WHO Poll
Q: 2020/2021 Where will we finish up this season?
a. Top Four, Champions League here we come
7%
  
b. 5th-7th Europa League is well within our grasp
1%
  
c. 8th to 14th anywhere in mid table is about right
12%
  
d. We're in a dog fight before a ball has been kicked and we'll do well to finish 17th or just above
38%
  
e. GSB have derailed our season before a ball has been kicked, the Championship beckons
41%
  



goose 12:23 Wed Jan 22
This coronavirus in China
anyone else worried? 9 dead so far.

CNY soon so the virus will spread very quickly if they cannot control it. It'll be in Europe by the end of CNY if not earlier.

is this the end of humanity?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51202216

Replies - Newest Posts First (Show In Chronological Order)

gph 1:59 Sat Sep 19
Re: This coronavirus in China
*other*

*waits for the Dementure Kid to turn up*

zebthecat 1:52 Sat Sep 19
Re: This coronavirus in China
BRANDED 1:50 Sat Sep 19

85%

BRANDED 1:50 Sat Sep 19
Re: This coronavirus in China
The increase in infections recorded is directly related to the increase in testing. If we had the current infection rate to testing back in March we would have seen 100,000 positives a day or more. You’ll not hear this from any mainstream news outlet because they seem incapable of simple arithmetic.

BRANDED 1:44 Sat Sep 19
Re: This coronavirus in China
Testing stats and data

https://fullfact.org/health/question-time-testing-figures/?fbclid=IwAR2Xdr6qk9tdZcn2XTqsYpeZg-Sgy-UrCsNNa6CUIDe7saPPdwqZL2SWmwI


Not terribly clear

gph 1:41 Sat Sep 19
Re: This coronavirus in China
Depends where the false positives come from. If from random factors, then if there were only false positives, they would be weeded out by retesting.

If from systematic failures, like registering antibodies to over coronaviruses as C-19, then the false positives wouldn't go away.

riosleftsock 1:37 Sat Sep 19
Re: This coronavirus in China
GPH

Yes, its 0.8% to over 1%, I can't remember the upper end of the range.

One of the problems is the idea that Hancock is looking for zero covid cases, as long as you rely on testing that has any false positives this test can never be met.

gph 1:16 Sat Sep 19
Re: This coronavirus in China
The denominator in both the fractions I gave is necessarily greater than or equal to the numerator, which tells me that any source that says either is greater than 1 is talking shit.

You sure you haven't forgotten a percentage sign - i.e., 0.8% to way over 1%?

riosleftsock 1:03 Sat Sep 19
Re: This coronavirus in China
geep/all

The 0.8 is actually the low end of the range, I think the other end is way over 1.

Somebody at work pointed this out to me in a passing comment and I didn't really understand what she was saying at first. I had a scratch around and came up with this

https://www.hdruk.ac.uk/projects/false-positives/

Crassus 12:53 Sat Sep 19
Re: This coronavirus in China
I'll bow to the resident mathematicians on the site to debate the numbers as stated, but as someone more inclined to the facts and holding a healthy statistics damn lies and statistics attitude ( I've employed enough numeric bullshit in commerce) I defer to an Oxford Professor on the wireless who quite candidly pointed out that the margin of accepted test error, at the lowest end x the increased test rate would comfortably accommodate the alleged 'surge'.

That's Oxford who have been bang on the money throughout as opposed to the 500k deaths, up the ladder London shagger Prof' who initiated the great cow cull, latterly discredited

Put bullshit into the 'system' and the numbers as stated are likewise - here is a system fact for you I repeat yet again, test A symptomatic here and die in a car crash you are a Covid death. Die of sepsis as a consequence of Covid (the end game in most Covid triggered deaths) in Germany and you died of sepsis not Covid

There is bollox at play for sure, not woked out why yet but absolutely bollox at play

Mike Oxsaw 12:51 Sat Sep 19
Re: This coronavirus in China
aldgate 11:55 Fri Sep 18

The idea is to keep it that way, not wait for it to become overwhelmed and then be unable to do anything about it.

aldgate 11:55 Fri Sep 18
Re: This coronavirus in China
just looked at latest NHS stats
468 hospital beds out of 110,000 nationwide occupied by Covid patients
58 people still on ventilators across all hospitals
58 daily admissions with Covid and 67 discharges
that doesn't sound like an overwhelmed NHS to me......

Bungo 11:04 Fri Sep 18
Re: This coronavirus in China
Stubbo 10:01 Fri Sep 18

Whever possible, those collating the figures will allow for the known test error rates to arrive at figures that are as close to reality as possible.

Mike Oxsaw 10:51 Fri Sep 18
Re: This coronavirus in China
mashed in maryland 8:59 Fri Sep 18

What does Boris gain from declaring a second wave? What does ANY government gain? What does Iran gain from declaring a 3rd wave?

The only people I see making out of this are small specialist sectors - medical equipment suppliers and those developing a virus...oh, and people lending money to the governments to fund all this - including the pension funds (some of whom are a bit short themselves).

gph 10:13 Fri Sep 18
Re: This coronavirus in China
There are competing definitions of "false positive rate".

Either
(number of negative cases tested as positive)/(total number of negative cases)
or
(number of negative cases tested as positive)/(total number of cases tested as positive).

Maybe, in a 100 years the definitions will settle down. In the meantime, it's considered good practice* to state which definition you are using when you communicate your results.

*Something I've failed to do on at least one occasion. I won't do it again, even though I haven't been rebuked for it

twoleftfeet 10:13 Fri Sep 18
Re: This coronavirus in China
3 cases per 100,000 were I live.

What pandemic?

Stubbo 10:01 Fri Sep 18
Re: This coronavirus in China
What I don't get is this:

We're for arguments sake concerned if the rate of infection in the population is 50 per 100,000. That's 0.05%!

If you test 100,000 people with specificity of 99.8% even if none of them have it, the test will tell you that 200 of them have it.

So the testing inaccuracy is four times more prevalent than the threshold for us dropping a bollock and going to defcon 4!

Bungo 9:44 Fri Sep 18
Re: This coronavirus in China
Decent link below giving a reasonably simple explanation of sensitity, specificity as well as PPV and NPVs.

As far as I know no tests for anything are 100%, so there will always be some errors.

https://uk.cochrane.org/news/sensitivity-and-specificity-explained-cochrane-uk-trainees-blog

Stubbo 9:40 Fri Sep 18
Re: This coronavirus in China
So if you test 200k people today who dont have the virus, 1600 will get told they have it at Specificity of 99.2%

Stubbo 9:38 Fri Sep 18
Re: This coronavirus in China
Speficity less than 100% = false positives (99% would mean for every 100 people tested who don't have the virus one would be missed)

Sensitivity less than 100% = false negatives (99% would mean for every 100 people tested who have the virus one would be missed)

The old c wing 9:35 Fri Sep 18
Re: This coronavirus in China
YEs stubbo. So if 4,000 test positive as today, then 32 were falsely positive.

Rio - yes, same time next week?

Stubbo 9:30 Fri Sep 18
Re: This coronavirus in China
C Wing

Specificity is about the rate of accurately identifying those who do not have something.

So of 1000 negative people are tested, 8 will not be identifed as being negative at 0.8% (or rather 99.2% Specificity).

Page 1 - Next




Copyright 2006 WHO.NET | Powered by: