FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > lateral flow tests ... 2 percent
lateral flow tests ... 2 percent
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *usybee73 OP Man
over a year ago
in the sticks |
As few as two per cent of positive Covid lateral flow test results taken in low prevalence areas are accurate, an adviser to Matt Hancock has warned.
In emails, leaked to the Guardian, senior strategist Ben Dyson is said to have warned health department colleagues about the unreliability of lateral flow test results.
Mr Dyson, who is an executive director of strategy at the health department and one of health secretary Matt Hancock's advisers, reportedly raised feared that the reliability of positive results could be as low as two per cent in certain areas.
The email was reportedly sent on April 9, four days after Boris Johnson announced a multi-billion pound plan for a mass-testing drive in the UK - which would see Britons test themselves twice a week with lateral flow tests.
According to the Guardian, Mr Dyson said in his email: 'As of today, someone who gets a positive LFD result in (say) London has at best a 25 per cent chance of it being a true positive, but if it is a self-reported test potentially as low as 10 per cent (on an optimistic assumption about specificity) or as low as 2 per cent (on a more pessimistic assumption).
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9477035/As-2-cent-positive-Covid-lateral-flow-test-results-accurate-adviser-warns.html |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"As few as two per cent of positive Covid lateral flow test results taken in low prevalence areas are accurate, an adviser to Matt Hancock has warned.
In emails, leaked to the Guardian, senior strategist Ben Dyson is said to have warned health department colleagues about the unreliability of lateral flow test results.
Mr Dyson, who is an executive director of strategy at the health department and one of health secretary Matt Hancock's advisers, reportedly raised feared that the reliability of positive results could be as low as two per cent in certain areas.
The email was reportedly sent on April 9, four days after Boris Johnson announced a multi-billion pound plan for a mass-testing drive in the UK - which would see Britons test themselves twice a week with lateral flow tests.
According to the Guardian, Mr Dyson said in his email: 'As of today, someone who gets a positive LFD result in (say) London has at best a 25 per cent chance of it being a true positive, but if it is a self-reported test potentially as low as 10 per cent (on an optimistic assumption about specificity) or as low as 2 per cent (on a more pessimistic assumption).
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9477035/As-2-cent-positive-Covid-lateral-flow-test-results-accurate-adviser-warns.html"
Daily Fail.... Say no more  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As few as two per cent of positive Covid lateral flow test results taken in low prevalence areas are accurate, an adviser to Matt Hancock has warned.
In emails, leaked to the Guardian, senior strategist Ben Dyson is said to have warned health department colleagues about the unreliability of lateral flow test results.
Mr Dyson, who is an executive director of strategy at the health department and one of health secretary Matt Hancock's advisers, reportedly raised feared that the reliability of positive results could be as low as two per cent in certain areas.
The email was reportedly sent on April 9, four days after Boris Johnson announced a multi-billion pound plan for a mass-testing drive in the UK - which would see Britons test themselves twice a week with lateral flow tests.
According to the Guardian, Mr Dyson said in his email: 'As of today, someone who gets a positive LFD result in (say) London has at best a 25 per cent chance of it being a true positive, but if it is a self-reported test potentially as low as 10 per cent (on an optimistic assumption about specificity) or as low as 2 per cent (on a more pessimistic assumption).
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9477035/As-2-cent-positive-Covid-lateral-flow-test-results-accurate-adviser-warns.html"
Oh no not from that rag! .. Is there a similar report from a newspaper with a bit more integrity available?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Whatever the numbers are...and from whatever source. It raises a number of valid points...
Right now everything is "free" but at some point someone has to pay for all these tests... The production and logistics... And what happens to the waste?
A test is only worth doing if its accurate and if you do something, take an action based on the outcome of the accurate tests results.
The accuracy of this self administered test is entirely dependent on the quality of the swab being taken by the individual, these are not clinicians in a clinical environment but people shoving a qtip in an uncomfortable place at the morning tooth clean or breakfast table.
With any strategy,its success or otherwise should be frequently reviewed and tweaked to achieve the agreed goals.
A constructive analysis and dialogue is better than throwing brickbats at eachother |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Whatever the numbers are...and from whatever source. It raises a number of valid points...
Right now everything is "free" but at some point someone has to pay for all these tests... The production and logistics... And what happens to the waste?
A test is only worth doing if its accurate and if you do something, take an action based on the outcome of the accurate tests results.
The accuracy of this self administered test is entirely dependent on the quality of the swab being taken by the individual, these are not clinicians in a clinical environment but people shoving a qtip in an uncomfortable place at the morning tooth clean or breakfast table.
With any strategy,its success or otherwise should be frequently reviewed and tweaked to achieve the agreed goals.
A constructive analysis and dialogue is better than throwing brickbats at eachother"
There's a baked in false positive and negative rate. The effect of which will be amplified when cases are very low or high. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Whatever the numbers are...and from whatever source. It raises a number of valid points...
Right now everything is "free" but at some point someone has to pay for all these tests... The production and logistics... And what happens to the waste?
A test is only worth doing if its accurate and if you do something, take an action based on the outcome of the accurate tests results.
The accuracy of this self administered test is entirely dependent on the quality of the swab being taken by the individual, these are not clinicians in a clinical environment but people shoving a qtip in an uncomfortable place at the morning tooth clean or breakfast table.
With any strategy,its success or otherwise should be frequently reviewed and tweaked to achieve the agreed goals.
A constructive analysis and dialogue is better than throwing brickbats at eachother"
the problem is same the general public hear free and actually think free - its like the folk folk that have been still getting std tests every 3 months during lockdown despite meeting nobody “to keep up a routine” , because they are “free”
nothing is free, our tax paid for it , and the wasted expenditure is at the expense of something else now |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's still unclear how much of the £37 billions of our money spent on test and trace has been effective, if any. "
so because we already made mistakes with money we just keep throwing more away? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The 37 billion number has not yet been spent. Its the 2 year budget from Apr 2020 to Apr 2022. See full fact for better details.
"The £37 billion figure, however, does not represent the money that has been spent on Test and Trace so far. This is the total budget for its first two years, up to April 2022.
Actual spending on Test and Trace was £5.7bn up to the end of November 2020, and is expected to be close to £20bn by the beginning of April.
Nor has all of this money been spent on testing, either. Up to the end of October 2020, when around £4 billion had been spent in total, about £0.5 billion had been spent on contact tracing. Overall, the National Audit Office has found that about 85% of the £15 billion Test and Trace budget confirmed in November was assigned to testing, along with much of the extra money allocated to it since."
As for how effective conducting 8 million pcr tests a week is as a strategy... I suspect that is more art than science and probably depends on your political leanings as much as anything. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"As few as two per cent of positive Covid lateral flow test results taken in low prevalence areas are accurate, an adviser to Matt Hancock has warned.
In emails, leaked to the Guardian, senior strategist Ben Dyson is said to have warned health department colleagues about the unreliability of lateral flow test results.
Mr Dyson, who is an executive director of strategy at the health department and one of health secretary Matt Hancock's advisers, reportedly raised feared that the reliability of positive results could be as low as two per cent in certain areas.
The email was reportedly sent on April 9, four days after Boris Johnson announced a multi-billion pound plan for a mass-testing drive in the UK - which would see Britons test themselves twice a week with lateral flow tests.
According to the Guardian, Mr Dyson said in his email: 'As of today, someone who gets a positive LFD result in (say) London has at best a 25 per cent chance of it being a true positive, but if it is a self-reported test potentially as low as 10 per cent (on an optimistic assumption about specificity) or as low as 2 per cent (on a more pessimistic assumption).
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9477035/As-2-cent-positive-Covid-lateral-flow-test-results-accurate-adviser-warns.html"
Having worked with LAVA tests extensively during the past 6 months this yet again sounds like media sensationalism.
What we know about LAVA tests is they aren’t the greatest test source as often the can result positives which are then shown to be false with subsequent testing. however... the mechanics are sound, they have become a very good tool for catching positives prior to that person entering an area where they may affect many subjects. For example... based on the above currently only 1 in 4 people testing positive actually is. Think how that works though... 4 people declare themselves positive or suspect and go for same day testing. The positive is confirmed, the three false positives are cleared and return to work without the public being at risk. Where is the story in that? I’m not sure about the 1 in 4 but I do know within our own workforce in the NHS we have seen both false positive and positive results. What I do know for definite is the spread between staff or staff and patients is now effectively stopped compared to 9 months ago where it was a massive issue.
It’s the same idiot reporting re: blood clots from the Oxford Vacinne... scaremongering that fails to mention that having covid increases the risk of clots 10 fold compared to the jab. This new world we all live in is not risk free but it’s important we all take an informed view before running away with a sound bite that’s designed to undermine decisions purely for political gain or exposure. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's still unclear how much of the £37 billions of our money spent on test and trace has been effective, if any.
so because we already made mistakes with money we just keep throwing more away? "
No, we should be a learning culture, learning from our experience. Our public investment should be getting ever more smartly spent. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"As few as two per cent of positive Covid lateral flow test results taken in low prevalence areas are accurate, an adviser to Matt Hancock has warned.
In emails, leaked to the Guardian, senior strategist Ben Dyson is said to have warned health department colleagues about the unreliability of lateral flow test results.
Mr Dyson, who is an executive director of strategy at the health department and one of health secretary Matt Hancock's advisers, reportedly raised feared that the reliability of positive results could be as low as two per cent in certain areas.
The email was reportedly sent on April 9, four days after Boris Johnson announced a multi-billion pound plan for a mass-testing drive in the UK - which would see Britons test themselves twice a week with lateral flow tests.
According to the Guardian, Mr Dyson said in his email: 'As of today, someone who gets a positive LFD result in (say) London has at best a 25 per cent chance of it being a true positive, but if it is a self-reported test potentially as low as 10 per cent (on an optimistic assumption about specificity) or as low as 2 per cent (on a more pessimistic assumption).
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9477035/As-2-cent-positive-Covid-lateral-flow-test-results-accurate-adviser-warns.html
Having worked with LAVA tests extensively during the past 6 months this yet again sounds like media sensationalism.
What we know about LAVA tests is they aren’t the greatest test source as often the can result positives which are then shown to be false with subsequent testing. however... the mechanics are sound, they have become a very good tool for catching positives prior to that person entering an area where they may affect many subjects. For example... based on the above currently only 1 in 4 people testing positive actually is. Think how that works though... 4 people declare themselves positive or suspect and go for same day testing. The positive is confirmed, the three false positives are cleared and return to work without the public being at risk. Where is the story in that? I’m not sure about the 1 in 4 but I do know within our own workforce in the NHS we have seen both false positive and positive results. What I do know for definite is the spread between staff or staff and patients is now effectively stopped compared to 9 months ago where it was a massive issue.
It’s the same idiot reporting re: blood clots from the Oxford Vacinne... scaremongering that fails to mention that having covid increases the risk of clots 10 fold compared to the jab. This new world we all live in is not risk free but it’s important we all take an informed view before running away with a sound bite that’s designed to undermine decisions purely for political gain or exposure. "
Ok, and in a few months time the same 4 people test positive prior to a gig that cost £100 a ticket and can no longer attend.
But that's ok because 3 of them didn't really have a virus.
And the percentage of false positives climbs as the background infections decrease. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Interesting article / reality check on BBC here...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/56675624
Worth reading the whole article... Here's an extract
"How well do rapid tests detect coronavirus?
There is relatively little evidence on this in real world settings.
When mass testing was introduced in Liverpool last year researchers carried out a study where 5,869 people had both a lateral-flow test and a PCR test.
Seventy of those people were positive from the PCR tests. Of those 70, only 28 were positive on the lateral-flow tests - that's a 40% rate."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Ok, and in a few months time the same 4 people test positive prior to a gig that cost £100 a ticket and can no longer attend.
But that's ok because 3 of them didn't really have a virus.
And the percentage of false positives climbs as the background infections decrease."
Perhaps just think about what you’ve said.... 4 people miss a gig losing a total of £400 combined. Compared to them attending and one of the four being positive in a close environment with zero ventilation. Let’s be cautious, they infect 20 people as a result of which zero suffer major medical conditions as a result but are forced to self isolate for 2 weeks. That’s around 400 hrs of missed work for them, let’s call them all £20 ph.... that’s a cost of £8,000 suffered to them or employers etc.
Absolutely that’s ok.
In truth though it doesn’t work like that... you won’t be tested at the gate, lava tests need 30 minutes to work so in the unlikely event people need to test to get into a gig I suspect it would be a similar scenario to the football when crowds where allowed back in. Attend a centre on the morning of the match and take a swab check for your certificate. It worked perfectly. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
A group of parents around this way have been using the test given by their children's schools to test everything from fruits and ketchup to pets.
A shocking amount of positive results from these have lead to a large number of parents refusing to test their children with them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A group of parents around this way have been using the test given by their children's schools to test everything from fruits and ketchup to pets.
A shocking amount of positive results from these have lead to a large number of parents refusing to test their children with them. "
It's a bit like creationists giving carbon dating tests to rocks without carbon in it.
You do stupid stuff with tests, you're going to get stupid results. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Interesting article / reality check on BBC here...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/56675624
Worth reading the whole article... Here's an extract
"How well do rapid tests detect coronavirus?
There is relatively little evidence on this in real world settings.
When mass testing was introduced in Liverpool last year researchers carried out a study where 5,869 people had both a lateral-flow test and a PCR test.
Seventy of those people were positive from the PCR tests. Of those 70, only 28 were positive on the lateral-flow tests - that's a 40% rate."
"
With Lava tests the thinking has always been this... they are a bit like a shotgun, you hit the positives but also hit the negative areas around the sides too.
But.... by doing the tests you confirm the vast majority are negative, you then know the small group remaining are a mix of both positive and negatives. Importantly you have the positives within that group though.
Some people seem to think LAVA should be instant and 100% accurate. That’s not the technology, it simply cannot be achieved and produced economically, the false positives are caused by making the test almost 100% accurate at identifying positives which is the crucial aim.
If you adjust the tests tolerance then you get a scenario where it produces false negatives and the infected aren’t flagged. At that stage you have a story worth writing.
Lava isn’t a process to confirm covid, it’s a process to flag people who need to be cautious and get tested immediately.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Interesting article / reality check on BBC here...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/56675624
Worth reading the whole article... Here's an extract
"How well do rapid tests detect coronavirus?
There is relatively little evidence on this in real world settings.
When mass testing was introduced in Liverpool last year researchers carried out a study where 5,869 people had both a lateral-flow test and a PCR test.
Seventy of those people were positive from the PCR tests. Of those 70, only 28 were positive on the lateral-flow tests - that's a 40% rate."
With Lava tests the thinking has always been this... they are a bit like a shotgun, you hit the positives but also hit the negative areas around the sides too.
But.... by doing the tests you confirm the vast majority are negative, you then know the small group remaining are a mix of both positive and negatives. Importantly you have the positives within that group though.
Some people seem to think LAVA should be instant and 100% accurate. That’s not the technology, it simply cannot be achieved and produced economically, the false positives are caused by making the test almost 100% accurate at identifying positives which is the crucial aim.
If you adjust the tests tolerance then you get a scenario where it produces false negatives and the infected aren’t flagged. At that stage you have a story worth writing.
Lava isn’t a process to confirm covid, it’s a process to flag people who need to be cautious and get tested immediately.
"
I think it's the case that you can have two of fast, effective, and cheap.
These tests are fast and cheap. Narrows it down, as you say. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"A group of parents around this way have been using the test given by their children's schools to test everything from fruits and ketchup to pets.
A shocking amount of positive results from these have lead to a large number of parents refusing to test their children with them. "
Again ‘shocking’,
No it fucking isn’t... kids test positive, miss a day of school yet go and get properly tested. If they are positive thank god that’s happened as they’ve avoided a scenario where they go and pass the virus to their entire year group and their associated families.
We come from months where kids haven’t been allowed in a classroom... people need to get a fucking life and stop moaning about very sensible provisions that are in place to safeguard us all and keep the education system open in a face to face environment.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Interesting article / reality check on BBC here...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/56675624
Worth reading the whole article... Here's an extract
"How well do rapid tests detect coronavirus?
There is relatively little evidence on this in real world settings.
When mass testing was introduced in Liverpool last year researchers carried out a study where 5,869 people had both a lateral-flow test and a PCR test.
Seventy of those people were positive from the PCR tests. Of those 70, only 28 were positive on the lateral-flow tests - that's a 40% rate."
With Lava tests the thinking has always been this... they are a bit like a shotgun, you hit the positives but also hit the negative areas around the sides too.
But.... by doing the tests you confirm the vast majority are negative, you then know the small group remaining are a mix of both positive and negatives. Importantly you have the positives within that group though.
Some people seem to think LAVA should be instant and 100% accurate. That’s not the technology, it simply cannot be achieved and produced economically, the false positives are caused by making the test almost 100% accurate at identifying positives which is the crucial aim.
If you adjust the tests tolerance then you get a scenario where it produces false negatives and the infected aren’t flagged. At that stage you have a story worth writing.
Lava isn’t a process to confirm covid, it’s a process to flag people who need to be cautious and get tested immediately.
"
Reducing the risks right? Do 10 things that each reduce the risk by 5% and it makes things achievable. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Interesting article / reality check on BBC here...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/56675624
Worth reading the whole article... Here's an extract
"How well do rapid tests detect coronavirus?
There is relatively little evidence on this in real world settings.
When mass testing was introduced in Liverpool last year researchers carried out a study where 5,869 people had both a lateral-flow test and a PCR test.
Seventy of those people were positive from the PCR tests. Of those 70, only 28 were positive on the lateral-flow tests - that's a 40% rate."
With Lava tests the thinking has always been this... they are a bit like a shotgun, you hit the positives but also hit the negative areas around the sides too.
But.... by doing the tests you confirm the vast majority are negative, you then know the small group remaining are a mix of both positive and negatives. Importantly you have the positives within that group though.
Some people seem to think LAVA should be instant and 100% accurate. That’s not the technology, it simply cannot be achieved and produced economically, the false positives are caused by making the test almost 100% accurate at identifying positives which is the crucial aim.
If you adjust the tests tolerance then you get a scenario where it produces false negatives and the infected aren’t flagged. At that stage you have a story worth writing.
Lava isn’t a process to confirm covid, it’s a process to flag people who need to be cautious and get tested immediately.
I think it's the case that you can have two of fast, effective, and cheap.
These tests are fast and cheap. Narrows it down, as you say."
Absolutely... and without them, what did we have:
A scenario where numerous people had to self isolated every time they had a common cold.
If you want to talk cost it’s to avoid the figure you associate with the absences. In this ‘school’ scenario a nice way to think of it is out is you regain 75% of your absent teachers after a day compared to 2 weeks.
In my ICU we have avoided 100’s of days absences within our team since there introduction. The infection rate within the department has also massively reduced. There’s no argument against LAVA being the major cause of that improvement. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Interesting article / reality check on BBC here...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/56675624
Worth reading the whole article... Here's an extract
"How well do rapid tests detect coronavirus?
There is relatively little evidence on this in real world settings.
When mass testing was introduced in Liverpool last year researchers carried out a study where 5,869 people had both a lateral-flow test and a PCR test.
Seventy of those people were positive from the PCR tests. Of those 70, only 28 were positive on the lateral-flow tests - that's a 40% rate."
With Lava tests the thinking has always been this... they are a bit like a shotgun, you hit the positives but also hit the negative areas around the sides too.
But.... by doing the tests you confirm the vast majority are negative, you then know the small group remaining are a mix of both positive and negatives. Importantly you have the positives within that group though.
Some people seem to think LAVA should be instant and 100% accurate. That’s not the technology, it simply cannot be achieved and produced economically, the false positives are caused by making the test almost 100% accurate at identifying positives which is the crucial aim.
If you adjust the tests tolerance then you get a scenario where it produces false negatives and the infected aren’t flagged. At that stage you have a story worth writing.
Lava isn’t a process to confirm covid, it’s a process to flag people who need to be cautious and get tested immediately.
I think it's the case that you can have two of fast, effective, and cheap.
These tests are fast and cheap. Narrows it down, as you say.
Absolutely... and without them, what did we have:
A scenario where numerous people had to self isolated every time they had a common cold.
If you want to talk cost it’s to avoid the figure you associate with the absences. In this ‘school’ scenario a nice way to think of it is out is you regain 75% of your absent teachers after a day compared to 2 weeks.
In my ICU we have avoided 100’s of days absences within our team since there introduction. The infection rate within the department has also massively reduced. There’s no argument against LAVA being the major cause of that improvement. "
Yup.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Unless you're a denialist, in which case Covid is a sniffle or even a blessing from God, and any vaccine less effective than 150% plus boob job/ cock growth is dangerous poison. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A group of parents around this way have been using the test given by their children's schools to test everything from fruits and ketchup to pets.
A shocking amount of positive results from these have lead to a large number of parents refusing to test their children with them. "
Oh how clever and responsible we felt when we tested it on shower gel and it came back positive... And got 2000 ticks when we posted that we had managed to break our free test...oh life is good. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Reducing the risks right? Do 10 things that each reduce the risk by 5% and it makes things achievable. "
Lava is unique in what it can provide... it should be used for that reason.
We all have a number of things to reduce spread (hands, space, face etc) but they don’t stop the spread of covid 100%. For that reason in scenarios where sudden spread can be pretty damaging LAVA is invaluable.
Think of it as getting stopped by customs to have your bag searched... is it annoying, yes. Do 19 of every 20 people walk away with a delay for nothing, yes. But does it keep the world we all live in safer, absolutely it does so we accept it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" Lava isn’t a process to confirm covid, it’s a process to flag people who need to be cautious and get tested immediately.
"
I think it's the case that you can have two of fast, effective, and cheap.
These tests are fast and cheap. Narrows it down, as you say.
"
i dont see any issue with it being used in this way , makes total sense as you say to reduce risk, i think the trouble is the media / even the government have no real interest in explaining the difference between the test types and their purpose for use and when best to use them, so people have all tests lumped together in their head and its sending the message that testing is not reliable and its to inflate figured |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" Lava isn’t a process to confirm covid, it’s a process to flag people who need to be cautious and get tested immediately.
"
I think it's the case that you can have two of fast, effective, and cheap.
These tests are fast and cheap. Narrows it down, as you say.
i dont see any issue with it being used in this way , makes total sense as you say to reduce risk, i think the trouble is the media / even the government have no real interest in explaining the difference between the test types and their purpose for use and when best to use them, so people have all tests lumped together in their head and its sending the message that testing is not reliable and its to inflate figured "
Stuff does get mixed up in the media. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" Lava isn’t a process to confirm covid, it’s a process to flag people who need to be cautious and get tested immediately.
"
I think it's the case that you can have two of fast, effective, and cheap.
These tests are fast and cheap. Narrows it down, as you say.
i dont see any issue with it being used in this way , makes total sense as you say to reduce risk, i think the trouble is the media / even the government have no real interest in explaining the difference between the test types and their purpose for use and when best to use them, so people have all tests lumped together in their head and its sending the message that testing is not reliable and its to inflate figured
Stuff does get mixed up in the media."
and yet all it would take would be rename it as a “pre test” or something like that |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
You do realise the creator of the pcr (it's not a test) said it can its unsuitable for live viruses.
His words were it can be used to turn a small amount of something intonation whole lot of something.
Basically if you run enough cycles youd get a 100% positive rate |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" Lava isn’t a process to confirm covid, it’s a process to flag people who need to be cautious and get tested immediately.
"
I think it's the case that you can have two of fast, effective, and cheap.
These tests are fast and cheap. Narrows it down, as you say.
i dont see any issue with it being used in this way , makes total sense as you say to reduce risk, i think the trouble is the media / even the government have no real interest in explaining the difference between the test types and their purpose for use and when best to use them, so people have all tests lumped together in their head and its sending the message that testing is not reliable and its to inflate figured
Stuff does get mixed up in the media."
It used to be that the media had a responsibility to accuracy and were held accountable. Now they seem to delight in misrepresentation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Interesting article / reality check on BBC here...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/56675624
Worth reading the whole article... Here's an extract
"How well do rapid tests detect coronavirus?
There is relatively little evidence on this in real world settings.
When mass testing was introduced in Liverpool last year researchers carried out a study where 5,869 people had both a lateral-flow test and a PCR test.
Seventy of those people were positive from the PCR tests. Of those 70, only 28 were positive on the lateral-flow tests - that's a 40% rate."
With Lava tests the thinking has always been this... they are a bit like a shotgun, you hit the positives but also hit the negative areas around the sides too.
But.... by doing the tests you confirm the vast majority are negative, you then know the small group remaining are a mix of both positive and negatives. Importantly you have the positives within that group though.
Some people seem to think LAVA should be instant and 100% accurate. That’s not the technology, it simply cannot be achieved and produced economically, the false positives are caused by making the test almost 100% accurate at identifying positives which is the crucial aim.
If you adjust the tests tolerance then you get a scenario where it produces false negatives and the infected aren’t flagged. At that stage you have a story worth writing.
Lava isn’t a process to confirm covid, it’s a process to flag people who need to be cautious and get tested immediately.
"
Well bloody said |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rShadowBHMan
over a year ago
Nowhere/everywhere |
"You do realise the creator of the pcr (it's not a test) said it can its unsuitable for live viruses.
His words were it can be used to turn a small amount of something intonation whole lot of something.
Basically if you run enough cycles youd get a 100% positive rate "
Well that's utter nonsense. I can't believe this is still doing the rounds. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You do realise the creator of the pcr (it's not a test) said it can its unsuitable for live viruses.
His words were it can be used to turn a small amount of something intonation whole lot of something.
Basically if you run enough cycles youd get a 100% positive rate
Well that's utter nonsense. I can't believe this is still doing the rounds. "
None of this nonsense ever dies  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You do realise the creator of the pcr (it's not a test) said it can its unsuitable for live viruses.
His words were it can be used to turn a small amount of something intonation whole lot of something.
Basically if you run enough cycles youd get a 100% positive rate "
Care to explain why without resorting to copy and pasting so random bollox from Facebook. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You do realise the creator of the pcr (it's not a test) said it can its unsuitable for live viruses.
His words were it can be used to turn a small amount of something intonation whole lot of something.
Basically if you run enough cycles youd get a 100% positive rate "
To quote directly:
“ PCR was indeed invented by a man called Kary B. Mullis, who died in August 2019 long before Covid-19 began to spread in December 2019.
He didn’t say PCR testing couldn’t be used for testing for any diseases, as some social media posts claim. Confusion seems to have arisen from quotes of his in a 1996 article about HIV and AIDS. In this, neither the author of the article, nor Dr Mullis said PCR testing does not work or only identifies the DNA or RNA of the person being tested.
The author actually quotes Dr Mullis as saying “Quantitative PCR is an oxymoron” within the context of testing viral load (the amount of virus present) in people with HIV. This doesn’t mean he thought PCR testing didn’t work at all, but that there are limitations in detecting the specific levels of a virus from a sample using PCR testing.”
So in short, you do realise you are spouting absolute crap? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You do realise the creator of the pcr (it's not a test) said it can its unsuitable for live viruses.
His words were it can be used to turn a small amount of something intonation whole lot of something.
Basically if you run enough cycles youd get a 100% positive rate
To quote directly:
“ PCR was indeed invented by a man called Kary B. Mullis, who died in August 2019 long before Covid-19 began to spread in December 2019.
He didn’t say PCR testing couldn’t be used for testing for any diseases, as some social media posts claim. Confusion seems to have arisen from quotes of his in a 1996 article about HIV and AIDS. In this, neither the author of the article, nor Dr Mullis said PCR testing does not work or only identifies the DNA or RNA of the person being tested.
The author actually quotes Dr Mullis as saying “Quantitative PCR is an oxymoron” within the context of testing viral load (the amount of virus present) in people with HIV. This doesn’t mean he thought PCR testing didn’t work at all, but that there are limitations in detecting the specific levels of a virus from a sample using PCR testing.”
So in short, you do realise you are spouting absolute crap? "
Also Kary Mullis said fuck all about Covid because he died in August 2019.
And his comments about PCR (from 1996) are completely out of date nowadays, where the post PCR products can be quantitatively analysed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You do realise the creator of the pcr (it's not a test) said it can its unsuitable for live viruses.
His words were it can be used to turn a small amount of something intonation whole lot of something.
Basically if you run enough cycles youd get a 100% positive rate
To quote directly:
“ PCR was indeed invented by a man called Kary B. Mullis, who died in August 2019 long before Covid-19 began to spread in December 2019.
He didn’t say PCR testing couldn’t be used for testing for any diseases, as some social media posts claim. Confusion seems to have arisen from quotes of his in a 1996 article about HIV and AIDS. In this, neither the author of the article, nor Dr Mullis said PCR testing does not work or only identifies the DNA or RNA of the person being tested.
The author actually quotes Dr Mullis as saying “Quantitative PCR is an oxymoron” within the context of testing viral load (the amount of virus present) in people with HIV. This doesn’t mean he thought PCR testing didn’t work at all, but that there are limitations in detecting the specific levels of a virus from a sample using PCR testing.”
So in short, you do realise you are spouting absolute crap?
Also Kary Mullis said fuck all about Covid because he died in August 2019.
And his comments about PCR (from 1996) are completely out of date nowadays, where the post PCR products can be quantitatively analysed."
Who needs facts when your masters give you a line (you don't understand) to spread to the unthinking sheeple? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
False positive is a thing. It's why I'm not taking the lateral flow tests. My kids aren't either. I'm not losing precious income to a false positive test. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"False positive is a thing. It's why I'm not taking the lateral flow tests. My kids aren't either. I'm not losing precious income to a false positive test. "
Bravo for you putting a day of your lost time over the chance to stop you infecting countless others.
If there’s enough people with your point of view perhaps we can all look forward to future lockdowns, lost months of income etc just because you can’t be arsed to take a simple test and then insure the safety of others you come in contact with.
If taken Lava tests for 6 months, I’ve show positive twice now over around 50 tests and all its cost me is two quick trips to a test centre with a same day response and 8 hours off work. It’s ensured my 40 work colleagues and our patients remain safe though, not a very big price to pay in truth.
You’re the perfect illustration of why the U.K. struggles so badly with this pandemic. Always someone else’s fault when actually you’re the issue. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"False positive is a thing. It's why I'm not taking the lateral flow tests. My kids aren't either. I'm not losing precious income to a false positive test.
Bravo for you putting a day of your lost time over the chance to stop you infecting countless others.
If there’s enough people with your point of view perhaps we can all look forward to future lockdowns, lost months of income etc just because you can’t be arsed to take a simple test and then insure the safety of others you come in contact with.
If taken Lava tests for 6 months, I’ve show positive twice now over around 50 tests and all its cost me is two quick trips to a test centre with a same day response and 8 hours off work. It’s ensured my 40 work colleagues and our patients remain safe though, not a very big price to pay in truth.
You’re the perfect illustration of why the U.K. struggles so badly with this pandemic. Always someone else’s fault when actually you’re the issue."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"False positive is a thing. It's why I'm not taking the lateral flow tests. My kids aren't either. I'm not losing precious income to a false positive test. "
And by the way “false positives is a thing”...
I have no idea what a “thing” is but if you’re suggesting those using LAVA don’t know it has a tendency to show false positives on occasions you aren’t telling us something new. As stated before the range to ensure virtually all covid positives means that a small number of false positives will always occur. Having said that it also ensures that around 99% of later confirmed cases are also within those positive tests... if you can’t see the value of people having that warning before they leave their house for work, school etc then I think you’ve somewhat missed the point. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"False positive is a thing. It's why I'm not taking the lateral flow tests. My kids aren't either. I'm not losing precious income to a false positive test. "
P.P.S. “Precious income” isn’t that copywrited by Gollum in lord of the rings? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *indergirlWoman
over a year ago
somewhere, someplace |
"False positive is a thing. It's why I'm not taking the lateral flow tests. My kids aren't either. I'm not losing precious income to a false positive test.
Bravo for you putting a day of your lost time over the chance to stop you infecting countless others.
If there’s enough people with your point of view perhaps we can all look forward to future lockdowns, lost months of income etc just because you can’t be arsed to take a simple test and then insure the safety of others you come in contact with.
If taken Lava tests for 6 months, I’ve show positive twice now over around 50 tests and all its cost me is two quick trips to a test centre with a same day response and 8 hours off work. It’s ensured my 40 work colleagues and our patients remain safe though, not a very big price to pay in truth.
You’re the perfect illustration of why the U.K. struggles so badly with this pandemic. Always someone else’s fault when actually you’re the issue."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"False positive is a thing. It's why I'm not taking the lateral flow tests. My kids aren't either. I'm not losing precious income to a false positive test.
Bravo for you putting a day of your lost time over the chance to stop you infecting countless others.
If there’s enough people with your point of view perhaps we can all look forward to future lockdowns, lost months of income etc just because you can’t be arsed to take a simple test and then insure the safety of others you come in contact with.
If taken Lava tests for 6 months, I’ve show positive twice now over around 50 tests and all its cost me is two quick trips to a test centre with a same day response and 8 hours off work. It’s ensured my 40 work colleagues and our patients remain safe though, not a very big price to pay in truth.
You’re the perfect illustration of why the U.K. struggles so badly with this pandemic. Always someone else’s fault when actually you’re the issue."
I'm so glad you think the pandemic is my fault. I've been nowhere in over a year. Met with my mum outside once. Not been into my office at work at all. Like to see how it is my fault because I think it's a waste of money testing me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'm so glad you think the pandemic is my fault. I've been nowhere in over a year. Met with my mum outside once. Not been into my office at work at all. Like to see how it is my fault because I think it's a waste of money testing me. "
No, I think you contribute to its continuation, I think you somehow elevate yourself above others whilst obviously preaching that covid shouldn’t affect our lives and income.
You refuse to test your children because it’s a waste of money... if they become positive, go to school, infect their teachers, infect their class mates who in turn then enforce their homes into self isolation how much money is wasted because of your actions?
LAVA is far from a waste of money, every other family taking the tests in your kids school are doing it for your benefit, that expenditure is being paid to protect your kids, your household and your livelihood. It’s a shame your entirely self focused stand fails to see that or importantly the risk you then take with others security.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"False positive is a thing. It's why I'm not taking the lateral flow tests. My kids aren't either. I'm not losing precious income to a false positive test.
Bravo for you putting a day of your lost time over the chance to stop you infecting countless others.
If there’s enough people with your point of view perhaps we can all look forward to future lockdowns, lost months of income etc just because you can’t be arsed to take a simple test and then insure the safety of others you come in contact with.
If taken Lava tests for 6 months, I’ve show positive twice now over around 50 tests and all its cost me is two quick trips to a test centre with a same day response and 8 hours off work. It’s ensured my 40 work colleagues and our patients remain safe though, not a very big price to pay in truth.
You’re the perfect illustration of why the U.K. struggles so badly with this pandemic. Always someone else’s fault when actually you’re the issue."
Yep exactly. Not sure why kids wouldn't either. If we could just get everyone to do the right thing got 4 weeks, the same 4 weeks.... We could nail this thing... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'm so glad you think the pandemic is my fault. I've been nowhere in over a year. Met with my mum outside once. Not been into my office at work at all. Like to see how it is my fault because I think it's a waste of money testing me.
No, I think you contribute to its continuation, I think you somehow elevate yourself above others whilst obviously preaching that covid shouldn’t affect our lives and income.
You refuse to test your children because it’s a waste of money... if they become positive, go to school, infect their teachers, infect their class mates who in turn then enforce their homes into self isolation how much money is wasted because of your actions?
LAVA is far from a waste of money, every other family taking the tests in your kids school are doing it for your benefit, that expenditure is being paid to protect your kids, your household and your livelihood. It’s a shame your entirely self focused stand fails to see that or importantly the risk you then take with others security.
"
I obviously can't tell you you're wrong. Because I don't believe you are. You believe what you want and I believe what I do. There is no right or wrong What I object wholeheartedly to is your superior attitude that your opinion is right. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm so glad you think the pandemic is my fault. I've been nowhere in over a year. Met with my mum outside once. Not been into my office at work at all. Like to see how it is my fault because I think it's a waste of money testing me.
No, I think you contribute to its continuation, I think you somehow elevate yourself above others whilst obviously preaching that covid shouldn’t affect our lives and income.
You refuse to test your children because it’s a waste of money... if they become positive, go to school, infect their teachers, infect their class mates who in turn then enforce their homes into self isolation how much money is wasted because of your actions?
LAVA is far from a waste of money, every other family taking the tests in your kids school are doing it for your benefit, that expenditure is being paid to protect your kids, your household and your livelihood. It’s a shame your entirely self focused stand fails to see that or importantly the risk you then take with others security.
I obviously can't tell you you're wrong. Because I don't believe you are. You believe what you want and I believe what I do. There is no right or wrong What I object wholeheartedly to is your superior attitude that your opinion is right. "
I think there very much is right or wrong in this situation. That has so far caused so much damage to so many people. It needlessly claimed my mum so I'm pretty black and white about it. Right... Is doing what we can to reduce the risk of spreading the infection. Wrong is not doing what we can to reduce the risks of spreading the infection. Now what peoples motivations are..? Who can say. But if everyone takes a little extra effort and care we will be through this quicker and with less personal damage. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I obviously can't tell you you're wrong. Because I don't believe you are. You believe what you want and I believe what I do. There is no right or wrong What I object wholeheartedly to is your superior attitude that your opinion is right. "
What am I wrong about?
I agree, Lava produces false positives, in fact I’ve confirmed that fact I’ve had two myself. But it also flags virtually all true positives in a manner where it’s not identified in the workplace, school etc. It therefore dramatically reduces the spread of covid-19.
I’ve sat for months reporting on my departments infections and I know since LAVA we have at last managed to provide a safe workplace for staff but likewise our patients visitors have now for months reported zero infections.
So, what am I wrong about? I’m just stating the facts around the system which are widely documented.
Are you telling me you refusing to test your kids and sending them into a heavily populated school when they could be carrying the virus is responsible? Are you telling me a 1/2 day of inconvenience to check they are actually clear isn’t reasonable compared to shipping them off to mingle with hundreds of other households? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
