Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

[The utility cyclist]

... and the government have also (though not openly) admitted to no isolated new virus as per a FOI request?

That's a secret response to an FoI request? I've never seen of those before. You've clearly got a copy. Please could you post it in full.

Thanks

Jonathan

I've taken your response to the appropriate forum.

Back to the topic, what's your take on the bumper sticker, worthwhile or not?

[The utility cyclist]

... and the government have also (though not openly) admitted to no isolated new virus as per a FOI request?

That's a secret response to an FoI request? I've never seen of those before. You've clearly got a copy. Please could you post it in full.

Thanks

Jonathan

for you Jonathan
Why don't you look it up for yourself, it's already widely available online. I've already attached a photo on here previously in the other thread of the admittance of CDC stating no isolation.
As for the sensitivity of the test, again, a search engine is your friend, even Boris Johnson admitted to how flawed the PCR test is, PHE stated that the false positive rate median is 2.3% as high as 4.5%, the lowest figure is 0.8%. You do understand what that actually means right? You understand how dead organic matter triggers a positive, that could be the common cold (which corona viruses cause) you understand how amplifying 45x as the UK currently does has a huge impact on how the test results come out?

Have a read of this, I've linked to it before but you're not interested in real science/numbers like the government so pointless really. https://off-guardian.org/2020/06/27/cov ... aningless/
So many world leading scientists have stated that RT-PCR is not fit for purpose time and time again, that there has never being a gold standard test. If you look at the notes from CDC meeting they even state that the 'virus' was modelled using a computer algorithm.

You're a typical conspiracy theorist. I hope you get a vaccine to protect you then you'll be completely safe from those of us living in the real world

[Jdsk]

... and the government have also (though not openly) admitted to no isolated new virus as per a FOI request?

That's a secret response to an FoI request? I've never seen of those before. You've clearly got a copy. Please could you post it in full.

Why don't you look it up for yourself, it's already widely available online. I've already attached a photo on here previously in the other thread of the admittance of CDC stating no isolation.

And that has already been answered.

But I don't think I've ever seen the response to a relevant FoI request, and that can't be the claimed CDC report because that doesn't come under UK FoI requirements.

And in general "look it up yourself" doesn't work. If you make a claim you should provide the support when asked. How can anyone else know what you're thinking?

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

PHE stated that the false positive rate median is 2.3% as high as 4.5%, the lowest figure is 0.8%.

Have you got a source for that, please? And which of those applies when in the outbreak? You can't get the ratio of false positives to true positives without stating that.

As before:

It is very important to understand the false positive problem.

A useful infographic calculator where you can enter values:
https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1808/infographic

And Spiegelhalter's version, with some realistic input values:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmiEzi54lBI

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

... and the government have also (though not openly) admitted to no isolated new virus as per a FOI request?

That's a secret response to an FoI request? I've never seen of those before. You've clearly got a copy. Please could you post it in full.

I've taken your response to the appropriate forum.

That's here:
https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=136714&p=1545243#p1545242

But your answer there doesn't link to an FoI response or request.

Jonathan

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,

There are many reasons to want Johnson and Gove to wear masks, not all of which are connected to Covid.

Seeing that we're all going to need masks in shops, I bought one of these.mask.JPG

Nicely Modeled Mick

How you gonna drink your beer at home.................oh you'r be alright walking dogies just hold onto the lead

[Phileas]

As for the sensitivity of the test, again, a search engine is your friend, even Boris Johnson admitted to how flawed the PCR test is, PHE stated that the false positive rate median is 2.3% as high as 4.5%, the lowest figure is 0.8%. You do understand what that actually means right?

You’re referring to specificity (false positives) not sensitivity (false negatives). There are statistical reasons why the specificity must be very high (i.e. low % of false positives) which are explained in the ONS weekly infection report https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/methodologies/covid19infectionsurveypilotmethodsandfurtherinformation#test-sensitivity-and-specificity:

Test specificity
Test specificity measures how often the test correctly identifies those who do not have the virus, so a test with high specificity will not have many false-positive results.

We know the specificity of our test must be very close to 100% as the low number of positive tests in our study means that specificity would be very high even if all positives were false. For example, in the six-week period (31 July to 10 September), 159 of the 208,730 total samples tested positive. Even if all these positives were false, specificity would still be 99.92%.

We know that the virus is still circulating, so it is extremely unlikely that all these positives are false. However, it is important to consider whether many of the small number of positive tests we do have might be false. There are a couple of main reasons we do not think that is the case.

Symptoms are an indication that someone has the virus; therefore, if there are many false-positives, we would expect to see more false-positives occurring among those not reporting symptoms. If that were the case, then risk factors such as working in health care would be more strongly associated with symptomatic infections than with asymptomatic infections. However, in our data the risk factors for testing positive are equally strong for both symptomatic and asymptomatic infections.

The percentage of individuals reporting no symptoms among those testing positive has remained stable over time despite substantial declines in the overall number of positives. If false-positives were high, the percentage of individuals not reporting symptoms among those testing positive would increase when the true prevalence is declining.

More information on sensitivity and specificity is included in Community prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in England: Results from the ONS Coronavirus Infection Survey Pilot by the Office for National Statistics’ academic partners.

[MikeF]

I doubt that.

About 100 cyclists die on roads in the UK every year, and only some of those are "crushed" by cars.

Probably between 0.9M and 3.5M people in the UK have been infected with the virus, and the distribution is pretty flat by age across adults, although not by region.

Jonathan

Wrong, a number of people have a positive test, that's not remotely the same as being infected, this is admitted by government and all scientists fgs, stop spreading fake news!
Clearly you're ignoring the massive false positives that both BJ and Hancock admitted to, and the government have also (though not openly) admitted to no isolated new virus as per a FOI request?
Someone under 70 has more chance of being killed by/in a motorvehicle than dying directly FROM a respiratory virus as underlying cause.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30453-7/fulltext and
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/895843/S0519_Impact_of_false_positives_and_negatives.pdf
False positives here aren't "massive". I would say "a few" or "some" depending on your preference.
What's your source?

[Oldjohnw]

I fear that the standard response to asking for a source or for evidence is "Look it up yourself."

[Mike Sales]

I think that if you make a statement in evidence you should give, or be prepared to give, a reference.
I have realised from comments in this thread that there are debaters here whose assertions need to be ignored, or at least taken with a large cellar of salt. Is it worth reading their comments?

[Oldjohnw]

Unless evidence is supplied (unless something is common knowledge or generally accepted) the comment is, I fear, worthless.

I wouldn't, for example, expect someone to give a whole raft of evidence for a claim that global warming is at least in part man-made, or for an assertion regarding evolution. I would expect evidence for a claim that Covid-19 didn't exist or that a particular politician was a murderer.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
Its easy to say ignore comments from some poster.
BUT putting fingers in ears and closing eyes..............................

I have met adults who actually put their fingers in their ears and go "blah de blah de blah................."

I like to hear all the info being presented from Any One and decide what to store / filter.
Now tv presenters gets me grabbing the remote

If you are asked to quote then you must be prepared to do so.
If you don't / can't then say so............./ I can't find it now....

[Jdsk]

I doubt that.

About 100 cyclists die on roads in the UK every year, and only some of those are "crushed" by cars.

Probably between 0.9M and 3.5M people in the UK have been infected with the virus, and the distribution is pretty flat by age across adults, although not by region.

Wrong, a number of people have a positive test, that's not remotely the same as being infected, this is admitted by government and all scientists fgs, stop spreading fake news!
Clearly you're ignoring the massive false positives that both BJ and Hancock admitted to, and the government have also (though not openly) admitted to no isolated new virus as per a FOI request?
Someone under 70 has more chance of being killed by/in a motorvehicle than dying directly FROM a respiratory virus as underlying cause.

False positives here aren't "massive". I would say "a few" or "some" depending on your preference.
What's your source?

Exactly.

The general problem of false positives when there's an imperfect test and a low population prevalence has been well documented since at least 1975, and I've been teaching it for about 40y.

Managing it is crucial in designing screening programmes.

In this outbreak it was immediately spotted and has been discussed in great length and at great depth. There's no secret about it. Superb communicators such as Spiegelhalter and Chivers have written about both in general and how about it's being misused.

And anyone who wants to describe its effect on our responses to the outbreak should document the sensitivity and specificity of the test and the prevalence of the disease in the relevant population. With sources. I've asked for these in this forum several times without their being supplied.

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

I fear that the standard response to asking for a source or for evidence is "Look it up yourself."

Or "I've already posted it", which is rarely the case.

I think that if you make a statement in evidence you should give, or be prepared to give, a reference.

Yes.

Unless evidence is supplied (unless something is common knowledge or generally accepted) the comment is, I fear, worthless.

Yes.

]If you are asked to quote then you must be prepared to do so.
If you don't / can't then say so............./ I can't find it now....

Yes.

And, of course, it's never been so quick and easy to find what's known and share it with others.

Jonathan

[Oldjohnw]

Someone under 70 has more chance of being killed by/in a motorvehicle than dying directly FROM a respiratory virus as underlying cause.

I'm not a statistician but let's assume that is correct. I don't see how we then go to not trying to mitigate death in either case.