FutureTeashock wrote: » A 2 day pause is quite laughable really.
scooby77 wrote: » Does anyone know the false positive rate for test used by HSE (if one is published)? Cant find online. I ask because I've heard, and know 1st hand, of some cases, of children in particular, testing positive ( very mild symptoms) but not being an identified close contact, and all their close contacts, including parents and siblings, testing negative.
iguana wrote: » Why doesn't this fit the narrative? Why would there be a narrative that doesn't want this to be over in the near future? I mean clearly there is. I've taken to watching the WHO press briefings whenever I see any sort of reporting about what the WHO say and it is almost always the worst possible take on a usually quite neutral, sometimes even potentially positive statement. But why?
Trials of a Covid-19 vaccine being developed by AstraZeneca and Oxford University will resume after the late-stage studies of the vaccine were paused due to a reported side-effect in a patient in the UK.
FutureTeashock wrote: » I paused work on Friday and will resume work on Monday, exactly the same timing as the vaccine trial pause.
Polar101 wrote: » It's the cool thing to say now. According to people who don't actually follow the mainstream media, only negative or "fear-mongering" things are reported. Or if they are reported, they are hidden somewhere out of sight, such as the front page of the Irish Times. People only see what they want to see, and believe what they want to believe.https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/covid-19-oxford-university-trials-to-resume-on-astrazeneca-vaccine-1.4353650
Graham wrote: » In your experience of previous vaccination trials, what would you say was the usual pause in such circumstances?
mandrake04 wrote: » There is no true rate for false positive, it usually from human contamination or some sort of carryover and it’s not down to the test itself but human or lab equipment error. ie. You could run a million tests in one lab with no False positive and 10000 in another and have a handful because something or someone stuffed up. False negative if you can call it that ...is more common and this is down to poor sample provided by the patient ...most likely testing too early.
yosemitesam1 wrote: » Is there anything to say that the specificity of the test is 100%? If not, false positives are possible even if all sampling procedures etc are perfect
mandrake04 wrote: some are 100% other brands are not, The NVRL according to DeGascun uses the Cobas which is 100%, I think Irish hospitals use mixture of Cobas, Seegene Allplex, Abbott and Cepheid wouldnt bet my house on it but maybe Martina can confirm.
scooby77 wrote: Does anyone know the false positive rate for test used by HSE (if one is published)? Cant find online. I ask because I've heard, and know 1st hand, of some cases, of children in particular, testing positive ( very mild symptoms) but not being an identified close contact, and all their close contacts, including parents and siblings, testing negative.
Martina1991 wrote: » I dont know what every lab is using but it is a mix of the ones you listed. Along with Altona and Gene Xpert as well.
Martina1991 wrote: » The likelihood of false positives are extremely low due to the high specificity of the assays. There is more talk now about the cycle threshold (Ct) being too high and picks up dead viral RNA. But labs should assess their own Ct when they validated thier assay for use using control material. i.e the lab should determine the cut of point where they can say a result is definitely detected or not detected. Its not unusual for close contacts to test negative. Just because people live in the same house, doesnt mean all will become infected. The timing of testing is also important. If a swab was taken before the virus has had time to replicate it may not be detected. There are many variables. All the test result tells you is: Is there SARS-COV-2 viral RNA on this swab. Thats it. It wont tell you how infectious the person is. It wont tell you at what stage of infection the person is in. But you can be confident if Covid19 is detected then the result is valid.
Gael23 wrote: » Once a vaccine is approved is it a big deal to source raw materials and manufacture millions of doses?
Call me Al wrote: » Cillian de Gascun has tweeted a very comprehensive explanation for the extensive contact tracing that is happening, and why they're not restricting this to those who might be assessed as having high viral loads.https://twitter.com/CillianDeGascun/status/1305250887246458880?s=20
stephenjmcd wrote: » They aren't waiting for approval to manufacture. Its already underway
Gael23 wrote: » At the volume being produced there will be far from enough for everyone that wants one
stephenjmcd wrote: » Over time, you'll have all going well different vaccines being produced so no reliance on just the one. It'll take a while to produce billions, that could take a few years but you don't need billions vacinated to reduce the spread. Take here for example. Frontline workers and those classed as at risk would be first in line, a very big start in breaking transmission
Gael23 wrote: » How much would be needed to allow the world to return to the “old normal”? We can’t live like this for a period of years
Gael23 wrote: » It’s my 30th birthday in April 2021 and I’d like to be able to have some sort of party
