Chat about Novel Coronavirus - 2019-nCoV - COVID-19

Posted on
Page
of 688
  • how accurate are venous? any chance of false positive? my sister just had one today (NHS nurse) along with 700 other staff

  • http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id­=56160
    Social distancing no longer a legal requirement.
    22 days case free. Borders remain closed, mainly until you lot sort your shit out.
    All feels a little too easy.

  • Lots of hospitals are screening staff for antibodies, 10 mls venous blood I think. Meant to be pretty accurate, not had any info from our trust about specificity (which from memory is the false positive rate.

  • The Roche and Abbott antibody tests using venous blood are way more accurate than the home antibody test kits that Superdrug etc were selling. The home tests tried to get about 6ml blood from fingerpricking and ending up with loads of contaminated samples.

    There's an unknown (to me, yet) false negative and false positive rate for the tests. Thing is, I think you have to just accept the result as it is (as either way it's going to make little difference on an individual level).

  • 84k population, that's cute.

  • All feels a little too easy.

    What do you mean by this?

  • Erm, lads.


    1 Attachment

    • EaTxbLVXQAAGxvv.jpeg
  • Negative for me too. (HDU duty throughout Covid) (Roche through the NHS)
    Also for Mrs. Lowbrows. (Sick as a dog early on-still not great) (Abbott through her work insurance).

    I have a few theories as to why negative.
    Still quite (?strangely) down about it.

  • I was quite hopeful that feeling very shit for 2-3 weeks in Feb had conferred (potential) immunity, so I was also disappointed when my finger-stick/6ml/Abbott test came back negative for antibodies.

    Means I spent all that time wrapped in a duvet on the sofa shivering for nothing.

  • That’s a lot of flat whites.

  • Once we have 1m social distancing the De Beauvoir Deli will increase turnover 100%.

  • Sky graph goes to -24%, not -20.4% FAKE NEWS

  • I get it. We were down about it for a few days. Basically cos we don't want to go through being really ill for 2-3 months again. We have a toddler so resting up isn't so easy.

    Go on, I'm intrigued, what are your theories?

  • Cumulatively we are at -24%. It's compound growth. The -20% is on top of February's -5%.

    (0.95 * 0.8 = 0.76)

  • Nothing complicated- related to half-life/turnover of Igs.
    It essentially may be too long since symptoms for the test to be relevant.
    There's also false neg/ pos but I suspect rationally the above is more likely.

    We've been beginning to try for a kid, and it is a bit of a hit as obviously hoping not to get sick during pregnancy.

    Anyways- onwards.

  • shakes fist damn you maths

  • Does anyone know how "R" is measured?

    It seems like an odd thing to present as a factual figure. It must be statisticaly derived from more directly measurable things?

  • Adviser sticks afinger in the air, makes a guess. Government then ignore any of the advice that number indicates ought to happen.

  • Analysing general testing and hospital admission data and also looking at specific studies like the ONS study that regularly tests members of ~10,000 households around the country.

  • It's mainly based on number of cases and duration of contagious period, both of which must be known reasonably well, or at least to some degree of uncertainty

    If an individual, after getting infected, infects exactly R new individuals only after exactly a time τ (the serial interval) has passed, then the number of infectious individuals over time grows as

    n(t) = n(0) R ^ (t/τ)

    from Wikipedia. (obviously prevalence of anti-bodies and all that shite goes into a more complex model)

    They won't give uncertainties or confidence intervals or whatever 'cause no one knows what they are. Complete speculation but I would guess that "0.7-0.9" actually means something like 0.8±0.1.

    Same thing as that stupid alert level, they don't want to give out the proper maths because it's more likely to confuse than clarify

  • 20 of our deaths were all in the same care home, the police have been asked to investigate. That's 4 community deaths.
    We closed our borders, schools etc early. Anybody returning must self isolate(you can't leave your home or the hotel the make you stay in at your expense).
    Compared to every where else we've got of very lightly.
    When we'll be able to open our borders is anyone's guess.
    Our lockdown was policed ish. We've done well, it just feels odd.

  • Judging from the numbers in the New Statesman article below Sweden still doing 'better' than the UK in terms of death. Damage to the economy not nearly as bad.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/world/europ­e/2020/06/how-sweden-s-herd-immunity-str­ategy-has-backfired

  • We seem to have had the worst of both worlds here.

  • Judging from the numbers in the New Statesman article below Sweden still doing 'better' than the UK in terms of death.

    For a country of 10 million people with a low population density, and infection numbers still increasing, I'd say it's not looking too rosy at all for the Swedes. How are you defining 'better' in quotation marks?

  • Post a reply
    • Bold
    • Italics
    • Link
    • Image
    • List
    • Quote
    • code
    • Preview
About

Chat about Novel Coronavirus - 2019-nCoV - COVID-19

Posted by Avatar for deleted @deleted

Actions