Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

All things Rugby
User avatar
CM11
Posts: 59509
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by CM11 »

De Gascun has clarified that the false positive rate is 0.2%.
User avatar
Botha Boy
Posts: 2888
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Botha Boy »

CM11 wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 5:07 pm De Gascun has clarified that the false positive rate is 0.2%.
And may have to go to jail for that comment. His staff are pulling their hair out at his off-the-cuff comments to the media. He had previously said it was 1-3% on Twitter.

He actually self-negated himself on the radio at the end of that interview saying it was hard to measure False Positives and that the definitive Irish data was not in yet.

But don't take my word for it.

This is a rag known as the The Lancet. I realise that their editorial standards have been challenged of late, but may you give this a peruse and think whether the head of our PCR test labs and chairperson of NPHET is more credible than this paper ... and trust me this is just one lot loads out there.

He should be stripped and flogged through the streets when people realise the misinformation he and NPHET are pumping out every day. Game of Thrones style. "Shame !"


NPHET is shit.
User avatar
CM11
Posts: 59509
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by CM11 »

They weren't 'off the cuff' and as I said he's clarified that they are seeing a false positivity rate of 0.2%. I really couldn't care less what you believe. You are approaching this with a ridiculous level of confirmation bias and subjectivity which renders your posts irrelevant.
User avatar
Gavin Duffy
Posts: 15193
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Gavin Duffy »

CM11 wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 5:07 pm De Gascun has clarified that the false positive rate is 0.2%.
That seems remarkable https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanr ... 7/fulltext
User avatar
Gavin Duffy
Posts: 15193
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Gavin Duffy »

Here’s another https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 20080911v4

Maybe he meant 2%?
User avatar
Botha Boy
Posts: 2888
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Botha Boy »

CM11 wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 5:21 pm They weren't 'off the cuff' and as I said he's clarified that they are seeing a false positivity rate of 0.2%. I really couldn't care less what you believe. You are approaching this with a ridiculous level of confirmation bias and subjectivity which renders your posts irrelevant.

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."


Let's see how this plays out. And you can stay a hostage to NPHET in the meantime if you choose. Just don't say afterwards no-one told you otherwise ...

In the meantime read The Lancet paper and go and watch RTE Primetime on Sept 22nd to hear a Harvard associate professor explain the problem and that we need different tests (antigen, Lamp, etc). You need to check your own level of confirmation bias as you hug Cillian De Gascun's completely contradictory opinions from week to week. Bet he tries to roll out a new test before Xmas that has huge benefits on the PCR test ... you wait and see.

This use case data will only get worse if they increase capacity. They need to actually do a second test on every positive test to confirm it is not a false positive at this stage.

And don't take the word of an anonymous person on the internet. Research this. The data is out there. Ask Michael Mina from Harvard, Carl Heneghan from Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, ask any experienced analytical scientist what is the impact as you try to measure something with a prevalence close to the false positive rate of the test ...

And I haven't even talked about the impact of using PCR tests with amplification cycles higher than 30 and then trying to diagnose that they are infectious Covid 19 cases.


Why am I going on and on about this ?

Because they are shutting down a huge swath of the economy needlessly. You can't stand by and be silent when we are making a huge f*ck-up !


ps. don't forget to look at the NI data where the bulk of what they are doing is reporting Pillar 2 results from testing healthy people in the community ... BONKERS ! You have been very silent on that topic.
User avatar
Gavin Duffy
Posts: 15193
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Gavin Duffy »

How does serial testing establish an upper limit for the false positive rate?
User avatar
CM11
Posts: 59509
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by CM11 »

Gavin Duffy wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 5:44 pm How does serial testing establish an upper limit for the false positive rate?
Serial testing is as close as you'll get to testing an entirely healthy population so if you're only seeing 0.2% of those testing positive then it's unlikely you're seeing more than that in false positives when testing a biased sample set.
User avatar
Gavin Duffy
Posts: 15193
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Gavin Duffy »

But the serial testing has been of at risk groups
User avatar
CM11
Posts: 59509
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by CM11 »

Gavin Duffy wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 5:51 pm But the serial testing has been of at risk groups
Well no. It includes meat factories and healthcare testing too. But if it was just the at risk group, that strengthens the argument.
User avatar
Botha Boy
Posts: 2888
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Botha Boy »

CM11 wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 5:47 pm
Gavin Duffy wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 5:44 pm How does serial testing establish an upper limit for the false positive rate?
Serial testing is as close as you'll get to testing an entirely healthy population so if you're only seeing 0.2% of those testing positive then it's unlikely you're seeing more than that in false positives when testing a biased sample set.
I guess your buddy Cillian De Gascun just needs to publish that serial testing data for scrutiny and you win then ... simples.
User avatar
Gavin Duffy
Posts: 15193
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Gavin Duffy »

CM11 wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 5:53 pm
Gavin Duffy wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 5:51 pm But the serial testing has been of at risk groups
Well no. It includes meat factories and healthcare testing too. But if it was just the at risk group, that strengthens the argument.
And does it factor in a false negative rate?
User avatar
CM11
Posts: 59509
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by CM11 »

Gavin Duffy wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 5:56 pm
CM11 wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 5:53 pm
Gavin Duffy wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 5:51 pm But the serial testing has been of at risk groups
Well no. It includes meat factories and healthcare testing too. But if it was just the at risk group, that strengthens the argument.
And does it factor in a false negative rate?
False negative also strengthens the overall argument but it's an irrelevant point for false positives.

If you have 100k tests which are serial tests and they are returning 200 positive tests, the max amount of false positives is 200. It doesn't get much simpler than that.
User avatar
Botha Boy
Posts: 2888
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Botha Boy »

CM11 wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 6:04 pm
Gavin Duffy wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 5:56 pm
CM11 wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 5:53 pm
Gavin Duffy wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 5:51 pm But the serial testing has been of at risk groups
Well no. It includes meat factories and healthcare testing too. But if it was just the at risk group, that strengthens the argument.
And does it factor in a false negative rate?
False negative also strengthens the overall argument but it's an irrelevant point for false positives.

If you have 100k tests which are serial tests and they are returning 200 positive tests, the max amount of false positives is 200. It doesn't get much simpler than that.
I agree. If it is true.
Nolanator
Posts: 38535
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Nolanator »

613 + 10.

Not great. Deaths picking up now after lagging the increase in cases?


Edit, 8 of those deaths are retrospective from ages ago. Nothing to do with current cases.
cfm93
Posts: 2364
Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2013 10:59 pm

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by cfm93 »

8 of the deaths are historical.
User avatar
EverReady
Posts: 32892
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by EverReady »

What in the living fück is the point of reporting historical deaths like that. Tell us next year or some shit rather than trying to get Karen all upset
User avatar
Botha Boy
Posts: 2888
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Botha Boy »

cfm93 wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 6:20 pm 8 of the deaths are historical.
Correction - hysterical ... WTF ?
Nolanator
Posts: 38535
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Nolanator »

EverReady wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 6:35 pm What in the living fück is the point of reporting historical deaths like that. Tell us next year or some shit rather than trying to get Karen all upset
They really should just report it as cases+deaths+historical deaths of there are any. Serves absolutely no purpose grouping them, they're completely unrelated to the current cases and should have no bearing on policy making.
User avatar
CM11
Posts: 59509
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by CM11 »

EverReady wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 6:35 pm What in the living fück is the point of reporting historical deaths like that. Tell us next year or some shit rather than trying to get Karen all upset
I think they save them just to annoy you.

Nols' point is sound. Announce recent deaths and then historical as opposed to total deaths with clarification.
Nolanator
Posts: 38535
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Nolanator »

Just heard that my cousins took the absolute piss last week. Had postponed their wedding, so had a small event in a restaurant, which was all by the book.

Then went and had 20 people back in her brother's house. FFS.
User avatar
Botha Boy
Posts: 2888
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Botha Boy »

Nolanator wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 6:40 pm
EverReady wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 6:35 pm What in the living fück is the point of reporting historical deaths like that. Tell us next year or some shit rather than trying to get Karen all upset
They really should just report it as cases+deaths+historical deaths of there are any. Serves absolutely no purpose grouping them, they're completely unrelated to the current cases and should have no bearing on policy making.
This sounds like 'tricolour-flying' levels of conspiracy bollix, but what is their motivation to do this ? Reporting retrospecitive deaths does not describe the real risk we face tomorrow with this endemic virus in our community.

And this is not the first time. It happened last week and 3 weeks ago. And yet they declassified 5 Covid deaths this week as well on the sly.


Anyway, you know my position on NPHET. Free yourself by simply going and walking out the door as the risk is so low. NPHET have lost the dressing room at this stage ...
MunsterMan!!!!!
Posts: 4681
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by MunsterMan!!!!! »

Turns out trump knew 36 hours before it was announced that he had it, including meeting donors and the likes. Hope he recovers but whatever fear I had of him turning this into a positive for his election chance have now gone. What a cùnt
User avatar
Blackrock Bullet
Posts: 14206
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: #68

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Blackrock Bullet »

Nolanator wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 6:50 pm Just heard that my cousins took the absolute piss last week. Had postponed their wedding, so had a small event in a restaurant, which was all by the book.

Then went and had 20 people back in her brother's house. FFS.
Doing their bit for herd immunity. :thumbup:
User avatar
danthefan
Posts: 22705
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by danthefan »

MunsterMan!!!!! wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 7:55 pm Turns out trump knew 36 hours before it was announced that he had it, including meeting donors and the likes. Hope he recovers but whatever fear I had of him turning this into a positive for his election chance have now gone. What a cùnt
Details are scetchy but he's not in great shape going by the leaked info.

I thought this was going to work in his favour as well tbh but certainly not now.
User avatar
CM11
Posts: 59509
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by CM11 »

MunsterMan!!!!! wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 7:55 pm Turns out trump knew 36 hours before it was announced that he had it, including meeting donors and the likes. Hope he recovers but whatever fear I had of him turning this into a positive for his election chance have now gone. What a cùnt
Is that confirmed? There seems to be a fudge going on there with them saying the doctor meant he's in his third day.
User avatar
Conspicuous
Posts: 6995
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Conspicuous »

CM11 wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 9:42 pm
MunsterMan!!!!! wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 7:55 pm Turns out trump knew 36 hours before it was announced that he had it, including meeting donors and the likes. Hope he recovers but whatever fear I had of him turning this into a positive for his election chance have now gone. What a cùnt
Is that confirmed? There seems to be a fudge going on there with them saying the doctor meant he's in his third day.
Yeah the doctor corrected himself, he meant Trump was into Day 3 of the diagnosis, rather than 72 hours since diagnosis. Apparently
User avatar
CM11
Posts: 59509
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by CM11 »

User avatar
EverReady
Posts: 32892
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by EverReady »

Like a mammy and daddy. Thought what about daddy and daddy and mammy and mammy and them lads with boobs?
User avatar
CM11
Posts: 59509
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by CM11 »

EverReady wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 10:38 pm Like a mammy and daddy. Thought what about daddy and daddy and mammy and mammy and them lads with boobs?
That was my exact first thought!
User avatar
CM11
Posts: 59509
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by CM11 »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/ ... 2?mode=amp

The more I read about the cases, the more sure I am that it's a small minority fúcking it up for the rest of us.
User avatar
EverReady
Posts: 32892
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by EverReady »

CM11 wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 10:55 pm https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/ ... 2?mode=amp

The more I read about the cases, the more sure I am that it's a small minority fúcking it up for the rest of us.
That article is another scare at bedtime job Stats. 'Like we don't mean to blaming anybody poor and afraid of losing their job but their was some bitch, who you all know down there, who spread the virus all over Waterford'
iarmhiman
Posts: 40130
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by iarmhiman »

Time to move Lucan to level 4 me thinks.
User avatar
CM11
Posts: 59509
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by CM11 »

EverReady wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 11:09 pm
CM11 wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 10:55 pm https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/ ... 2?mode=amp

The more I read about the cases, the more sure I am that it's a small minority fúcking it up for the rest of us.
That article is another scare at bedtime job Stats. 'Like we don't mean to blaming anybody poor and afraid of losing their job but their was some bitch, who you all know down there, who spread the virus all over Waterford'
Again, no.

It's an article pointing out that there's some absolute idiots out there who are fúcking it up for the majority who are able to act responsibly. Most people aren't to blame for spreading this but this has already been shown to be spread mostly by superspeaders and when you get idiots who go to work for a week in the hospitality sector with symptoms, you can see why.
User avatar
EverReady
Posts: 32892
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by EverReady »

Get out from under the bed and crack on you bastards. Next time I get cancer I am going to the high court to demand you shut everything down for me
User avatar
CM11
Posts: 59509
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by CM11 »

I think you're letting your anger cloud your ability to parse words at this stage, ER.

You're missing my point completely if you think this is about cowering under the table.
User avatar
EverReady
Posts: 32892
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by EverReady »

Ah no I am not angry. Frustrated alright that I am so right and you are so wrong. So very very right
User avatar
CM11
Posts: 59509
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by CM11 »

EverReady wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 11:44 pm Ah no I am not angry. Frustrated alright that I am so right and you are so wrong. So very very right
Frustration fits better, fair enough.

Point stands, you're missing my point.
User avatar
Gavin Duffy
Posts: 15193
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Gavin Duffy »

CM11 wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 11:45 pm
EverReady wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 11:44 pm Ah no I am not angry. Frustrated alright that I am so right and you are so wrong. So very very right
Frustration fits better, fair enough.

Point stands, you're missing my point.
The world is missing your point at this stage you freak.
Post Reply