COVID-19 — Coronavirus

Status
Not open for further replies.
domalino said:
See Vic's post above, the Americans have already approved the same type of test and are rolling it out.
Click to expand...
Just seen it 91% - 99% accuracy don't believe Mr. Whitty would go for that unless they can get near the 99%.
 
SWP's back said:
Ha. She’s also got a City water bottle, City pencil case and she’s put a picture of Kompany lifting the PL trophy on the fridge.

I’ve created a monster.

edit: she’s up for getting player names in! This is great.
Click to expand...
Stop it now, I think I’m falling in love.
 
twosips said:
We had so much time to avoid matching Italy's numbers. Looks like we might exceed them now.

Can only conclude that the herd immunity thing was never fully abandoned, just that an acceptable percentage of the country being infected was decided on instead. Cheers, the government. I may be wrong, but I cant see why else we'd walk so blindly down this path we've chosen to take with substantial warnings and time we had been given. Bleak.

Click to expand...



bcffa2c2306f66e3d2fde66045cc6a08.jpg


b812b85293e616a0311582c9d3d960fb.jpg


Still tracking under both Spain & Italy going from 50th death. Granted there’s been a spike in the last couple days which doesn’t look great.
 
ganganvince said:
Just seen it 91% - 99% accuracy don't believe Mr. Whitty would go for that unless they can get near the 99%.
Click to expand...

Right but that's exactly the problem.

Specificity rate is the success rate of picking up negatives properly. That's the 91%

Sensitivity is the success of picking up positives correctly. That's 99%.

Accurate testing of millions of people a week with 15 minute results vs. 100% accurate testing of 10,000 a day with a 4 day wait.

This is a classic example of "don't let perfection be the enemy of very good".

And in the Thai trial, they sent the negative responses back and isolated them before testing them 3 days later to confirm - which would make the chances of being false negative both times closer to 0.01%.
 
SWP's back said:
Ha. I tried:

this is what she’s put out:

0rHfado.jpg


Bless I think she thought I was being serious about Pete the badge. (“Pampa” is my Dad’s ashes behind the star as she wants him on tv as well - its a strange family) She’s also struggling typing “with”.

Edit: she asked me to post this link if anyone has a spare fiver for a great cause:

https://www.cancercare.org.uk/support-us/donations
Click to expand...

Remember building the model Etihad (if that’s the one she’s got there) was abit of a mission!
 
Gelsons Dad said:
Well.........
What the antibody test does in this case is simply describe if the patient Has or Had covid. It doesn't reduce the need for a PCR test. In the trail described, all those who tested positive for antibody were then referred for a PCR test. So it doesn't speed anything up and in fact puts extra burden on the PCR test as no people who are no longer infectious also need to be tested.

So in my view the Doc is correct that the antibody test doesn't replace the PCR test.They are both required to distinguish between those who may need treatment and those who don't.
Click to expand...

First things first, the Doc is not right. He very clearly said in the video that you cannot use the antibody test to diagnose current infections. Which is wrong, because that's exactly what America and the Thai trial are doing. He's operating on out of date information, from a time when we weren't in a global crisis and people could wait 28 days to guarantee 100% accurate testing instead of 99%.

Secondly, it massively reduces need for PCR tests because it has a 99% success rate at picking up positive cases. And they are the only ones who get PCR'd.

If you applied that to the current UK numbers of testing - 152,000 tests and 29,000 positives. With the antibody test, 152,000 PCR tests would drop to pretty much 43,000, because the 9% of people who got a false negative would then become positive in their second test.
 
domalino said:
Right but that's exactly the problem.

Specificity rate is the success rate of picking up negatives properly. That's the 91%

Sensitivity is the success of picking up positives correctly. That's 99%.

Accurate testing of millions of people a week with 15 minute results vs. 100% accurate testing of 10,000 a day with a 4 day wait.

This is a classic example of "don't let perfection be the enemy of very good".

And in the Thai trial, they sent the negative responses back and isolated them before testing them 3 days later to confirm - which would make the chances of being false negative both times closer to 0.01%.
Click to expand...
I am not buying or selling on this agree testing is important but feel there is a band wagon rolling we're testing is the only show in town
 
domalino said:
Right but that's exactly the problem.

Specificity rate is the success rate of picking up negatives properly. That's the 91%

Sensitivity is the success of picking up positives correctly. That's 99%.

Accurate testing of millions of people a week with 15 minute results vs. 100% accurate testing of 10,000 a day with a 4 day wait.

This is a classic example of "don't let perfection be the enemy of very good".

And in the Thai trial, they sent the negative responses back and isolated them before testing them 3 days later to confirm - which would make the chances of being false negative both times closer to 0.01%.
Click to expand...
Thanks for putting into words things that to the layman seem obvious.
The only problem would be if any side effects offset its value.
 
After a slow start I've generally been satisfied with the Government response so far but I feel that they have allowed PHE to adopt a bureaucratic policy to ramping up testing and they need to get right on top of it. It needs a Minister for Testing to drive it forward as this key to getting back to some form of normality before the economy collapses.
 
ganganvince said:
Just seen it 91% - 99% accuracy don't believe Mr. Whitty would go for that unless they can get near the 99%.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that's the problem. The Prof is Whitty's deputy and was saying it couldn't test who's got it rather than had it, not that it could but not sufficiently accurately.

What if Peston (and the FDA) is right and the government's scientific advisers have got it wrong?
 
Johnson said he's been saying "for weeks and weeks" about the importance of testing (so now we are going to do it). Has he been saying that for weeks and weeks?

(I have been googling for it..)
 
Vic said:
I'm not sure that's the problem. The Prof is Whitty's deputy and was saying it couldn't test who's got it rather than had it, not that it could but not sufficiently accurately.

What if Peston (and the FDA) is right and the government's scientific advisers have got it wrong?
.
Click to expand...
The biggest issue is the fact the experts don't agree I suppose you need to decide who you are going with and stick with them unless there is compelling evidence to switch
 
Last edited by a moderator:
domalino said:
Perfect, so the Americans are using it too now. For @George Hannah -

The test has a 91% clinical specificity rate and a 99% clinical sensitivity rate and uses antibodies in blood to identify current or past coronavirus infection.
​
So there you have the American FDA agreeing with what Peston said and not the ITV expert.
​
Click to expand...
For me, it doesn’t diminish Peston’s cunitishness by one iota.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top