Coronavirus

[portmahomack saint]

On 9/16/2020 at 7:08 PM, oaksoft said:

No.

You need to see a trend first and that requires around a week of those sorts of figures.

239 deaths is not a very large total anyway in comparison with other expected deaths.

Nearly 500 die of cancer in the UK every single day.

Just shy of 100 a day die of diabetes.

Just shy of 500 die of heart and respiratory problems every day.

But 20 to 50 covid deaths in a day in the UK and the country collectively shits its pants and shuts down?

We are rapidly losing perspective over this,

 

France last 6 days ....   6..  34..  49... 46... 50... 154...  can we call i a spike now boss 

[portmahomack saint]

51 minutes ago, Long John Baldy said:

So, one day and you're getting exactly what.......................scared, excited? 

As Oaky says most people would wait to see a trend before running screaming "We're doomed"

For every one of these pointless attempts I can quote you an opposing one.

I was asking the professor,  if a need someone to cut doon a tree al give you a shout

 

Edited September 18, 2020 by portmahomack saint

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, Hendo said:

We're all doomed.

Are you sure about hospital admissions doubling every 8 days? According to the Scottish Government, then it was 274, now only 61.

UK wide mate. 

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, Long John Baldy said:

So, one day and you're getting exactly what.......................scared, excited? 

As Oaky says most people would wait to see a trend before running screaming "We're doomed"

For every one of these pointless attempts I can quote you an opposing one.

Waiting was exactly the issue we had in March. But no, let's just wait and see if the same thing happens again, without taking precaution. 

Better yet, let's lift some more restriction as some including Oaky (all restrictions) have said... 

 

[Hendo]

9 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

UK wide mate. 

Ah, I see your point. In England, latest figures show 468 beds occupied by Covid patients.

Out of 110,000.

We're all doomed.

[Hendo]

Another stat for you. In England and Wales, for the last week there was full records (4th September) there were 83 Covid related deaths. Out of a total number of deaths of over 7700. This, incidentally, is 1400 deaths below the average for that time of year.

All these government's inducing panic and removing rights, getting us used to the dystopian future we are likely to face. Scary.

[Russian Saint]

France last 6 days ....   6..  34..  49... 46... 50... 154...  can we call i a spike now boss 

I believe it has to be put into perspective. Population of France is what.......... around 65/70million?, and 50 (fifty) Covid “related” deaths for September up to and including 17th.

[portmahomack saint]

34 minutes ago, Russian Saint said:

 

 

I believe it has to be put into perspective. Population of France is what.......... around 65/70million?, and 50 (fifty) Covid “related” deaths for September up to and including 17th.

 

 

Is there no schools in Russia   France has had over 600 covid deaths in September already 

[oaksoft]

5 hours ago, portmahomack saint said:

France last 6 days ....   6..  34..  49... 46... 50... 154...  can we call i a spike now boss 

No.

Those numbers are absolutely tiny.

[Helmettroll]

So funny....😂😂

[Russian Saint]

Is there no schools in Russia   France has had over 600 covid deaths in September already 

I think you’ll find it’s ........”Are there no schools in Russia?” [emoji6]

[Sue Denim]

On Thursday Matt Hancock stated that the false positive rate for the test was under 1%.
 

Okay, let’s assume it’s 0.8%. This means that if you test 10,000 people then 80 will be false positives. 
 

Yesterday’s ONS report estimates that prevalence in the community is currently 0.11%. This means that for every 10,000 people in the community then 11 are actually positive.

Combine the 2 and it means that for every 10,000 tests you will find 91 positives and 80 will be false. 
 

In other words, 88% of all positive tests under mass testing are false positives. 
 

Hancock went on to say that “Under one percent means that for all the positive cases the likelihood of one being a false positive is very small.”

He’s obviously under the impression that a false positive rate of 0.8% means that only 0.8% of the 91 are false positives when it’s actually 0.8% of the 10,000

Its very worrying that U.K. leaders are about to commit to yet more needless and damaging restrictions and throw thousands more elderly people out of hospital to their deaths when the false positive rate in low prevalence means that the testing is complete junk and when they clearly don’t understand the numbers.

Oh dear. As I’ve predicted a few times now, winter is going to be carnage.... and it’ll be completely man made stupidity that caused it.

Edited September 19, 2020 by Sue Denim

[Sue Denim]

I have no doubts that Sturgeon doesn’t understand the false positive issue either

https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/18731157.amp/

Sturgeon’s instincts are to lay waste to the country at the first opportunity 

[Hendo]

15 minutes ago, Sue Denim said:

On Thursday Matt Hancock stated that the false positive rate for the test was under 1%.
 

Okay, let’s assume it’s 0.8%. This means that if you test 10,000 people then 80 will be false positives. 
 

Yesterday’s ONS report estimates that prevalence in the community is currently 0.11%. This means that for every 10,000 people in the community then 11 are actually positive.

Combine the 2 and it means that for every 10,000 tests you will find 91 positives and 80 will be false. 
 

In other words, 88% of all positive tests under mass testing are false positives. 
 

Hancock went on to say that “Under one percent means that for all the positive cases the likelihood of one being a false positive is very small.”

He’s obviously under the impression that a false positive rate of 0.8% means that only 0.8% of the 91 are false positives when it’s actually 0.8% of the 10,000

Its very worrying that U.K. leaders are about to commit to yet more needless and damaging restrictions and throw thousands more elderly people out of hospital to their deaths when the false positive rate in low prevalence means that the testing is complete junk and when they clearly don’t understand the numbers.

Oh dear. As I’ve predicted a few times now, winter is going to be carnage.... and it’ll be completely man made stupidity that caused it.

You do make some valid points some of the time, but I've re-read this post several times and the arithmetic of this is just nonsense.

[portmahomack saint]

45 minutes ago, Sue Denim said:

On Thursday Matt Hancock stated that the false positive rate for the test was under 1%.
 

Okay, let’s assume it’s 0.8%. This means that if you test 10,000 people then 80 will be false positives. 
 

Yesterday’s ONS report estimates that prevalence in the community is currently 0.11%. This means that for every 10,000 people in the community then 11 are actually positive.

Combine the 2 and it means that for every 10,000 tests you will find 91 positives and 80 will be false. 
 

In other words, 88% of all positive tests under mass testing are false positives. 
 

Hancock went on to say that “Under one percent means that for all the positive cases the likelihood of one being a false positive is very small.”

He’s obviously under the impression that a false positive rate of 0.8% means that only 0.8% of the 91 are false positives when it’s actually 0.8% of the 10,000

Its very worrying that U.K. leaders are about to commit to yet more needless and damaging restrictions and throw thousands more elderly people out of hospital to their deaths when the false positive rate in low prevalence means that the testing is complete junk and when they clearly don’t understand the numbers.

Oh dear. As I’ve predicted a few times now, winter is going to be carnage.... and it’ll be completely man made stupidity that caused it.

[portmahomack saint]

3 hours ago, Russian Saint said:

 

I think you’ll find it’s ........”Are there no schools in Russia?”

 

Shouldn't that be 

I think you'll find there are no schools in Russia 

fixed it fur ye 

[portmahomack saint]

10 minutes ago, D.F.Riley said:

 

So it's only over 60s that's dying  raging....   party at mines tonight who's coming

 

[oaksoft]

1 hour ago, Sue Denim said:

On Thursday Matt Hancock stated that the false positive rate for the test was under 1%.
 

Okay, let’s assume it’s 0.8%. This means that if you test 10,000 people then 80 will be false positives. 
 

What? No. That's not how a false positive is measured.

A false positive is the number of positive tests which turned out to be false.

So it's 0.8% of the POSITIVE tests which are false. Not 0.8% of the total number of tests.

 

[oaksoft]

1 hour ago, Sue Denim said:

I have no doubts that Sturgeon doesn’t understand the false positive issue either

 

Actually it is you who doesn't understand it.

[La Roche Derriere]

Oaksoft.
The false positive rate is based on the total number of tests.
If you don’t believe me have a chat with Prof Heneghan.
The Captain is correct.

[Slarti]

On Thursday Matt Hancock stated that the false positive rate for the test was under 1%.
 
Okay, let’s assume it’s 0.8%. This means that if you test 10,000 people then 80 will be false positives. 
 
Yesterday’s ONS report estimates that prevalence in the community is currently 0.11%. This means that for every 10,000 people in the community then 11 are actually positive.
Combine the 2 and it means that for every 10,000 tests you will find 91 positives and 80 will be false. 
 
In other words, 88% of all positive tests under mass testing are false positives. 
 
Hancock went on to say that “Under one percent means that for all the positive cases the likelihood of one being a false positive is very small.”
He’s obviously under the impression that a false positive rate of 0.8% means that only 0.8% of the 91 are false positives when it’s actually 0.8% of the 10,000
Its very worrying that U.K. leaders are about to commit to yet more needless and damaging restrictions and throw thousands more elderly people out of hospital to their deaths when the false positive rate in low prevalence means that the testing is complete junk and when they clearly don’t understand the numbers.
Oh dear. As I’ve predicted a few times now, winter is going to be carnage.... and it’ll be completely man made stupidity that caused it.

What's the false negative rate?

[Slarti]

Oaksoft.
The false positive rate is based on the total number of tests.
If you don’t believe me have a chat with Prof Heneghan.
The Captain is correct.

It's the number of false positives (FP) divided by the number of false positives (FP) plus the number of true negatives (TN). So, FP/(FP+TN).

[Sue Denim]

44 minutes ago, Slarti said:

2 hours ago, Sue Denim said:

On Thursday Matt Hancock stated that the false positive rate for the test was under 1%.
 
Okay, let’s assume it’s 0.8%. This means that if you test 10,000 people then 80 will be false positives. 
 
Yesterday’s ONS report estimates that prevalence in the community is currently 0.11%. This means that for every 10,000 people in the community then 11 are actually positive.
Combine the 2 and it means that for every 10,000 tests you will find 91 positives and 80 will be false. 
 
In other words, 88% of all positive tests under mass testing are false positives. 
 
Hancock went on to say that “Under one percent means that for all the positive cases the likelihood of one being a false positive is very small.”
He’s obviously under the impression that a false positive rate of 0.8% means that only 0.8% of the 91 are false positives when it’s actually 0.8% of the 10,000
Its very worrying that U.K. leaders are about to commit to yet more needless and damaging restrictions and throw thousands more elderly people out of hospital to their deaths when the false positive rate in low prevalence means that the testing is complete junk and when they clearly don’t understand the numbers.
Oh dear. As I’ve predicted a few times now, winter is going to be carnage.... and it’ll be completely man made stupidity that caused it.

What's the false negative rate?

In low prevalence, the false negative rate is irrelevant. 
 

False negatives are only an issue in high prevalence.

[Sue Denim]

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

Actually it is you who doesn't understand it.

No, I understand perfectly. 
 

The reason you don’t elaborate any further is to avoid embarrassing yourself (yet again)

[Sue Denim]

40 minutes ago, Slarti said:

51 minutes ago, La Roche Derriere said:

Oaksoft.
The false positive rate is based on the total number of tests.
If you don’t believe me have a chat with Prof Heneghan.
The Captain is correct.

It's the number of false positives (FP) divided by the number of false positives (FP) plus the number of true negatives (TN). So, FP/(FP+TN).

In low prevalence there are none or virtually no false negatives.

To take an extreme example, if no one at all has the virus then it doesn’t matter at all what the false negative rate is - it could be as high as you like - there still won’t be anyone who has falsely tested negative.