Jump to content

Coronavirus


faraway saint

Recommended Posts

Who to believe? A professor of genetic epidemiology seems to think not.
“We’ve also shown some negative signs in our app so if you have a runny nose or congestion, or sneezing, that’s really a sign that you absolutely do not have Covid,” he added.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/09/17/children-runny-nose-do-not-have-coronavirus-expert-insists-demand/
 
Surely, that's just a sign that you have something else. Whether or not you have covid is an unrelated matter - unless he is saying that the cold/flu virus kicks the shit out of covid then expels it from your body, so you can't have both. If that's the case, geeza cold right now. [emoji38]
Link to comment
Share on other sites


I read today that Sir Alan Sugar and his wife had been allowed to avoid hotel quarantine after arriving in Sydney, as they're granted permission to isolate privately  :shockaroony   Wonder if being a billionaire helped him to get that decision   :rolleyes:

Also, is having lots of money the reason Gareth Bale doesn't seem to had to isolate after flying in from Spain to sign for Spurs or are footballers exempt due to the amount of testing they do ?  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, smcc said:

The symptoms of a head cold(runny nose, stuffy nose, sneezing and catarrh0 bear no relation to the symptoms of Covid 19 and people with head cold symptoms are not being advised to have a Covid test.

The general public are clueless. People will be running for a test whether it’s a Covid symptom or not.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/19/2020 at 12:37 PM, Slarti said:

The prevalence is worked out by knowing how many people actually have it. You don't know the prevalence if you don't know how many false negatives or false positives there are. If every negative test turned out to be false then you would have a high prevalence. Therefore, false negatives are very important. They only become unimportant if you know for a fact (a real fact, not a Brazil fact) that there is a very low prevalence.

We do know for a fact that prevalence is very low. We don’t know for sure what the prevalence actually is but we do know it’s very low. So false negatives aren’t an issue.

But false positives are a big issue in low prevalence. They basically lay waste to most of the testing.

You’re good at arguing semantics but I’m not going down that route. You’ll just need to accept they I am right. Now get it up you 🖕

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, FTOF said:

Who to believe? A professor of genetic epidemiology seems to think not.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/09/17/children-runny-nose-do-not-have-coronavirus-expert-insists-demand/

 

I’m sure that’s true. But the issue is that the general public - like you - are stupid. Slightest runny nose and they’ll get tested.

You cock! 😃🖕😜

Link to comment
Share on other sites



We do know for a fact that prevalence is very low. We don’t know for sure what the prevalence actually is but we do know it’s very low. So false negatives aren’t an issue.
But false positives are a big issue in low prevalence. They basically lay waste to most of the testing.
You’re good at arguing semantics but I’m not going down that route. You’ll just need to accept they I am right. Now get it up you [emoji867]
 


No we don't, ya cock. [emoji38]
Link to comment
Share on other sites



So, the latest rise in cases are down to people not following the rules.
Not the UK government, not the Scottish government, people.


It has always been passed on by people, the governments have tried to explain to folk the reasoning for the restrictions (sometimes better than others).

It will continue to be passed on by people even by those that are complying with the restrictions.

It's the folk that are coming up with unbelievable conspiracy theories and others that think they know best that are contributing to the large increase in numbers that will result unfortunately soon in more unnecessary deaths.

There's one person on here even being allowed by his mate to incite breaking the law. That to me is unbelievable and should be sorted before more deaths.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/18/2020 at 9:20 PM, Hendo said:

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

Out of 110,000.

We're all doomed.

If the doubling rate keeps going it won't be pretty. This relates back to my point on short short-sightedness. Let's not forget many of the early posts on this thread underplayed the severity quite significantly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/19/2020 at 12:37 PM, Slarti said:

The prevalence is worked out by knowing how many people actually have it. You don't know the prevalence if you don't know how many false negatives or false positives there are. If every negative test turned out to be false then you would have a high prevalence. Therefore, false negatives are very important. They only become unimportant if you know for a fact (a real fact, not a Brazil fact) that there is a very low prevalence.

Jesus let it go... :whistle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/19/2020 at 12:17 PM, oaksoft said:

I love the way you just brazen your way through your arithmetic mistakes. :lol:

Most normal people are happy to hold their hands up.

Not you though.

You remind me of bazil and Dickson in that regard.

You'd be so very wrong to think I was complimenting you on this.

another one 🤣 and by that I mean a complete misrepresentation...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just watched Grant Shapps on Talk Radio from yesterday

The interviewer asked him if there had been any discussion in cabinet about false positives.

After twice attempting to answer the question with irrelevant replies he admits there hasn’t been.

He’s then questioned about the false positive rate being around 1% and how this means that around 90% of Pillar 2 positives tests are actually false.

Like the innumerate Matt Hancock and the innumerate @oaksoft he then goes on to say they a 1% false positive rate means that only 1 in every 10 positive tests is false.

The interviewer tries to explain it to him but he fails to understand (like @oaksoft he doubles down on his error).

Oh dear. And we’re about to get hit with a second lockdown on the back of this...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Long John Baldy said:

So, the latest rise in cases are down to people not following the rules.

Not the UK government, not the Scottish government, people.

I heard some companies have returned the funding that was made available for the furlough scheme, Ikea being one, well done them.

The furlough scheme, which has been a life saver for many companies, comes to an end in a few weeks.

I fear what that will mean to the unemployed numbers, and the knock on effect that will have. 

IF we have to return to more severe restriction this will be the final nail for many business's. 

The Scottish Health secretary is on the BBC front page talking about 6 more months of restrictions being more realistic than weeks.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:


It's the folk that are coming up with unbelievable conspiracy theories and others that think they know best that are contributing to the large increase in numbers that will result unfortunately soon in more unnecessary deaths.
 

 

Oh come on cockles. That's over emotional nonsense right there.

There are plenty of very credible scientists arguing on both sides of this and most of us are capable of hearing both sides, looking at the lack of deaths and hospitalisations, looking at the evidence of dead virus cells giving unknown but probably very large rates of false positives and coming to our own conclusions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

Oh come on cockles. That's over emotional nonsense right there.

There are plenty of very credible scientists arguing on both sides of this and most of us are capable of hearing both sides, looking at the lack of deaths and hospitalisations, looking at the evidence of dead virus cells giving unknown but probably very large rates of false positives and coming to our own conclusions.

Your conclusion is governed by the money in your pocket, you've admitted as much. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whitty and Vallance said that if there are 50,000 cases a day, 200/day will die. That’s a Case Fatality Rate of 0.25%. CFR is usually 10 times higher than The Infection Fataloty Rate. So that means they think the IFR of Covid is ~0.025, about a quarter of the IFR of seasonal flu.

And there won’t be 50,000 “cases” a day 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Oh come on cockles. That's over emotional nonsense right there.
There are plenty of very credible scientists arguing on both sides of this and most of us are capable of hearing both sides, looking at the lack of deaths and hospitalisations, looking at the evidence of dead virus cells giving unknown but probably very large rates of false positives and coming to our own conclusions.


Definitely emotional but not nonsensical.

I've never questioned any sensible poster or credible scientist.

I even understood the graph you got slated by the poster I referred too previously, was if there wasn't a lockdown.

As you've written in the last paragraph probably, that's one of the reasons why I've erred on the side of a more cautious way forward.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...