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

seanb85 wrote: »

Hospitalisation rates in Ireland by age for confirmed cases

0-4 - 12%
5-14 - 5%
15-24 - 3.8%
25-34 - 4.5%
35-44 - 6%
45-54 - 9.7%
55-64 - 15.2%
65-74 - 32%
75-84 - 32.3%
85+ - 20.1%

UrbanFret wrote: »

Good program.on channel 4 last night about the hunt for a vaccine. You'd be fairly optimistic after watching it that the Oxford university candidate will be rolled out before the end of the year. That will be the game changer. Hopefully not a black adder moment " we survived it, the great war 1914-1917"

seanb85 wrote: »

https://www.hpsc.ie/a-z/respiratory/coronavirus/novelcoronavirus/casesinireland/epidemiologyofcovid-19inireland/COVID-19%20Daily%20epidemiology%20report%20(NPHET)_04082020_v1.0%20-%20Website.pdf

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, but the sensitivity issues within the observations are only going to impact the false negative rate. The specificity indicates the test is very good a detecting when the are no antibodies present, therefore 5% as found is not likely to be down to any significant degree of false positives.

It is understandable how it can be confusing at times working with statistical hypothesis testing. After 15 years using in my field, if I haven’t looked at a test method validation or process qualification in some time, I do have to have to remind myself from time to time

• the two different experts who commented to the journalists in two different newspaper?.
• the authors of the meta study and their conclusions in the paper you referenced?

How reliable were the results of the studies of this review?
Our confidence in the evidence is limited for several reasons.

In general, studies were small, did not use the most reliable methods and did not report their results fully.

Often, they did not include patients with COVID-19 who may have had a false negative result on PCR,
and took their data for people without COVID-19 from records of tests done before COVID-19 arose. This may have affected test accuracy, but it is impossible to identify by how much.
Who do the results of this review apply to?

Most participants were in hospital with COVID-19, so were likely to have more severe disease than people with mild symptoms who were not hospitalised. This means that we don't know how accurate antibody tests are for people with milder disease or no symptoms.

More than half of the studies assessed tests they had developed themselves, most of which are not available to buy. Many studies were published quickly online as ‘preprints’. Preprints do not undergo the normal rigorous checks of published studies, so we are not certain how reliable they are.
As most studies took place in Asia, we don't know whether test results would be similar elsewhere in the world.
What are the implications of this review?

The review shows that antibody tests could have a useful role in detecting if someone has had COVID-19, but the timing of when the tests are used is important. Antibody tests may help to confirm COVID-19 infection in people who have had symptoms for more than two weeks and do not have a RT-PCR test, or have negative RT-PCR test results.
The tests are better at detecting COVID-19 in people two or more weeks after their symptoms started, but we do not know how well they work more than five weeks after symptoms started.
We do not know how well the tests work for people who have milder disease or no symptoms, because the studies in the review were mainly done in people who were in hospital.
In time, we will learn whether having previously had COVID-19 provides individuals with immunity to future infection.
Further research is needed into the use of antibody tests in people recovering from COVID-19 infection, and in people who have experienced mild symptoms or who never experienced symptoms.

The HorsesMouth wrote: »

Serious questions have to be asked of the management of that factory. It's a disgrace and has obviously been mismanaged to the extreme.