Coronavirus update - NO MORE RESTRICTIONS

Printable View

15-05-20, 20:24
trampie09

Re: Coronavirus update

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCFCC3PO

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

The 70% rate is an issue you have, not me.
15-05-20, 20:25
trampie09

Re: Coronavirus update

Quote:

Originally Posted by xsnaggle

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!! :hehe:

Yes indeed xsnaggle, lol.
15-05-20, 20:26
CCFCC3PO

Re: Coronavirus update

Quote:

Originally Posted by xsnaggle

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

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.
15-05-20, 20:29
CCFCC3PO

Re: Coronavirus update

Quote:

Originally Posted by trampie09

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?
15-05-20, 20:39
trampie09

Re: Coronavirus update

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCFCC3PO

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.
15-05-20, 20:45
CCFCC3PO

Re: Coronavirus update

Quote:

Originally Posted by trampie09

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?
15-05-20, 20:57
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.
15-05-20, 21:44
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?
15-05-20, 22:01
delmbox

Re: Coronavirus update

Quote:

Originally Posted by xsnaggle

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?
15-05-20, 22:14
xsnaggle

Re: Coronavirus update

Quote:

Originally Posted by delmbox

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.
15-05-20, 22:21
delmbox

Re: Coronavirus update

Quote:

Originally Posted by xsnaggle

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?
15-05-20, 22:30
xsnaggle

Re: Coronavirus update

Quote:

Originally Posted by delmbox

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!!!
15-05-20, 22:38
delmbox

Re: Coronavirus update

Quote:

Originally Posted by xsnaggle

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:

Quote:

Originally Posted by xsnaggle

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).

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.
15-05-20, 22:43
xsnaggle

Re: Coronavirus update

Quote:

Originally Posted by delmbox

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.
15-05-20, 22:52
xsnaggle

Re: Coronavirus update

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.
15-05-20, 23:30
CCFCC3PO

Re: Coronavirus update

Quote:

Originally Posted by xsnaggle

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.

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".
15-05-20, 23:32
CCFCC3PO

Re: Coronavirus update

Quote:

Originally Posted by xsnaggle

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.

What environment have you worked in that leads to your qualified statement? Oh, let me guess, you're not going to talk about it.
15-05-20, 23:41
delmbox

Re: Coronavirus update

Quote:

Originally Posted by xsnaggle

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.

What environment is that you're talking about? Clearly you work in the medical field, so what specifically?
15-05-20, 23:52
CCFCC3PO

Re: Coronavirus update

Quote:

Originally Posted by trampie09

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.

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.
16-05-20, 00:17
xsnaggle

Re: Coronavirus update

Quote:

Originally Posted by delmbox

What environment is that you're talking about? Clearly you work in the medical field, so what specifically?

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. :-) :wave:
16-05-20, 06:02
the other bob wilson

Re: Coronavirus update

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCFCC3PO

Much of the public appear to be following the rules that best suit them - i.e. Johnson's.

Today I have seen a house with 8 people in the front yard. The house is lived in by an elderly couple, so they have 6 people visiting.

The Barry Island live webcam sees a dozen people outside O'Shea's fish and chip shop on the promenade. The fish shop has changed its message from "stay home" to "Welcome to O'Sheas". Barry Island has been dead of late, it is definitely busier than this time last week (with similar weather).

The Stay at Home message that the Welsh Government are churning out is rendered invalid when trips to garden centres are allowable. It's also been rendered invalid by Johnson's completely incomprehensible message, a message that required a 50 page document to clear up!

This wave isn't even finished, hopefully we will avoid a second wave but today it looks like an increasing number of people are becoming more blase about social distancing.

I went on my fortnightly food shopping trip to Aberdare yesterday afternoon and I'd say the picture was more mixed. The road over the mountain from Treherbert was the busiest I'd seen it in the two plus years I've lived up here, but this was partially explained by the fact that a hearse was driving very slowly and causing a tail back of over twenty vehicles, but, even so, I'd still say it was busy even by pre lockdown standards.

However, the number of people parked along the road to walk their dogs, enjoy the view etc. was less than I'd seen before during lockdown and I only had to queue for 15 minutes at Tescos compared to forty five last time I went - the journey back over the mountain was quiet as well.

On the other hand, there were much more people wandering around in Treherbert than I'd seen before and I think it's probably fair to say that there are some very liberal interpretations as to what constitutes "exercise" being employed!

Regarding the R value, I see that the German figure has fallen back again following the initial rise when the lockdown was eased, so it's probably best not to get overly concerned by one day's worth of results, but, at the very least, it is unfortunate politically that the first new R value reported in England (I assume it was England not the UK?) after Johnson waved his arms about to the nation last Sunday showed an increase.

https://www.usnews.com/news/world-re...on-the-decline
16-05-20, 07:10
trampie09

Re: Coronavirus update

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCFCC3PO

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.

Read it 4 or 5 times lol and you can't find the WSJ article, lol
I'm now reading an award winning scientific magazine with articles from top medical journalists and the article I'm currently reading is all about the different Coronavirus tests and the failure rates and you don't believe the false negatives of 30% in some cases, lol.

You can do your own research or just remain ignorant to the facts.
16-05-20, 07:15
trampie09

Re: Coronavirus update

Poor performance around testing, kits used and understanding the science around tests by the USA so far, top stuff by the Germans and South Koreans in comparison at this stage.
16-05-20, 08:18
CCFCC3PO

Re: Coronavirus update

Quote:

Originally Posted by trampie09

Read it 4 or 5 times lol and you can't find the WSJ article, lol
I'm now reading an award winning scientific magazine with articles from top medical journalists and the article I'm currently reading is all about the different Coronavirus tests and the failure rates and you don't believe the false negatives of 30% in some cases, lol.

You can do your own research or just remain ignorant to the facts.

OK, help us out then. Post up links to the articles you are reading.
16-05-20, 08:21
CCFCC3PO

Re: Coronavirus update

Quote:

Originally Posted by xsnaggle

I don't work in the medical field but I have worked in environments where things could escalate very quickly.

Ah, that makes you an expert. We can't really argue on your thoughts on the matter, it's abundantly clear you're not actually doing a great deal of thinking.
16-05-20, 08:22
Croesy Blue

Re: Coronavirus update

Quote:

Originally Posted by xsnaggle

I don't work in the medical field but I have worked in environments where things could escalate very quickly.

:hehe: Jesus Christ.
16-05-20, 09:04
trampie09

Re: Coronavirus update

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCFCC3PO

OK, help us out then. Post up links to the articles you are reading.

Help yourself, look for your own info.
16-05-20, 09:04
Tuerto

Re: Coronavirus update

ICU at the gwent has 11 beds when things are normal, during this pandemic it has had 45, all taken. Don't think it's at that level now. Some of the people in this thread need to do something a little more productive for mind, body and soul. It seems like(although i'm not medical) some people are going a bit nuts. Stretch yer legs...
16-05-20, 09:35
CCFCC3PO

Re: Coronavirus update

Quote:

Originally Posted by trampie09

Help yourself, look for your own info.

https://scienceornot.net/2012/12/04/...rden-of-proof/

is this where I type in lol?
16-05-20, 09:38
jon1959

Re: Coronavirus update

Quote:

Originally Posted by xsnaggle

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. :-) :wave:

So now you are disputing what the consultant said. Your argument isn't just with the BBC for taking a comment about April and leaving the impression it relates to May. Make your mind up.
16-05-20, 09:40
CCFCC3PO

Re: Coronavirus update

Quote:

Originally Posted by jon1959

So now you are disputing what the consultant said. Your argument isn't just with the BBC for taking a comment about April and leaving the impression it relates to May. Make your mind up.

Good luck with that.
16-05-20, 10:45
delmbox

Re: Coronavirus update

Quote:

Originally Posted by Croesy Blue

:hehe: Jesus Christ.

The righteous arrogance of a certain type of person never fails to amaze me..."so not even that close, despite what the consultant said"

:hehe: :hehe: :facepalm:
16-05-20, 10:56
xsnaggle

Re: Coronavirus update

Dearme you do all bang on, just about someone's personal opinion. I suppose it makes you feel morally superior or something, but you really should get over yourselves, this is a football website, not Mensa and not COBRA, just a football website. Don't exercise yourselves so much. :hehe:
16-05-20, 11:07
delmbox

Re: Coronavirus update

Quote:

Originally Posted by xsnaggle

Dearme you do all bang on, just about someone's personal opinion. I suppose it makes you feel morally superior or something, but you really should get over yourselves, this is a football website, not Mensa and not COBRA, just a football website. Don't exercise yourselves so much. :hehe:

:hehe: keep digging
16-05-20, 11:14
xsnaggle

Re: Coronavirus update

See you can't do it can you? Got to have another little comment. Get over yourselves lol
16-05-20, 11:25
trampie09

Re: Coronavirus update

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCFCC3PO

https://scienceornot.net/2012/12/04/...rden-of-proof/

is this where I type in lol?

Yes correct that is where you type.

You are the one making a claim not me, you don't believe the widely reported 30% failure rate of some tests and that is the be all and end all of it.
16-05-20, 11:26
CCFCC3PO

Re: Coronavirus update

Quote:

Originally Posted by xsnaggle

Dearme you do all bang on, just about someone's personal opinion. I suppose it makes you feel morally superior or something, but you really should get over yourselves, this is a football website, not Mensa and not COBRA, just a football website. Don't exercise yourselves so much. :hehe:

You've based your opinion on, basically, having a job. You tried to use the fact that you once had a job as you being qualified to explain why the consultant is wrong.
16-05-20, 11:29
CCFCC3PO

Re: Coronavirus update

Quote:

Originally Posted by trampie09

Yes correct that is where you type.

You are the one making a claim not me, you don't believe the widely reported 30% failure rate of some tests and that is the be all and end all of it.

No, you are the one making the claim that the test is 30% inaccurate. I have not said either way what I believe the accuracy rate of the tests are, although the various companies producing the tests are reporting 95% accuracy.

I told you the reasons I don't put much faith in that figure, you have not yet given a reason why you believe the figure is accurate. It's just "widely reported". When I ask you for links, you tell me to find them myself (aka shifting the burden of proof).
16-05-20, 11:32
Croesy Blue

Re: Coronavirus update

Quote:

Originally Posted by xsnaggle

Dearme you do all bang on, just about someone's personal opinion. I suppose it makes you feel morally superior or something, but you really should get over yourselves, this is a football website, not Mensa and not COBRA, just a football website. Don't exercise yourselves so much. :hehe:

Do you think a personal opinion can’t be wrong?
16-05-20, 11:34
trampie09

Re: Coronavirus update

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCFCC3PO

No, you are the one making the claim that the test is 30% inaccurate. I have not said either way what I believe the accuracy rate of the tests are, although the various companies producing the tests are reporting 95% accuracy.

I told you the reasons I don't put much faith in that figure, you have not yet given a reason why you believe the figure is accurate. It's just "widely reported". When I ask you for links, you tell me to find them myself (aka shifting the burden of proof).

I'm not making any claims you are.