Covid 19 Part XXIII-33,444 in ROI(1,792 deaths) 9,541 in NI(577 deaths)(22/09)Read OP

CIARAN_BOYLE

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Based on the HSE response just now... we've had approx 600 false positives in the last 7 days..........

False positives show up as low viral load positives. These get retested. They aren't included in the daily numbers.

Martina1991

ACitizenErased wrote:

Very interesting thread. Some believe that since June, our testing methods have changed, and a higher amount of false positive tests are being returned.

That is statistical speculation.

There are different platforms used in labs throughout the country. To imply that during the summer, all labs using different assays suddenly decided to increase the cycle threshold in an attempt to find more positive cases is highly unlikely. Testing methods do not just change unless new information or methods are developed by the manufacturer.

ACitizenErased wrote:

Fairly big development in the last hour. HSE admits that 70-80 cases per day (for 10000 tests) are false positives. Christ.

That reply doesnt make sense and it looks like whoever wrote that HSE reply misunderstood the analytical specificity.

A FP rate of say 1% doesnt mean 1% of all tests are false. It means 1% of positives may be false.

Eg. If 10,000 tests were carried out and 100 of them were positive, then 1% of the 100 were false positives. Thats 1 false pos result out of 9,900.

Think about it. 70 to 80 cases a day suddenly being false results. That doesnt sound right.

ACitizenErased

GooglePlus wrote: »

Fair play but did you read what you shared at all?

"although these numbers are likely to be reduced when retesting low (weak) positives."

They say it's not always possible to distinguish the low from high but what I'm saying is, the 70-80 figure is inflated and your figures are too.

The hospitalisations are proof enough and this is just going to make people complacent. Look across Europe and at home, false positives are a non story if there are plenty of true positives alongside them.

If you want to ignore what the HSE and De Gascun say then shoot.
Not sure what the last point has to do with anything, 340 - 80 is still = 260, a big number.

landofthetree

Numbers in hospital and ICU have been doubling every 2 weekssince late August.

That's why we are at level 3 in Dublin.

Even if they have been 80 false positives a day we would still be at level 3.

Plumbthedepths

Azatadine wrote: »

Jaysus.....Thomas Ryan got a fair old hauling over the coals there on Prime Time by the Oxford professor......challenged him on every single thing he said. He was often speechless.....

Do you mind me asking for a few examples? Haven't access to a TV at the moment.

ACitizenErased

Martina1991 wrote: »

That is statistical speculation.

There are different platforms used in labs throughout the country. To imply that during the summer, all labs using different assays suddenly decided to increase the cycle threshold in an attempt to find more positive cases is highly unlikely. Testing methods do not just change unless new information or methods are developed by the manufacturer.

That reply doesnt make sense and it looks like whoever wrote that HSE reply misunderstood the analytical specificity.

A FP rate of say 1% doesnt mean 1% of all tests are false. It means 1% of positives may be false.

Eg. If 10,000 tests were carried out and 100 of them were positive, then 1% of the 100 were false positives. Thats 1 false pos result out of 9,900.

Think about it. 70 to 80 cases a day suddenly being false results. That doesnt sound right.

They're hardly letting some random intern answer PCR testing questions, surely?

ACitizenErased

landofthetree wrote: »

Numbers in hospital and ICU have been doubling every 2 weekssince late August.

That's why we are at level 3 in Dublin.

Even if they have been 80 false positives a day we would still be at level 3.

Exactly, numbers are still big. 340 - 80 is still 260 cases today, a big number. Just thought it was mad the HSE would post something like that.

GooglePlus

ACitizenErased wrote: »

If you want to ignore what the HSE and De Gascun say then shoot.
Not sure what the last point has to do with anything, 340 - 80 is still = 260, a big number.

You literally made the point I made, so you got it after all. False positives aside, true positives are still high and on the rise.

I'm not ignoring what the HSE are saying, I'm just not picking what suits to share here.

Thierry12

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Very interesting thread. Some believe that since June, our testing methods have changed, and a higher amount of false positive tests are being returned.
https://twitter.com/kilkelly/status/1307052803957960704?s=20

That's been obvious for a very long time with those 0.5%-1.0% prevalence rates out of 10,000 tests carried out, people out perfect healthy playing rugby, soccer etc that tested positive, were always a false positive.

Tests are 99% specificity and we were at 1% prevalence, makes sense that ;-)

Money wasted on those tests is criminal

Absolute rubbish

Yes and no crap, they are as vague as can be

Don't tell us anything about viral load, who's contagious, who's not contagious, tell us **** all

If we could test to see did we have the virus before upon that negative pcr result would be nice too, some peace of mind

We can't do those tests either as those antibody tests don't work past a few months, we need some kind of T Cell test, but we are not sure how they work, more rubbish

We also dont know how long immunity lasts so t cell and antibody tests are pointless, but we have vaccines out soon, even though we dont know how long immunity will last from them either

What do we expect, we all went to the same schools and I didn't know any genius

dubdaymo

lukas8888 wrote: »

Tomas Ryan taken completely taken apart by Oxford professor on prime time.

Yes, indeed, it was a joy to watch, at long last, someone take him to the cleaners - and despite the host's PC encrusted interruptions.

ACitizenErased

GooglePlus wrote: »

You literally made the point I made, so you got it after all. False positives aside, true positives are still high and on the rise.

I'm not ignoring what the HSE are saying, I'm just not picking what suits to share here.

I never said they weren't

DangerScouse

lukas8888 wrote: »

Tomas Ryan taken completely taken apart by Oxford professor on prime time.

The woman made a complete fool of herself. Thank god she's not in charge of our health policy.

Goldengirl

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Based on the HSE response just now... we've had approx 600 false positives in the last 7 days..........

Let's see how this pans out before jumping to conclusions.
One point though , after all the lies and misinformation by that man and the Iona Institute, why would you be even reading tweets by DAVID QUINN ...Ugh !

lukas8888

dubdaymo wrote: »

Yes, indeed, it was a joy to watch, at long last, someone take him to the cleaners - and despite the host's PC encrusted interruptions.

She made him look like he was a first year undergraduate,getting a dressing down from the professor.

caveat emptor

False negatives higher therefore indicating more people get a negative result when they infect have the virus (false negative)
vs those who receive a positive result and do not have the virus (false positive)

Net result undercounting of people who have the virus.

Watson etal (2020) Interpreting a COVID-19 TestResult No test gives a 100% accurate result; tests need to be evaluated to determine their sensitivity and specificity, ideally by comparison with a ‘gold standard.’ The lack of such a clear-cut gold-standard for COVID-19 testing makes evaluation of test accuracy challenging. A systematic review of the accuracy of COVID-19 tests reported false negative rates of between 2% and 29%, equating to sensitivity of 71%-98%, based on negative RT-PCR tests which were positive on repeat testing. The use of repeat RT-PCR testing as gold standard is likely to underestimate the true rate of false negatives since quantities of the virus to be successfully amplified and detected. The amount of virus in a swab is likely to vary between patients, sample location  nasal, throat or sputum  and through time as infection progresses.
infected individuals by this method, but may not always be feasible.

Link:
https://hselibrary.ie/what-is-the-false-negative-rate-for-swab-tests-for-covid-19-and-are-there-more-reliable-ways-of-testing-are-rectal-swab-tests-effective-in-detecting-covid-19-for-patients-presenting-with-gastrointes-2/

lukas8888

DangerScouse wrote: »

The woman made a complete fool of herself. Thank god she's not in charge of our health policy.

Tell me you were watching a different debate.

Glenomra

He looked like a lost sheep.

caveat emptor

lukas8888 wrote: »

Tomas Ryan taken completely taken apart by Oxford professor on prime time.

She looked and sounded locked.

She came out with "What would Joyce say?"

Also "Do you know what it's like to be locked down in India?"

Great points.

Glenomra

Showed how inept our so called 'experts ' are.

What Username Guidelines

ACitizenErased wrote: »

How are you calling a HSE response BS? Did you not read De Gascuns Twitter thread? They can't distinguish between low load and false positives.


"A high Ct value (indicating a low virus burden) does not and cannot distinguish between a virus load on the way up (e.g. in a pre-symptomatic individual), a virus load on the way down (e.g. in a recovering individual), a poorly taken specimen, and a false positive result."

Funny how the CEO of the HSE tweeted something you immediately rubbished and now you ask how someone “can call a HSE response BS”.

This kind of info is dangerous if not verified and you can see the comments are all from Ivor Cummins fans with links to the spectator. There’s few people mentioning 1% of positives in the comments but they’re being drowned out by Iona institute fans.

Unbelievable confirmation bias at play here.

Martina1991

ACitizenErased wrote:

They're hardly letting some random intern answer PCR testing questions, surely?

They said the FP rate is 0.7% to 0.8%

0.7/10,000 tests = 70
0.8/10,000 tests = 80

Thats where they got those numbers but dividing by the total number of tests isn't right.

It should be 0.7 or 0.8 divided by the number of positive swabs.

lulublue22

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Exactly, numbers are still big. 340 - 80 is still 260 cases today, a big number. Just thought it was mad the HSE would post something like that.

Whats mad is despite posters indicating how you have misinterpreted the information you persist in claiming you are right. It’s almost as bad as the we are all dead doom and gloomers. We are seeing an uptick in cases on the cusp of winter - as is the rest if Europe. Downplaying our case numbers to the tune if 600 cases is as bad as overhyping them by 600. You follow each post of numbers with a it’s not as bad as ....... We only had ........People need to remain vigilante hospital and ICU numbers are showing a steady increase. Positivity is better than negativity but a bit of realism would go a long way.

hynesie08

caveat emptor wrote: »

False negatives higher therefore indicating more people get a negative result when they infect have the virus (false negative)
vs those who receive a positive result and do not have the virus (false positive)

Net result undercounting of people who have the virus.





Link:
https://hselibrary.ie/what-is-the-false-negative-rate-for-swab-tests-for-covid-19-and-are-there-more-reliable-ways-of-testing-are-rectal-swab-tests-effective-in-detecting-covid-19-for-patients-presenting-with-gastrointes-2/

So you're saying that more people have it and the death numbers have still plummeted..... That's brilliant.

Goldengirl

ACitizenErased wrote: »

You want the math? Read the HSE response. For every 10,000 there's 70-80.
We've done 90,000 past 7 days.
Multiply 70-80 by 7.
Between 490 and 560.
Am I wrong?

They are discussing it on Prime Time now .

What Username Guidelines

Goldengirl wrote: »

Let's see how this pans out before jumping to conclusions.
One point though , after all the lies and misinformation by that man and the Iona Institute, why would you be even reading tweets by DAVID HIGGINS ...Ugh !

Hope you mean Quinn, Higgins is a national treasure

GooglePlus

ACitizenErased wrote: »

I never said they weren't

My point is that we shouldn't be focusing on making arseways calculations off the back of a dodgy tweet, that brings you to the conclusion that 600 tests last week were false negatives.

Neither you or I have a clue about false negatives, as is clear from Martina1991's post, which you conveniently ignored.

She may be wrong too but what's your opinion on what she has said?

niallo27

Martina1991 wrote: »

That is statistical speculation.

There are different platforms used in labs throughout the country. To imply that during the summer, all labs using different assays suddenly decided to increase the cycle threshold in an attempt to find more positive cases is highly unlikely. Testing methods do not just change unless new information or methods are developed by the manufacturer.

That reply doesnt make sense and it looks like whoever wrote that HSE reply misunderstood the analytical specificity.

A FP rate of say 1% doesnt mean 1% of all tests are false. It means 1% of positives may be false.

Eg. If 10,000 tests were carried out and 100 of them were positive, then 1% of the 100 were false positives. Thats 1 false pos result out of 9,900.

Think about it. 70 to 80 cases a day suddenly being false results. That doesnt sound right.

One false positive from 10,000 would mean its 99.99% accurate, I don't believe its that high. 100 false positives from 10,000 would still mean 99% accurate.

ACitizenErased

What Username Guidelines wrote: »

Funny how the CEO of the HSE tweeted something you immediately rubbished and now you ask how someone “can call a HSE response BS”.

This kind of info is dangerous if not verified and you can see the comments are all from Ivor Cummins fans with links to the spectator. There’s few people mentioning 1% of positives in the comments but they’re being drowned out by Iona institute fans.

Unbelievable confirmation bias at play here.

1) The Paul Reid tweet was rubbish, that has been confirmed, by the ICU numbers last night.
2) It's an official HSE press response, not the word of some guy on Twitter.

owlbethere

God, the hse have been hammering out the message of keeping your close contacts low since the beginning of the lockdown lifting. Here they are today further reinforcing Irelands position and urging people to keep our close contacts low. If people don't know it now, they never will.

growleaves

Lol the cries of "You're not an epidemiologist" turn into cries that Oxford University's top epidemiologist is a thicko. I didn't see the interview but I'm sure she's as dumb as a pile of bricks.

But then DangerScouse prefers poetry I assume since he's (unconsciously?) quoting Yeats and 'In the Bleak Midwinter' upthread.