Off Topic Coronavirus

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
qprbeth said:
I set up tests ...it still worries me me. (even though it is from Abbott who are a re pretty good diagnostic company)

It is to do with the specificity or sensitivity of the tests. There is a very important difference. There test is 99% sensitive....but no mention of specificity

SENSITIVITY: The true positive rate, is the number of real positives that are picked up in a test
SPECIFICITY: This is the proportion of the real negatives that are picked up. ...Inversely it means how many false positives are there

You can set up any test to get the "results you want". So set the criteria for testing positive very high. You pick up 70% of positives and no false "positives" you can be sure if you get a positive , it is right...but you miss 30% of positives...BAD... But the specificity is 100%...because a positive is positive (100% correct)

Set it up another way...very low cut-off...you get all the positives, butsay you get 40% of the healthy population (who really don't have the disease) as positivity. The sensitivity is then 100%, everyone who has a positive test has the virus/antibody. But 40% of the population think they have the virus/antibody but don't.

Intuitively you think the second criteria is good... But actually for the antibody test it is not...really it is not.

So you give those people a knowledge (or a paper passport) that they have had the virus, and they have antibodies that protect them and they don't...You send them off into the wide world to catch the virus. Think of putting a nurse back onto a Covid ward with the knowledge she was safe ...and she wasn't. She had a cough...but it was not CoVid, because she had had a positive antibody test

This is apparently what happened with the China kit...low cut off...loads of positives in the kit...but a lot of them were "false" positives
Click to expand...
<yikes> thank you Beth I think i get it? :emoticon-0148-yes:
 
Turkish" Premier" Hoops said:
I’d rather watch cee beebies than panorama tbh, one of the most biased and bent programmes on air, followed closely for being biased by that labour favourite QT.
I prefer to watch RT, Al Jazeera or France 24 for a more level headed and unbiased reporting, and sometimes euronews is ok.
Click to expand...
I know, all those doctors interviewed were obviously planted! That factory that had not heard back from the government and started selling to the USA was just fictional. The fact that the government had downgraded covid19 from a highly infectious disease was purely just fantasy. Might watch cbeebies/daily briefing myself mate
 
  • Like
Reactions: Willhoops, pompeymeowth, Frome-Ranger and 2 others
Turkish" Premier" Hoops said:
That’s true, but in all honesty Corbynski is a f*cking idiot so it balance balance out evenly :emoticon-0136-giggl:emoticon-0136-giggl:emoticon-0136-giggl
Click to expand...

Come on Turkish, that’s clearly a silly thing to say. You might not like Jeremy Corbyn and you might not agree with his policies....but he clearly isn’t an idiot.
Don’t be like our resident racist.....I’ve got more respect for you than that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NigsyHoops, Willhoops, BobbyD and 2 others
bobmid said:
I know, all those doctors interviewed were obviously planted!
Click to expand...

They were actually all Labour Party activists. I'm sure the BBC could easily have found non-Labour Party activists to interview which would have stopped the criticism they now regularly get as they have plenty of previous for 'planting' interviewees or audience members to meet their agenda or 'ambushing'. This doesn't alter the fact the government have royally f*cked things up but a public service broadcaster really had no reason to choose those interviewees as they had such an open goal...
 
Sooperhoop said:
They were actually all Labour Party activists. I'm sure the BBC could easily have found non-Labour Party activists to interview which would have stopped the criticism they now regularly get as they have plenty of previous for 'planting' interviewees or audience members to meet their agenda or 'ambushing'. This doesn't alter the fact the government have royally f*cked things up but a public service broadcaster really had no reason to choose those interviewees as they had such an open goal...
Click to expand...
A fair few in the public services domains are labour party members. Just because they support a certain party doesn't make their credentials or information any less correct. Obviously they must have been lieing about the lack of PPE and their instructions on the use of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Staines R's
bobmid said:
A fair few in the public services domains are labour party members. Just because they support a certain party doesn't make their credentials or information any less correct. Obviously they must have been lieing about the lack of PPE and their instructions on the use of it.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point, we all know they're correct, the point is every response gets forensic examination for bias and using paid up members of any party immediately gives credence to such bias, especially the BBC...
 
Sooperhoop said:
You're missing the point, we all know they're correct, the point is every response gets forensic examination for bias and using paid up members of any party immediately gives credence to such bias, especially the BBC...
Click to expand...

But surely it doesn’t matter who delivers the message as long as they are correct.....whether biased or not..the truth is the truth
 
  • Like
Reactions: Willhoops and bobmid
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back