Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

The home for all non-political Coronavirus (Covid-19) discussions on The Lemon Fool
Forum rules
This is the home for all non-political Coronavirus (Covid-19) discussions on The Lemon Fool
odysseus2000
Lemon Half
Posts: 6367
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 1538 times
Been thanked: 959 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#475333

Postby odysseus2000 » January 22nd, 2022, 2:45 pm

Hallucigenia wrote:
odysseus2000 wrote:I thought the observation of weak effect in South Africa where vaccinated folk are relatively low in number was definitive evidence that omicron is inherently weaker than say delta. Is this no longer a tenable deduction?


The trouble with South Africa is that there's a lot of immunity from previous infection, and that can be hard to quantify. This paper is probably the best one at compensating for that :
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 22269148v1

They suggest that although eg they saw a 73% reduction in deathrate during the omicron wave versus their delta wave, when you adjusted for vaccination and known infection that went down to 59%, and if you assume that only 15% of infections are actually detected (based on excess mortality and seroprevalence) it drops to 28% less inherent severity. And if you assume 12% of infections are detected, then there's no difference at all between omicron and delta.

But some reduction seems plausible based on what we know from epidemiology elsewhere and mechanisms, it's just that immunity plays at least as big a part.


Based on what you are saying, does this not suggest that an anti-body test would be a better diagnostic than a lateral flow test?

Regards,

Bouleversee
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4652
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:01 pm
Has thanked: 1195 times
Been thanked: 902 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#475343

Postby Bouleversee » January 22nd, 2022, 3:21 pm

redsturgeon wrote:My 24 year old daughter tested positive for Covid back in September. No symptoms apart from loss of taste and smell on about day six.

She had her booster about three weeks ago then went on holiday for two weeks to the Caribbean.

On her return she did not need a test to fly into the UK as a fully vaxxed individual.

She did need a day two lateral flow test though. She did a lateral flow test on her return and every day since for her job, now day four, all have been negative.

We also did a PCR test for her on day two, it came back this morning positive, we confirmed it with our in house same day PCR machine and again positive.

She has no symptoms whatsoever and the PCR tests were not legally required for her, if we hadn't done them she would now be mixing with hundreds customers through her job.

She is now going to isolate for five days.

Could the government be wasting their and our money time with lateral flow tests?

John


I have been wondering about that myself. They are certainly not very reassuring to the clinically vulnerable and your post has helped me to take a decision I was dithering over as regards attending a large family luncheon tomorrow where everyone else will have been circulating freely. There doesn't seem much point in behaving sensibly for 2 years and then not continuing to shield when the virus is still rampant, more infectious, less obvious, or not at all, in many cases and other people are throwing caution to the winds. It would not surprise me in the least if the death figures for the elderly and vulnerable who have let their hair down shoot up in the next few weeks, especially since I have just heard on Any Answers an NHS doctor saying Covid patients are now scattered in general wards through hospitals. My desperately ill sister is a case in point. She either picked up the virus from a carer at home (I don't think she was seeing anyone else and was certainly not going out) or after she went into hospital.

Meatloaf said "If I die, I die" when he stopped following restrictions, and he died last week from Covid.

I read that when an LFT has given a positive result further tests will show positive for 10 days so 5 days isolation seems insufficient.

Hallucigenia
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2625
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 3:03 am
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 1720 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#475352

Postby Hallucigenia » January 22nd, 2022, 4:18 pm

redsturgeon wrote:She did need a day two lateral flow test though. She did a lateral flow test on her return and every day since for her job, now day four, all have been negative.

She has no symptoms whatsoever and the PCR tests were not legally required for her, if we hadn't done them she would now be mixing with hundreds customers through her job.

Could the government be wasting their and our money time with lateral flow tests?


Thing is, that not everyone who is infected is infectious - one of the peculiarities of SARS2 is that most infections don't lead to infection - for the early variants it was something like 70% of infections were "dead-ends", whereas most of the onward transmission was concentrated in the 5-10% who "superspread".

And your infectivity depends on your viral load, and it happens that the sensitivity of LFTs roughly corresponds to the point at which you don't have enough virus to infect other people efficiently. So although people made a lot of the fact that LFTs less sensitive than PCRs and were positive in only ~70% of PCR positives, the false negatives were people with low viral loads who were unlikely to infect others. Which made LFTs rather more useful than PCRs from a public health point of view, as it meant that resources (and economic impacts like isolations) could be concentrated on the fraction of the population who were likely to transmit.

The above was true with the early variants and early LFTs, I haven't followed where the balance lies with delta/omicron.

There's also a more general point, that with this thing it's better to be approximately right quickly, rather than precisely right 2-3 days later. Not everyone has a dad with access to same-day PCR.

Bouleversee
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4652
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:01 pm
Has thanked: 1195 times
Been thanked: 902 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#475397

Postby Bouleversee » January 22nd, 2022, 6:23 pm

Hallucigenia wrote:
redsturgeon wrote:She did need a day two lateral flow test though. She did a lateral flow test on her return and every day since for her job, now day four, all have been negative.

She has no symptoms whatsoever and the PCR tests were not legally required for her, if we hadn't done them she would now be mixing with hundreds customers through her job.

Could the government be wasting their and our money time with lateral flow tests?


Thing is, that not everyone who is infected is infectious - one of the peculiarities of SARS2 is that most infections don't lead to infection - for the early variants it was something like 70% of infections were "dead-ends", whereas most of the onward transmission was concentrated in the 5-10% who "superspread".

And your infectivity depends on your viral load, and it happens that the sensitivity of LFTs roughly corresponds to the point at which you don't have enough virus to infect other people efficiently. So although people made a lot of the fact that LFTs less sensitive than PCRs and were positive in only ~70% of PCR positives, the false negatives were people with low viral loads who were unlikely to infect others. Which made LFTs rather more useful than PCRs from a public health point of view, as it meant that resources (and economic impacts like isolations) could be concentrated on the fraction of the population who were likely to transmit.

The above was true with the early variants and early LFTs, I haven't followed where the balance lies with delta/omicron.

There's also a more general point, that with this thing it's better to be approximately right quickly, rather than precisely right 2-3 days later. Not everyone has a dad with access to same-day PCR.


Depends on your viewpoint. It doesn't help the highly vulnerable to be told very quickly that all the guests attending the party had tested negative that morning and then find out the next day, after being squashed into a small room with a dozen or so of them, that they were all positive after all. What about collective viral load from those dozen people, without any ventilation or even open windows (much too cold in party frocks, because they were all under the impression that they were of no risk to the HV? Are you saying it will still be low despite their surrounding the HV and laughing, talking loudly and maybe coughing in their face?

Bouleversee
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4652
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:01 pm
Has thanked: 1195 times
Been thanked: 902 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#475414

Postby Bouleversee » January 22nd, 2022, 7:17 pm

Another interesting, if a little worrying, article from S Africa:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/medica ... d=msedgntp

odysseus2000
Lemon Half
Posts: 6367
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 1538 times
Been thanked: 959 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#475450

Postby odysseus2000 » January 22nd, 2022, 10:41 pm

Why ís the coverage of covid by the media & social media so bad?

The main media & the government are focused on frightening people, making statements that are not backed by any clarity that could easily be provided by simple graphics. This makes the message near impossible for me to take seriously.

The questions from reporters are similarly ridiculous, far too much party policy focus & not enough that are helpful for anyone wanting to understand what is going on. Every reporter seems to want to catch out a politician rather than get useful information.

YouTube could be an excellent source of information with comments giving alternative views, but the YouTube AI comments remover just eats comments. I posted a link to Ons stats showing that one poster was giving a wrong interpretation. The comment went in seconds & I have found this happening all the time no matter how innocent the comment is. I learned that the YouTube comments remover deleted 1 billion comments last quarter. There is now almost no option to comment on YouTube videos.

It may be that in the by & by things improve, but as of now the Internet has maximised the entropy of information which is serving no body.

I have no idea how this can be improved, but if ai is any good it ought to be able to make things a whole lot better.

Regards,

Julian
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1386
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:58 am
Has thanked: 532 times
Been thanked: 676 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#475460

Postby Julian » January 22nd, 2022, 11:35 pm

9873210 wrote:In SA the Delta wave ended in October 2021. In the UK the Delta wave did not end until it was overwhelmed by Omicron. It is at least plausible (probably likely) that immunity (from all sources) was higher in SA in October than in the UK in December. If (partial) immunity to Delta blunts Omicron, it could happen in SA.

One thing that I find intriguing about SA is that its second wave was Beta that never really made much headway in the UK. Although Omicron seems to come from a different evolutionary branch than other major variants, i.e. not a descendant of Alpha, Delta etc, I have heard a few virologists say that if they had to choose the closest “look alike” it would be Beta. Also, until Omicron the variant that showed the biggest reductions in antibody neutralisation titre results vs the vaccines was Beta (roughly joint equal with one of the Brazilian strains). Now, SA does have a lower vaccination rate than the UK but as is often mentioned there is also a lot of additional population immunity from natural infection. Might at least some of the previous infection-induced natural immunity in SA be more potent against Omicron that the previous infection-induced natural immunity in the UK because it was the result of a Beta-strain infection as opposed to an Alpha or Delta or original strain infection?

I suspect there is enough stored serum from people infected in the previous waves that we might one day fat least get some in vitro data on that but for now that’s just random speculation on my part. It’s one of the reasons why I was reluctant to jump to the “Omicron is more mild than Delta” conclusion in the UK setting until I started seeing actual UK outcome data.

- Julian

Julian
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1386
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:58 am
Has thanked: 532 times
Been thanked: 676 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#475462

Postby Julian » January 22nd, 2022, 11:59 pm

odysseus2000 wrote:Why ís the coverage of covid by the media & social media so bad?

The main media & the government are focused on frightening people, making statements that are not backed by any clarity that could easily be provided by simple graphics. This makes the message near impossible for me to take seriously.

The questions from reporters are similarly ridiculous, far too much party policy focus & not enough that are helpful for anyone wanting to understand what is going on. Every reporter seems to want to catch out a politician rather than get useful information.

YouTube could be an excellent source of information with comments giving alternative views, but the YouTube AI comments remover just eats comments. I posted a link to Ons stats showing that one poster was giving a wrong interpretation. The comment went in seconds & I have found this happening all the time no matter how innocent the comment is. I learned that the YouTube comments remover deleted 1 billion comments last quarter. There is now almost no option to comment on YouTube videos.

It may be that in the by & by things improve, but as of now the Internet has maximised the entropy of information which is serving no body.

I have no idea how this can be improved, but if ai is any good it ought to be able to make things a whole lot better.

Regards,

I agree about a lot of the media coverage. There are a lot of good YouTube resources at all sorts of levels of detail but the mainstream media coverage is mostly quite superficial and not everyone takes the time to go there or elsewhere to search out at least some level of extra detail/context. I’ve heard Dr John Campbell, a YouTube creator who comments on pandemic news almost daily, bemoan the fact that contrary to the situation in many other countries the specialist correspondents in the UK often don’t have a degree in the subjects they cover e.g. how many of the TV medical correspondents are qualified doctors?

That’s odd that you’ve been so badly hit by YouTube AI deletions. Do you get an email informing you when one of your comments is deleted? I’ve never had a comment deleted. I do note in your example re the ONS stats that you posted a link. I’m always a bit nervous about posting links on YouTube comments, in fact I’ve never done it, because I know that some creators block comments with links in them. I can see that banning links can cut down on spam but it also hampers considered commentators who want to back up their statements by linking to source data. Might there be a pattern that it tends to be comments where you have (perfectly reasonably) included a link that are being deleted? I’m just curious as to why your experience is so different to mine.

- Julian

odysseus2000
Lemon Half
Posts: 6367
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 1538 times
Been thanked: 959 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#475474

Postby odysseus2000 » January 23rd, 2022, 2:28 am

Hi Julian,

Until recently none of my comments got deleted, but starting a few weeks ago many of them have been. There is no indication of a deletion, the comment just vanishes. Earlier this week I was replying to a post on neurotrophic chips sharing what the video had caused me to dig out about an Australian company brainchip, earlier when I was commenting on the potential of ai & its dangers, that went too. Apparently there were 2 billion comments deleted in 4th quarter 2020, down to 1 billion 4th quarter 2021. Perhaps I have been identified as a spammer, but previously some of my posts had attracted several other comments, so I don’t know. My general impression is that if you allow crackpots it soon becomes clear to everyone that the posts are rubbish & they get ignored, but as things are now nobody gets that opportunity. I have always thought that the benefits of free speech were that daft ideas get countered & in that debate readers get to make a better appraisal of what is likely right. Once one gets into censorship there is no process of fact discovery & what ever is repeated the most often & loudest in videos becomes the accepted understanding.

Regards,

Bouleversee
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4652
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:01 pm
Has thanked: 1195 times
Been thanked: 902 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#475520

Postby Bouleversee » January 23rd, 2022, 11:42 am

Julian wrote:
Bouleversee wrote:
Julian wrote:
Bouleversee wrote:... I now understand why MS patients were included in the list of those eligible for antivirals if infected. Whether their infection is discovered in time and they get them is another matter.

That's a big issue with these new antivirals such as Molnupiravir and Paxlovid(*). They need to be given within 5 days of symptoms emerging in order to be most effective (https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-a ... t-covid-19). Especially now with Omicron the symptoms can be mild or even non-existent and when they are there can often be mistaken for a common cold so for people with a serious pre-existing condition, hence potentially with symptoms from their conditions and maybe also from side effects of drugs being taken to manage those conditions, I can see why early symptoms of a SARS-CoV2 infection might be missed. Although inconvenient that would suggest to me that where possible very regular lateral flow testing of the particularly vulnerable would be sensible in order to spot the need for rapid administration of an anti-viral before it's too late. Maybe that is happening and is already government advice? If it isn't I would have thought that it should be now that these new and seemingly very effective antivirals are available.

- Julian

(*) In general antiviral drug names end in vir, e.g. Molnupiravir or Oseltamivir (branded as Tamiflu that got famous when the UK government stockpiled it ages ago during the 2005 bird flu scare). The reason that Pfizer's Paxlovid seems to break that convention is because it is not actually the name of the new Pfizer antiviral, it is the name for a combination therapy that co-packages an existing antiviral (ritonavir) with the new antiviral (nirmatrelvir). It is nirmatrelvir that is the new one that specifically targets a protein in order to slow down SARS-CoV2 replication. Ritonavir is there to stop the nirmatrelvir from being metabolised away too quickly so that it stays around in the body long enough to do its job (as explained in the link I already gave).

P.S. I have no connection with Pfizer, it's just that Paxlovid looks to me to be a particularly exciting drug based on the clinical trial data; more effective than Molnupiravir from what I've read.


But the only ones being offered here, so far as I am aware, are those referred to in this NHS document:

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavir ... ronavirus/

I know. That’s why I specifically compared Paxlovid (not on the list) to Molnupiravir at the end of my post. They are both antivirals which sort of do the same thing, interrupt the replication cycle of the virus, albeit by different mechanisms of action. All that I said in the main post applies to a both Molnupiravir and Paxlovid. The other drug on the list, Sotrovimab, is a monoclonal antibody so is somewhat different but is also best administered within 5 days of onset of symptoms (https://www.nhs.uk/medicines/sotrovimab ... otrovimab/).

The UK government has placed orders for both Molnupiravir and Paxlovid (and Sotrovimab of course since that is already on the list) but Merck got approval for Molnupiravir earlier than Pfizer’s Paxlovid. The UK has placed big orders for both (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... on-spreads). As and when Paxlovid is available in the UK I am sure it will be added to the list.

- Julian


There's an interesting article on this in Sunday Times today on this topic which also mentions possible prophylactic use in some cases.
.
"Antiviral Covid pills to keep us out of hospital."

Julian
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1386
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:58 am
Has thanked: 532 times
Been thanked: 676 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#475533

Postby Julian » January 23rd, 2022, 12:32 pm

Bouleversee wrote:...
There's an interesting article on this in Sunday Times today on this topic which also mentions possible prophylactic use in some cases.
.
"Antiviral Covid pills to keep us out of hospital."

Thanks. As it happens I'm signed up to a free 5 month trial of Apple News+ and one of the publications that it gives me free online access to is the Sunday Times whose content is usually behind a paywall. I'll go and have a read of that article later today; it does sound interesting.

- Julian

Bouleversee
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4652
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:01 pm
Has thanked: 1195 times
Been thanked: 902 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#475560

Postby Bouleversee » January 23rd, 2022, 2:23 pm

I think one can usually get it by Googling the headline.

Bouleversee
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4652
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:01 pm
Has thanked: 1195 times
Been thanked: 902 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#475561

Postby Bouleversee » January 23rd, 2022, 2:28 pm

Is anyone going to answer the question in my post no. 475397?

dealtn
Lemon Half
Posts: 6072
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 441 times
Been thanked: 2324 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#475563

Postby dealtn » January 23rd, 2022, 2:36 pm

Bouleversee wrote:Is anyone going to answer the question in my post no. 475397?


Until you define "low" in your question it is impossible to answer. People will have different ideas surrounding what that means.

If by low you mean "anything other than zero" then the answer is some risk, not no risk.

Bouleversee
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4652
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:01 pm
Has thanked: 1195 times
Been thanked: 902 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#475589

Postby Bouleversee » January 23rd, 2022, 5:28 pm

dealtn wrote:
Bouleversee wrote:Is anyone going to answer the question in my post no. 475397?


Until you define "low" in your question it is impossible to answer. People will have different ideas surrounding what that means.

If by low you mean "anything other than zero" then the answer is some risk, not no risk.


I have no idea how to quantify a low viral load. You had better ask Hallucigenia what he meant since he introduced the concept. What I was driving at is whether 10 x LVL still equates to 1x LVL in terms of infectivity (and unlikely to infect) or whether it equates to 10 x LVL, however that is quantified, and if the latter (which would seem likely to this layperson) at what point multiples of LVL represent a danger to an HVP.

Mike4
Lemon Half
Posts: 7091
Joined: November 24th, 2016, 3:29 am
Has thanked: 1638 times
Been thanked: 3796 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#475593

Postby Mike4 » January 23rd, 2022, 5:42 pm

Bouleversee wrote:Is anyone going to answer the question in my post no. 475397?


I took your question to be addressed specifically to Hal. But on going back and reading it again, I'm prolly being dense but I can't work out what the abbreviation "HV" in your question means, so don't feel confident to attempt an answer.

It could be that others found the same...

dealtn
Lemon Half
Posts: 6072
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 441 times
Been thanked: 2324 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#475594

Postby dealtn » January 23rd, 2022, 5:44 pm

Bouleversee wrote:
dealtn wrote:
Bouleversee wrote:Is anyone going to answer the question in my post no. 475397?


Until you define "low" in your question it is impossible to answer. People will have different ideas surrounding what that means.

If by low you mean "anything other than zero" then the answer is some risk, not no risk.


I have no idea how to quantify a low viral load. You had better ask Hallucigenia what he meant since he introduced the concept. What I was driving at is whether 10 x LVL still equates to 1x LVL in terms of infectivity (and unlikely to infect) or whether it equates to 10 x LVL, however that is quantified, and if the latter (which would seem likely to this layperson) at what point multiples of LVL represent a danger to an HVP.


I genuinely think its unanswerable (but he can respond if he chooses). You did ask if "anyone" could answer your question, not just Haluucigenia.

It is up to anyone to assess as reasonably as they can what they are comfortable doing (or giving up by not doing things). Some people, call them highly vulnerable would be unable to cross a busy road without a suitable crossing. Some would see no issues at all. Some might find it impossible to drive, some resolve this through public transport, or taxis. For some even that isn't possible.

Life is a really horrible place sometimes, and some people will be extremely limited in what they can do. Others come to a similar conclusion on the basis of risk, not ability. Many risks are hard to assess, but offsetting the choosing not to take those risks, and their potential consequences, are the even more limited life experiences and missing those things given up. that route has consequences too.

I am sure you probably won't see that as a particularly helpful answer, as might others, and indeed you might be horrified by it. However, life isn't always pleasant with easy and knowable answers. We all have the burden of dealing with that at times, some more than others unfortunately.

dealtn
Lemon Half
Posts: 6072
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 441 times
Been thanked: 2324 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#475595

Postby dealtn » January 23rd, 2022, 5:46 pm

Mike4 wrote:
Bouleversee wrote:Is anyone going to answer the question in my post no. 475397?


I took your question to be addressed specifically to Hal. But on going back and reading it again, I'm prolly being dense but I can't work out what the abbreviation "HV" in your question means, so don't feel confident to attempt an answer.

It could be that others found the same...


I assumed Highly Vulnerable (however that is defined).

Mike4
Lemon Half
Posts: 7091
Joined: November 24th, 2016, 3:29 am
Has thanked: 1638 times
Been thanked: 3796 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#475597

Postby Mike4 » January 23rd, 2022, 5:48 pm

dealtn wrote:
Mike4 wrote:
Bouleversee wrote:Is anyone going to answer the question in my post no. 475397?


I took your question to be addressed specifically to Hal. But on going back and reading it again, I'm prolly being dense but I can't work out what the abbreviation "HV" in your question means, so don't feel confident to attempt an answer.

It could be that others found the same...


I assumed Highly Vulnerable (however that is defined).


Ah yes that makes sense. I knew it would be obvious once someone said!

Mike4
Lemon Half
Posts: 7091
Joined: November 24th, 2016, 3:29 am
Has thanked: 1638 times
Been thanked: 3796 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#475601

Postby Mike4 » January 23rd, 2022, 6:04 pm

Bouleversee wrote:
Hallucigenia wrote:
redsturgeon wrote:She did need a day two lateral flow test though. She did a lateral flow test on her return and every day since for her job, now day four, all have been negative.

She has no symptoms whatsoever and the PCR tests were not legally required for her, if we hadn't done them she would now be mixing with hundreds customers through her job.

Could the government be wasting their and our money time with lateral flow tests?


Thing is, that not everyone who is infected is infectious - one of the peculiarities of SARS2 is that most infections don't lead to infection - for the early variants it was something like 70% of infections were "dead-ends", whereas most of the onward transmission was concentrated in the 5-10% who "superspread".

And your infectivity depends on your viral load, and it happens that the sensitivity of LFTs roughly corresponds to the point at which you don't have enough virus to infect other people efficiently. So although people made a lot of the fact that LFTs less sensitive than PCRs and were positive in only ~70% of PCR positives, the false negatives were people with low viral loads who were unlikely to infect others. Which made LFTs rather more useful than PCRs from a public health point of view, as it meant that resources (and economic impacts like isolations) could be concentrated on the fraction of the population who were likely to transmit.

The above was true with the early variants and early LFTs, I haven't followed where the balance lies with delta/omicron.

There's also a more general point, that with this thing it's better to be approximately right quickly, rather than precisely right 2-3 days later. Not everyone has a dad with access to same-day PCR.


Depends on your viewpoint. It doesn't help the highly vulnerable to be told very quickly that all the guests attending the party had tested negative that morning and then find out the next day, after being squashed into a small room with a dozen or so of them, that they were all positive after all. What about collective viral load from those dozen people, without any ventilation or even open windows (much too cold in party frocks, because they were all under the impression that they were of no risk to the HV? Are you saying it will still be low despite their surrounding the HV and laughing, talking loudly and maybe coughing in their face?



Lorna, I wonder if you have a fundamental misunderstanding (like a lot of people, I think) of the purpose of covid testing.

I may have it wrong myself but my understanding is that testing primarily is done to assist the government in developing public health policy and large scale responses. The result of each test might be useful to each individual member of the public taking a test but that is a by-product - they can never be definitive due to false positive and false negative rates involved but it suits the government to let people think it is for their own benefit, otherwise fewer people would bother to get tested.

Mine might be an overly cynical view, but I'm always ready and willing with good cause, to be disappointed by this government's management of this pandemic.


Return to “Coronavirus Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests