P.K. Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 3 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said: How does removing the 7 day test reduce the risk from 6% to 1%? Rachomics explained it back in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 2 hours ago, P.K. said: The Day 7 test was not scrapped for some totally ridiculous propaganda reason but simply it was the ONLY response they had left to make. Reducing the risk of infection from 6% to 1%. Unfortunately as this post shows very clearly you don't do probability and risk. I'm not sure you do either PK. Scrapping the day 7 test does not reduce the risk of infection from 6% to 1%. It simply means that if a returning traveller is covid positive, there is a 94% hit rate for testing at day 7 (compared with 99% at day 14). The 6% (of the about to be positives, of which there may be 1 in 400ish returnees) would be able to go to the shops for essential items and out for a walk. The risk of that very small number spreading their covid would be tiny. It's a marginal gain, not the 6-fold reduction you make it out to be. 2 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dog's Dangly Bits Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 4 minutes ago, P.K. said: Rachomics explained it back in this thread. Well i CBA scolling back through so many pages of trolling by you. I assume the reduction in risk comes from (a) the belief 5% of people could test negative on day 7 but develop symptoms after it and before 14 days and/or (b) 5% of tests producing a negative result could actually be wrong. As I said earlier, if Howard had given some numbers out on 7 day testing there might have been some context to the decision. But he didn't. For good reason. If he did then it would have been clear that the numbers were fairly immaterial and that the 7 day test was not suddenly creating a surge of visitors. Instead, we lose data. Get less tests and therefore less positive results. Instead, what we will have is those same people that would have been tested mixing with their household oblivious to whether they are or are no covid free whilst their household then goes out and about doing whatever they want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dog's Dangly Bits Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 1 minute ago, wrighty said: I'm not sure you do either PK. Scrapping the day 7 test does not reduce the risk of infection from 6% to 1%. It simply means that if a returning traveller is covid positive, there is a 94% hit rate for testing at day 7 (compared with 99% at day 14). The 6% (of the about to be positives, of which there may be 1 in 400ish returnees) would be able to go to the shops for essential items and out for a walk. The risk of that very small number spreading their covid would be tiny. It's a marginal gain, not the 6-fold reduction you make it out to be. This. PK has no clue and is largely trolling. I'm conscious you may not be able to answer this Wrighty - but do you believe the decision to stop 7 day testing has any real merit or foundation other than "less tests equals less positives"? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AcousticallyChallenged Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 45 minutes ago, wrighty said: I think there is herd immunity for colds. They're endemic, they circulate round, but as far as I'm aware nobody is dying from them. There is a level of community immunity to them. My guess is that in time, covid will become another such infection. We'll live with it. It's not going to be eradicated so what's the alternative? With colds having been around for so long, has there not been some selective pressure for milder colds too? You're out and about much less when you've got a bad case of flu. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 26 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said: This. PK has no clue and is largely trolling. I'm conscious you may not be able to answer this Wrighty - but do you believe the decision to stop 7 day testing has any real merit or foundation other than "less tests equals less positives"? The possible benefits I can see are The marginal reduction in risk of onward transmission as described above A reduction in the possibility of a false negative test at 7 days giving the cohabitees of the returnee a false sense of security Perhaps a reduction in the number of people travelling about as they'd be willing to chance it on 7 days but not the full 14, although as I think you pointed out we've not seen any stats in terms of travel numbers to suggest that introducing the 7 day protocol increased the numbers. I don't believe it was stopped as some sort of 'head in the sand, nothing to see here' measure. There are marginal benefits, but perhaps outweighted by as Rachel pointed out a reduction in viral surveillance. 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 5 minutes ago, wrighty said: I'm not sure you do either PK. Scrapping the day 7 test does not reduce the risk of infection from 6% to 1%. It simply means that if a returning traveller is covid positive, there is a 94% hit rate for testing at day 7 (compared with 99% at day 14). The 6% (of the about to be positives, of which there may be 1 in 400ish returnees) would be able to go to the shops for essential items and out for a walk. The risk of that very small number spreading their covid would be tiny. It's a marginal gain, not the 6-fold reduction you make it out to be. It's based on everyone coming to the island having the virus of course. Add the probability factor and it's as you say, miniscule. But people like TheDogsDanglyBits just don't get probability and risk and maybe never will. But Mr Quayle binned it off anyway. Hmmm..... Probability and risk make for interesting scenarios. Here's one: The current infection rate in Donney is 167 per 100,000. So you would expect to get one infected person in every 598 Flatlanders. Out of 5 welders and a team leader one of them had the virus. So the island hit rate for Flatlanders with the virus appears to be one in six. How is this? 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Down Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 This topic seems to be the new "flat earth" thread. Same people day in day out shouting at the mirror... 4 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 3 minutes ago, P.K. said: It's based on everyone coming to the island having the virus of course. Add the probability factor and it's as you say, miniscule. But people like TheDogsDanglyBits just don't get probability and risk and maybe never will. But Mr Quayle binned it off anyway. Hmmm..... Probability and risk make for interesting scenarios. Here's one: The current infection rate in Donney is 167 per 100,000. So you would expect to get one infected person in every 598 Flatlanders. Out of 5 welders and a team leader one of them had the virus. So the island hit rate for Flatlanders with the virus appears to be one in six. How is this? Definitely on something, arguing with the experienced medics now!! Perhaps you should be Howies advisor as you love him so much! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 1 minute ago, Banker said: Definitely on something, arguing with the experienced medics now!! Perhaps you should be Howies advisor as you love him so much! Experienced medics has nothing to do with it. It's just numbers. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 8 minutes ago, P.K. said: It's based on everyone coming to the island having the virus of course. Add the probability factor and it's as you say, miniscule. But people like TheDogsDanglyBits just don't get probability and risk and maybe never will. But Mr Quayle binned it off anyway. Hmmm..... Probability and risk make for interesting scenarios. Here's one: The current infection rate in Donney is 167 per 100,000. So you would expect to get one infected person in every 598 Flatlanders. Out of 5 welders and a team leader one of them had the virus. So the island hit rate for Flatlanders with the virus appears to be one in six. How is this? A sample of 6 does not have sufficient statistical power on which to base conclusions for the population as a whole. Your question 'How is this' can only indicate that you are trolling, as others keep pointing out, or you are completely clueless as to risk/probability/stats etc, as others keep pointing out. Or both perhaps. 2 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 1 minute ago, wrighty said: A sample of 6 does not have sufficient statistical power on which to base conclusions for the population as a whole. Your question 'How is this' can only indicate that you are trolling, as others keep pointing out, or you are completely clueless as to risk/probability/stats etc, as others keep pointing out. Or both perhaps. Just a bit of fun, that's all. Six is a small sample, which is the point. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 14 minutes ago, P.K. said: Just a bit of fun, that's all... O-oooh, ah, that old chestnut... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 15 minutes ago, P.K. said: Just a bit of fun, that's all. Six is a small sample, which is the point. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 (edited) 35 minutes ago, Neil Down said: This topic seems to be the new "flat earth" thread. Same people day in day out shouting at the mirror... So proclaims the troll who seems to be shouting in the mirror the most. It seems you won’t even accept the perfectly logical statements of Wrighty to interrupt your general barking at the covid moon. All you and others (?) are capable of doing is creating disruption and out and out trolling of people whose views differ to yours. I have used the confused emoji above again. I hope that’s not lighting the touch paper on another round of paranoid lunacy but honestly your pointless attempts to just fill up space on this forum while contributing absolutely zero to the debate really do confuse me. Edited October 13, 2020 by thesultanofsheight 2 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.