Sir Patrick Vallance or John the Plumber

[IT Minion]

I think you said that before and I replied I think it is what (most) people look at.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

I don't.

Those are the confirmed cases, which is massively less than the number of actual cases.

That's why I first asked the definition of 'case'. Is that not a 'test' or 'case'?
If that is correct, how can there only have been 3.6 million cases?

Confirmed cases, where people have had Covid-19 and had a positive test. In all publication the confirmation is required. Estimated case numbers are around if you look for them but they're not used as much.

Do you think every single person who's had Covid-19 has been identified by testing?

If you mean 'exaggerated' then it is undeniable that there are false positives (false negatives presumably are found to be positive later)

Undeniable? Really, how many false positives do you think there are? Either as a percentage or as an absolute number would be fascinating. In reality false positives occur in a tiny percentage of tests. People not being tested because they couldn't get a test or because they didn't have symptoms is a massively bigger issue.

Also why on earth would you believe that false negatives would ever be identified or corrected into the system? In hospitals you may get tested again after a negative test to make sure you didn't catch it since the first one but in the community it means you believe you don't have Covid-19, just a cold/flu and carry on. That never gets picked up.

and, of course the deaths are any death within sixty days of a positive test so might not all be accurate.

Seriously, where do you QAnon lot get this stuff from? It's 28 days.

Or are you going the full Trump route of not testing to drive down Covid-19 numbers?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Seriously, where do you QAnon lot get this stuff from? It's 28 days.
Or are you going the full Trump route of not testing to drive down Covid-19 numbers?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...med-england-deaths-report-to-31-december-2020

What have I got to do with QAnon or Trump?
I am just questioning the numbers and am still waiting for someone to explain satisfactorily.

For example, the recovery figure here in Portugal is 73% of the number of cases; in UK 44%.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Undeniable? Really, how many false positives do you think there are? Either as a percentage or as an absolute number would be fascinating.

I don't know. No one else seems to either.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Also why on earth would you believe that false negatives would ever be identified or corrected into the system? In hospitals you may get tested again after a negative test to make sure you didn't catch it since the first one but in the community it means you believe you don't have Covid-19, just a cold/flu and carry on. That never gets picked up.

Presumably it would if it mattered and they became seriously ill and then perhaps died.

 

[IT Minion]

Presumably it would if it mattered and they became seriously ill and then perhaps died.

So in your world the only cases that matter are where someone dies. Even then in the first wave a large number were missed.

 

[IT Minion]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...med-england-deaths-report-to-31-december-2020

What have I got to do with QAnon or Trump?
I am just questioning the numbers and am still waiting for someone to explain satisfactorily.

For example, the recovery figure here in Portugal is 73% of the number of cases; in UK 44%.

Ah! You're comparing the wrong numbers, that makes sense. Those are the ones that use death certificates and allow the inclusion of non confirmed cases, which as the report says was vital to try to get a sense of scale for the first wave.

That's a different data set to the ones the worldometer uses which is 28 days and must have a positive result.

changes in testing coverage and detection rate of COVID-19 infections:
the first wave of the epidemic was associated with very limited case detection, therefore with a very limited number of COVID19 cases being confirmed.
due to relatively unconstrained testing laboratory capacity following the first wave of the epidemic, far more cases have been detected and confirmed

It needs a lot of care and attention to compare stats, even between data sets, let alone across countries.

 

[Brigadier]

Also why on earth would you [EFLI] believe that false negatives would ever be identified.....................?

A "false negative" is a test which reports a negative result, only to be subsequently shown to actually be positive.
Therefore, it cannot correctly be termed a "false negative" unless that test is subsequently shown to be positive.
Without the subsequent positive test, it is just a "negative test" result.

I would expect scientists to use the correct terminology, and therefore, "false negatives" to be exactly that.

Also why on earth would you [EFLI] believe that false negatives would ever be ............... corrected into the system?

It would be logical that, in the quest to get the best and most complete dataset possible for the pandemic and its prevalence, "the authorities" would correct that dataset once identified errors are.......identified.
(Additionally, it is in the government's interest to paint the worst possible picture of the pandemic in the UK, in the hope that the people will then follow the guidance.)

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

To be absolutely certain; what is the definition of a covid "case"?

Is it one who has tested positive - whether symptomatic or not?

https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/covid-19/surveillance/case-definition

 

[IT Minion]

A "false negative" is a test which reports a negative result, only to be subsequently shown to actually be positive.
Therefore, it cannot correctly be termed a "false negative" unless that test is subsequently shown to be positive.
Without the subsequent positive test, it is just a "negative test" result.

I would expect scientists to use the correct terminology, and therefore, "false negatives" to be exactly that.

Yes, that's the dictionary definition. In practice they don't get picked up except in exceptional circumstances. To confirm a false negative you need three tests. A positive, followed by a negative, followed by a positive. All in quick succession. That'll only happen in a hospital setting, which is also where false negatives are least likely as the main area for mistakes are poor sampling and the second is the slightly less capable lighthouse labs compared to the NHS ones that are used for hospital tests.

Or blood samples for a more in depth analysis than PCR and the lab technicians to perform it.

All told, false negatives will happen but they'll almost never be identified.

 

[Brigadier]

Yes, that's the dictionary definition. In practice they don't get picked up except in exceptional circumstances. To confirm a false negative you need three tests. A positive, followed by a negative, followed by a positive. All in quick succession. That'll only happen in a hospital setting, which is also where false negatives are least likely as the main area for mistakes are poor sampling and the second is the slightly less capable lighthouse labs compared to the NHS ones that are used for hospital tests.

Or blood samples for a more in depth analysis than PCR and the lab technicians to perform it.

All told, false negatives will happen but they'll almost never be identified.

Please don't lecture me on test protocol; it's been (part of) my role for over two decades.
By the way, your response is incorrect.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

..., of course the deaths are any death within sixty days of a positive test so might not all be accurate.

It's always best to remain polite - just in case.

It's always best to remain accurate - just in case.

Deaths
Deaths within 28 days of positive test
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

However, there is no agreed cut-off after which COVID-19 can be excluded as a likely cause and sadly, we know that some people die from their infection many weeks later. Coronavirus can also contribute to a death without being the main or “underlying” cause.
...
However, it is only an approximation of the number of people who die from COVID-19 because other causes of death are included and some people who die from COVID-19 never had a positive test.
https://publichealthmatters.blog.gov.uk/2020/08/12/behind-the-headlines-counting-covid-19-deaths/​

 

[John the plumber]

I'm glad you're back, john the plumber.
Going back to our discussion on these supposedly empty wards:
You reckon that about 80% of Covid infected people are asymptomatic? Which incidentally has been seriously decreased to about 15% I think.
But adopting your figures, there would be 20% symptomatic, yes?
20% of 99,000,000? Shall we call it 20,000,000 are symptomatic?
Where are these people? According to you they're not in the hospitals, so where are they? Hiding in some underground bunker somewhere?

Let's be generous and say 2,600,000 have died, so that'll leave about 17,400,000 (that's 20,000,000 - 2,600,000) infected symptomatic people. Where are they, if they're not in the hospitals? Are the governments hiding them somewhere?
We know there's about 40,000 in UK hospitals, where are the rest? There's another 17,360,000 to be accounted for some where around the world.

I tell you what, let's be really generous and recognise that about 56,000,000 have recovered.
So we have 99,000,000 cases - 56,000,000 recovered, assumed discharged from hospitals (that they were never in, in the first place according to you)
So we have 43,000,000 current cases.
20% of 43,000,000 current cases is about 9,000,000, a tad less. So where are these nearly 9,000,000 symptomatic cases if they're not in hospitals?

Use your superior logic and mathematical skill and explain where they are, if they're not in hospitals.

Yet again making stuff up, NOWHERE DID I SAY THAT 80% of Covid infected people are asymptotic??? Not once did I ever say that anywhere. Why do you keep making stuff up and change the subject every time I provide you with the proof. You expect me to answer 1 question of yours resorting to abuse if I don’t yet I provided around 8 to 10 bits of proof and every time you have changed the subject or not answered it

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Yet again making stuff up, NOWHERE DID I SAY THAT 80% of Covid infected people are asymptotic??? Not once did I ever say that anywhere.

My apologies, you said it was 86%.
And that that 86% don't have symptoms. I've no idea what asymptotic means.

I won't use the obvious description for your blatant denial.

 

[John the plumber]

My apologies, you said it was 86%.
And that that 86% don't have symptoms. I've no idea what asymptotic means.

View attachment 220102
I won't use the obvious description for your blatant denial.

Or perhaps the numbers of people who have the virus have been GROSSLY AMPLIFIED by the powers that be.
The reason why so many people having shown symptoms is because not as many people that the media have claimed have in fact had Covid.
It will go alongside the rest of the illnesses that are strong enough to kill you but don’t provide any symptoms what so ever
Or alongside the full hospitals regardless of multiple videos showing otherwise,or your facts that ventilators can’t be moved yet on official NHS documents the ones used in the Covid wards are in fact MOBILE. Along with multiple other things you claim( sorry you don’t claim as you believe everything the media says) that have been proven to befalse

 

[John the plumber]

My apologies, you said it was 86%.
And that that 86% don't have symptoms. I've no idea what asymptotic means.

View attachment 220102
I won't use the obvious description for your blatant denial.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/coronavi...9-ward-for-intubated-patients_1-April-MR2.pdf