Coronavirus update - NO MORE RESTRICTIONS

[xsnaggle]

Re: Coronavirus update

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.

[Heisenberg]

Re: Coronavirus update

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.

Why wouldn't people want the pubs to be open? If there's anything that British people love... it's a fecking pint.

[CCFCC3PO]

Re: Coronavirus update

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.

[trampie09]

Re: Coronavirus update

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.

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.

[xsnaggle]

Re: Coronavirus update

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

[CCFCC3PO]

Re: Coronavirus update

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.

Did it say the test was 70% sensitive, or 70% specific?

[CCFCC3PO]

Re: Coronavirus update

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?

[xsnaggle]

Re: Coronavirus update

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.

lol I won't debate it with you because I choose not to. It is my opinion, nothing more but your words will not change it.

[CCFCC3PO]

Re: Coronavirus update

lol I won't debate it with you because I choose not to. It is my opinion, nothing more but your words will not change it.

And, it appears, neither will critical thinking.

[xsnaggle]

Re: Coronavirus update

And, it appears, neither will critical thinking.

you are a bit dull really aren't you.

[CCFCC3PO]

Re: Coronavirus update

you are a bit dull really aren't you.

I've applied critical thinking to your premise that some people who are "anti-drink" hold a "dispropotionate influence" in Wales. The first step of that is to ask who these people are. You'd be a bit dull not to ask that question wouldn't you?

[xsnaggle]

Re: Coronavirus update

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

[CCFCC3PO]

Re: Coronavirus update

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.

[trampie09]

Re: Coronavirus update

Did it say the test was 70% sensitive, or 70% specific?

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).

[CCFCC3PO]

Re: Coronavirus update

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.