if it turns out that
these tests do not in fact detect active virus well then please accept my apology for saying that they do. It's actually unclear to me if these huge viral loads that the liverpool tests were missing were active or inactive. The physician in the post cast seems to be saying that the difference in results is because the PCR test detects RNA (including inactive viruses and viral fragments) and the Flow Tests detects actual active virus, - if the load is past a threshold. In any case, if we assume the worst that these tests only work 50% of the time, but when they do work they are 99.6% accurate, then this still could be enough to supress the virus effectively with mass testing. I tend to agree with the views in the podcast, which is why I posted it.
(, Sun 20 Dec 2020, 23:51, Reply)
it not a matter of "turning out". It's shortcomings were in the government guidance. Their report had a headline rate 99.6% specificity for these tests, though it didn't provide the supporting data. but in the same guidance in the accompanying annex, it had a single sentence: “the measured test sensitivity, in ideal hands is 76.8%” but “is likely to be lower under operational conditions.” this seems quite pertinent to bury in the annex, don't you think?
An actual subsequent trial of the test showed 50% specificity, and crucially missed 1/3 of high viral load cases
So some vblogger you've posted making the claim it could have saved 1000s of lives seems highly dubious. It seems more of a case of the government dangerously bigging-up some new test far more than is supported by the data.
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Mon 21 Dec 2020, 0:12,
Reply)
OK
please tell me, this 'missing 1/3 of high loads' fact. which I do not dispute. Does that refer to active or inactive virus? Because as I keep trying to say, it is my understanding that this test will not detect inactive viruses. This point is key. Also I think calling him 'Some vblogger' is a little defamatory, the man is an 'immunologist, epidemiologist, and physician at Harvard'. So he's not just some vblogger. Having said that I agree that this podcast may not represent the ultimate truth on the matter and I am trying to have an open mind on this. In other words I agree that it's pinch of salt time, And I have changed the description to reflect this, but my current position is that we should not dismiss it as untrue.
(, Mon 21 Dec 2020, 10:42, Reply)
You're describing a coin toss which doesn't quite give you heads or tails.
(
brb man-child cuck corporate supplicant fuck, Mon 21 Dec 2020, 0:32,
Reply)
coin toss no
Because: if it is indeed only 50% for active virus detection.
then it will ALWAYS give a negative for a negative.
and SOMETIMES give a positive for a positive.
so still a useful coin to use in a population of millions as it could be all you need to keep r below 1.
(, Mon 21 Dec 2020, 10:08, Reply)
It sounds like an excellent business model, you have to keep taking more of them whenever you get a negative.
(
brb man-child cuck corporate supplicant fuck, Mon 21 Dec 2020, 17:25,
Reply)
in real world terms
I think it would work something like,
no syptoms + negative L.F. = carry on.
No symptoms + Positive= get a PCR test and isolate.
If you develop symptoms, isolate and get a PCR.
Regarding business model, these tests are less than £1 each to manufacture. So yes huge market
(, Mon 21 Dec 2020, 17:40, Reply)
"only work 50% of the time, but when they do work they are 99.6% accurate" is a classic sentence
From the naked gun: www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDoncJckows
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Mon 21 Dec 2020, 0:38,
Reply)
From 'instructions for use' of this test
Positive results do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease.
Negative results do not rule out SARS-CoV-2 infection and should not be used as the sole basis for treatment or patient management decisions, including infection control decisions.
The SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test is intended for use by trained clinical laboratory personnel specifically instructed and trained in the techniques of in vitro diagnostic procedures
cdn.website-editor.net/6f54caea7c6f4adfba8399428f3c0b0c/files/uploaded/Innova-SARS-Cov-2-Antigen-test-IFU.pdf
Yes, a cheap and easy to use screening test would be a marvelous tool to prevent the spread, but this test is totally unsuitable and was never intended for that task.
A claim that 'we could've beaten covid months ago' is wildly inaccurate and unhelpful.
(
Tusk knows where you live, Mon 21 Dec 2020, 3:30,
Reply)
yes and no
It could be the case that these tests could have stopped covid in its tracks months ago. So not wildly inaccurate, but definitely speculative.. Or to put it another way, a guess. I probably should not have claimed that, but still it could be true. Because all they need to do is be good enough to hold r below 1. if r is held below 1 then covid goes away. Pretty much the same reasoning that if a vaccine is 50% effective it will beat the virus. But there are lots of unknowns here, not least of which is public co-operation. The quote from the instructions of use is not quite as black and white as it appears. Let me explain.
1) positive results do not rule out co-infection..
For getting covid r below 1 this is irrelevant.
2) Negative results do not rule out covid..
as I said above, if used by the entire population and acted upon regardless of false negatives, it should still hold r below 1.
3) use only by trained professionals..
This is put there for legal reasons, because tests like this in the USA fall into a weird grey area. They literally can't sell this test unless it's classed as a medicine. If it were not classed as a medicine, it would not need that part of the label. Put it this way, these tests are too be used in schools in the UK, probably by the staff - not professional, hopefully we'll see if it makes a difference.
regarding the validity of the claims I would say, this podcast shows some interesting and logical ideas, but should be taken with a pinch of salt as its really fuel for debate rather than a proven theory
(, Mon 21 Dec 2020, 10:33, Reply)
no you are
only joking. I guess you're just being argumentative for the sake of it, in any case maybe I am wrong about some aspect. But you imply that everything I said in the above statement is wrong? y / n
(, Mon 21 Dec 2020, 13:29, Reply)
