Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Virus |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The proportion of asymptomatic infections shown in research has varied and a lower level is potentially more accurate, below 30%. The Liverpool tests may pick up people who are inflected but presymptomatic, who would later go on to have symptoms, as well as those who won't. Those without symptoms may become aware of a potential infection by testing and tracing of people they had contact with and so may isolate and not be out getting tested. You'd have to do a literature review for the latest research results. " Thanks Sophie that makes total sense. I just don't buy the 80 to 90% estimates / assumptions that have been reported for quite some time now. So do you think the mass testing programme in Liverpool has lead to the huge decline in cases? KJ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Link - https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-england-merseyside-55044488 I'm sorry but am I seeing something different to how this article is reporting things? Let's look at the hard data - 96,000 people as of Friday without symptoms were tested of which only 842 tested actually came back as positive for covid. What that tells me is the the assumptions that have been made for many months now saying up to 80% to 90% of people infected were asymptomatic are clearly wrong surely? KJ" Data can mean pretty much whatever you want if you interpret it differently. To me it means that those flagrantly denying the issue are those least likely to get tested and most likely to be infected. It also suggests the lockdown is working. Your interpretation is different See ... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Link - https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-england-merseyside-55044488 I'm sorry but am I seeing something different to how this article is reporting things? Let's look at the hard data - 96,000 people as of Friday without symptoms were tested of which only 842 tested actually came back as positive for covid. What that tells me is the the assumptions that have been made for many months now saying up to 80% to 90% of people infected were asymptomatic are clearly wrong surely? KJ Data can mean pretty much whatever you want if you interpret it differently. To me it means that those flagrantly denying the issue are those least likely to get tested and most likely to be infected. It also suggests the lockdown is working. Your interpretation is different See ..." The cases in Liverpool were falling before lockdown. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Link - https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-england-merseyside-55044488 I'm sorry but am I seeing something different to how this article is reporting things? Let's look at the hard data - 96,000 people as of Friday without symptoms were tested of which only 842 tested actually came back as positive for covid. What that tells me is the the assumptions that have been made for many months now saying up to 80% to 90% of people infected were asymptomatic are clearly wrong surely? KJ Data can mean pretty much whatever you want if you interpret it differently. To me it means that those flagrantly denying the issue are those least likely to get tested and most likely to be infected. It also suggests the lockdown is working. Your interpretation is different See ... The cases in Liverpool were falling before lockdown." That would explain the rapid decrease accelerated by lockdown then  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Link - https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-england-merseyside-55044488 I'm sorry but am I seeing something different to how this article is reporting things? Let's look at the hard data - 96,000 people as of Friday without symptoms were tested of which only 842 tested actually came back as positive for covid. What that tells me is the the assumptions that have been made for many months now saying up to 80% to 90% of people infected were asymptomatic are clearly wrong surely? KJ Data can mean pretty much whatever you want if you interpret it differently. To me it means that those flagrantly denying the issue are those least likely to get tested and most likely to be infected. It also suggests the lockdown is working. Your interpretation is different See ... The cases in Liverpool were falling before lockdown. That would explain the rapid decrease accelerated by lockdown then "As long as you believe that | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://youtu.be/aHRNvAIFSMU I suppose this guy is not credible "He's a chiropractor so indulge my hesitation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Link - https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-england-merseyside-55044488 I'm sorry but am I seeing something different to how this article is reporting things? Let's look at the hard data - 96,000 people as of Friday without symptoms were tested of which only 842 tested actually came back as positive for covid. What that tells me is the the assumptions that have been made for many months now saying up to 80% to 90% of people infected were asymptomatic are clearly wrong surely? KJ" Yep I agree. The Lateral Flow test that is being used by the Army in Liverpool is also well know for throwing up false positives. I'm yet to see stats to show what the true results are once the positives from the mass testing are re-tested using the more accurate test. The original point of the mass testing was that we were being told there were "thousands" of people with no symptoms who were actually infectious. The test results from Liverpool so don't quite reflect that. But that doesn't support the Government narrative of "Be Afraid/Stay Scared", does it... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The proportion of asymptomatic infections shown in research has varied and a lower level is potentially more accurate, below 30%. The Liverpool tests may pick up people who are inflected but presymptomatic, who would later go on to have symptoms, as well as those who won't. Those without symptoms may become aware of a potential infection by testing and tracing of people they had contact with and so may isolate and not be out getting tested. You'd have to do a literature review for the latest research results. Thanks Sophie that makes total sense. I just don't buy the 80 to 90% estimates / assumptions that have been reported for quite some time now. So do you think the mass testing programme in Liverpool has lead to the huge decline in cases? KJ " Thanks. There are a couple of things here, apart from me not reading that piece. 1. Validity of a self-selecting group of people, who are presumably well enough to leave home, as truly representative of everyone there. Random sampling will be better able to give a clearer picture. There are some random testing programmes underway, 1 of which the ONS publishes. 2. Interpreting asymptomatic prevalence is ideally done within strictly controlled research studies. I've not studied them much but there has been variability amongst them. More recent meta-reviews are probably the best for this. It seems to be emerging that the Liverpool and North West had managed a decline in infection levels by the start of the lockdown. The lockdown has probably consolidated that trend. People can seem to be asymptomatic at the start of their infection but some are just tested before they actually start to experience them - that can drive up assumptions about having higher proportion ls of the inflected who are that way. The better and faster our testing gets, the more likely that people are found to be infected before they get symptoms. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://youtu.be/aHRNvAIFSMU I suppose this guy is not credible
He's a chiropractor so indulge my hesitation."So it's bull shit | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Link - https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-england-merseyside-55044488 I'm sorry but am I seeing something different to how this article is reporting things? Let's look at the hard data - 96,000 people as of Friday without symptoms were tested of which only 842 tested actually came back as positive for covid. What that tells me is the the assumptions that have been made for many months now saying up to 80% to 90% of people infected were asymptomatic are clearly wrong surely? KJ Yep I agree. The Lateral Flow test that is being used by the Army in Liverpool is also well know for throwing up false positives. I'm yet to see stats to show what the true results are once the positives from the mass testing are re-tested using the more accurate test. The original point of the mass testing was that we were being told there were "thousands" of people with no symptoms who were actually infectious. The test results from Liverpool so don't quite reflect that. But that doesn't support the Government narrative of "Be Afraid/Stay Scared", does it... " Funny,the article I read suggested few false positives but a lot of false negatives ? Around 98% of positives were positive Around 25% of negative were actually positive | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Link - https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-england-merseyside-55044488 I'm sorry but am I seeing something different to how this article is reporting things? Let's look at the hard data - 96,000 people as of Friday without symptoms were tested of which only 842 tested actually came back as positive for covid. What that tells me is the the assumptions that have been made for many months now saying up to 80% to 90% of people infected were asymptomatic are clearly wrong surely? KJ Yep I agree. The Lateral Flow test that is being used by the Army in Liverpool is also well know for throwing up false positives. I'm yet to see stats to show what the true results are once the positives from the mass testing are re-tested using the more accurate test. The original point of the mass testing was that we were being told there were "thousands" of people with no symptoms who were actually infectious. The test results from Liverpool so don't quite reflect that. But that doesn't support the Government narrative of "Be Afraid/Stay Scared", does it... Funny,the article I read suggested few false positives but a lot of false negatives ? Around 98% of positives were positive Around 25% of negative were actually positive " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The proportion of asymptomatic infections shown in research has varied and a lower level is potentially more accurate, below 30%. The Liverpool tests may pick up people who are inflected but presymptomatic, who would later go on to have symptoms, as well as those who won't. Those without symptoms may become aware of a potential infection by testing and tracing of people they had contact with and so may isolate and not be out getting tested. You'd have to do a literature review for the latest research results. Thanks Sophie that makes total sense. I just don't buy the 80 to 90% estimates / assumptions that have been reported for quite some time now. So do you think the mass testing programme in Liverpool has lead to the huge decline in cases? KJ Thanks. There are a couple of things here, apart from me not reading that piece. 1. Validity of a self-selecting group of people, who are presumably well enough to leave home, as truly representative of everyone there. Random sampling will be better able to give a clearer picture. There are some random testing programmes underway, 1 of which the ONS publishes. 2. Interpreting asymptomatic prevalence is ideally done within strictly controlled research studies. I've not studied them much but there has been variability amongst them. More recent meta-reviews are probably the best for this. It seems to be emerging that the Liverpool and North West had managed a decline in infection levels by the start of the lockdown. The lockdown has probably consolidated that trend. People can seem to be asymptomatic at the start of their infection but some are just tested before they actually start to experience them - that can drive up assumptions about having higher proportion ls of the inflected who are that way. The better and faster our testing gets, the more likely that people are found to be infected before they get symptoms. " Yep the numbers started falling 2 weeks before we were put in tier 3 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Link - https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-england-merseyside-55044488 I'm sorry but am I seeing something different to how this article is reporting things? Let's look at the hard data - 96,000 people as of Friday without symptoms were tested of which only 842 tested actually came back as positive for covid. What that tells me is the the assumptions that have been made for many months now saying up to 80% to 90% of people infected were asymptomatic are clearly wrong surely? KJ" Maybe I am misunderstanding your interpretation but I don't think you can draw such conclusions. All this is telling us is that 842 people tested positive out of 96,000 who had no symptoms. We don't know how many people with symptoms tested positive in the same period. We don't know how many people with symptoms didn't bother getting a test. What we do know is that almost 1% of the population of Liverpool during an X day period were walking around with covid but without symptoms. How long did it take to test those 96k people? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
