant-workers-idUSKCN24F239#:~:text=ZURICH%20(Reuters)%20%2D%20The%20top,a%20false%20sense%20of%20security%E2%80%9D.&text=%E2%80%9CPeople%20who%20wore%20visors%20got%20infected.%E2%80%9D

I’ve no medical background, but can’t for the life of me see what protection those visors give to people

What Username Guidelines

https://twitter.com/higginsdavidw/status/1291084035364659201?s=21

caveat emptor

Deleted User wrote: »

I did. I over simplified a bit but:
“results from IgG/IgM tests three weeks after symptoms started suggested that if 1000 people had antibody tests, and 50 (5%) of them really had COVID‐19 (as we might expect in a national screening survey):

‐ 58 people would test positive for COVID‐19. Of these, 12 people (21%) would not have COVID‐19 (false positive result).

‐ 942 people would test negative for COVID‐19. Of these, 4 people (0.4%) would actually have COVID‐19 (false negative result).“

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD013652/full

I will take that over a journalist’s obvious misinterpretation and over simplification of a speech

Jaysus ....... except.....bullsh!te.

I want to believe you I do.
I checked the author's summary. (below)
It didn't sound confident at all? :rolleyes:

However, the duration of antibody rises is currently unknown,
and we found very little data beyond 35 days post-symptom onset.

We are therefore uncertain about the utility of these tests for seroprevalence surveys for public health management purposes.

Concerns about high risk of bias and applicability make it likely that the accuracy of tests when used in clinical care will be lower than reported in the included studies.
Sensitivity has mainly been evaluated in hospitalised patients, so it is unclear whether the tests are able to detect lower antibody levels likely seen with milder and asymptomatic COVID-19 disease.

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD013652/epdf/full

Here's another journalist talking to an expert. Again probably bull****.
Gives his name and credential's though?
Random man on internet knows so it's going to grand.
because we all had its and we are grand.
Don't panic now.

One of the leading experts in this area,
Jon Deeks,
professor of biostatistics and head of the test evaluation research group at the University of Birmingham, said: "It's a mystery why [the British government] went with only Roche or Abbott... There are other tests that are better than them."

Professor Deeks,
who has embarked on the first ever worldwide review of antibody tests,
added emphatically that none of the tests available "are good enough for any of us to say for certain whether or not we have already caught the disease – and even if we have, whether we are safe from being infected with it a second time".

https://www.irishnews.com/lifestyle/2020/06/25/news/you-can-t-tell-diddly-squat-about-how-good-covid-antibody-tests-are-says-scientist-1983533/

What Username Guidelines

What Username Guidelines wrote: »

https://twitter.com/higginsdavidw/status/1291084035364659201?s=21

Will no one leave hospital?

stephenjmcd

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Will no one leave hospital?

https://twitter.com/higginsdavidw/status/1291084963534770180?s=19

caveat emptor

caveat emptor wrote: »

Jaysus ....... except.....bullsh!te.

I want to believe you I do.
I checked the author's summary. (below)
It didn't sound confident at all? :rolleyes:



https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD013652/epdf/full

Here's another journalist talking to an expert. Again probably bull****.
Gives his name and credential's though?



https://www.irishnews.com/lifestyle/2020/06/25/news/you-can-t-tell-diddly-squat-about-how-good-covid-antibody-tests-are-says-scientist-1983533/

I’m sorry, but you have completely failed to understand the difference between sensitivity and specificity in testing. The sensitivity is the ability of the test to accurately detect a true positive case, or the risk of false negatives and the study identified that it varies over time. The specificity is the ability of a test to identify a true negative, or the risk of false negatives and that does not vary. It’s not immediately instinctive so perhaps you should do some reading on the subject.

caveat emptor

Deleted User wrote: »

I’m sorry, but you have completely failed to understand the difference between sensitivity and specificity in testing. The sensitivity is the ability of the test to accurately detect a true positive case, or the risk of false negatives and the study identified that it varies over time. The specificity is the ability of a test to identify a true negative, or the risk of false negatives and that does not vary. It’s not immediately instinctive so perhaps you should do some reading on the subject.

There is no data past 35 days. When were the samples taken for our survey.
Also mentions doesn't detect asymptomatic, all were hospital based subjects.

You failed to read and or understand an Author's conclusion.
sensitivity and specificity are needed for a useful test.
Shouldn't be used for seroprevalence surveys for public health management. as unsure of utility!
Now stop wasting my fvcking time.

Sensitivity has mainly been evaluated in hospitalised patients,
so it is unclear whether the tests are able to detect lower antibody levels likely seen with milder and asymptomatic COVID-19 disease.

....
We are therefore uncertain about the utility of these tests for seroprevalence surveys for public health management purposes.

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD013652/epdf/full