COVID-19 — Coronavirus

Status
Not open for further replies.
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:
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.