Reply With QuoteTrampie, haven't you grasped it yet? he is far cleverer than all the people who put together and evaluate these test. He is the cleverest person he has ever met!!Originally Posted by trampie09
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
If you think there is unknown missing data then what are you blabbing on about ?, If you take a huge sample of people and test them weighting the sample by age, gender, social situation, ethnicity etc etc to match them to the entire area that they represent then find out who has it, who has had it and who has not had it, and you keep on testing over a long period of time then you can build up a picture of where, who, when, trends etc
Trampie, haven't you grasped it yet? he is far cleverer than all the people who put together and evaluate these test. He is the cleverest person he has ever met!!
And, has all this happened to ascertain a 70% success rate?
What gives you that impression?Trampie, haven't you grasped it yet? he is far cleverer than all the people who put together and evaluate these test. He is the cleverest person he has ever met!!
On nothing at all. Absolutely nothing. It's just me but then I'm stupid aren't? I must be you said so.
The 70% rate is an issue you have, not me.
Yes indeed xsnaggle, lol.Trampie, haven't you grasped it yet? he is far cleverer than all the people who put together and evaluate these test. He is the cleverest person he has ever met!!
The obvious thing to do, in that case, would be to disprove it. Not just jump into any thread I am in and take the opposite person's viewpoint as the default position.On nothing at all. Absolutely nothing. It's just me but then I'm stupid aren't? I must be you said so.
It's something you quoted. Without citation. Without backup evidence. I have explained why I have a problem with the 70% accuracy figure. You haven't explained why I shouldn't have a problem with it. As I say, I am open minded - I am not ruling out that tests are, in fact, 30% inaccurate. However, most of the companies offering the tests are stating 95% accuracy(!). Maybe you can point to a scientific study that shows these tests are 30% inaccurate?
Without citation you say, I pointed you in the direction of two articles talking about 70% success rate, one of those articles with all sorts of figures, you yourself say that you have read about the 70% quote in a number of places.
One article.
https://theconversation.com/coronavi...s-tests-135972
Which is "based on evidence in China". It didn't provide any evidence but based its entire article on the figure anyway. Until I see scientific evidence, it is nothing more than a "he said, she said" article.
If the tests are 70% accurate, why are companies advertising their tests as 95% accurate?
That 'theconversation' article is not good enough for you when it's based on the topic, oh well that is your problem.
What about the WSJ article then ?, that was full of mathematical equations.
I've just been looking at the BBC Wales round up of the days developments. Don't you just love the way journalists twist things
A consultant at UHW contacts the press and tells them that at the peak of the pandemic (in April) the IC unit was within 1 week of being overrun. (Which means it was not ever really too close).
BBC reports that the IC unit at UHW "IS" within a week of being overrun, which is quite clearly and patently untrue. Why do they bother?
The other thing that bothers me was that Mr Drakeford said he hopes that at the end of the next 2 weeks he hopes we 'may' be able to do more whilst still being in the red zone. So far we can go to the library and the garden centre. What wonderful things will we be able to do on 26 May?
What are you basing this statement on?
Well they were a week away from being overrun in his estimation, good as that may be, and that must have been based on some known information, but they never actually reached that point. If they had we would have heard about it a lot earlier than now.
Yeah but when the experienced critical care consultant said that they were a week away from being overrun he didn't say that was a positive, it was a marker of how serious things were.
You've stated that the fact they were a week away meant that it was not ever really too close so I'm wondering what medical experience you have to be able to make that statement basically overruling him?
I'm not trying to overrule him. I'm pointing out that he is saying it was so in April and the BBC is then saying it is now!!!
I'm not talking about that though, I'm talking about this bit:
I'm just fascinated to know what xsnaggle off the football messageboard is basing his confident assertion on that a week from being overrun is not ever really too close for an ICU unit, when a critical care consultant finds it so close that he talks to the press about it?
What do you know that he doesn't, and how? Being that he's a critical care consultant at Wales's biggest hospital and all.
Are you deliberately missing the point?
The point was that the consultant said it was close to being overrun at the peak of the pandemic in April and the BBC then changed that to say that it is within a week of being overrun NOW!! If you look again my first sentence was about journalists twisting things, Not about the consultant being wrong.
In the environment I have lived in and worked in a week is not so close and if it had reached that point there were alternatives available.
As I said, if it had been too close we would have heard about it at the time, or I believe we would! Someone or the other would have been only too anxious to tell us.
I have lost count of the number of times my dad has been in ICU. If I had to hazard a guess, it would be 4 or 5 times. Each time, he was there for longer than a week. It was the one place where patients weren't turned around quickly.
There was also a recent story of a man emerging from ICU after 8 weeks. I think that the typical length of stay on ICU exceeds one week.
Which means that we are not missing the point. You seem to be turning the reporting into an anti-BBC thing, delmbox is pointing out that being 1 week from being over run is not a positive. In fact, it shows how close we came to getting overrun - had the stay home message been delivered a day or two later, UHW would have been in trouble.
As it is, it survived (this time), and sick people didn't need to be sent to the Principality Stadium (some people see the use of the stadium as a failure considering hardly any patients went there).
But, for some odd reason, you think that we weren't in danger of being overrun. When you are asked to clarify this, you accuse people of missing "the point" which is "to kick the BBC".
What environment have you worked in that leads to your qualified statement? Oh, let me guess, you're not going to talk about it.
What environment is that you're talking about? Clearly you work in the medical field, so what specifically?
Just because it is "based on the topic" it does not make it factual. I have read the article 4/5 times now (each time you mention it I go back to see if I missed anything). It doesn't cite anything other than based on "evidence in China", evidence it doesn't provide.
I couldn't find the WSJ article. But, again, you think it is true "because it was full of mathematical equations". Send us the link so that I can read it.
I don't work in the medical field but I have worked in environments where things could escalate very quickly.
The main point of my post was the BBC reporting.
As for the ICU being a week away from being overrun my point was fairly simple. If at the time in question it had been close to being overrun we would have known about it at the time, almost without doubt. It is the nature of this thing and the reporting of it that such immediate and bad news would have been out in the public domain almost as soon as someone could get it there. It's human nature. The fact that it wasn't indicates to me that it never got to that critical point. That is what I believe.
The man made the statement over a month after the event as one comment in an interview and the BBC picked up on it. It really was that simple. Please don't blow up my remarks into something big deal because they aren't. Disagree with my perception of it by all means but battering on at me will not alter my thoughts on the matter. But hey, if it makes you feel better or righteous please carry on. fill ya boots.
Posting Permissions