100k tests

[festive]

@SirGalahad

Why are you spaffing your load over tests which are little better than flipping coins?

I have to agree here.

Can someone tell me what the use is? Someone walks into the test center and it's negative. Goes home drops their guard and catches a dose an hour later, continues to passively pass it on for the next 2 weeks proclaiming 'i tested negative!'.

 

[festive]

Be back down to 'normal service resumed' by tomorrow. Nothing to see here.

oh grow up and recognise they are as a team trying their hardest, i suggest you refrain from clapping the NHS as they're clearly not up to your high standards

 

[motorbiking]

Moving the goalposts are we. Too many are dead because of Government mismanagement.

how many ?

and where is your evidence?

 

[Brigadier]

I have to agree here.

Can someone tell me what the use is? Someone walks into the test center and it's negative. Goes home drops their guard and catches a dose an hour later, continues to passively pass it on for the next 2 weeks proclaiming 'i tested negative!'.

It's worse than that.
Someone tests negative.
+30% of those negative results are incorrect, and the people are actually infected.

If the reports about their "accuracy" are correct, they're currently a waste of time and money, and dangerously counterproductive.

 

[ajohn]

Can someone tell me what the use is? Someone walks into the test center and it's negative. Goes home drops their guard and catches a dose an hour later, continues to passively pass it on for the next 2 weeks proclaiming 'i tested negative!'

You've hit on the problem with virus testing - it doesn't show if some one is immune and they may catch it mins after being tested. Positive tested people must isolate.

Some one mentioned accuracy - mixed up with immunity testing. The virus test is far more accurate but does have it's moments. They may do further testing to see if the virus has gone. That seems to be the main reason a person can get more than one test. Viruses can hang around after the symptoms have gone or may have caught something else.

The other problem with the immunity test is that the immune system has to have started to respond. It doesn't start up immediately and probably needs a certain level of activity before antibodies can be detected. It can't be used to check if some on has CV19.

The big question really is why so many negative tests. A lot of that graph I posted is pure hospital entry tests. Later NHS staff come into it and so on. Person feels something is wrong may well explain it. This is why any tracing app must tie into testing. If it's just responding to some one not feeling right it looks like a lot of testing would be pointless as CV19 didn't start it off. Comments from Google and Apple suggest they need to stick this aspect up their ars#s. Korea is quoted by all as the best way and they store actual phone location for a rolling 21 days. That way testing can be tied to it. The one to be used by others doesn't. This means leaving blue tooth on all of the time so other phones can tell they are in range. Not so precise as mast location but will do. Koreans can't own a mobile without their name being attached to it as well. Actually given how mobile phones are sometimes used I think that is a rather good idea.

Google and Apple talking about tracking etc. Makes me laugh. Extreme case of pot calling kettle black. Browsers these days have permanent retention that probably contains everything they manage to find out about people one way or the other. Google and Chrome have probably extended that. Once cookies pointed at a remote data base and they work like that. Long since gone.

 

[noseall]

oh grow up and recognise

'normal service resumed' by tomorrow

Surprise surprise...Matt enjoys a bit of cooking.


As said previously, nothing to see here. The (true) numbers will be back to dismal standards soon.

 

[motorbiking]

So it looks like they did 80,000+ proper tests with 40,000 in the post. Still a good result ramping from 10,000. I'm still not convinced it should be getting the priority.

 

[durhamplumber]

oh grow up and recognise they are as a team trying their hardest, i suggest you refrain from clapping the NHS as they're clearly not up to your high standards

Very VERY Well said.

 

[SirGalahad]

I have to agree here.

Can someone tell me what the use is? Someone walks into the test center and it's negative. Goes home drops their guard and catches a dose an hour later, continues to passively pass it on for the next 2 weeks proclaiming 'i tested negative!'.

This is why testing is important. Their accuracy has always been about 70%.

https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-how-accurate-are-coronavirus-tests-135972

Your advocating for no testing then?

Even a test that is 70% accurate gives a better indication than no testing.

 

[durhamplumber]

Even a test that is 70% accurate gives a better indication than no testing.

As already said . AN Inaccurate test is worse than no test.70% is not accurate

 

[durhamplumber]

The big question really is why so many negative tests.

Either....test is wrong....Or...Because many people do not have the virus.

 

[motorbiking]

You can test negative, but catch it 5 minutes later. There are other colds etc around. I managed to get cold symptoms 2 weeks ago and I've been in lockdown for 5 weeks. Could only have picked it up from the supermarket.

 

[SirGalahad]

As already said . AN Inaccurate test is worse than no test.70% is not accurate

Lol. so after missing the target RWR shift to criticising the need for testing.

No test is 100% accurate.

 

[noseall]

the target RWR shift to criticising the need for testing

In spite of the fact that those countries whose policy was for prolific testing early on, are faring better than those that didn't.

They are a funny bunch them RWR-BHS. Don't diss Bozz.

 

[Brigadier]

Lol. so after missing the target RWR shift to criticising the need for testing.

No test is 100% accurate.

LOL yourself. Whitty et al have said for weeks that inaccurate testing is worse than no testing. That people are stating it on here, now, is purely in response to the thread 's evolution. They'll be saying the same (if the context calls for it) in the future too.

And while no test is 100% accurate, I agree with Dr Chris (Smith) on this one ; a 65% false - negative rate is barely better than flipping a coin.

Three people test negative.
One of those is actually positive.
False sense of security.
What will that do to R value, if the lockdown eases based on such results?