Liverpool Thread - 2021/22

Fode N The Hole

Well-Known Member
Joined
1 Oct 2020
Messages
6,520
We're the initial test not LFT's? In which case there is no testing lab involved.

Spotted him the in vicinity of coca-cola



Anyone seen him with a pink pen?
 

hello

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 Jun 2009
Messages
3,939
You can have multiple false positives as per the following report in the BMJ.

https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1411/rr

This explains how and why you can have an high number of false positives.

Personally, I think Klopp is an absolute utter fùcking thundercunt in nearly all he says and does and fits in perfectly at the club he is at.

But, when reading the above it clearly states the process of COVID testing and explains how false positives do occur.
Your article states a rate of 10 per 1000 false positives, that’s with lay people testing themselves. So for the scouse cunts to get 5+ false positives from 30 tests administered by professional medics says to me they are lying cheating twats prepared to manipulate a deadly virus to suit their preferred schedule.
 

Brewster's millions

Well-Known Member
Joined
9 Apr 2012
Messages
660
You can have multiple false positives as per the following report in the BMJ.

https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1411/rr

This explains how and why you can have an high number of false positives.

Personally, I think Klopp is an absolute utter fùcking thundercunt in nearly all he says and does and fits in perfectly at the club he is at.

But, when reading the above it clearly states the process of COVID testing and explains how false positives do occur.
I haven’t read the full paper but the headlines from the latest research from the NHS rest and trace study suggests just 3 false positive cases per 10,000 lateral flow tests when COVID levels are high across the population, so not sure how this tallies with the BMJ research.
 

SilvaisSkyBlue

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 Dec 2010
Messages
1,484
We're the initial test not LFT's? In which case there is no testing lab involved.
Not sure whether they were LFTs or PCRs.

Seen that report and it states how and why you can get high % of false positives for PCRs.

Read a few reports about LFTs and they are not very complimentary about them in general either.

Think in this case Klopp is probably just passing on what the medical staff at his club have advised him and nothing to see here. The risks for any club telling lies about their respective COVID testing would be huge, even liverpool would not be able to slither their way out of the associated consequences, unless Chelsea Doctors involved ;)
 

SilvaisSkyBlue

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 Dec 2010
Messages
1,484
Your article states a rate of 10 per 1000 false positives, that’s with lay people testing themselves. So for the scouse cunts to get 5+ false positives from 30 tests administered by professional medics says to me they are lying cheating twats prepared to manipulate a deadly virus to suit their preferred schedule.

I haven’t read the full paper but the headlines from the latest research from the NHS rest and trace study suggests just 3 false positive cases per 10,000 lateral flow tests when COVID levels are high across the population, so not sure how this tallies with the BMJ research.
It states this in the BMJ paper:

‘’First, we conservatively assumed 1% pre-test probability of active infection, which is, based on the data reviewed above, which is a higher level of active infection than was found in the large vaccine clinical trials.
We also assumed 58% sensitivity and 99% specificity, which are the findings of a recent Cochrane meta-analysis combining 64 published studies of antigen test accuracy, when used to test asymptomatics (Dinnes, J. et al. 2021).

The result in this scenario is 50% false positives (1 true positive and 1 false positive) — even with a 99% specificity test. There would theoretically be zero false negatives, so the risk of missing actual infections is not at issue.

50% is the same as random chance. In other words, this 99% specificity test can do no better than a coin flip when declaring a positive result. So screening in this scenario is not warranted because data that is no better than a coin flip is not data — it’s random chance.

However, the situation is much worse than this because neither PCR nor antigen tests are close to a 99% specificity level in practice, for various reasons (Braunstein et al. 2021). Lee 2020 performed a lab analysis of the CDC PCR test accuracy, which was widely used in the first months of the pandemic, and found it had a 70% specificity (i.e. 30% false positives) and 80% sensitivity (20% false negatives). This is because of faulty designs built in to the test from the beginning, as various news accounts from the Washington Post, NPR and ProPublica have since revealed’’.
 

Petetheblu

Well-Known Member
Joined
10 Sep 2007
Messages
6,843
Come on guys be serious, surely you can't believe they've cheated.

Listen to yourselves, next you'll be wittering on about them hacking our computers to find out who we want during the next transfer window. something!!....lol.

Oh and that team coach of ours on the way to Anfield was nothing less than shabby ownership, how it passed the MOT I'll never know......
 

Brewster's millions

Well-Known Member
Joined
9 Apr 2012
Messages
660
It states this in the BMJ paper:

‘’First, we conservatively assumed 1% pre-test probability of active infection, which is, based on the data reviewed above, which is a higher level of active infection than was found in the large vaccine clinical trials.
We also assumed 58% sensitivity and 99% specificity, which are the findings of a recent Cochrane meta-analysis combining 64 published studies of antigen test accuracy, when used to test asymptomatics (Dinnes, J. et al. 2021).

The result in this scenario is 50% false positives (1 true positive and 1 false positive) — even with a 99% specificity test. There would theoretically be zero false negatives, so the risk of missing actual infections is not at issue.

50% is the same as random chance. In other words, this 99% specificity test can do no better than a coin flip when declaring a positive result. So screening in this scenario is not warranted because data that is no better than a coin flip is not data — it’s random chance.

However, the situation is much worse than this because neither PCR nor antigen tests are close to a 99% specificity level in practice, for various reasons (Braunstein et al. 2021). Lee 2020 performed a lab analysis of the CDC PCR test accuracy, which was widely used in the first months of the pandemic, and found it had a 70% specificity (i.e. 30% false positives) and 80% sensitivity (20% false negatives). This is because of faulty designs built in to the test from the beginning, as various news accounts from the Washington Post, NPR and ProPublica have since revealed’’.
Thanks.

Obviously it’s a bit late now and I could be getting the wrong end of the stick but the overall results regarding false positives appear very dependent on the assumptions around community infection rates, and the probability of a false negative occurring declines as covid becomes more prevalent across the population.

If you use the BMJ calculator and plug in the latest data from the ons on infection rates (c7%) and the test and trace data on Sensivity (77%) then the estimated false positive rate would drop to less than 1% in the current circumstances

So again it doesn’t rule out the potential for Liverpool to have had a faulty batch of lateral flow tests, but it does on a general perspective highlight how unusual it would be at the moment to get 6 false positives being returned on however many lateral flow tests they did over a period of one or two days.

Interestingly the Premier League now appears to have dropped the requirement for a positive lateral flow test to be followed-up with a PCR, in line with broader government guidelines, so we’ll now have much less information on false negatives. So clubs who want to play a fixture would presumably have less recourse to challenge a dodgy lateral flow test, and clubs who want to avoid a semi-final during a dodgy run of form will just need to get busy with the Robinson’s Fruit Shoot.
 

Paladin

Well-Known Member
Joined
10 Jan 2009
Messages
5,320
Location
Cheshire
No, how did he benefit by telling us all they were false?

And they will all be away on international duty when the rescheduled Arsenal match takes place as well.
He is reported to have said the Liverpool squad had "a lot of false positives", and he then admitted the only player to actually contract Covid after the Chelsea game was Trent Alexander Arnold. Alisson, Firmino and Matip were out of the Chelsea game with Covid, and Klopp missed that game for the same reason.

With Salah, Mane and Keita leaving for AFCON after the Chelsea game, Liverpool had potentially seven first team players out of the first Arsenal game including TAA. Therefore to get the game postponed due to Covid would mean that four of the seven players would be available for both legs of the Carabao Cup against Arsenal, because their isolation would have finished before 13 January, the new date of the first leg.

Klopp doesn't benefit by telling us there were a lot of false positive results. He should have just kept quiet about that, and nobody would have been any the wiser. But he has definitely benefitted from the postponement. By saying there were a lot of false positives, he has invited suspicion upon himself and the club, because as we all know, the tests are very accurate, and multiple false positives are not known to have come from the same batch of tests.

Klopp said this in December: ''We play now Wednesday then Sunday then Tuesday, that’s just not possible. We don’t have the players we need and we probably will have another case or two so then those players will go into quarantine too. I think we should take away the second leg of the semi-final of the Carabao Cup, throw it away, just play it once wherever you want to play it, I don’t care. Maybe we will wake up tomorrow and have too many cases not to play but we need help with the fixtures".

Their Leeds game was cancelled (the Sunday one above), so Klopp already got his desired reduced fixture list. With the cancellation of the first leg against Arsenal, he gets a much stronger, rested team. A big benefit.
 

Don't have an account?

Register now!
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.