| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Originally Posted by trampie09
The issue is that, over a 5 week period, I would have been self isolating for 4 weeks. Luckily, the second time my partner was tested because of their job in the care industry and we self isolated for 5 full days.
The 70% accuracy line you have come out with a couple of times really needs citation. I, too, have read it in a number of places - but each time without any sources.
Do you think people don’t want pubs to reopen?
Or do you think they’re last to open, as are gyms and restaurants, because they are the areas where the worst spread happens?
I think that some people don't want pubs to re-open, whether they are the biggest source of infection or not. As I said I believe that there are people who just are happy to see them shut and if they had their way never reopen, and I believe that such people hold a disproportionate influence in wales.
'im not arguing one way or the other, it is just my opinion and I'm not going to change it.
And the road map was a complete nothing, no hope no light at the end of the tunnel, almost as if some people are reveling in the power. Again just my opinion.
Woah, let's rewind a bit and think. "Some people don't want pubs to re-open" but "they have disproportionate influence in Wales". What group of people is this?
You do realise that the rest of the UK have indicated that pubs will be the last thing to open. Is this Welsh group really that influential?
The UK goverment at least put a time scale on it saying not before 4 July. Mr Drakeford has previously said that they will be last (Understandable perhaps) and today he said it may be "Many months, maybe years before Wales gets back to normal.
As for influence, it is, as I sais, my honestly held opinion. It isn't going to be changed by anything you say and I will not debate it with you.
Yes I do realise.
I suspect you will not debate it because you realise it is pretty flimsy.
The UK Government has said "not before 4 July". What sort of timeframe is that? Not before 4 July means that the UK Government are saying pubs will reopen any time from 4 July 2020 until, well, any time after that really.
What people are these?
Why wouldn't people want the pubs to be open? If there's anything that British people love... it's a fecking pint.
I agree entirely, but some people think that drink is the curse of the working classes. lol
How many people, what people, and what positions of influence do they hold?
And why are the same people stopping me going to the gym?
I put the 70% thing in the Google and got an article by the 'The Conversation' up with them making reference to the 70% thing which you can click on as a link and that takes you to a 'Wall Street Journal' thing with all the mind blowing figures, I have to be honest imo 70% is sh*t as an indicator.
Did it say the test was 70% sensitive, or 70% specific?
See you are dull. You cannot grasp that I don't give a toss about your 'renowned' critical thinking and that I will not debate it with you.
Apply your critical thinking to that statement
So these people exist only in your head? Sorted.
Pass, I've just gone back to look for you and that Yankee site is now asking me to log on, it originally allowed me to see it but not now (I wonder if they want money or summit, blydi capitalists), mathematical equations all over the place, deep stuff.
It seems like they are not impressed with a 2 out of 3 ratio, because of the accuracy range which seemed to be averaged out at 70, I personally think it's pathetic effort for a test to have such low accuracy, a little like weathermen, you know if you say the weather will be the same tomorrow as it is today you would be right more often than the weather forecasters (well they used to say that used to be the case, don't think anything has changed).
Yes, but my question shows it isn't as clear cut as a weather person getting the weather wrong 70% of the time. It's also lacking an article from the science community, as far as I can tell.
Basically saying a test result is x% accurate is meaningless in my opinion.
You need to know if it is specific or sensitive. The other thing that is missing here is the base rate - which is what we don't know with covid. The base rate will be different dependent on if you are testing only symptomatic or sick people, or if you are testing the whole population. If you are only testing people who you believe have it, then the false negative rate will be higher (in other words, the specificity of the test becomes skewed towards the 70% figure you are quoting).
If you are testing people who most likely don't have it, then you have more potential of false positive tests. However, there is no way of knowing that a test subject definitely doesn't have the virus.
I put very little weight on the 70% accuracy figures based on the above, and also on the lack of citation from the science community.
Have you seen the WSJ article ?
No, I was waiting for a link.
I've told you how to find it and I can't get in now, I only wanted to find references to the 70% thing for you which I did, I only glanced at the Wall Street thing and it was all algebra, logarithms, equations etc, I don't know but I would be surprised if it did not meet your criteria.
I seen an expert on TV saying something along the lines of if somebody has the full blown symptoms he would be 90% certain that person has it yet the test we were using was only 70% accurate, and he apparently is an expert and he was talking about the 70% success rate or should that be ,30% failure rate.
I have found it. The table is based on 70% sensitivity and 95% specifity. It doesn't take into account the unknown base rates, and it is based on a report from China that tests could have a 70% sensitivity rate.
The article is also a month old, but that is not my issue with the 70% figure. My issue is that, without knowing the base rate of the sub population being tested, and without considering there will be more false negatives if tests are only carried out on a population based on the assumption that the subject is likely to have covid at the time of testing.
You disbelieve the 70% figure ?
What base rate are you talking about ?
Do you know if they did or didn't take the unknown base rate into consideration ?
As I said earlier, the 70% accuracy is not relevant unless we know what the base rate is. And, with this virus, we won't know the base rate. Ergo, I am not putting any value on the 70% accuracy. Of course, if you can provide links that show the specificity and sensitivity of the various tests, based on different populations and with a known base rate, I am open minded enough to have my mind changed.
I have shown why I am skeptical about the 70% figure, can you explain why you are certain the figure is correct?
Also what is sensitivity and specificty in the context you are using it ?
A sensitive test will correctly identify people with covid. Sensitivity measures correct positive results.
If a test is 90 percent sensitive, it will correctly identify 90 percent of people who are infected. However, 10 percent of people who are infected and tested would get a false negative result—they have the virus, but the test said they don’t.
A specific test will accurately identify people without covid-19. Specificity measures correct negatives.
If a test is 90 percent specific, it will correctly identify 90 percent of people who are not infected. However, 10 percent of people who are not infected will test positive for the virus and receive a false positive.
I've been looking but I still cannot find any information on how one volunteers to be one of the 'army' of people to monitor this tracing app. No info on it what so ever!
Can anyone steer me in the right direction?
Is there a Welsh government hotline or something?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote