|
Don't you think it was just posted a week early?
|
|
|
|
|
At first, I was surprised it was from Mexico and not Japan.
However, it didn't yet have the full Japanese Twist to innovation[^].
Please stand by for what's sure to follow!*
* Still not up to the level of my Seran-wrap toilet paper: comes with a squeegee and clips for hanging out to dry. No more paper waste.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't mind wearing the masks. Some people really smell bad at Walmart and with a mask on I can't smell them anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately I can still smell everything wearing a mask. Which makes me wonder how effective they actually are.
|
|
|
|
|
Smells generally aren't particles or droplets, so against them it won't be effective at all.
For that you need a gas mask with activated carbon.
|
|
|
|
|
SeanChupas wrote: Walmart
Found your problem.
There's a reason sites such as this exist.
|
|
|
|
|
I seriously doubt the madness will ever stop. 
|
|
|
|
|
Thars gold in them thar masks!... maybe. If there's a profit to be made, someone will try and make it.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
clickety[^]
"If we don't change direction, we'll end up where we're going"
|
|
|
|
|
That's some dank meme ... 
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Someone has a budding business.
|
|
|
|
|
This is by far the best explanation I have seen. Not only is this incredibly informative, it's a lesson in how to present complex(ish) facts in a way that everyone can understand.
Watch the video. Even if it's just to see how a 'scientific' video should be done! It's 7 minutes of your time that will be very well spent.
Why you can't compare Covid-19 vaccines - YouTube[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Yep - 7 minutes of my time well spent.
Very well explained, doesn't sound like an advert (although at one point I thought it was drifting that way), really put across the message clearly.
Thanks for sharing
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent, and very well explained. 
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I have watched part of it but I am concerned that if 43,000 people were in the trial and that 170 tested positive, that's 0.4% of the population testing positive.
My question would be what is the false positive rate on those tests? As that is a very small proportion of the total population becoming infected and quite possibly the 170 could all be false positives.
The UK ONS refuse to answer the question False positivity rate of the COVID-19 PCR test - Office for National Statistics[^]
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
This is before I watch the video, but GuyThiebaut wrote: My question would be what is the false positive rate on those tests?
seems to leave out the obvious "what is the false negative rate".
In fact, the latter recently affected my son and his family: a friend tested positive and they were obliged to test themselves - then a retest of the positive friend and family were all negative. False alarm.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
See my answer to Guy. Trials, I would hope, are going to be far more rigorous than testing in the real world. If Trials were based on a single PCR test, I doubt that regulators would accept the results.
|
|
|
|
|
For me it's more that from a population size of 43,000 people, 0.4% of them becoming infected seems like a statistically very small proportion.
As they say the devil is in the detail and they didn't go into that very small proportion in the video - I just finished watching the whole of it.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
GuyThiebaut wrote: My question would be what is the false positive rate on those tests? As that is a very small proportion of the total population becoming infected and quite possibly the 170 could all be false positives.
I'm pretty sure that the trials would be rigorous enough to not be skewed by false positives. I've not been part of any trial, but I doubt that it relies on a single PCR test.
I don't think the ONS article, that you linked to, is related to trials. Its about the accuracy of the PCR Test in the real world. And within that article there is a link to a "Methods Article", which gives details about "Test sensitivity and specificity" - that explains their rationale on false positives. So the ONS are providing an answer - but, as you might expect with something like this, it provides a range, (85-98% accurate), rather than completely nailing it. I don't see how they could be completely accurate.
|
|
|
|
|
5teveH wrote: I'm pretty sure that the trials would be rigorous enough to not be skewed by false positives.
That is how science should be done (and how I was taught to do it). Unfortunately, as science moves further from the esoteric (my world) and into the sell-able (as in medical) then, well, you can only hope.
The false-positive that sent my son & family for tests was with the "quick test", which is notoriously unreliable. The second round of testing on the source and his family was a proper test.
An important truth that, by and large, the general public is unaware of is that almost all science that manipulates real materials includes those error-bars. You do experiments, give results, and you also give information in how confident you are in the results (or, in parallel, what fraction of the sample will be transformed to the desired product - rarely 100%). Seeing only the end products, consumers live in a world of near certainty.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
GuyThiebaut wrote:
The UK ONS refuse to answer the question False positivity rate of the COVID-19 PCR test
What?
The answer is right there in the text you linked "specificity is above 99.9%".
So, less than 0.1%
|
|
|
|
|
Read that full paragraph again.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
|
The paragraph you got that number from.
I am replying from my mobile so I am not up for typing a whole exposition on how that paragraph is illustrating a scenario.
There is some ambiguity in the paragraph and room for interpretation:
Quote: The results show that when we consider that the sensitivity of the test could... and specificity is above 99.9%
I am reading that as "if we let the sensitivity = x and specificity be above 99.9%"
But I do see that it can also be read as "the sensitivity = x and specificity is above 99.9%"
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
modified 25-Mar-21 12:00pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, it's admittedly not the clearest way of writing as such.
I suppose they don't want to be overly specific.
The numbers from the manufacturers are way better than that (98-99.8 sensitivity and >99.9 specificity if I recall correctly), but that's marketing.
NHS made a control study[^] together with Porton Down and Oxford, that found those numbers to be a bit lower in reality.
But again, that study is a bit old and the PCR tests are better today.
Also, to address the question you had in your original post: If someone in a trial is testing positive they are retested some days later, not only to lower the chance of false positives but also because the vaccines themselves may cause a positive test.
Apparently they don't, but they couldn't be 100% sure about that when they made the trials.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
