Coronavirus - political views - supporting or otherwise...

[Foxholer]

Wow that seems like pretty serious cronyism to me.
Trouble is that the Tory Government has voted in laws to allow them to do this.

...
That's what we want to hear, some nice balanced views.. Oh dear dear deary me, Ha haa, oh dear ???

Or just ignore what was posted and play the posters!

Why don’t you give the “nice balanced views” that you believe must be missing.

Indeed...Demonstrate that they are wrong!

I don't believe even you alter-egor is likely to be able to use his vague half-truths to explain such 'opportunistic exploitation', if not simple cronyism, that appears to have had attempts to hide the connections! Where's 'the Press' and its investigative journalism?

 

[Ethan]

Someone clear this up for me. I am not saying I believe any of the following - however...

We are making very significant economic and impacting decisions based upon levels of positive cases picked up through testing. As we are testing a lot more we are picking up a lot more positive cases. Many of these positive cases could be false positives as the level of the virus (if it is there) may be at a very low level in an individual. If the virus is at a very low level in an individual it is very unlikely to be shed and infect others. So we look to a test that only indicates a positive infection if there is a significant level of infection - significant being a level that will present a risk of infection of others. I have heard that there are such antigen tests available that can provide a result as quickly as a pregnancy test.

The logic then goes that as we are only really interested in individuals who have the virus at a level that is transmittable, then that 'less sensitive' test is, in fact, what we want. And as it is so quick and inexpensive we can potentially take the test daily. And as positives with the test are 'real' and 'dangerous', these individuals isolate, and contacts traced. And we do not react and make significant decisions based upon numbers of positives that could either be false positives or not significant and 'dangerous'.

To be knocked down. Tell me where the logic fails.

I don't think the issue is a quantitative one, so lets assume that people either have or do not have the virus, and the test either reads positive or negative. All tests have accuracy measures called sensitivity and specificity. Sensitivity is the likelihood that you will correctly identify a positive case (true positive rate), specificity the true negative rate. These tend to trade off. If you want greater of one, you usually have to settle for less of the other, because you make such changes by adjusting the cutoff for a positive test.

So lets say you have a test with 99% sensitivity and specificity. That is pretty good.

Example 1: In the general population the current prevalence of Covid is low, say 1 in 1000 people, and you test 100000 people, you will get the following results:

• 99 people who have the virus and test positive. (true positive), i.e. 99% sensitivity for the 100 actual cases
• 1 case that has the virus but tests negative (false negative, the missing 1% of sensitivity among 100 cases)
• 999 people who don't have the virus who test positive (false positive) - 1% of the (100,000-100) who do not have the virus
• 98,901 who do not have the virus and test negative (true negative)

So 1000 people (false negative and positive) have got an inaccurate result and the ratio of false positive to true positive is 10 to 1. If I was an asymptomatic person in a low prevalence population randomly tested and found to be positive, I would therefore assume the overwhelming likelihood is a false positive.

The main driver of this seemingly weird result is the overwhelming number who do not have the virus, and 1% of a very big number is a big number.

Example 2: Repeat the exercise with a prevalence of 1 in 10, and those results change dramatically. In 100,000 people with a prevalence of 1 in 10:

• 9,900 true positive
• 100 false negative
• 900 false positive
• 89,100 true negative

So 1000 people have still got an inaccurate result but the ratio of false positive to true positive has now flipped to less than 1 in 10. Nothing has changed except the prevalence of the virus.

All of this suggests that testing is more informative when the prevalence is huge and we should therefore actively test high risk populations. This includes close contacts of known cases, and it is a scandal such people are not tested as part of Test and Trace.

 

[Foxholer]

Someone clear this up for me. I am not saying I believe any of the following - however...

We are making very significant economic and impacting decisions based upon levels of positive cases picked up through testing. As we are testing a lot more we are picking up a lot more positive cases. Many of these positive cases could be false positives as the level of the virus (if it is there) may be at a very low level in an individual. If the virus is at a very low level in an individual it is very unlikely to be shed and infect others. So we look to a test that only indicates a positive infection if there is a significant level of infection - significant being a level that will present a risk of infection of others. I have heard that there are such antigen tests available that can provide a result as quickly as a pregnancy test.

The logic then goes that as we are only really interested in individuals who have the virus at a level that is transmittable, then that 'less sensitive' test is, in fact, what we want. And as it is so quick and inexpensive we can potentially take the test daily. And as positives with the test are 'real' and 'dangerous', these individuals isolate, and contacts traced. And we do not react and make significant decisions based upon numbers of positives that could either be false positives or not significant and 'dangerous'.

To be knocked down. Tell me where the logic fails.

Positive is Positive (provided not a 'false positive' which can only be determined by a re-test! And ignoring low level infection is very dangerous! Again, isolation (perhaps for a shorter time) and re-testing seems, to me, the 'proper' consequence of such a test. The 'current low-level infection' could well simply be because the victim has only recently been infected!

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Positive is Positive (provided not a 'false positive' which can only be determined by a re-test! And ignoring low level infection is very dangerous! Again, isolation (perhaps for a shorter time) and re-testing seems, to me, the 'proper' consequence of such a test. The 'current low-level infection' could well simply be because the victim has only recently been infected!

Going to take some time ingesting and understanding @Ethan's post .

But on this - the logic is that very low level of infection could be ignored - or we don't focus solely upon trying to detect it.

When the infection is at a very low level, the assertion is that it would not present a threat of infection of others as the virus is not shed at very low levels of infection (I do not know if that is true). The logic goes on that if you can use a very regular (daily?), but less sensitive test, then you will catch individuals positive with infection at a transmittable level as soon as it gets to that level in the individual. This is based upon there being a test that does not detect low levels of the virus and/or generate false positives - but is generally correct in a positive identification when the infection reaches an infectious level - and that will provide results as quickly as a pregnancy test. And so the testing spots individuals pretty much as soon as they become, or get close to becoming, infectious.

I am not arguing this - I guess I am putting up a strawman...

 

[Ethan]

Going to take some time ingesting and understanding @Ethan's post .

But on this - the logic is that very low level of infection could be ignored.

When the infection is at a very low level, the assertion is that it would not present a threat of infection of others as the virus is not shed at very low levels of infection (I do not know if that is true). The logic goes on that if you can use a very regular (daily?), but less sensitive test, then you will catch individuals positive with infection at a transmittable level as soon as it gets to that level in the individual. This is based upon there being a test that does not detect low levels of the virus and/or generate false positives - but is generally correct in a positive identification when the infection reaches an infectious level - and that will provide results as quickly as a pregnancy test. And so the testing spots individuals pretty much as soon as they become, or get close to becoming, infectious.

I would say that the logic is that testing should prioritise risk. If you have limited bandwidth, test those at greatest risk - symptomatics, obvs, close contacts of known cases, NHS, care staff, etc. Then if you have additional bandwidth, test more widely. Some of the testing error inherent in imperfect tests are forgiven by repeat testing.

I am not sure we know that low levels of shedding are less likely to lead to transmission, because it is may be more a probability thing than a dose thing. If you are in the wrong place at the wrong time, it may not take all that much virus to infect you. I am also not sure we know that the severity of the illness is proportional to viral load, except at very high levels of viral load, e.g. when a NHS worker gets coughed in the face by someone with active disease.

I think it is very unwise to ignore mild or asymptomatic disease. It is pretty likely that most of the disease around the UK came for people with few or no symptoms coming into the country and transmitting it to others who showed few symptoms at first but transmitted it around the country.

 

[Mudball]

We naive fools clearly just get it, why a massive contract for PPE is handed without tendering to a company which has never made, imported or sourced a scrap of PPE in the short time it has existed, since being created by a political ally. Please enlighten us.

Is this the same group in cabinet that awarded Ferry contracts to someone who never ferried things before or provided planning permission to someone before the rule changes applied.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Just gets worse!
Coronavirus: Safety concerns halt use of 50 million NHS masks https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53672841

 

[Ethan]

Is this the same group in cabinet that awarded Ferry contracts to someone who never ferried things before or provided planning permission to someone before the rule changes applied.

And ventilator contracts to companies who had never made ventilators, then made them not up to spec, a tech company owned by Cummings mate who made an app which didn't work ........

 

[Jamesbrown]

Dodgy deals and back handers in the midst of a crisis, wow would never have thought it!
Can’t wait for the scandal documentaries in a couple of years.

“Loose change - COVID-19” August 2022

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Dodgy deals and back handers in the midst of a crisis, wow would never have thought it!
Can’t wait for the scandal documentaries in a couple of years.

“Loose change - COVID-19” August 2022

So you’re suggesting it’s a non-story?

 

[Jamesbrown]

So you’re suggesting it’s a non-story?

No I’m suggesting it’s an expected story with much more to come and I’ll wait with my tin foil hat on in a faraday cage hiding from 5g.

 

[Deleted member 27823]

That's what we want to hear, some nice balanced views.. Oh dear dear deary me, Ha haa, oh dear ???

This forum needs an anchor emoji.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I would say that the logic is that testing should prioritise risk. If you have limited bandwidth, test those at greatest risk - symptomatics, obvs, close contacts of known cases, NHS, care staff, etc. Then if you have additional bandwidth, test more widely. Some of the testing error inherent in imperfect tests are forgiven by repeat testing.

I am not sure we know that low levels of shedding are less likely to lead to transmission, because it is may be more a probability thing than a dose thing. If you are in the wrong place at the wrong time, it may not take all that much virus to infect you. I am also not sure we know that the severity of the illness is proportional to viral load, except at very high levels of viral load, e.g. when a NHS worker gets coughed in the face by someone with active disease.

I think it is very unwise to ignore mild or asymptomatic disease. It is pretty likely that most of the disease around the UK came for people with few or no symptoms coming into the country and transmitting it to others who showed few symptoms at first but transmitted it around the country.

I don't disagree - but is the logic of what I have outlined flawed.

I simply ask as I heard this outlined with total certainty yesterday by an individual who claimed to have a background that qualified him to put it forward. He also claimed that the test is available now.

His argument was based upon his assertions that 1) individuals with very low levels of infection are very unlikely to infect another and so we do not need to know of, or worry about, them 2) a test sensitive to detecting significant levels of the virus (but not sensitive enough for lower levels) is available now, and that test can be take daily with results almost immediate. 3) A daily test would ensure that those missed by the test when the virus was at the lower level would be picked up as soon as the level became 'dangerous' to others.

 

[SocketRocket]

Indeed...Demonstrate that they are wrong!

I don't believe even you alter-egor is likely to be able to use his vague half-truths to explain such 'opportunistic exploitation', if not simple cronyism, that appears to have had attempts to hide the connections! Where's 'the Press' and its investigative journalism?

I didnt suggest anyone was wrong, I was rather amused by the lack of balance and amount of bile in a number of posts. There may well have been some poor procurement and even old boy dealing, no doubt we will find out but it's so 'ground hog day' to see the same old gang reaching for their pitchforks. As to my suggested 'alter-ego' that you keep harping on about , why dont you try adopting one, I mean it would have to be an improvement.

 

[drdel]

I didnt suggest anyone was wrong, I was rather amused by the lack of balance and amount of bile in a number of posts. There may well have been some poor procurement and even old boy dealing, no doubt we will find out but it's so 'ground hog day' to see the same old gang reaching for their pitchforks. As to my suggested 'alter-ego' that you keep harping on about , why dont you try adopting one, I mean it would have to be an improvement.

Their eyes are blind to the personal fortunes of the union leaders and others on the left.

 

[SocketRocket]

This forum needs an anchor emoji.

Oh! You wound my heart ?
An anchor is the sign of Hope, one of the three human virtues.

 

[Foxholer]

...but it's so 'ground hog day' to see the same old gang reaching for their pitchforks....

Indeed! But the same applies across the political spectrum!

...As to my suggested 'alter-ego' that you keep harping on about...

Their eyes are blind to the personal fortunes of the union leaders and others on the left.

QED! Times 2!

 

[Hacker Khan]

Although we are in the middle of a global pandemic, economic crisis and probably the greatest test of a government in decades, I for one am ignoring their current government incompetence and cronyism as I vote Tory and the unions have also done something vaguely similar in the past. All evens up in the end.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Although we are in the middle of a global pandemic, economic crisis and probably the greatest test of a government in decades, I for one am ignoring their current government incompetence and cronyism as I vote Tory and the unions have also done something vaguely similar in the past. All evens up in the end.

Yup - divert to the unions.

Meanwhile we learn of more £millions spent on masks not fit for use in the NHS...

Let;'s see how that can be diverted onto Labour or the Unions.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53672841

Oh yes - our Test & Trace system - World Beating - according to our PM today - as officials in the department and the boss of Serco say it's got a way to go - and as the number of 2nd tier contacts made falls. Why should I believe anything that comes out of his mouth.

Meanwhile the Tory-boys will form the wagons into a circle and defend very stoutly the whole sorry shower.

 

[Ethan]

His argument was based upon his assertions that 1) individuals with very low levels of infection are very unlikely to infect another and so we do not need to know of, or worry about, them 2) a test sensitive to detecting significant levels of the virus (but not sensitive enough for lower levels) is available now, and that test can be take daily with results almost immediate. 3) A daily test would ensure that those missed by the test when the virus was at the lower level would be picked up as soon as the level became 'dangerous' to others.

In terms of his arguments:

1. I disagree that we do not need to know about such people. We can't really quantify what low levels of infection are. Perhaps the sample of saliva or snot did not have a lot of virus, but viral load will vary from sample to sample, with time as the infection develops or wanes and may vary around the body. The saliva may have little virus but exhaled air and mucus may have more. We don't know that transmissibility is correlated with viral load - symptomatology isn't.

2. The tests are reasonably sensitive at present. I think that ignoring or engineering out low levels of viral load would require the issues in 1 to be really nailed down.

3. I agree that frequent serial testing is good and would improve our understanding of the risk, but it is a very substantial logistical demand if many are included.