Coronavirus testing.

[Dangee]

The haters gotta hate.
Whatever they do, it’s never gonna be good enough for you.
Can’t you concentrate on logistical how difficult it is to react to something that is constantly emerging in different areas.
Look how far we have come in 9MONTHS!!
You just can’t take those blinkers off & see what a difficult situation this is, of course there will be mistakes.
Could you do better or will you just rely on hindsight.

 

[JohnD]

You didn't do a very good job of cheering us up with the good news.

Try again.

Be positive.

 

[Dangee]

 

[Brigadier]

Dr Chris Smith was on the radio yesterday and said, even with a million tests a day, it would take over two months to cover the UK population.
And someone can test negative, yet catch the virus shortly afterwards.
They are likely than not to then be asymptomatic, and able to pass it on and around.
And so on and so on .

So, how many tests per day is "enough"?

 

[Dangee]

God knows. Ask Sweden.

 

[JohnD]

So, how many tests per day is "enough"?

If we had a million a day, we would be much better able to spot the districts where infection was increasing, and no doubt specialists in epidemiology would use their techniques to identify transmission routes (pubs, schools, public transport, abattoirs etc) so they could be given preventative measures or closed down. They already do this for food poisoning and notifiable diseases. I have an idea it is a public health responsibility of local authorities, though budgets and headcount were reduced during Austerity. I understand this is because the nation doesn't want good public services.

https://www.ippr.org/blog/public-health-cuts#anounce-of-prevention-is-worth-a-pound-of-cure

 

[Brigadier]

 

[EFLImpudence]

... ...

Well, it depends.

If you know of 100 cases now, then 110 in whatever the period of time is, then your R is 1.1 (simplification).

Yes, but that means 110 NEW cases - 210 total, R 1.1 as you say.

If you know of 100 cases now, but there's really 200 and after your period of time there's 220, but you only know of 110, then it's still an R of 1.1.

Well, not really.

If there actually were 200 cases (100 known, 100 unknown) and now actually 310 (210 known, 100 still unknown), that is actually 200 to 310; an R of 0.55 - half what you think.

 

[Brigadier]

There are different R values, so it is helpful / essential to define which R value you're talking about.

Linky

 

[IT Minion]

Yes, but that means 110 NEW cases - 210 total, R 1.1 as you say.

No, that's not how it works. The time period is long enough so that the initial 100 are either recovered or dead.

Well, not really.

If there actually were 200 cases (100 known, 100 unknown) and now actually 310 (210 known, 100 still unknown), that is actually 200 to 310; an R of 0.55 - half what you think.

No. Just no.

 

[EFLImpudence]

No, that's not how it works. The time period is long enough so that the initial 100 are either recovered or dead.

The recovered or dead don't (re)infect anyone.

No. Just no.

Ok, please explain.

Also - how an R number can be determined when it is not known how many have the virus.

 

[SirGalahad]

So basically you could be tested for Covid, receive a positive result and then get run over by a bus and STILL be classed as a 'covid' death. On the other hand, my daughters boyfriends grandad died, aged 103 - he was in general poor health, heart and lungs. He was tested twice for Covid while in hospital, both times were negative yet he still had ‘Covid related illness' mentioned on his death certificate. Obviously, he would have been counted as a Covid death. I wonder how many times that situation was duplicated?

We need to know the numbers of who died due to Covid, not who died with or after having Covid.

No the bus caused the death - you think Drs willy nilly put down covid.

A person has multiple underlying conditions - like cancer but its pneumonia that killed them. Some pepple believe in fantasies where they think the numbers are inflated and its all a conspiracy.

Have you seen a DC?

https://www.themdu.com/guidance-and...ce/certifying-deaths-during-covid-19-outbreak

COVID-19 is now an acceptable 'direct' or 'underlying' cause of death for the purposes of the MCCD and although COVID-19 is a notifiable disease, this does not mean that deaths from COVID must be reported to the coroner.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...l-certificates-of-cause-of-death-covid-19.pdf

 

[SirGalahad]

A sensible approach I feel? Why do you not think so?

Its arbitrary.

PHE redefined the deaths in early August (around 12th) and then was announced it would be abolished around the 18th of August.

How convenient.

 

[Mottie]

No the bus caused the death - you think Drs willy nilly put down covid.

But the death figures clearly state those that have died within 28 days of a positive Covid test result. I’m not saying it was the cause of death, obviously it would be the bus that caused the death, but as it stands, he would be a statistic of the daily Covid death total if he died, for any reason, within 28 days of a positive Covid test result.

 

[EddieM]

Its arbitrary.

PHE redefined the deaths in early August (around 12th) and then was announced it would be abolished around the 18th of August.

How convenient.

Sorry, refined then abolished what?