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

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 wrote: »

The Oxford professor you mean?

yeah!

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.

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?

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

declanflynn wrote: »

another nut case

Who?

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 wrote: »

another nut case

The Oxford professor is a nut case? Come on now.....

About time our esteemed professors were challenged by peers. Far too much bias and unchallenged theories out there at the moment.

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."

Exactly. Those are results at the limit of detection. They are barely detecting any covid 19 RNA. However, they are detecting some covid 19 RNA. If there was control gene you could definitively say 'that swab was good enough so we can say there is barely any virus detected from the late CT'. Then ponder what that means in real terms. The virus invades a cell, takes over it's machinery to create viral copies of itself, which then spill out and invade neighbouring cells. If a swab produces a weak result that we know from a control gene is definitely not due to a poor swab, we still don't know whether that low viral amount is due to A) a newly infected person where virus is still multiplying within cells and yet to reach the limit of detection, or whether it is a patient in recovery where viral levels are diminished due to the bodies immune response.

We are in an even more invidious position with covid 19 as there is no control gene to control for a poor swab, so now we add option C) to our list of possibilities, the patient has high levels of covid 19, but the swab didn't gather enough sample to effectively detect.

Now, given that most people being tested are either close contacts of confirmed cases or symptomatic people, and the RT-PCR test is not erroneously amplifying non-specific sequences, I would be fairly confident this discussion of false positives is a complete red herring. Mainly propagated by people extrapolating too much with the little knowledge they have.

HSE Daily Operations Update
94 in hospital, increase of 4.
Dublin Hospitals: 60 (+1)
Nationwide: 34 (+3)
5 confirmed cases in hospitals today - 2 in Mater, 1 each in Connolly, Mullingar, St. James, Beaumont and Cavan.
16 in ICU, decrease of 1.
8 ventilated, decrease of 1.

declanflynn wrote: »

You

Is this Spanish doctor a nutcase too?

It's very telling that you resort to name calling when you're beloved experts are challenged on their viewpoints and the narrative that is pushed is called into question.

I'm sorry to tell but they is going to be an awful lot of nutcases once people realise the truth and start calling people out in their bullshiit.

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?

The question is:
How many people who got a positive result were falsely told they were positve

Answer e.g.: 0.8%
So 0.8% of the people who got a positive result were false.

Not 0.8% of every one who was tested.

Azatadine wrote: »

The Oxford professor is a nut case? Come on now.....

About time our esteemed professors were challenged by peers. Far too much bias and unchallenged theories out there at the moment.

She is a nutcase...just like that loon from UCD Dolores Cahill...it doesn't matter where she is from.