Johns Hopkins Medical Centre - World Coronavirus infection Map by Country.

[Barry]

The figures are relative to a five-year average, precisely to try to even out annual variations.

[Folsom]

The figures are relative to a five-year average, precisely to try to even out annual variations.

But you get what I'm saying about monthly vs annual, right? How choosing a month can be cherry picking?

Also my example was for my state, not the UK. I don't know as much about the UK.

[Stryder5]

"RT-PCR tests to detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA are the operational gold standard for detecting COVID-19 disease in clinical practice. RT-PCR assays in the UK have analytical sensitivity and specificity of greater than 95%"

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...453-7/fulltext

I wouldn't say 95% correct is a very high error rate.

OK I understand that not all the 74,000 + deaths in the UK which mention Covid on the certificate are solely caused by Covid 19, but even if Covid 19 is a contributory factor, it makes sense to test, take notice and behave sensibly

The link above makes interesting reading:


“RT-PCR tests to detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA are the operational gold standard for detecting COVID-19 disease in clinical practice. RT-PCR assays in the UK have analytical sensitivity and specificity of greater than 95%, but no single gold standard assay exists.”

Now you will note there’s a contradiction here, the word “operational” implies a “gold standard” , that is negated at the end of the paragraph, because “no gold standard exists”.

So the “operational gold standard” is a false identifier!

There is also a qualification comment later in the article.

“Any diagnostic test result should be interpreted in the context of the pretest probability of disease. For COVID-19, the pretest probability assessment includes symptoms, previous medical history of COVID-19 or presence of antibodies, any potential exposure to COVID-19, and likelihood of an alternative diagnosis.1 When low pretest probability exists, positive results should be interpreted with caution and a second specimen tested for confirmation.”

You also have to remember that items in The Lancet cannot be seen as gospel, they have had to withdraw previous articles on this subject.

The headline figure of 95% is misleading and irrelevant.

Gary

[walpurgis]

The quote doesn't say no gold standard exists, it's no 'single' gold standard. Read what you like into that.

[struth]

operational i think suggests best of the tests we have

[guy]

You also have to remember that items in The Lancet cannot be seen as gospel, they have had to withdraw previous articles on this subject.

The headline figure of 95% is misleading and irrelevant.

Gary

https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3682
admittedly using lancet as source


ALTERNATE SOURCE: (not related to Lancet)
"Summary

Analytic performance of many SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic PCR tests approaches 100% at 500-5000 copies/mL; however, clinical performance of testing depends on biology and pre-analytic factors and only approaches 80% sensitivity and 98-99% specificity. Learning more about the biology of SARS-CoV-2 and optimizing pre-analytic factors should improve the clinical performance of SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic testing. If COVID-19 is suspected and testing is negative, re-testing of a clinically affected site may be indicated."

https://www.cap.org/member-resources...stic-pcr-tests

[Marco]

Good debate going on here, guys, from both sides, so keep it up

It's important for alternative views from yours to be aired, and other information considered, which may make you look at things differently and be useful, even if it takes you out of your comfort zone or is an affront to your sensibilities, as burying your head in the sand and simply believing what you WANT to believe, or that which superficially you may find comforting or reassuring, isn't the answer and doesn't help us get to the truth!

Also, could I ask that when submitting links to information and/or evidence that appears to support your argument, that it's not simply just cherry-picking bits from articles that superficially support your stance, but that the WHOLE content of the article(s) in question is taken into consideration, including any parts elsewhere that may question the way in which you've used information, simply to make yourself look right or appear to have 'won' the argument

And that applies to folks on BOTH sides of the debate. The usefulness of this discussion (and thread) is *solely* in attempting to get to the truth/facts of the matter, NOT 'winning' arguments, by any means necessary, or simply patting those on that back who agree with you, which serve no constructive purpose whatsoever.

Marco.

[guy]

Just back from (very wet and muddy) dog walk, ideal time to ruminate over this testing "debate".

This seems logical to me:

R number is over 1
Therefore virus is infecting more people
As a result people are dying earlier than would otherwise be the case
Also as a result, most of England is in "tier 4", with the threat of even more restrictions being put in place

Even if testing were only 50% sensitive and specific (and I trust the scientific journals which state that it is far better).
Then as long as people get tested, take notice of the result and behave sensibly (taking time to consider that they have a moral and social responsibility to relatives, friends and neighbours) then
R number will fall below 1
We will have some chance of fewer restrictions
Fewer people will have their life shortened
Fewer people will suffer from the awful effects of "long Covid"
Economy will benefit (left this until last as a healthy life is more important)

I got home just in time to see a news report about yet another variant appearing in South Africa - the longer we take to recognise the danger , and insist on adopting a macho "don't give a fuck" stance, the more chance there is of even more (more threatening?) strains emerging.
One could ascribe pandemics to the Gaia theory - self regulation of all living things keeping a balance suitable for life on the planet. In which case, there will be more to come.
But that is a defeatist attitude

[Macca]

Added to which the Gaia Theory is bollocks.

[guy]

The mechanisms of Gaian theory are certainly not bollocks (surprised to see you write that);

just one (major) example is the balance between animals: CO2 producers, O2 consumers; being balanced by plants: CO2 consumers, O2 producers.
Oxygen levels seem to have been fairly constant for several thousand years - ice core samples provide evidence for this.
I don't take Gaian theory as some sort of magical balance - it is just the result (fortuitous?) of several feedback systems in operation