Michael McNamara TD getting to the truth, Cases, PCR testing flaws.

3xh · 30-09-2020 11:13AM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It's live here, https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/oireachtas-tv/cr3-live/

^^^ So Glynn’s strategy is to change nothing for the next 6-9 months, hope something new like treatments or vaccine appears before then, if not, they’ll look to alter the NPHET advice on how we ‘live’ with Covid beyond next summer.

Sir Guy who smiles · 30-09-2020 11:21AM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

What do you mean by this, are you suggesting that once the virus is no longer active that it won't be picked up, for someone with years of experience of these tests you should know that the number of cycles will effect the result. The CCO could not give the number of cycles were using yesterday. If were using the same as the UK which I think someone said we are that time limit for picking up traces of RNA for a positive result of Covid is 78 days.
The CCO said it himself yesterday it's for week after infection.

Yes, the time limit is 78 days. But as you approach that limit the number of cases that will still give a positive gets exponentially smaller. At 39 days-halfway to the limit, far less than half of cases will give a positive.

Sir Guy who smiles · 30-09-2020 11:23AM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

To give you a 100% accurate answer to that question we need to know the false positive rate in Ireland we know the UK rate, the CCO didn't know yesterday.
I'm waiting to hear the answer at the moment i'm sure McNamara will ask it again.
If you have a false positive rate of 1% over 10,000 cases and we are reporting 100 positives a day you'll know what the true positivity rate is from your work. Which would be?

The false positive rate is a function of prevalence and specificity, and it changes with changing prevalence.

I see you are unable to provide a reputable source for your"nine out of ten" false positive "estimate".

gmisk · 30-09-2020 11:27AM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It's all tests, That's one issue the other is the false positive rates, it's estimated 9 out of 10 positives are false.

McNamara mentioned it above but the CCO started talking about false negatives. To know the rate is very important as we've based all our restrictions around the daily positive test result number.

Should be an interesting day ahead tomorrow...

You can't just throw up that 9 out of 10 line with no sources....it sounds like complete nonsense.
So you have a link to a study or report?

drunkmonkey · 30-09-2020 11:31AM

Sir Guy who smiles wrote: »

Yes, the time limit is 78 days. But as you approach that limit the number of cases that will still give a positive gets exponentially smaller. At 39 days-halfway to the limit, far less than half of cases will give a positive.

What exponentially smaller number are you suggesting, let's say 100 tests what percentage will only be picked up for 39 days?
Isn't the detection time depending on the number of cycles the lab runs.

drunkmonkey · 30-09-2020 11:46AM

gmisk wrote: »

You can't just throw up that 9 out of 10 line with no sources....it sounds like complete nonsense.
So you have a link to a study or report?

You don't need a study you just need to know the false positive rate, how about 2.4% would you accept that as a figure to make calculations on based on this https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/895843/S0519_Impact_of_false_positives_and_negatives.pdf

If your not happy with that will you suggest a figured based on your own research.

sabat · 30-09-2020 11:57AM

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Watching this now and it's clear to me that Glynn hasn't a notion. Every answer is vague and non-committal and driven by his fear of being wrong compounded by being limited by his own area of (academic) expertise

As I've said already, the job is too big for him I think, and yet this is the man Government are looking to for the decisions.

How did he get the job? Is it a direct appointment or voted on somewhere?

mikekerry · 30-09-2020 12:02PM

sabat wrote: »

How did he get the job? Is it a direct appointment or voted on somewhere?

The way these clowns operate he probably won it in a raffle that he didn't know he had entered.

JP Liz V1 · 30-09-2020 12:11PM

3xh wrote: »

Great to see. Michael McNamara TD has been only one of a very few TDs willing to question the figures coming out from Government and NPHET.

Hopefully this doesn’t fizzle out. If NPHET and their numbers are all above board, they’ll have nothing to hide nor worry about, as they say.

No wonder NPHET trying to avoid Dail meetings

is_that_so · 30-09-2020 12:26PM

mikekerry wrote: »

The way these clowns operate he probably won it in a raffle that he didn't know he had entered.

He's employed in the DoH. Like all public jobs these days there's an open competition.

is_that_so · 30-09-2020 12:28PM

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

No wonder NPHET trying to avoid Dail meetings

Most entities do. There's a lot of nonsense in them too and TDs grandstanding about things they know nothing about. It's still an effective system but some of them are a lot better than others.

sabat · 30-09-2020 12:29PM

is_that_so wrote: »

He's employed in the DoH. Like all public jobs these days there's an open competition.

So between Holohan retiring and him getting the (interim) post what happened?

is_that_so · 30-09-2020 12:36PM

sabat wrote: »

So between Holohan retiring and him getting the (interim) post what happened?

Holohan is on sabbatical as his wife is in palliative care for cancer. He will be back.

gmisk · 30-09-2020 12:40PM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

You don't need a study you just need to know the false positive rate, how about 2.4% would you accept that as a figure to make calculations on based on this https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/895843/S0519_Impact_of_false_positives_and_negatives.pdf

If your not happy with that will you suggest a figured based on your own research.

2.5%.... is not 9 out of 10....so you just made that up?

Of course with tests you get false negatives and false positives, I would imagine thats why some people are retested.

https://www.newstalk.com/news/coronavirus-testing-false-positives-1082333

wellwhynot · 30-09-2020 12:42PM

I thought Jim O’Callaghan asked some excellent questions too. I noticed Prof. Nolan answered quite aggressively that he didn’t like the narrative of questioning. Are they not to be questioned at all?

The question of hospital cases with Covid symptoms or just a positive swab? Likewise with deaths. Why can’t they just answer? They knew this would come up. I hope the answer they send regarding the denotification of deaths does not include the ‘probable deaths’ since denotified due to a negative Covid test.

I am just so fed up with this. It must be the only ‘pandemic’ in history with 50 - 80% asymptomatic, low deaths and empty hospitals.

gmisk · 30-09-2020 12:45PM

is_that_so wrote: »

Most entities do. There's a lot of nonsense in them too and TDs grandstanding about things they know nothing about. It's still an effective system but some of them are a lot better than others.

Unless you are John Delaney they loved him....I wish I was joking...
https://youtu.be/hiIWeJV8vTE

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/sport/soccer/john-delaney-s-easy-ride-in-front-of-d%25C3%25A1il-committee-1.2942130%3fmode=amp

Tenzor07 · 30-09-2020 12:47PM

wellwhynot wrote: »

I thought Jim O’Callaghan asked some excellent questions too. I noticed Prof. Nolan answered quite aggressively that he didn’t like the narrative of questioning. Are they not to be questioned at all?
The question of hospital cases with Covid symptoms or just a positive swab? Likewise with deaths. Why can’t they just answer? They knew this would come up. I hope the answer they send regarding the denotification of deaths does not include the ‘probable deaths’ since denotified due to a negative Covid test.
I am just so fed up with this. It must be the only ‘pandemic’ in history with 50 - 80% asymptomatic, low deaths and empty hospitals.

We must not question the "world's leading experts" on the NHPET team, they are above questioning by representatives of the public, we must obey all they tell us...

is_that_so · 30-09-2020 12:51PM

gmisk wrote: »

Unless you are John Delaney they loved him....I wish I was joking...
https://youtu.be/hiIWeJV8vTE

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/sport/soccer/john-delaney-s-easy-ride-in-front-of-d%25C3%25A1il-committee-1.2942130%3fmode=amp

But John is a sound man! Everyone knows that!

wellwhynot · 30-09-2020 12:55PM

If NPHET are not transparent it means they have something to hide.

This week alone there are 26 outbreaks in nursing homes. Is an outbreak 3+ people? That is minimum (more likely more) 78 people who are most at risk with Covid today. Are the deaths still occurring mostly in nursing homes?

gmisk · 30-09-2020 12:56PM

Tenzor07 wrote: »

We must not question the "world's leading experts" on the NHPET team, they are above questioning by representatives of the public, we must obey all they tell us...

NPHET....for the love of God why can so few people not even spell it correctly.

sabat · 30-09-2020 12:57PM

is_that_so wrote: »

Holohan is on sabbatical as his wife is in palliative care for cancer. He will be back.

Retired/sabbatical who cares. I want to know how Ronan Glynn got the job.

Tenzor07 · 30-09-2020 01:03PM

sabat wrote: »

Retired/sabbatical who cares. I want to know how Ronan Glynn got the job.

The question should have been how did Holohan keep his job for all these past years....

drunkmonkey · 30-09-2020 01:09PM

gmisk wrote: »

2.5%.... is not 9 out of 10....so you just made that up?

Very simple calculation for you, if we test 10000 people and 100 are positive. With a false positive rate of 2.5% how many cases have we.

The answer might surprise you as I know by your answer above your calculations are wrong.

gmisk · 30-09-2020 01:20PM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Very simple calculation for you, if we test 10000 people and 100 are positive. With a false positive rate of 2.5% how many cases have we.

The answer might surprise you as I know by your answer above your calculations are wrong.

I am not really into playing games.
Your 2.5 percent figure is nonsense imo
https://www.newstalk.com/news/coronavirus-testing-false-positives-1082333
There are false negatives as well as false positives, people are also tested multiple times

drunkmonkey · 30-09-2020 01:32PM

gmisk wrote: »

I am not really into playing games.
Your 2.5 percent figure is nonsense imo
https://www.newstalk.com/news/coronavirus-testing-false-positives-1082333

Ok you don't know how to correctly calculate it fair enough. You could just say that.

I don't agree it's as low as .2% I'd say close to the .8% there seeing in the UK.

Let's run with the .2% of 100,000 cases a week were testing, that still gives you 200 false positives a week. Were also back to active covid and the PCR picking up trace rna for 78 days.

Even with .2% it's a serious problem. I don't take de Gascun for a spoofer but I'd like to see how he got to .2% when the UK is a lot higher, were supposedly doing the same test.

drunkmonkey · 30-09-2020 01:34PM

gmisk wrote: »

There are false negatives as well as false positives, people are also tested multiple times

I'm assuming Cillian has taken that into account when saying .2%.
Close contacts are tested twice but only 50% show up for the 1st test and 25% for the second one.

is_that_so · 30-09-2020 01:35PM

sabat wrote: »

Retired/sabbatical who cares. I want to know how Ronan Glynn got the job.

He's the deputy CMO and was appointed in October 2018.

gmisk · 30-09-2020 01:44PM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Ok you don't know how to correctly calculate it fair enough. You could just say that.

I don't agree it's as low as .2% I'd say close to the .8% there seeing in the UK.

Let's run with the .2% of 100,000 cases a week were testing, that still gives you 200 false positives a week. Were also back to active covid and the PCR picking up trace rna for 78 days.

Even with .2% it's a serious problem. I don't take de Gascun for a spoofer but I'd like to see how he got to .2% when the UK is a lot higher, were supposedly doing the same test.

I worked in data analytics for 4 years...the calculation is not the problem...your percentage is nonsense.
You are pretty much admitting that now at least.

Victor · 30-09-2020 01:47PM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

PCR testing here is the same as the UK and shows a positive covid result up to 78 days.

Assuming (not unreasonable) this 78 days hasn't changed, then reporting like-for-like numbers isn't a problem.

drunkmonkey · 30-09-2020 01:52PM

gmisk wrote: »

I worked in data analytics for 4 years...the calculation is not the problem...your percentage is nonsense.
You are pretty much admitting that now at least.

No I haven't admitted anything, I haven't seen the science to back up the claim it's .2% you wouldn't accept the same article from me if I presented it as evidence so I'm not going to accept it from you. I've stated that I believe the figure is around .8% the same as the UK.

You keep saying nonsense but I presented a UK Government study you asked for and you've presented nothing.

200 false cases a week is not insignificant if your restricting county's and people because of it, I also need to stress the RNA bring picked up for 78 days as your ignoring it.

Michael McNamara TD getting to the truth, Cases, PCR testing flaws.

Comments