100k tests

[ajohn]

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.

Which test in China and when were they taken in relationship to symptoms? Were the nose or throat or both swabs?

Try a more scientific source
https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-comment-on-the-reliability-of-swab-testing/

Like most things scientific in relationship to CV19 there is some doubt and various things matter such as what the swabs are coated with, where they are taken from and when in relationship to symptoms. Also why has this type of testing helped keep numbers down?

 

[ajohn]

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.

Which test in China and when were they taken in relationship to symptoms? Were the nose or throat or both swabs?

Try a more scientific source
https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-comment-on-the-reliability-of-swab-testing/

Like most things scientific in relationship to CV19 there is some doubt and various things matter such as what the swabs are coated with, where they are taken from and when in relationship to symptoms. Also why has this type of testing helped keep numbers down?

 

[SirGalahad]

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?

Lol yourself. Witty was referring to antibody tests which are inaccurate. If these tests were 65% - not seen it mentioned they are that bad then Witty would have advised not to test then.

So we shouldn't test then?

 

[Brigadier]

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

I suppose the ubiquitous wearing of masks and gloves, strict social distancing, and blanket and continual spraying of disinfectants in all public places has nothing to do with it then?

Tests alone (even if totally accurate) will do little to contain the virus, without other measures.

 

[SirGalahad]

I suppose the ubiquitous wearing of masks and gloves, strict social distancing, and blanket and continual spraying of disinfectants in all public places has nothing to do with it then?

Tests alone (even if totally accurate) will do little to contain the virus, without other measures.

Testing will help in hospitals. Weekly testing of staff.

 

[Brigadier]

Lol yourself. Witty was referring to antibody tests which are inaccurate. If these tests were 65% - not seen it mentioned they are that bad then Witty would have advised not to test then.

So we shouldn't test then?

Look up the bmj. They have the figures.

Scarily as well, the bmj also cite Chinese research which states as many as 80% of the infected are asymptomatic.

So no, if the tests are little better than guesses, I don't think we should be doing them.

Edit : Actually, I've had a bit of a change of heart.
Yes, test by all means, and test as many as possible. This is a novel virus, and the more information we can gather, the better. It may stand us in good stead, for the later progress of this pandemic, and possibly for any future ones.
HOWEVER, this testing, inaccurate as it is, should not form a key plank in our current strategy against the virus.

 

[ajohn]

continual spraying of disinfectants in all public places has nothing to do with it then?

We didn't order enough domestos and there is a world wide demand for it. My wife is really miffed

 

[noseall]

Tests alone (even if totally accurate) will do little to contain the virus, without other measures.

Just another pointless Tory publicity stunt then.

 

[ajohn]

Lol yourself. Witty was referring to antibody tests which are inaccurate. If these tests were 65% - not seen it mentioned they are that bad then Witty would have advised not to test then

 

[SirGalahad]

Look up the bmj. They have the figures.

Scarily as well, the bmj also cite Chinese research which states as many as 80% of the infected are asymptomatic.

So no, if the tests are little better than guesses, I don't think we should be doing them.

Asymptomatic is the double edged sword. Which is why reading this we should all rejoice if its accurate.

https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1742

An antibody blood test for covid-19, which the manufacturer Abbott claims is 99% accurate, has been certified for use by the European Union.

The test—which has received its CE mark, meaning that it complies with EU safety rules—detects the antibody IgG to identify whether a person has had covid-19.

 

[SirGalahad]

Just another pointless Tory publicity stunt then.

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/to...ittee-matt-hancock-health-secretary-1-6631085

The government’s coronavirus testing target was not set based on specific scientific advice, says England’s top medical officer, Chris Whitty.

 

[SirGalahad]

Lol Indeed. The last sentence I was referring to the current PCR tests accuracy. Do keep up old plum.

 

[SirGalahad]

Edit : Actually, I've had a bit of a change of heart.
Yes, test by all means, and test as many as possible. This is a novel virus, and the more information we can gather, the better. It may stand us in good stead, for the later progress of this pandemic, and possibly for any future ones.
HOWEVER, this testing, inaccurate as it is, should not form a key plank in our current strategy against the virus.

The only solution. You know it. You want it?

 

[ajohn]

Just another pointless Tory publicity stunt then.

I'm not fond of them or just in time NHS plus CV19 handling but that comment is a bit silly. Testing doesn't stop people from catching it. Social distances does to some extent. It's important to weed out people who have it. The negative test numbers are so high it's unlikely to have anything to do with the tests - there is even a hypochondria like relationship to age and sex / determined to get tested. It's new and people know it can be serious. If they died later it would now show in the figures.

 

[Brigadier]

Just another pointless Tory publicity stunt then.

Asking with much of the rest of the world, it seems.