Professor Norman Fenton (university of London)

[John the plumber]

Click the link at the video for the full paper.

 

[EddieM]

A video about stating the bleedin obvious. Thanks for that I feel enlightened, not!

 

[John the plumber]

A video about stating the bleedin obvious. Thanks for that I feel enlightened, not!

Yet you chose to watch it
Are you now going to put the same comment on every video on DIYNOT that states the bleeding obvious?
Multiple people on the plumbing section ask questions or post pictures regarding a problem that to me is obvious to fix/rectify.
Shall I now post a sarcastic message to all those.
I never asked you to watch it,you chose to.
So by your comment your stating that it’s contents are bleeding obvious regarding falsifying the Covid numbers etc?

 

[John the plumber]

 

[denso13]

Professor Irene Petersen (University College London)

https://www.dovepress.com/three-qua...omatic-an-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-CLEP

 

[EFLImpudence]

This from a video posted in another thread yesterday:

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

 

[denso13]

It does seem disingenuous not to say in the first place that 67% of positives are false

Your link includes this;

"What is the UK operational false positive rate? The UK operational false positive rate is unknown. There are no published studies on the operational false positive rate of any national COVID-19 testing programme. An attempt has been made to estimate the likely false-positive rate of national COVID-19 testing programmes by examining data from published external quality assessments (EQAs) for RT-PCR assays for other RNA viruses carried out between 2004-2019 [7]. Results of 43 EQAs were examined, giving a median false positive rate of 2.3% (interquartile range 0.8-4.0%)."

The problem is it is all based on estimations and isn't based on Covid but "other RNA viruses" from 2004 till 2019.

 

[denso13]

And this,

"UK Column is the preserve of crackpot conspiracy theorists, which is no surprise given that it is the work of leading crackpot conspiracy theorist Brian Gerrish."

 

[EFLImpudence]

Your link includes this;
"What is the UK operational false positive rate? The UK operational false positive rate is unknown. There are no published studies on the operational false positive rate of any national COVID-19 testing programme. An attempt has been made to estimate the likely false-positive rate of national COVID-19 testing programmes by examining data from published external quality assessments (EQAs) for RT-PCR assays for other RNA viruses carried out between 2004-2019 [7]. Results of 43 EQAs were examined, giving a median false positive rate of 2.3% (interquartile range 0.8-4.0%)."

Exactly.

The problem is it is all based on estimations and isn't based on Covid but "other RNA viruses" from 2004 till 2019.

Why do you think covid will be any different?

Is it correct that the PCR test cannot distinguish between covid and other RNA viruse?

 

[EFLImpudence]

And this,
"UK Column is the preserve of crackpot conspiracy theorists, which is no surprise given that it is the work of leading crackpot conspiracy theorist Brian Gerrish."

Yes, but that is the accusation made for anyone who disagrees.

Are the numbers they use correct?


Even Bobby is right occasionally.

 

[denso13]

Exactly.

Ok, so estimations from old data which may, or may not be, correct as no current studies exist. You did seem pretty exact here...

It does seem disingenuous not to say in the first place that 67% of positives are false

Why do you think covid will be any different?

Because most of the false positives come from cross reactions or contamination. Hopefully we've moved on a bit in the last 20 years.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Did the current SAGE say there were 2.3% of all tests were false positives or not?

 

[denso13]

Is it correct that the PCR test cannot distinguish between covid and other RNA viruse?

No it isn't correct. https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/fact-check/pcr-tests-cannot-distinguish-covid-19-other-diseases

 

[ellal]

"Britain's coronavirus death rate could be close to zero because a portion of the tiny number of people dying from the disease will pass away from natural causes, experts claimed today as a raft of official data showed the virus is still firmly in retreat.

The Department of Health's daily death figure includes anyone who dies of any cause within 28 days of a positive test, meaning patients who succumb to cancer, suffer a heart attack or get hit by a car within four weeks would be counted.

Oxford University professor Dr Jason Oke said that when a lot of people are swabbed – about a million per day at the moment – some of them will inevitably die naturally of causes 'unrelated to Covid'."

 

[Brigade77]

I am, as you all well know, incredibly stupid. So could someone please explain to me how a test with only 2x possible outcomes could ever be judged at only 2% accurate?

This, to me, is like saying the toss of a coin can only land on heads or tails 2x in 100 . . . .