Professor Norman Fenton (university of London)

[EddieM]

Wait until you get morning sickness...

You can then reach out for the Thalidomide...

It was thought to be perfectly safe at one time apparently

It's still used. Not advised for pregnant women. But why conflagrating drugs with vaccines?

 

[IT Minion]

This from a video posted in another thread yesterday:

View attachment 231292

It does seem disingenuous not to say in the first place that 67% of positives are false but apparently that is how it is done as can be seen from this explanation:
https://assets.publishing.service.g...9_Impact_of_false_positives_and_negatives.pdf

It's also clearly wrong. If 2% of tests conducted were false positives then you'd expect to get a minimum positive rate of 2% in a population with no Covid-19 at all.

The actual positive rate as dropped down to 0.2% or lower.

So, obviously something in your calculations is wrong.

 

[EFLImpudence]

It's also clearly wrong. If 2% of tests conducted were false positives then you'd expect to get a minimum positive rate of 2% in a population with no Covid-19 at all.

I don't know. Look at the other videos.

The actual positive rate as dropped down to 0.2% or lower.

Then obviously the false positive rate will be proportionately lower now.

The point is the percentage of false positives is on the whole number of tests, not the number of positive tests.

So, obviously something in your calculations is wrong.

No, not my calculation, nor my video originally.
I am merely using the figures in the screen-grab.

That is how it is done.

 

[IT Minion]

I don't know. Look at the other videos.


Then obviously the false positive rate will be proportionately lower now.

The point is the percentage of false positives is on the whole number of tests, not the number of positive tests.


No, not my calculation, nor my video originally.
I am merely using the figures in the screen-grab.

That is how it is done.

I'll rephrase, we have been testing for a long time. During the lull between the first peak and the second we were doing hundreds of thousands of PCR tests. During that period the positive rate was very low, roughly 0.2% at times.

If there were zero Covid-19 cases being detected the false positive rate could not have been above 0.2%.

So, the numbers you're using are wrong.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Then please furnish us with the correct ones. Obviously you don't know.

Here is another site quoting 1.16% false positives.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.06.21255029v2.full

Here is a paper stating how it is done and what is expected.
https://assets.publishing.service.g...9_Impact_of_false_positives_and_negatives.pdf

 

[IT Minion]

Then please furnish us with the correct ones. Obviously you don't know.

Here is another site quoting 1.16% false positives.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.06.21255029v2.full

Here is a paper stating how it is done and what is expected.
https://assets.publishing.service.g...9_Impact_of_false_positives_and_negatives.pdf

https://www.diynot.com/diy/posts/4925717/

That article says exactly what I did.

tests). 1,570 of those tests were positive for SARS-CoV-2 (1.6%). The majority of people tested on
that day did not have SARS-CoV-2 (98.4% of tests are negative). When only a small proportion of
people being tested have the virus, the operational false positive rate becomes very important.
Clearly the false positive rate cannot exceed 1.6% on that day, and is likely to be much lower. If the
operational false positive rate was 0.4%, 400 of the 1,570 positive tests would be false positives.
That would represent 400 people being isolated when they are well, and much wasted effort in
contact tracing. It is possible that a proportion of infections that we currently view as asymptomatic
may in fact be due to these false positives.

But it was earlier on and so the positive rate was much higher.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Does it? So you must agree with me then.

The point is that the 0.4% is of the total number tested.

400 out of 1,570 is 25%.



Was the SAGE number - 2.3% - in the screen-grab correct?

 

[IT Minion]

Was the SAGE number - 2.3% - in the screen-grab correct?

Clearly not. As your link shows.

It might have been right at the time, but it definitely isn't now. Edit: Actually it might have been a reasonable guess earlier but now we know better.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Right at the time is good enough.

Ooops no, it was just a guess.


Then tell us the proper figures. You're the expert.

 

[EFLImpudence]

IT Minion's foolproof way of persuading skeptics:

"Just tell them they are wrong".

 

[IT Minion]

Right at the time is good enough.

Ooops no, it was just a guess.


Then tell us the proper figures. You're the expert.

No I'm not, but I'm smart enough to know yours are clearly wrong.

I've already said the actual false positive rate is way way below 2%. I've given a guess of 0.2% and have linked to some of the workings for that number.

Do you agree that a 2% false positive rate is wrong? Or are you just being an arse for the fun of it? With you it's really hard to tell when you just don't understand what you're talking about and when you're trolling.

 

[EFLImpudence]

No I'm not, but I'm smart enough to know yours are clearly wrong.

That's that settled then.

I've already said the actual false positive rate is way way below 2%. I've given a guess of 0.2% and have linked to some of the workings for that number.

Your guess is better than experts saying different. Good enough for me.

Do you agree that 2% is wrong?

I don't know, do I? I am just quoting what some experts have said.

Or are you just being an arse for the fun of it?

No, that's you, that is.

With you it's really hard to tell when you just don't understand what you're talking about and when you're trolling.

If you don't know the actual answers to my questions, then don't bother to respond.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Have another look.

 

[IT Minion]

I don't know, do I? I am just quoting what some experts have said.

That's a pathetic response.

It's utterly pathetic when you quoted a source that showed it was wrong.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Oh, Go away.