Coronavirus - how is it/has it affected you?

[Foxholer]

Yes we are still wearing when in shops or if pavement is busy, irrespective of what others are doing. Do have a bit of an issue at the club as mask wearing seems to have been completely abandoned in the clubhouse for when moving around and in general/public areas…would suggest that golfers know best/better.

Or just can't be arsed/have forgotten!

 

[Foxholer]

Having had covid twice, and being triple jabbed, my immediate concern is not really myself, but other people. Which is why I have adopted the stance to mask wearing that I have. If the vast majority can’t be bothered, me not wearing one won’t really make a jot of difference.

Nice gesture that seems somewhat wasted/ineffective!

 

[D-S]

I still wear a mask in shops but as two people close to me caught COVID whilst wearing masks despite only being in brief contact with others in environments where everyone was wearing a mask, more and more I wonder why I bother.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

In a busy supermarket yesterday, I and a few others wearing masks but the vast majority not bothered. Its still causing infestations: if slowly declining. How about the rest of you, wearing or not ?

I've gone from wearing one in most situations to not now. I've spent the last few days in Liverpool, been in bars, restaurants, shops, train, all sorts of situations. Barely a mask seen. Back in a supermarket yesterday where I live, 1 maybe 2 mask wearers.

Mask wearing seems to be over and I guess I don't see the point of being last man standing wearing one.

I'm not sure how much the above stands up to scrutiny but it is how things have drifted.

 

[Tashyboy]

Re masks am sure all countries have the same info re wearing them Or not. In Majorca if you go inside a shop or restaurant you have to wear one and folk do. Inc tourists. Yet in the UK it’s up to the individual. So what makes one country say wear them and another says it’s up to you. ?

 

[Foxholer]

Re masks am sure all countries have the same info re wearing them Or not. In Majorca if you go inside a shop or restaurant you have to wear one and folk do. Inc tourists. Yet in the UK it’s up to the individual. So what makes one country say wear them and another says it’s up to you. ?

They have all sorts of different laws, even though they have the same info about the things those laws are related to!
EG. Germany has different laws to UK about when and how you can wash your car.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Re masks am sure all countries have the same info re wearing them Or not. In Majorca if you go inside a shop or restaurant you have to wear one and folk do. Inc tourists. Yet in the UK it’s up to the individual. So what makes one country say wear them and another says it’s up to you. ?

Why are China having severe lock downs and other countries ignoring the numbers? Actually the answer may not be covid related ?.

Anyway, different opinions in how to deal with the situation, particularly as times move on. If there is something we have learned in a number of situations in recent years, there are loads of experts and they frequently disagree ?. That's confusing.

 

[theoneandonly]

Reducing the chance of catching or passing on Covid. Nothings changed in that respect.

It's a personal choice now. So I'm choosing no, like most others.

 

[PNWokingham]

In a busy supermarket yesterday, I and a few others wearing masks but the vast majority not bothered. Its still causing infestations: if slowly declining. How about the rest of you, wearing or not ?

No

 

[Foxholer]

Why are China having severe lock downs and other countries ignoring the numbers? Actually the answer may not be covid related ?.
...

May not be Covid related. But China have been consistent about the way they've handled Covid - Hong Kong excluded. Whether that's best or not, only time will tell.

 

[Backache]

No, I don't.

Sensitivity is the probability that a positive test will occur in someone that has the disease. That is very high for LFTs, such that if you test positive, you really don't need a PCR.

Specificity is the probability that a negative test will occur in someone that does not. That is lower. Sensitivity and specificity are unaffected by prevalence.

The real problem, that some true cases get negative tests is captured better in the negative predictive value, which is prevalence-related, so at times of high prevalence, can be an issue.

Yes sensitivity is the probability that a test will be positive in someone who has the disease but this does not mean that if the test is positive it is likely they have the disease.
If I invented a COVID test that was positive for everyone it would have 100% sensitivity but would be completely useless for saying if you have the disease or not.
Conversely if a test was 100% specific and the test was positive they would definitely have the disease.

 

[AmandaJR]

I'm still wearing a mask where I'm requested to do so - that's pretty much every supermarket. Maybe in time they'll remove the signs but until then...

 

[Tashyboy]

Why are China having severe lock downs and other countries ignoring the numbers? Actually the answer may not be covid related ?.

Anyway, different opinions in how to deal with the situation, particularly as times move on. If there is something we have learned in a number of situations in recent years, there are loads of experts and they frequently disagree ?. That's confusing.[/QUOTE]
And that’s just on the forum ?

 

[Ethan]

Yes sensitivity is the probability that a test will be positive in someone who has the disease but this does not mean that if the test is positive it is likely they have the disease.
If I invented a COVID test that was positive for everyone it would have 100% sensitivity but would be completely useless for saying if you have the disease or not.
Conversely if a test was 100% specific and the test was positive they would definitely have the disease.

A highly sensitive test DOES mean that a positive test means that someone has the disease, with a certainty equal to the sensitivity. That is why it is also known as the true positive rate. A positive test in a test with sensitivity of 99% is 99% likely to be a true case. There is a 1% chance it is a false negative, i.e a true case that tests negative. High sensitivity says little about whether someone who tests negative is a case or not.

I do not know of any test that is 100% sensitive and specific. There is invariably a trade-off between the two, because tests are usually based on either a cut-off or a lower limit of lab quantification which still leaves room for uncertainty sometimes based on whether identifying true cases, but accepting false negatives or identifying true negatives but accepting false positives is the strategic priority.

 

[Foxholer]

Yes sensitivity is the probability that a test will be positive in someone who has the disease but this does not mean that if the test is positive it is likely they have the disease.
If I invented a COVID test that was positive for everyone it would have 100% sensitivity but would be completely useless for saying if you have the disease or not.
Conversely if a test was 100% specific and the test was positive they would definitely have the disease.

FWIW....
https://ebn.bmj.com/content/23/1/2

 

[Deleted member 21258]

So if you've negative LFT's surely you've only got a cold.

Sadly not. Dont trust the LFT.

To summarise :-

If positive...then you have covid(almost 100% certain)

If negative and if you have any viral symptoms...you should not trust the test result, especially if seeing a vulnerable person.

(IIRC when I looked at some studies last year, you are looking at anywhere from 45% to max 80% accurate results from the negative test result, so if everyone was positive who was testing, it would show positive 45% to 80% of the tests. .ie. pretty low accuracy results. This is due to the test is made to pick up high viral load people[thought to be potentially the higher transmitters of virus] and things like user error etc)

Hope that helps to clarify and makes sense.

 

[Backache]

A highly sensitive test DOES mean that a positive test means that someone has the disease, with a certainty equal to the sensitivity. That is why it is also known as the true positive rate. A positive test in a test with sensitivity of 99% is 99% likely to be a true case. There is a 1% chance it is a false negative, i.e a true case that tests negative. High sensitivity says little about whether someone who tests negative is a case or not.

You are mixing up positive predictive value and sensitivity.
See the article in the link above.

If you take 100 people 50 with covid and 50 without and test them with a method that says they all have covid you will have positively identified everyone with Covid so you have correctly identified everyone with the disease. ie the sensitivity is 100%

 

[Backache]

This link is maybe better than the one foxholer posted
Sensitivity and specificity explained: A Cochrane UK Trainees blog | Cochrane UK

 

[Ethan]

You are mixing up positive predictive value and sensitivity.
See the article in the link above.

If you take 100 people 50 with covid and 50 without and test them with a method that says they all have covid you will have positively identified everyone with Covid so you have correctly identified everyone with the disease. ie the sensitivity is 100%

 

[Backache]

Were you replying to me, what were you saying?