Jump to content
British Speedway Forum
jrs

Covid-19 Are we being told the truth ?

Recommended Posts

How come we’re seeing no analysis of the r rate?

60,000 infections a day down to 3,000 must surely have seen it fall below the 0.6 to 0.9 that it’s been stuck on for two months?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post

Cruise ships evacuating victims and survivors.

Only if they've had the jab:rolleyes:

 

  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, DC2 said:

How come we’re seeing no analysis of the r rate?

60,000 infections a day down to 3,000 must surely have seen it fall below the 0.6 to 0.9 that it’s been stuck on for two months?

I saw a new issue last week, and it showed that there had been a slight increase following the schools going back, and some areas including mine (North Yorkshire and North East ) was edging toward 1 at the top end. They were issued by the major areas comparison and were very variable so as to identify any area in trouble. 

Edited by Tsunami

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, The Third Man said:

Its the same with the 50% accurate Lateral Flow Test that we are now spending billions on, and if you do get a positive test, the only that knows is you

You can even report it yourself, and tell them if it is positive or negative

anyone want to lose money by reporting a positive test?

Many of our local hospital staff have given up using the test after being told it's nearer 30% :unsure:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, DC2 said:

How come we’re seeing no analysis of the r rate?

60,000 infections a day down to 3,000 must surely have seen it fall below the 0.6 to 0.9 that it’s been stuck on for two months?

Surely the difference in rate is easily calculated and then we could work out the actual rate from the governments own starting point!

The main point though is that an R rate of 1 on 3000 cases is a lot less serious than an R rate of 0.8 on 60,000. About time we completely got rid of the guessed at R rate and purely used ICU admittance and deaths because of covid not 'with' it. The vaccines should already be offering a high level of protection to the most likely to be seriously ill or die from Covid and that is what should be driving all future actions. The NHS is definitely protected from being overrun by covid now.

The R value and growth rate in England - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) Makes for interesting reading, especially towards the end.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, The Third Man said:

Its the same with the 50% accurate Lateral Flow Test that we are now spending billions on, and if you do get a positive test, the only that knows is you

You can even report it yourself, and tell them if it is positive or negative

anyone want to lose money by reporting a positive test?

 

32 minutes ago, Vince said:

Many of our local hospital staff have given up using the test after being told it's nearer 30% :unsure:

According to the BMJ, the accuracy was 79 % when used by trained laboratory technicians, 73% when used by healthcare staff , and 57% when used by Covid testing station staff. Therefore the shortcoming was with training and experience, not the product itself, and according to the BMJ , was likely to improve with experience. 
I never understand why people are happy to believe gossip instead of checking independent source material.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

All UK Covid 19 deaths reported today  40(last Saturday 10-Easter figures not all reported)

1st dose vaccinations 32 M

2nd dose  6.9 M

Share this post


Link to post

Last 27  weeks DAILY 7 DAY AVE all UK    Covid 19 reported deaths( taken from the daily figures i quote)

W/E October 4th     total 52

W/E October 11th   total 68

W/E October 18th    total 117

W/E October 25th total  179

W/E November    total 260

W/E November 8th total  332

W/E November 15th    total   413

W/E November 22nd    total  442

W/E November 29th     total  460

W/E December 6th       total 429

W/E December 13th      total  420 

W/E December 20th      total  462

W/E December 27th        total  474

W/E January 3rd          total  604

W/E January 10th     total  909

W/E January 17th      total  1119

W/E January 24th      total  1240

W/E January  31st        total 1174

W/E February 7th      total  901

W/E February 14th      total   672

W/E February 21st      total  488

W/E February 28th       total  324

W/E March 7th        total  211

W/E March 14th           total  145

W/E March 21st    total  91

W/E March 28th         total  62

W/E April 4th       total   35 ( includes Easter and not all figures reported until this week)

This week( Mon/Sat)     total   41

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, E I Addio said:

 

According to the BMJ, the accuracy was 79 % when used by trained laboratory technicians, 73% when used by healthcare staff , and 57% when used by Covid testing station staff. Therefore the shortcoming was with training and experience, not the product itself, and according to the BMJ , was likely to improve with experience. 
I never understand why people are happy to believe gossip instead of checking independent source material.

Which BMJ article has these figures. The BMJ review of lateral tests published on the 25th March does not have these percentages.

The review is based on the findings from Liverpool and Birmingham University. In the innova lateral flow test in Liverpool the percentage sensitivity was 40% and in the Birmingham University it was 3%, these are results from 70 cases in Liverpool and 8 cases in Birmingham University.

A quote from the reviews lead author,  Jon Deeks professor of biostatistics at Birmingham University said, "I personally find it quite shocking that the government thinks that this is an adequate evidence base on which to base such a large, expensive, and quite evasive policy."

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, E I Addio said:

 

According to the BMJ, the accuracy was 79 % when used by trained laboratory technicians, 73% when used by healthcare staff , and 57% when used by Covid testing station staff. Therefore the shortcoming was with training and experience, not the product itself, and according to the BMJ , was likely to improve with experience. 
I never understand why people are happy to believe gossip instead of checking independent source material.

Think you need to look again, i have not seen any figures where the figure is that high, and every expert on the TV i have heard have not said its over 50%

good product to spend billions on though, that is if you are the manufacturer of course

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, E I Addio said:

 

According to the BMJ, the accuracy was 79 % when used by trained laboratory technicians, 73% when used by healthcare staff , and 57% when used by Covid testing station staff. Therefore the shortcoming was with training and experience, not the product itself, and according to the BMJ , was likely to improve with experience. 
I never understand why people are happy to believe gossip instead of checking independent source material.

Yes, that’s well known.

But you think a product with 79% accuracy in the hands of experts is satisfactory?

And likely with less than 57% with the public is worth spending £37 billion on, especially when most have been vaccinated and the season is over?

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, The Third Man said:

Think you need to look again, i have not seen any figures where the figure is that high, and every expert on the TV i have heard have not said its over 50%

good product to spend billions on though, that is if you are the manufacturer of course

 

2 minutes ago, DC2 said:

Yes, that’s well known.

But you think a product with 79% accuracy in the hands of experts is satisfactory?

And likely with less than 57% with the public is worth spending £37 billion on, especially when most have been vaccinated and the season is over?

Well let’s sort out which figure we think it is before we move on.

The Third Man says every expert he has heard on T.V. Says it’s not over 50% , DC 2 says that the 79% figure is well known, so unless that discrepancy is resolved between the two of of you it’s difficult for me to comment further., so over to you Boys.

What I will say though is that the pilot scheme in Liverpool gave an accuracy rate of 49% which may be where the less than 50% figure came from.  A Government minister admitted that was not satisfactory . However if is a matter of training then that would probably explain the increasing accuracy rate.

Also , the most up to date information I can find is that for some reason I can’t be bothered looking into,   Oxford University and some other body were not disclosing their figures so their input, if and when it comes may modify the existing figures up or down. 

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, E I Addio said:

 

Well let’s sort out which figure we think it is before we move on.

The Third Man says every expert he has heard on T.V. Says it’s not over 50% , DC 2 says that the 79% figure is well known, so unless that discrepancy is resolved between the two of of you it’s difficult for me to comment further., so over to you Boys.

What I will say though is that the pilot scheme in Liverpool gave an accuracy rate of 49% which may be where the less than 50% figure came from.  A Government minister admitted that was not satisfactory . However if is a matter of training then that would probably explain the increasing accuracy rate.

Also , the most up to date information I can find is that for some reason I can’t be bothered looking into,   Oxford University and some other body were not disclosing their figures so their input, if and when it comes may modify the existing figures up or down. 

The figures that you quoted were the ones originally published.

My questions based on your figures stand.

Is 79% satisfactory?

Is 57% worth spending £37 billion on?

I can answer: no, in both cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, E I Addio said:

According to the BMJ, the accuracy was 79 % when used by trained laboratory technicians, 73% when used by healthcare staff , and 57% when used by Covid testing station staff. Therefore the shortcoming was with training and experience, not the product itself, and according to the BMJ , was likely to improve with experience. 

As well as having an AZ vaccine maker on our pub quiz team, we also have a COVID tester who's currently doing that instead of being a chef at the moment.

According to him, the lateral flow tests are self-administered and therefore are very dependent on those being tested following instructions, which all too frequently they don't. I'm not sure about the exact reliability, but neither he nor my sister who's a pharmacist think they have much value and are largely a waste of time.

I suspect it's like those car performance figures you (used to?) get in car magazines, set by expert drivers under the most optimal controlled conditions, but clearly impossible for the average person to replicate under normal conditions.

I think the point though, is that the tests should be largely redundant with vaccination anyway, and if the vaccination isn't as effective as being claimed, then that's yet another lie that's been fed to the population. 

Edited by Humphrey Appleby
  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy