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

Atlantic Dawn · 22-09-2020 10:19pm

Watching Tonight Show now, HSE is coming out a complete shambles, lots of empty posts not filled, ICU capacity not increased.

Goldengirl · 22-09-2020 10:20pm

ACitizenErased wrote: »

What? I know how PCR works. Read the tweets by De Gascun.

The quoted tweet by David Quinn which you posted does not give the full picture , no surprise there .
Go into the tweet Googleplus suggested and read the full thread .

DangerScouse · 22-09-2020 10:21pm

lukas8888 wrote: »

Tell me you were watching a different debate.

Maybe you where. She sounded angry and made no decent points at all. He squatted her away like the idiot she is.

OscarMIlde · 22-09-2020 10:21pm

ACitizenErased wrote: »

It says that it is incredibly difficult to distinguish between weak positives and false positives because the PCR cycle rate of 35-40 is so high. De Gascun spoke about this in his tweets.
https://twitter.com/CillianDeGascun/status/1305252480213803008?s=20

It's still detecting the viral RNA though. 35 to 40 cycles for RT-PCR isn't some insanely high level, it's fairly standard for many diagnostic RT-PCR tests. It's also very clear from the curve whether it's a real amplification or not. The main issue with the covid 19 test is the lack of a control gene to control for poor swabs, and there's no real way around that issue.

I find the estimate of false positives hard to believe, especially as there is no better way to detect covid 19 than PCR based methods, so I'm not sure how anyone would determine whether a weak positive is false or not. I'm guessing these 'false positives' are people who are weakly infectious or on the mend, and not people who have never contracted covid 19 at all. I would work routinely with blood and don't get false positives, and there's far greater amount of starting material to work with.

Martina1991 · 22-09-2020 10:21pm

niallo27 wrote:

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.

It is. A 0.7% to 0.8% false positive rate means the test has a specificity of 99.2% to 99.3%.
Specificity meaning the tests ability to detect the virus when it is present.

ACitizenErased · 22-09-2020 10:22pm

Goldengirl wrote: »

The quoted tweet by David Higgins which you posted does not give the full picture , no surprise there .
Go into the tweet Googleplus suggested and read the full thread .

I've read the full thread numerous times, hence why I keep quoting it. It says that they cannot distinguish between false positives and low viral loads because the Ct rate of the PCR that Ireland uses is so high.

22-09-2020 10:22pm

lukas8888 wrote: »

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

the scowl on him in the end frame .

Just cos she came off abit nutty doesn't mean she's without merit, she's a professor in Oxford FFS, ryan was taken to task especially when asked if we should lock down for other respiratory illnesses .he's like O'Neil and the others, in love with their own legends. These lads are socially awkward lab dwellers who never get a moment in the limelight, they're loving the chance to get credibility by spouting the most fearsome hypothesis in efforts to get a grant!!
yes clever on paper and in their field but it's all going pear shaped in how they come accross.

TonyMaloney · 22-09-2020 10:22pm

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.

Earlier we had to contend with a scientific article from him that claimed Spain was actually grand right now, and the outbreak was over.

wadacrack · 22-09-2020 10:23pm

lukas8888 wrote: »

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

Not really. Embarrassing behavior from a professor tbh. Bizzare bringing up India to guilt trip Ryan

Goldengirl · 22-09-2020 10:23pm

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.....

Yes , she was talking about herd immunity ...

ACitizenErased · 22-09-2020 10:25pm

Martina1991 wrote: »

It is. A 0.7% to 0.8% false positive rate means the test has a specificity of 99.2% to 99.3%.
Specificity meaning the tests ability to detect the virus when it is present.

Does a specificity of 99.2 to 99.3 mean that 0.7 to 0.8% of people who don't have the disease (IE whatever's left over after the actual positives) test positive? I thought the specificity of a test is its ability to designate an individual who does not have a disease as negative. Which means that it designates 99.2-99.3 of those who don't have it as negative, the rest as positive?

Allinall · 22-09-2020 10:25pm

rusty cole wrote: »

the scowl on him in the end frame .

Just cos she came off abit nutty doesn't mean she's without merit, she's a professor in Oxford FFS, ryan was taken to task especially when asked if we should lock down for other respiratory illnesses .he's like O'Neil and the others, in love with their own legends. These lads are socially awkward lab dwellers who never get a moment in the limelight, they're loving the chance to get credibility by spouting the most fearsome hypothesis in efforts to get a grant!!
yes clever on paper and in their field but it's all going pear shaped in how they come accross.

Bit like the Oxford professor.

22-09-2020 10:26pm

https://tennesseestar.com/2020/09/19/growing-research-indicates-many-covid-19-cases-might-not-be-infectious-at-all/

declanflynn · 22-09-2020 10:28pm

rusty cole wrote: »

the scowl on him in the end frame .

Just cos she came off abit nutty doesn't mean she's without merit, she's a professor in Oxford FFS, ryan was taken to task especially when asked if we should lock down for other respiratory illnesses .he's like O'Neil and the others, in love with their own legends. These lads are socially awkward lab dwellers who never get a moment in the limelight, they're loving the chance to get credibility by spouting the most fearsome hypothesis in efforts to get a grant!!
yes clever on paper and in their field but it's all going pear shaped in how they come accross.

ur one was a total nutter, where the f did rte find her

gmisk · 22-09-2020 10:29pm

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Watching Tonight Show now, HSE is coming out a complete shambles, lots of empty posts not filled, ICU capacity not increased.

Not true it increased at peak of virus from 255 to 354.
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/intensive-care-units-cannot-cope-with-another-wave-of-covid-19-1.4348703
Not sure what numbers are now, but I think half the battle is getting trained staff.

Azatadine · 22-09-2020 10:29pm

declanflynn wrote: »

ur one was a total nutter, where the f did rte find her

The Oxford professor you mean?

declanflynn · 22-09-2020 10:29pm

Azatadine wrote: »

The Oxford professor you mean?

yeah!

LessOutragePlz · 22-09-2020 10:30pm

declanflynn wrote: »

ur one was a total nutter, where the f did rte find her

Total nutter because she went against the narrative that is being pushed by rte and many others at the moment?

22-09-2020 10:31pm

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Does a specificity of 99.2 to 99.3 mean that 0.7 to 0.8% of people who don't have the disease (IE whatever's left over after the actual positives) test positive? I thought the specificity of a test is its ability to designate an individual who does not have a disease as negative. Which means that it designates 99.2-99.3 of those who don't have it as negative, the rest as positive?

A specificity of 99% means at least 99% of real negatives will produce a negative result.

22-09-2020 10:31pm

lukas8888 · 22-09-2020 10:31pm

DangerScouse wrote: »

Maybe you where. She sounded angry and made no decent points at all. He squatted her away like the idiot she is.

Presume you meant 'swatted', if you think he came out ahead on their exchanges your delusional.

Goldrickssan · 22-09-2020 10:32pm

Open the pubs

ACitizenErased · 22-09-2020 10:32pm

Deleted User wrote: »

A specificity of 99% means at least 99% of real negatives will produce a negative result.

So 1% of actual negatives come back positive. That's a big number, no?

TonyMaloney · 22-09-2020 10:32pm

Deleted User wrote: »

<link dump removed>

were you just thumbing through the Tennessee Star when you stumbled upon this article, Woody?

declanflynn · 22-09-2020 10:32pm

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Total nutter because she went against the narrative that is being pushed by rte and many others at the moment?

another nut case

LessOutragePlz · 22-09-2020 10:33pm

lukas8888 wrote: »

Presume you meant 'swatted', if you think he came out ahead on their exchanges your delusional.

Ah sure the likes of him and Luke O'Neill are god's that can do no wrong how dare a professor challenge him on his viewpoints & opinions and call him out on his bullshiit.

LessOutragePlz · 22-09-2020 10:34pm

declanflynn wrote: »

another nut case

Who?

declanflynn · 22-09-2020 10:34pm

lukas8888 wrote: »

Presume you meant 'swatted', if you think he came out ahead on their exchanges your delusional.

he did come out ahead of the Indian nut job

ceadaoin. · 22-09-2020 10:34pm

TonyMaloney wrote: »

were you just thumbing through the Tennessee Star when you stumbled upon this article, Woody?

Actually it's from the new york times originally. I posted it a couple of weeks ago but as usual with anything that goes against the narrative and suggests things may not be so bad, crickets

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html

declanflynn · 22-09-2020 10:35pm

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Who?

You

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

Comments