The definitive rugby union forum. Talk to fans from around the world about your favourite team
https://forum.planetrugby.com/
Remarkable figures.eldanielfire wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 2:07 pm CDC latest published survival rates (see below):
> 0-19yo 99.997%
> 20-49yo 99.98%
> 50-69yo 99.5%
> 70+ 94.6%
You're only supposed to get tested if you have sysmtoms. Obviously people get themselves tested anyway, especially when it's free.Botha Boy wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 7:16 pmMadness.Sawtooth the Beaver wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 5:57 pm Announcement on airport testing coming soon.
Timely response.
Testing generally healthy people with a highly sensitive PCR test is madness when the prevalence of the virus in the community is so low.
The false positive rate (0.8-4.0%) is comparable to the rate of positive tests (1-4%) returned generally testing symptomatic subjects. When you use this technology on asymptomatic individuals, you will generate a huge number of false positives and you cannot diagnose anything as they have no symptoms to support your analysis.
Pillar 2 testing in the UK is madness as is the similar testing of the asymptomatic in Spain over the last month. Spain have just changed their criteria for what is a use case and now they will not include positive PCR results that used cycles greater than 30 to get a positive result. They have seen a subsequent downturn in use case results.
Testing the healthy/asymptomatic needs to stop immediately. We actually need to test twice by PCR to confirm the result, use a maximum number of PCR amplification cycles of around 30 max or introduce a less sensitive test that in fact is only positive with a higher level of virus.
I know. But given that your positivity is currently a few percent, then around 97% of the symptoms you are observing are non-Covid related. So the prevalence of the Covid 19 virus is actually low and a huge proportion of your positive test results are going to be false positives.message #2527204 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 10:47 amYou're only supposed to get tested if you have sysmtoms. Obviously people get themselves tested anyway, especially when it's free.Botha Boy wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 7:16 pmMadness.Sawtooth the Beaver wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 5:57 pm Announcement on airport testing coming soon.
Timely response.
Testing generally healthy people with a highly sensitive PCR test is madness when the prevalence of the virus in the community is so low.
The false positive rate (0.8-4.0%) is comparable to the rate of positive tests (1-4%) returned generally testing symptomatic subjects. When you use this technology on asymptomatic individuals, you will generate a huge number of false positives and you cannot diagnose anything as they have no symptoms to support your analysis.
Pillar 2 testing in the UK is madness as is the similar testing of the asymptomatic in Spain over the last month. Spain have just changed their criteria for what is a use case and now they will not include positive PCR results that used cycles greater than 30 to get a positive result. They have seen a subsequent downturn in use case results.
Testing the healthy/asymptomatic needs to stop immediately. We actually need to test twice by PCR to confirm the result, use a maximum number of PCR amplification cycles of around 30 max or introduce a less sensitive test that in fact is only positive with a higher level of virus.
Much better to have false positives than false negatives in any case.
They self isolate for 14 days. I agree that's a lot of 'unnecessary' isolation, but it's way better than full lockdown. The only reasonable stat to watch is the hospitalisation one.Botha Boy wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:28 amI know. But given that your positivity is currently a few percent, then around 97% of the symptoms you are observing are non-Covid related. So the prevalence of the Covid 19 virus is actually low and a huge proportion of your positive test results are going to be false positives.message #2527204 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 10:47 amYou're only supposed to get tested if you have sysmtoms. Obviously people get themselves tested anyway, especially when it's free.Botha Boy wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 7:16 pmMadness.Sawtooth the Beaver wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 5:57 pm Announcement on airport testing coming soon.
Timely response.
Testing generally healthy people with a highly sensitive PCR test is madness when the prevalence of the virus in the community is so low.
The false positive rate (0.8-4.0%) is comparable to the rate of positive tests (1-4%) returned generally testing symptomatic subjects. When you use this technology on asymptomatic individuals, you will generate a huge number of false positives and you cannot diagnose anything as they have no symptoms to support your analysis.
Pillar 2 testing in the UK is madness as is the similar testing of the asymptomatic in Spain over the last month. Spain have just changed their criteria for what is a use case and now they will not include positive PCR results that used cycles greater than 30 to get a positive result. They have seen a subsequent downturn in use case results.
Testing the healthy/asymptomatic needs to stop immediately. We actually need to test twice by PCR to confirm the result, use a maximum number of PCR amplification cycles of around 30 max or introduce a less sensitive test that in fact is only positive with a higher level of virus.
Much better to have false positives than false negatives in any case.
You may think a few extra false positives are no harm, but you are tracking and tracing ghosts which will mask where the real infection lies and delay you getting to it.
You need to do a second confirmatory test on everyone who tests positive to confirm the result as 2 false positives in a row is highly unlikely.
That guy is a master of publicity and marketing. Bravo.
That's in newcastle? 800 students tested positive for the virus, so I guess they need to reassure?EverReady wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 7:31 pm The UK is taking no chances. I was reading an article about some girl aged 18 killed in uni. An 18 year old man has been arrested. The article finished with
Ehhh ok thenThe investigation is at an early stage but this is not believed to be a Covid-19 related death.”
This is going to become a very important study.
https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproj ... p_js_v=0.1
The short of it is that they believe there is now some immune system response due to our exposure to the common cold. Their concern is and what the study aims to work out is, is that previous exposure at risk of causing an over reaction in our immune system when we get exposed to Covid. In other words the vaccine that we are administering might yield the desired result in that it produces antibodies, but when we do get exposed to Covid after a vaccine do we then suffer from an over reaction of a immune system which has the potential to be lethal?British scientists have launched a major study aimed at uncovering the critical role that human antibodies and other immune defences play in the severity of Covid-19 cases.
Results could support some scientists’ belief that antibodies triggered by common colds could be protecting children against the disease. Alternatively, the study could confirm other researchers’ fears that some immune responses to the virus may trigger deadly inflammatory reactions that could bedevil attempts to create anti-Covid vaccines...
Duff Paddy wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 7:27 pmSaying pooves will roast in eternal hellfire would do it, yes
That's my bit of pointless smartarsery done for the day, and it's not yet 9am local time!
Pretty sure whoever it was didn't have an off the shelf system ready to deploy. Getting a national database up and running inside 6 months is pretty good going for that money. Sounds like user error.Sawtooth the Beaver wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 5:40 pm UK track and trace not world class as it turns out. Not even excellent.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/5/2150 ... heet-error
How much are we paying Serco for this?
108M
Sawtooth the Beaver wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 5:40 pm UK track and trace not world class as it turns out. Not even excellent.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/5/2150 ... heet-error
How much are we paying Serco for this?
108M
According to reports from The Guardian and Sky News, the mistake was caused when PHEtried to collate data from multiple sources in the form of CSV files by loading them into Excel.
To me it sounds more like they were using junk equipment that is 25 years old.message #2527204 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 6:04 pmPretty sure whoever it was didn't have an off the shelf system ready to deploy. Getting a national database up and running inside 6 months is pretty good going for that money. Sounds like user error.Sawtooth the Beaver wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 5:40 pm UK track and trace not world class as it turns out. Not even excellent.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/5/2150 ... heet-error
How much are we paying Serco for this?
108M
Seriously?message #2527204 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 6:04 pm
Getting a national database up and running inside 6 months is pretty good going for that money. Sounds like user error.
What exactly is that graph saying? It seems to be saying the death-ratio for 70+ is around 0.05%? I'm sure I'm misunderstanding.Clogs wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 4:10 amRemarkable figures.eldanielfire wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 2:07 pm CDC latest published survival rates (see below):
> 0-19yo 99.997%
> 20-49yo 99.98%
> 50-69yo 99.5%
> 70+ 94.6%
Oops I better post a link to the source or else the internet people will get annoyed.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-n ... arios.html
message #2527204 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 6:04 pmPretty sure whoever it was didn't have an off the shelf system ready to deploy. Getting a national database up and running inside 6 months is pretty good going for that money. Sounds like user error.Sawtooth the Beaver wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 5:40 pm UK track and trace not world class as it turns out. Not even excellent.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/5/2150 ... heet-error
How much are we paying Serco for this?
108M
Sawtooth the Beaver wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 7:19 am 108M is not unreasonable. It depends what you do with it. It is possible excel is used to import data from disparate data sources into a central database, or export to reports, but then why are they employing people who do not know excel has a row limit?
Some people may well be interested that their health data is being shared around on execl spreadsheets.
More information required, a GDPR enquiry might be informative.
What graphMog The Almighty wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 7:33 amWhat exactly is that graph saying? It seems to be saying the death-ratio for 70+ is around 0.05%? I'm sure I'm misunderstanding.Clogs wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 4:10 amRemarkable figures.eldanielfire wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 2:07 pm CDC latest published survival rates (see below):
> 0-19yo 99.997%
> 20-49yo 99.98%
> 50-69yo 99.5%
> 70+ 94.6%
Oops I better post a link to the source or else the internet people will get annoyed.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-n ... arios.html
yes, you are. It's 5% (if you catch it)What exactly is that graph saying? It seems to be saying the death-ratio for 70+ is around 0.05%? I'm sure I'm misunderstanding.
You know what I meant.
Cheers. Obv. I realised I was reading it wrong, otherwise it would be less deadly that grazing your elbow.
New Guy 2 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 8:10 am How come the first wave was so much deadlier then? 40K deaths first time round, felt like the apocalypse. Now its hovering around 20 deaths a day even though cases are almost back to what they were 6 months ago.
Weaker strain? Or did more people have it 6 months ago and we just weren't aware?
It’s the difference between IFR and CFRMog The Almighty wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 8:15 amYou know what I meant.
Cheers. Obv. I realised I was reading it wrong, otherwise it would be less deadly that grazing your elbow.
Pat the Ex Mat wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 4:52 amSeriously?message #2527204 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 6:04 pm
Getting a national database up and running inside 6 months is pretty good going for that money. Sounds like user error.
It would take less than a week to have a test setup and then rollout to Prod.
This is sheer greediness - why pay for a DB licence when you can use your office licence
There are several reasons, including as bimbot rightly pointed out, more testing. Not to sound callous, but also a lot of the dry tinder has been burned off. Medical knowledge and treatment has vastly improved. People are more cautious (more exposure actually seems to mean worse symptoms). Also the virus has probably mutated to be less dangerous, as most of these types of viruses do; there is no evolutionary advantage to killing off hosts or getting them so sick they isolate themselves; this leads to less dangerous strains of the virus more successfully propagating and more dangerous strains withering away. In fact I've heard it said that eventually COVID-19 will become just another of the common colds that we deal with every year.bimboman wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 8:25 amNew Guy 2 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 8:10 am How come the first wave was so much deadlier then? 40K deaths first time round, felt like the apocalypse. Now its hovering around 20 deaths a day even though cases are almost back to what they were 6 months ago.
Weaker strain? Or did more people have it 6 months ago and we just weren't aware?
Cases aren’t where they were 6 months ago. 6 months ago we had 12 times less tests.
Sawtooth the Beaver wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 9:13 am Greed by the NHS would be strange but then how is that relevant to NHS track and trace. Do tell...
bimboman wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 7:35 ammessage #2527204 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 6:04 pmPretty sure whoever it was didn't have an off the shelf system ready to deploy. Getting a national database up and running inside 6 months is pretty good going for that money. Sounds like user error.Sawtooth the Beaver wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 5:40 pm UK track and trace not world class as it turns out. Not even excellent.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/5/2150 ... heet-error
How much are we paying Serco for this?
108M
It’s already been pointed out this isn’t the Serco end. It’s PHE , the 108 million isn’t being spent here.
Message, there’s dozens of people who post here who could get a simple data base set up on their own in 6 months without using excel and not spending billions.
Of course there are, but I'm sure they'd like to spend that £100m. You could set up the server in your living room with a fixed IP from Zen. 1 week from Pat for analysis,design, dev, test and deploy. Couple of trainee nurses for data entry. Bob's your uncle yeehaw. Then it will just run itself for the next 2 or 3 years,Well, it doesn’t have shareholders in the usual sense but it certainly has managers at various levels whose performance will have differing means of being measured.bimboman wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 8:51 amPat the Ex Mat wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 4:52 amSeriously?message #2527204 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 6:04 pm
Getting a national database up and running inside 6 months is pretty good going for that money. Sounds like user error.
It would take less than a week to have a test setup and then rollout to Prod.
This is sheer greediness - why pay for a DB licence when you can use your office licence
Greed by the NHS seems strange
Fair enough, hand up. I was wrong to blame Serco.Post by bimboman » 06 Oct 2020 08:21
Sawtooth the Beaver wrote: ↑06 Oct 2020 08:13
Greed by the NHS would be strange but then how is that relevant to NHS track and trace. Do tell...
As I’ve pointed out the spreadsheet error was in recording at public health England not serco.
It's just as deadly - the age profile of those catching it is the biggest factor - keeping the frail and elderly away from the virus............Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 9:12 amThere are several reasons, including as bimbot rightly pointed out, more testing. Not to sound callous, but also a lot of the dry tinder has been burned off. Medical knowledge and treatment has vastly improved. People are more cautious (more exposure actually seems to mean worse symptoms). Also the virus has probably mutated to be less dangerous, as most of these types of viruses do; there is no evolutionary advantage to killing off hosts or getting them so sick they isolate themselves; this leads to less dangerous strains of the virus more successfully propagating and more dangerous strains withering away. In fact I've heard it said that eventually COVID-19 will become just another of the common colds that we deal with every year.bimboman wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 8:25 amNew Guy 2 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 8:10 am How come the first wave was so much deadlier then? 40K deaths first time round, felt like the apocalypse. Now its hovering around 20 deaths a day even though cases are almost back to what they were 6 months ago.
Weaker strain? Or did more people have it 6 months ago and we just weren't aware?
Cases aren’t where they were 6 months ago. 6 months ago we had 12 times less tests.
Obv. I'm no expert, this is just stuff I've read from what I consider reliable sources and actual experts.
So what are you basing that on? Because what I'm saying comes from multiple experts in virology and pandemics.ovalball wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 12:14 pmIt's just as deadly - the age profile of those catching it is the biggest factor - keeping the frail and elderly away from the virus............Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 9:12 amThere are several reasons, including as bimbot rightly pointed out, more testing. Not to sound callous, but also a lot of the dry tinder has been burned off. Medical knowledge and treatment has vastly improved. People are more cautious (more exposure actually seems to mean worse symptoms). Also the virus has probably mutated to be less dangerous, as most of these types of viruses do; there is no evolutionary advantage to killing off hosts or getting them so sick they isolate themselves; this leads to less dangerous strains of the virus more successfully propagating and more dangerous strains withering away. In fact I've heard it said that eventually COVID-19 will become just another of the common colds that we deal with every year.bimboman wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 8:25 amNew Guy 2 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 8:10 am How come the first wave was so much deadlier then? 40K deaths first time round, felt like the apocalypse. Now its hovering around 20 deaths a day even though cases are almost back to what they were 6 months ago.
Weaker strain? Or did more people have it 6 months ago and we just weren't aware?
Cases aren’t where they were 6 months ago. 6 months ago we had 12 times less tests.
Obv. I'm no expert, this is just stuff I've read from what I consider reliable sources and actual experts.
