Coronavirus update - NO MORE RESTRICTIONS

[trampie09]

Re: Coronavirus update

What would they weight the samples on? The key piece of missing data is the number of people who have had covid-19.

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

[xsnaggle]

Re: Coronavirus update

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!!

[CCFCC3PO]

Re: Coronavirus update

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

And, has all this happened to ascertain a 70% success rate?

[CCFCC3PO]

Re: Coronavirus update

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!!

What gives you that impression?

[xsnaggle]

Re: Coronavirus update

What gives you that impression?

On nothing at all. Absolutely nothing. It's just me but then I'm stupid aren't? I must be you said so.

[trampie09]

Re: Coronavirus update

And, has all this happened to ascertain a 70% success rate?

The 70% rate is an issue you have, not me.

[trampie09]

Re: Coronavirus update

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!!

Yes indeed xsnaggle, lol.

[CCFCC3PO]

Re: Coronavirus update

On nothing at all. Absolutely nothing. It's just me but then I'm stupid aren't? I must be you said so.

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.

[CCFCC3PO]

Re: Coronavirus update

The 70% rate is an issue you have, not me.

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?

[trampie09]

Re: Coronavirus update

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.

[CCFCC3PO]

Re: Coronavirus update

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/coronavirus-how-accurate-are-coronavirus-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?

[trampie09]

Re: Coronavirus update

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.

[xsnaggle]

Re: Coronavirus update

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?

[delmbox]

Re: Coronavirus update

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).

What are you basing this statement on?

[xsnaggle]

Re: Coronavirus update

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.