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

fritzelly · 06-08-2020 02:32AM

PTH2009 wrote: »

Points 2-4 won't happen with our government and it will be cautious action before the magical vaccine arrives

Unfortunately I agree with

Maybe I'm very jaded from the last clusterf*ck that FF caused (or rather exacerbated) but I have no hope for the future with them in power

Very clear even in the last press conference - MM a bumbling fool struggling to answer questions and getting annoyed when questioned in the Dial and the rambling when he is asked a question compared to LV (who I'm no fan of either) being a very good public speaker
Really should have left SH in charge of health after dealing with it for months instead of the media attention grabbing Donnelly who doesn't know what the feck he is doing.

US2 · 06-08-2020 02:54AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.

I get that the whole world wants extreme detail but it's the least important aspect of the entire situation really.

Not sure wanting to know how many people are sick, and how many people died from the disease is the least important aspect of the situation.. surely its the most important?

mandrake04 · 06-08-2020 03:53AM

Deleted User wrote: »

The original contention was that the antibody studies complete here were useless as they had a 5% false positive rate. I tried to explain using an example linked how sensitivity and specificity of a test method relates to the false positive rate. The sensitivity is what was challenged in that study, and that has no bearing on the false positive rate. I subsequently identified that lab based testing has an even higher specificity, meaning a much lower false positive rate. And what has all this led me to believe. Far from a reported figure of 5 % antibody presence in the population being an over estimate due to false positives, it is likely an underestimate based on the lack of antibody detection in a significant portion of individuals who have been infected. One caveat..the actual figures have not been published yet

I would add there are a lot of other factors involved in seroprevalence testing

Antibodies wane over time, covid antibodies can last up to 3 months in most people but in some people they wane far faster, also some immuno tests are affected by stuff like Biotin and sometimes by medicines that a patient may be taking and also certain patients do not test well for certain tests. These are challenges that that are not unique to CV19 but are known to happen in other tests for donkeys years.

There are also people who are thought to have a natural immunity from CV19, that have been exposed and cleared the virus unknowingly.

All these will play a part in how accurate a test* is, if you take the test itself and test the repeatability where you take a known positive sample and test it repeatedly 100 times its likely to give 100 positive results. You take 100 positive patients and test them you might not get 100%, the problem is not the test but the patient.

*Just clarifying that I’m talking about real lab based tests, not these snake oil rubbish that some people are jumping on trying make a buck, luckily they have moved on to making masks now.

dundalkfc10 · 06-08-2020 06:28AM

fritzelly wrote: »

Unfortunately I agree with

Maybe I'm very jaded from the last clusterf*ck that FF caused (or rather exacerbated) but I have no hope for the future with them in power

Very clear even in the last press conference - MM a bumbling fool struggling to answer questions and getting annoyed when questioned in the Dial and the rambling when he is asked a question compared to LV (who I'm no fan of either) being a very good public speaker
Really should have left SH in charge of health after dealing with it for months instead of the media attention grabbing Donnelly who doesn't know what the feck he is doing.

Yes Simon Harris done a brilliant job as Minister for Health. He should be in jail after the cervical scandal not still Minister for anything.

Rob A. Bank · 06-08-2020 06:43AM

Covid-19 and the nuclear bombs, on the anniversary of Hiroshima

The United States detonated two nuclear weapons over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9, 1945, respectively.

The two bombings killed between 129,000 and 226,000 people in 1945 (most of whom were civilians) and remain the only uses of nuclear weapons in armed conflict.

Roughly half of the deaths in each city occurred on the first day, The rest died over the next months due to radiation sickness, starvation, injuries etc..

Covid-19 has killed a reported 711,250 people to date.

This is an underestimate of the true Covid figure.

MickeyLeari · 06-08-2020 07:34AM

Rob A. Bank wrote: »

Covid-19 and the nuclear bombs, on the anniversary of Hiroshima

The United States detonated two nuclear weapons over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9, 1945, respectively.

The two bombings killed between 129,000 and 226,000 people in 1945 (most of whom were civilians) and remain the only uses of nuclear weapons in armed conflict.

Roughly half of the deaths in each city occurred on the first day, The rest died over the next months due to radiation sickness, starvation, injuries etc..

Covid-19 has killed a reported 711,250 people to date.

This is an underestimate of the true Covid figure.

Strange analogy. Unless you believe that Covid 19 is a man made virus from China as Donald Trump believes.

Quantum Erasure · 06-08-2020 07:38AM

Not really, you could measure it in jumbo jets, or 9/11s, or croke parks...

06-08-2020 07:47AM

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Yes Simon Harris done a brilliant job as Minister for Health. He should be in jail after the cervical scandal not still Minister for anything.

Should a minister, as an individual, be legally responsible for something that happened prior to them assuming office?

What Username Guidelines · 06-08-2020 07:50AM

Interesting comparison of curves across Europe with various levels of lockdown/compliance. Upticks have not translated into deaths, maybe it’s too early, maybe it’s far higher levels of testing.

On mobile so can’t embed properly

froog · 06-08-2020 08:27AM

froog wrote: »

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17317-y

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17317-y/tables/1

according to this study, the Liaison ranks 5th out of 8 for specificity and 8th (last) for sensitivity out of these commercially available testing platforms.

and most interesting is the PPV at 4% prevalence, which for the Liason is just 0.26. i.e. a 26% chance a positive test actually has the disease at a population prevalence of 4%. they all fare pretty bad at that prevalence though. these platforms only seem useful at >50% prevalence. so the HSE studys 5% rate could actually be closer to 1.25%. but it seems so wildly inaccurate no conclusions should be made one way or the other.

interested to hear martina and rainds thoughts on that as i am no expert.

Raind? Martina?

big syke · 06-08-2020 08:30AM

Rob A. Bank wrote: »

Covid-19 and the nuclear bombs, on the anniversary of Hiroshima

The United States detonated two nuclear weapons over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9, 1945, respectively.

The two bombings killed between 129,000 and 226,000 people in 1945 (most of whom were civilians) and remain the only uses of nuclear weapons in armed conflict.

Roughly half of the deaths in each city occurred on the first day, The rest died over the next months due to radiation sickness, starvation, injuries etc..

Covid-19 has killed a reported 711,250 people to date.

This is an underestimate of the true Covid figure.

Rob A. Bank · 06-08-2020 08:33AM

K is the new letter to get your head around.

If Bill Gates went into a church, a statistician would truthfully tell you that on average every person in that church was a multimillionaire.

This is just like the R number, an average which obviously does not tell the full story.

The R number represents the average number of people an infected person goes on to infect. If R is larger than one, the number of people with the disease is increasing.

This works fine when the numbers are large and if Covid spreads like this.

But evidence suggests that with Covid, 80% of the new disease cases are caused by only 20% of super-spreading individuals and that most infected people might not pass on the virus to anybody else.

Different pathogens will have different ways in which they spread and statisticians use K, the so-called dispersion parameter, to describe how variable the infection can be.

A low K value suggests that a small number of infected people are responsible for large amounts of disease transmission. For the 1918 influenza, the number K is thought to be around 1, and perhaps 40% of infected people might not pass on the virus to anybody else. But for diseases like Sars, Mers and COVID-19 with K as low as 0.1, this proportion rises to 70%... large outbreaks will be initiated by only a few super-spreaders

There are two reasons why scientists are looking into the role of variability in controlling coronavirus transmission. First, super-spreading events are critical in the late stages of the epidemic when the virus is almost eradicated. Small values of K mean that one infected person can trigger many new cases in a very short time. If this happens, the epidemic can quickly rebound, even if locally eradicated.

On the bright side... If indeed K is as low as 0.1, 70% of infected individuals fail to pass on the virus.

Article is here.

iguana · 06-08-2020 08:35AM

mandrake04 wrote: »

Antibodies wane over time, covid antibodies can last up to 3 months in most people but in some people they wane far faster, also some immuno tests are affected by stuff like Biotin and sometimes by medicines that a patient may be taking and also certain patients do not test well for certain tests. These are challenges that that are not unique to CV19 but are known to happen in other tests for donkeys years.

I'm wondering if you could explain why antibodies to some viruses, like measles, are detectable decades after an infection while covid antibodies are often undetectable after a few months? Is it a difference in how the body reacts to each virus or is it down to specificity in testing as we've had time to hone tests for measles antibodies but not for covid?

thelad95 · 06-08-2020 08:45AM

From what I gather on the Wexford forum, the 11 cases are all linked to a halting site, another predictable cluster source.

I do have to admit my heart jumped a little yesterday as I thought they could have been random community transmission.

Rob A. Bank · 06-08-2020 08:46AM

big syke wrote: »

Confused ?

I was putting the present pandemic in context with another human catastrophe, on the anniversary of Hiroshima.

Flu bros and disease minimizers take note.

GooglePlus · 06-08-2020 08:53AM

Rob A. Bank wrote: »

Confused ?

I was putting the present pandemic in context with another human catastrophe, on the anniversary of Hiroshima.

Flu bros and disease minimizers take note.

Remove the people who were already on death's door from the equation and you'd still have a lot of people who would still be here today, if it wasn't for the virus.

caveat emptor · 06-08-2020 08:57AM

Rob A. Bank wrote: »

K is the new letter to get your head around.

If Bill Gates went into a church, a statistician would truthfully tell you that on average every person in that church was a multimillionaire.

This is just like the R number, an average which obviously does not tell the full story.

........

This makes a lot of sense when you consider airborne transmission. Scientists calling for WHO to admit it.

R number is nearly a waste of time when figures are low for two reasons.

as you point out in the bill gates example, it's not an even distribution.
false sense of security occurs. We are doing great "oh crap dog food factory what!!

It's great that community transmission is so low but school going back is not good when the WHO is demanding action on the airborne aspect. So we are controlling all of the normal people in the church example but bill gates can do what the hell he wants. That has a much larger impact on the situation especially in context of schools going back and pubs.

https://twitter.com/AliNouriPhD/status/1291178032821153792?s=20

MickeyLeari · 06-08-2020 08:58AM

Rob A. Bank wrote: »

Confused ?

I was putting the present pandemic in context with another human catastrophe, on the anniversary of Hiroshima.

Flu bros and disease minimizers take note.

Is the analogy based on the perception by some that the nuclear bombs may have saved lives by ending the war Earlier? And that being the equivalent of the lockdown?

70 million died in WW2, about 30 million in WW1 and 20 - 50million from the Spanish flu.

06-08-2020 09:01AM

mandrake04 wrote: »

I would add there are a lot of other factors involved in seroprevalence testing

Antibodies wane over time, covid antibodies can last up to 3 months in most people but in some people they wane far faster, also some immuno tests are affected by stuff like Biotin and sometimes by medicines that a patient may be taking and also certain patients do not test well for certain tests. These are challenges that that are not unique to CV19 but are known to happen in other tests for donkeys years.

There are also people who are thought to have a natural immunity from CV19, that have been exposed and cleared the virus unknowingly.

All these will play a part in how accurate a test* is, if you take the test itself and test the repeatability where you take a known positive sample and test it repeatedly 100 times its likely to give 100 positive results. You take 100 positive patients and test them you might not get 100%, the problem is not the test but the patient.

*Just clarifying that I’m talking about real lab based tests, not these snake oil rubbish that some people are jumping on trying make a buck, luckily they have moved on to making masks now.

froog wrote: »

Raind? Martina?

Refer you to above post from someone else working in the field. False positives are not a significant issue. Study you reference is one study. Spec sheet for the test we use is 99.7%, and another study you referenced earlier using this test has a specificity of 98.5%.
Technically these assay based test methods detect the presence or not of the markers associated with the relevant antibodies. If they are not there they won't detect anything. Variation in the measured specificity is as likely down to sample contamination in the study or selection of assumed negative samples for the study, who were actually unknown positives, or potential some cross immunity from another coronavirus

Boggles · 06-08-2020 09:08AM

caveat emptor wrote: »

This makes a lot of sense when you consider airborne transmission. Scientists calling for WHO to admit it.

Fauci was on yesterday literally screaming for schools to keep all windows open.

CDC recommending mask use for all kids, even the small ones. Some states making them mandatory.

You don't have to be a genius to read between the lines here.

06-08-2020 09:16AM

caveat emptor wrote: »

This makes a lot of sense when you consider airborne transmission. Scientists calling for WHO to admit it.

R number is nearly a waste of time when figures are low for two reasons.
as you point out in the bill gates example, it's not an even distribution.

false sense of security occurs. We are doing great "oh crap dog food factory what!!

It's great that community transmission is so low but school going back is not good when the WHO is demanding action on the airborne aspect. So we are controlling all of the normal people in the church example but bill gates can do what the hell he wants. That has a much larger impact on the situation especially in context of schools going back and pubs.

https://twitter.com/AliNouriPhD/status/1291178032821153792?s=20

They do admit it happens. In specific scenarios as borne out by the hospital studies referenced by yourself in a previous thread

https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-how-is-covid-19-transmitted

What do we know about aerosol transmission?
Some medical procedures can produce very small droplets (called aerosolized droplet nuclei or aerosols) that are able to stay suspended in the air for longer periods of time. When such medical procedures are conducted on people infected with COVID-19 in health facilities, these aerosols can contain the COVID-19 virus. These aerosols may potentially be inhaled by others if they are not wearing appropriate personal protective equipment. Therefore, it is essential that all health workers performing these medical procedures take specific airborne protection measures, including using appropriate personal protective equipment. Visitors should not be permitted in areas where such medical procedures are being performed.

There have been reported outbreaks of COVID-19 in some closed settings, such as restaurants, nightclubs, places of worship or places of work where people may be shouting, talking, or singing. In these outbreaks, aerosol transmission, particularly in these indoor locations where there are crowded and inadequately ventilated spaces where infected persons spend long periods of time with others, cannot be ruled out. More studies are urgently needed to investigate such instances and assess their significance for transmission of COVID-19.

caveat emptor · 06-08-2020 09:16AM

Really don't want to get it to this so I'll spare 99.5% of the people the hassle.
You can''t take one measure of a test in isolation and say we are golden.
Again nice to know,
won't get us out of the hole.
There is no mention of how long the antibodies last?
etc.
If all those things are worked out great. I just think with the way the common cold works (closest corona I've had)
You tend to get them every year. Particularly when your immune system is low. I'd focus on improving everyone's immune system.

I'm not engaging as it's a wind up at this point.

Abstract
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody tests of varying specificity and sensitivity are now available. For informing individuals whether they have had coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), they need to be very accurate. For measuring population prevalence of past infection, the numbers of false positives and negatives need to be roughly equal.

With a series of worked examples for a notional population of 100,000 people,
we show that even test systems with a high specificity can yield a large number of false positive results,
especially where the population prevalence is low.
For example, at a true population prevalence of 5%, using a test with 99% sensitivity and specificity, 16% of positive results will be false and thus 950 people will be incorrectly informed they have had the infection.
Further confirmatory testing may be needed.

Giving false reassurance on which personal or societal decisions might be based could be harmful for individuals,
undermine public confidence and foster further outbreaks.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033350620302420

Boggles · 06-08-2020 09:21AM

Seriously people need to stop quoting the WHO as a reputable source on this virus.

Very few if any countries are actually taking direction from them, including ourselves.

There are referenced the odd time out of politeness or to back up some questionable policies.

froog · 06-08-2020 09:24AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Refer you to above post from someone else working in the field. False positives are not a significant issue. Study you reference is one study. Spec sheet for the test we use is 99.7%, and another study you referenced earlier using this test has a specificity of 98.5%.
Technically these assay based test methods detect the presence or not of the markers associated with the relevant antibodies. If they are not there they won't detect anything. Variation in the measured specificity is as likely down to sample contamination in the study or selection of assumed negative samples for the study, who were actually unknown positives, or potential some cross immunity from another coronavirus

You dispute the studies 0.26 PPV for a population prevalence of 4%? Its important.

I also dont need to tell you how prestigious the journal Nature is i'm sure.

06-08-2020 09:26AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.

I get that the whole world wants extreme detail but it's the least important aspect of the entire situation really.

Are you joking? Communication is very important in this. If they lose the public then whatever plan they have in place is utterly meaningless.

caveat emptor · 06-08-2020 09:33AM

Boggles wrote: »

Seriously people need to stop quoting the WHO as a reputable source on this virus.

Very few if any countries are actually taking direction from them, including ourselves.

There are referenced the odd time out of politeness or to back up some questionable policies.

Yes to all of that. I watch out for the WUM on here. You'll get distracted from what's important.
Here's something from yesterday.
The reason our gov doesn't take action on something is they say

Nephet and no evidence or guidance.
Nphet says ECDC said so.
ECDC said WHO said so.

Dogs on street know. By dogs I mean layperson looking at China or experts in their field.
How many people infected in mean time.

https://twitter.com/j_g_allen/status/1291106440405557255?s=20

06-08-2020 09:34AM

caveat emptor wrote: »

Really don't want to get it to this so I'll spare 99.5% of the people the hassle.
You can''t take one measure of a test in isolation and say we are golden.
Again nice to know,
won't get us out of the hole.
There is no mention of how long the antibodies last?
etc.
If all those things are worked out great. I just think with the way the common cold works (closest corona I've had)
You tend to get them every year. Particularly when your immune system is low. I'd focus on improving everyone's immune system.

I'm not engaging as it's a wind up at this point.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033350620302420

So an as found rate of 5% wont be down to false positives as per the original claim, with a maximum of 16%(0.8% overall) as a result of false positives, assuming only 99% specificity when most reputable assays used in serology testing achieve higher, and also due to the varying degree of sensitivity of the tests over time post infection causing a highly variable false negative. Thank you for proving my original point. Didn't take too long for you to get there.

Jinglejangle69 · 06-08-2020 09:41AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Should a minister, as an individual, be legally responsible for something that happened prior to them assuming office?

Don't bother.

He hates anything FG with a passion.

caveat emptor · 06-08-2020 09:47AM

I think we need to be careful when discussing immunity.
Wouldn't want anyone to get a false sense of security and increase unnecessary risk.

Even the word immunity creates confusion.
When immunologists use it, they simply mean that the immune system has responded to a pathogen—for example,
by producing antibodies or mustering defensive cells.
When everyone else uses the term, they mean (and hope) that they are protected from infection—that they are immune.

But, annoyingly, an immune response doesn’t necessarily provide immunity in this colloquial sense.
It all depends on how effective, numerous, and durable those antibodies and cells are.

https://twitter.com/edyong209/status/1291027292878069760?s=20

Away With The Fairies · 06-08-2020 09:51AM

caveat emptor wrote: »

This makes a lot of sense when you consider airborne transmission. Scientists calling for WHO to admit it.

R number is nearly a waste of time when figures are low for two reasons.
as you point out in the bill gates example, it's not an even distribution.

false sense of security occurs. We are doing great "oh crap dog food factory what!!

It's great that community transmission is so low but school going back is not good when the WHO is demanding action on the airborne aspect. So we are controlling all of the normal people in the church example but bill gates can do what the hell he wants. That has a much larger impact on the situation especially in context of schools going back and pubs.

https://twitter.com/AliNouriPhD/status/1291178032821153792?s=20

I don't know why they are so slow in acknowledging airborne transmission. The majority of people aren't going around and coughing and sneezing in people's faces. So how are people getting infected?

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

Comments