COVID-19: Vaccine and testing procedures Megathread Part 3 - Read OP

Deleted User wrote: »

I bought them.

They are grand to use.

Also for curiosity bought antibody tests to see if i had previous covid infection.

Unfortunately negative for antibodies

where did you get the antibody test?

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

A human civilisation lives under the surface of Pluto.

Prove me wrong.

I can't prove you completely wrong, but you would have to ask a) where are they getting their oxygen from? b) how can they survive at such low gravity? c) if they're living under the surface, how are they growing food and where are they getting vitamin D from? Even if I cannot prove you completely wrong, it seems so improbable it is not worth exploring as a possibility.

However, on the other hand we have plenty of examples throughout the last hundred years of viruses mutating and requiring new vaccines to tackle them - not least the ongoing influenza pandemic. So it's possible based on the available information to make a working hypothesis.

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Given the thread is also named testing procedures, I'd like to question the government's slack response to antigen testing.
My brother lives in Southern Germany. Wife had a fever today. Brother went down to Aldi, bought two antigen tests for 7.50 each. 95% sensitivity and specificity. Results within 15 minutes, both negative.
The fact we don't have these available here is utterly ridiculous.

Cochrane recently published a review of rapid tests.

In relation to antigen tests they found that sensitivity varied widely from different studies.
"There were differences between symptomatic (72.0%, 95% CI 63.7% to 79.0%; 37 evaluations; 15530 samples, 4410 cases) and asymptomatic participants (58.1%, 95% CI 40.2% to 74.1%; 12 evaluations; 1581 samples, 295 cases).
So any claims of 95% accuracy are likely because of small study populations in exclusively symptomatic people. Its not applicable in real life settings.

The specificity also varies as these LFT can cross react with other viruses and give more false positive results.
"At 5% prevalence using data for the most sensitive assays in symptomatic people, positive predictive values (PPVs) of 84% to 90% mean that between 1 in 10 and 1 in 6 positive results will be a false positive, and between 1 in 4 and 1 in 8 cases will be missed.
At 0.5% prevalence applying the same tests in asymptomatic people would result in PPVs of 11% to 28% meaning that between 7 in 10 and 9 in 10 positive results will be false positives, and between 1 in 2 and 1 in 3 cases will be missed".

The BMJ had this to say about the review:
Jon Deeks, professor of biostatistics at the University of Birmingham and the review’s lead author, said, “These tests work a lot less well in people who are asymptomatic than symptomatic. The government has not been clear on this. The only data we have is based on the [Liverpool and Birmingham] studies, where a total of 78 people had covid-19, when 40 million tests have been given out.

“I personally find it quite shocking that the government thinks this is an adequate evidence base on which to base such a large, expensive, and quite invasive policy.”


Rapid tests are designed to be used in scenarios where PCR is unavailable or a result is needed asap for patient treatment.

They also have uses in outbreaks where you know there is a higher likelihood of finding cases. They are no good for mass testing, especially if people have no symptoms.

They also require a dedicated team to perform them, record them, report them to the hpsc for contact tracing. This is why they have been trialed in meat factories.

There's also little to no studies assessing people self testing. So if a swab is taken poorly or contaminated any result after that isn't valid.

Rapid tests have to be used in the right settings, at the right time on the right people.
These tests aren't what people want them to be.


https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD013705.pub2/full#.YFtJfEPMh-E.twitter

Chris Avasarala wrote: »

Evidence of expertise please. I'll accept any of the following: Degree in Biology, Biochemistry, Pharmacology, Medicine AND proof that you have worked or are working in a medical and/or drug development.

Otherwise, please shut it.

Seems highly undemocratic if only people with the right degrees can talk about something of such public interest.


---

Does anyone have an idea how Malta, Serbia and Turkey have taken the lead on us in the vaccine race? https://www.euronews.com/2021/03/31/covid-19-vaccinations-in-europe-which-countries-are-leading-the-way

Chris Avasarala wrote: »

Talk all you want, but stop claiming unique scientific knowledge or insight

Peace out.

1. I never claimed either of those things.
2. This is boards.ie, not the New Scientist.

Mam got her first shot today. Delighted for her. She sat down and the doctor administering the shot spoke to her. She said "I recognise that voice. Is it yourself?" Doctor replice "it is, yeah." Leo Varadkar then administered the vaccine. A bit of drama to add to the vaccination!

Sono Topolino wrote: »

Seems highly undemocratic if only people with the right degrees can talk about something of such public interest.


---

Does anyone have an idea how Malta, Serbia and Turkey have taken the lead on us in the vaccine race? https://www.euronews.com/2021/03/31/covid-19-vaccinations-in-europe-which-countries-are-leading-the-way

Serbia have been using Russian and Chinese vaccines. Turkey have been using Chinese and Pfizer vaccines.

Martina1991 wrote: »

Cochrane recently published a review of rapid tests.

In relation to antigen tests they found that sensitivity varied widely from different studies.
"There were differences between symptomatic (72.0%, 95% CI 63.7% to 79.0%; 37 evaluations; 15530 samples, 4410 cases) and asymptomatic participants (58.1%, 95% CI 40.2% to 74.1%; 12 evaluations; 1581 samples, 295 cases).
So any claims of 95% accuracy are likely because of small study populations in exclusively symptomatic people. Its not applicable in real life settings.

The specificity also varies as these LFT can cross react with other viruses and give more false positive results.
"At 5% prevalence using data for the most sensitive assays in symptomatic people, positive predictive values (PPVs) of 84% to 90% mean that between 1 in 10 and 1 in 6 positive results will be a false positive, and between 1 in 4 and 1 in 8 cases will be missed.
At 0.5% prevalence applying the same tests in asymptomatic people would result in PPVs of 11% to 28% meaning that between 7 in 10 and 9 in 10 positive results will be false positives, and between 1 in 2 and 1 in 3 cases will be missed".

The BMJ had this to say about the review:
Jon Deeks, professor of biostatistics at the University of Birmingham and the review’s lead author, said, “These tests work a lot less well in people who are asymptomatic than symptomatic. The government has not been clear on this. The only data we have is based on the [Liverpool and Birmingham] studies, where a total of 78 people had covid-19, when 40 million tests have been given out.

“I personally find it quite shocking that the government thinks this is an adequate evidence base on which to base such a large, expensive, and quite invasive policy.”


Rapid tests are designed to be used in scenarios where PCR is unavailable or a result is needed asap for patient treatment.

They also have uses in outbreaks where you know there is a higher likelihood of finding cases. They are no good for mass testing, especially if people have no symptoms.

They also require a dedicated team to perform them, record them, report them to the hpsc for contact tracing. This is why they have been trialed in meat factories.

There's also little to no studies assessing people self testing. So if a swab is taken poorly or contaminated any result after that isn't valid.

Rapid tests have to be used in the right settings, at the right time on the right people.
These tests aren't what people want them to be.


https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD013705.pub2/full#.YFtJfEPMh-E.twitter

The German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices disagrees and has listed 28 different antigen tests for general use.
https://www.bfarm.de/EN/MedicalDevices/AntigenTests/_node.html

Sanjuro wrote: »

Mam got her first shot today. Delighted for her. She sat down and the doctor administering the shot spoke to her. She said "I recognise that voice. Is it yourself?" Doctor replice "it is, yeah." Leo Varadkar then administered the vaccine. A bit of drama to add to the vaccination!

I don't like how Leo has handled things recently any more than I respect the government at the moment.


But the simple fact is that Leo being a doctor and vaccinating patients does far more as "a leader" than the wet rag that is Micheal Martin.

We administered the first vaccine on December 29th,the 500000th dose on March 6th, and we're going to administer our millionth on or around April 6th.

Hard to be negative when you see it in flow.

GeorgeBailey wrote: »

There's plenty will see that as a challenge

Don't....... Read....... The....... Replies.

hynesie08 wrote: »

Don't....... Read....... The....... Replies.

OK. Please tell me I'm not the only person who read the replies because this post said not to? .

Amazing what the mRNA technology, supercharged by Covid, is now able to achieve with generating an antibody response with other diseases ...

https://twitter.com/sailorrooscout/status/1378470169484402693