Coronavirus Thread

[Bert]

Had to take my 1 year old for a test this morning. Went to the drive through site in Birstall. It’s all very well ran and organised. 

[purpleronnie]

When I pick my nephew up from school often I'm the only one wearing a mask, I don't understand why so many don't want to wear them.

[Guest Harrydc]

3 minutes ago, purpleronnie said:

When I pick my nephew up from school often I'm the only one wearing a mask, I don't understand why so many don't want to wear them.

The effects of wearing a mask outdoors is minimal. 

[yorkie1999]

8 minutes ago, Harrydc said:

The effects of wearing a mask outdoors is minimal. 

People who refuse to wear masks in public are probably the same people who wouldn't bother going for a test if they showed symptoms and would ride it out like a bad cold and hope they don't suffer too badly. Which in a funny kind of way means that if you don't wear a mask you don't get covid because you don't know about it and therefore the only people who are catching covid are the ones wearing masks....How's that for fvcked up.

[RowlattsFox]

35 minutes ago, Bert said:

Had to take my 1 year old for a test this morning. Went to the drive through site in Birstall. It’s all very well ran and organised. 

How was the test itself? I'm dreading having to take my toddler for a test at some point. Can't see how he will let us or them do it 

[Zear0]

1 minute ago, RowlattsFox said:

How was the test itself? I'm dreading having to take my toddler for a test at some point. Can't see how he will let us or them do it 

Said yonks ago in here that my experience of the Birstall test site was excellent so I'll echo Bert.  The test is pretty grim to be honest.  It's so grim (or maybe I'm a wimp) that I'm surprised they permit people to self administer as I'm not sure I could physically do it myself given how far up/down they shove it.

[Paninistickers]

11 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

People who refuse to wear masks in public are probably the same people who wouldn't bother going for a test if they showed symptoms and would ride it out like a bad cold and hope they don't suffer too badly. Which in a funny kind of way means that if you don't wear a mask you don't get covid because you don't know about it and therefore the only people who are catching covid are the ones wearing masks....How's that for fvcked up.

honest question.... is that wrong then? Do you have to go for a test if you think you have it?

 

I'd thought to myself if I get it, I'll just hole up for a week or two and call for help if i think I'm dying, like I prob would with bronchitis or food poisoning

 

 

[Mapperleyfox]

1 hour ago, joachim1965 said:

That is how you measure false positives, for instance if you take a figure of 2.5% , for every 100 tests, 2.5 will be false positives, multiply this by the amount of tests taken, therein lies the problem.

Data from GOV.UK website...

 

So yesterday there were 264,713 tests, and if 2.5% of those are false positives that's 6,617.

 

If 19,724 people tested 'positive' minus the 6,617 that's 13,107 cases yesterday.

 

Extrapolate the data because 654,644 have tested 'positive' from 25,999,507 tests that's 649,987 false positives.

 

Which means only 4,657 'real' cases so far from over 25 million tests? If that's the reality then the whole thing is a sham...

 

Unless my maths is wrong!

[Bert]

31 minutes ago, RowlattsFox said:

How was the test itself? I'm dreading having to take my toddler for a test at some point. Can't see how he will let us or them do it 

You basically get a cotton bud and twirl it around the nostrils. You’re supposed to go down the throat too but we didn’t. 

[joachim1965]

[yorkie1999]

23 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

honest question.... is that wrong then? Do you have to go for a test if you think you have it?

 

I'd thought to myself if I get it, I'll just hole up for a week or two and call for help if i think I'm dying, like I prob would with bronchitis or food poisoning

 

 

To be perfectly honest, i don't know, but it opens a can of worms regarding areas having to lockdown and then the people in that area complaining about the lockdown. There does seem to be some the start of people actively going against lockdowns, the fining of that gym in liverpool and then 20 odd grand being donated to pay the fine plus that comedy club in the same city announcing they'll donate proceeds from their gigs to help keep gyms open. 

[joachim1965]

I'm out now, I have put my point across,  I respect other peoples opinions and they are free to express them, let's hope this all ends soon and we can get some semblance of normality back. 

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

Sent test off Sunday, littlun had a terrible cough, had been in touch eitj my brother in law who sent test off Sunday and got positive result on Tuesday. still waiting on the results, losing out big time on earnings and unless it comes back positive won't even be covered for sick pay the time I've been off. I'd have been a damn sight better off just going in to work, if it comes back negative I'll be out over 300 quid. This can't be right it's only because I consider myself responsible I've not just sodded it off and gone in to work. Shambles all round. 

[yorkie1999]

4 minutes ago, joachim1965 said:

that's 230 cases per 100,000 false positives then and considering Leicester is currently at 129 cases per 100,000, it could mean we actually have minus 130 cases per 100,000. Not bad really.

[Sampson]

Curious as to why the false positive conspiracy theorists never talk about false negatives which are known to be a much bigger proportion than false positives and that we are almost certainly under-reporting cases rather than over-reportong cases 

 

It's been posted before but here's an article explaining why the maths don't say anything like the overwhelming majority of claims are false https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/false-positives-coronavirus_uk_5f686da4c5b6de79b677e909?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAEkgIC6gm-QuQnUXfXL8b70WiSujw3ladn0thLMm4L3gT9nklV_REwvBbI4Gz3SjEiBMXALGNDhZvQvU6BAmL_RZ8SVl1wBulVaHI8H-5P2gnm5SwUJV5xVj_mDDcL96fPIER7O9wzooyVNZItkgzIdIp1fqVK_zfXY43cle-_8R

[Sampson]

6 minutes ago, joachim1965 said:

I'm out now, I have put my point across,  I respect other peoples opinions and they are free to express them, let's hope this all ends soon and we can get some semblance of normality back. 

You'll be back on this thread spouting your false positive nonsense within a week. We all know it.

[st albans fox]

23 minutes ago, Mapperleyfox said:

Data from GOV.UK website...

 

So yesterday there were 264,713 tests, and if 2.5% of those are false positives that's 6,617.

 

If 19,724 people tested 'positive' minus the 6,617 that's 13,107 cases yesterday.

 

Extrapolate the data because 654,644 have tested 'positive' from 25,999,507 tests that's 649,987 false positives.

 

Which means only 4,657 'real' cases so far from over 25 million tests? If that's the reality then the whole thing is a sham...

 

Unless my maths is wrong!

its wrong - you can only have a false positive if its a positive result !

 

and add to that many of the tests carried out in the early months were done on people who were actually ill so less likely to be false positives

 

and of the 28 million tests carried out, a fair proportion aren't PCR tests - i wouldn't trust the govt data on number of tests carried out and which type anyway

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

that's 230 cases per 100,000 false positives then and considering Leicester is currently at 129 cases per 100,000, it could mean we actually have minus 130 cases per 100,000. Not bad really.

Even more impressively, a false positive rate of 2.3% means that with Korea having undergone 18396 tests and 110 positive results today, they're sitting on a very tidy -313 positive cases!

 

...if Carlsberg did statistical analysis, huh?

[simFox]

Surely you can have only 2.3% of the positive tests as false pos, you can't take 2.3% of total tests then subtract from the positive total.

 

So 19,724 x 0.023 = 453 false positive.

[yorkie1999]

There’s always some one who has to spoil Stephen Hawkins day

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, simFox said:

Surely you can have only 2.3% of the positive tests as false pos, you can't take 2.3% of total tests then subtract from the positive total.

 

So 19,724 x 0.023 = 453 false positive.

Not according to this school of statistics:

 

2 hours ago, joachim1965 said:

That is how you measure false positives, for instance if you take a figure of 2.5% , for every 100 tests, 2.5 will be false positives, multiply this by the amount of tests taken, therein lies the problem.

Which is what I was using. All totally fair maths, right?

 

NB. Not sure where the 19724 figure came from? I'm using https://coronaboard.kr/en/ which states 18396. The figures do seem to have a little variance, though.

Edited 15 October 2020 by leicsmac

[Nalis]

I'm false positived/negatived out.

[l444ry]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2257258-it-is-bad-science-to-say-covid-19-infections-will-create-herd-immunity/?fbclid=IwAR2ojGg2uiTriDaZDDzT4Whh7HIVrusQzSHBZL5rw6GFezDwKDsuYP8QI10

 

[WigstonWanderer]

 

2 hours ago, Mapperleyfox said:

Data from GOV.UK website...

 

So yesterday there were 264,713 tests, and if 2.5% of those are false positives that's 6,617.

 

If 19,724 people tested 'positive' minus the 6,617 that's 13,107 cases yesterday.

 

Extrapolate the data because 654,644 have tested 'positive' from 25,999,507 tests that's 649,987 false positives.

 

Which means only 4,657 'real' cases so far from over 25 million tests? If that's the reality then the whole thing is a sham...

 

Unless my maths is wrong!

In July as far as I can make out about 120,000 tests were carried out per day. Following your logic there should have been around 3,000 false positives. Yet there were only around 650 positives in total.

Edited 15 October 2020 by WigstonWanderer

[Zear0]

Given there are also false negatives and asymptomatic transmission, I think people might be being "slightly non-conservative" in their assumptions to put it diplomatically.