Chat about Novel Coronavirus - 2019-nCoV - COVID-19

Had the swab tests today too. Once a week for the next month scheduled and then once a month.

They came here and have taken the swabs away.

Why so regular? At risk group?

Some US White House correspondent was on Radio 4 just before lunchtime naming and shaming members of his government for not wearing masks that, in his words, were "the one thing proven to slow the spread". He also said he´d been wearing N95s for ages now. You know, the ones American hospitals desperately need now. The mind boggles.

The other day, also on R4, there was a whole programme that went sort of like this.

1) So these masks, eh? Let´s ask an expert. Expert woman: they don´t work in the way you think (protection for self as opposed to protection of others from sick self) because sciency reasons (no evidence, no training or discipline in use and disposal/washing, risk compensation).

2) How about Joe Public then, why do they wear masks? 80 per cent for myself, 20 per cent for others.

3) Moving on, how can we shame those naked-faced scum into wearing them as well?

Fuck´s sake. If passers-by start shouting at me for not wearing a mask the way they already do because I choose to ride a bike with a naked head I´m going full Howard Hughes. Rant over.

Expert woman

I’d have thought just over 50% of the world’s population are expert women

Sure but if authorities thought it would be closer to 40% or so that would have had the virus then 20% is a let down regardless.

Regular participants in ONS surveys

Well that conclusion is a mathematical modelling so its not set in stone i guess.

But i think its somewhere along the lines of: take the median date of the tests that has now been analysed. Now go back say 2 weeks (the approx time for antibodies to be developed) Now you have an approximate time frame of when 7.3% of the population were infected. From here look at the rate of the spread from this date forward and calculate what this should amount to today accounting for lowering of the spread in recent weeks and whatnots.. This is my understanding of how those numbers are produced.

Re 3) I rather see it either enforced in shops/public transport and not vaguely suggested, the moral high ground brigade and no result is all we get from "maybe you should wear one...".

They do seem to help if everyone wears them when in enclosed spaces (parties/transport/with people in a house) but now it's just a shame game.

Only one way out of the helmet debate now: A full face mountainbike helmet with pollution filter and you shaming them YOU COULD SLIP AND FALL ON A BANANA PEEL HOW DARE YOU BURDEN THE NHS WEAR A HELMET ON YOUR WALK ;)

OK, tx! :)

Fair dos. It´s just that "woman expert" sounds a bit Mr Cholmondley-Warner. Why did I feel it was necessary to mention that the expert was a woman? Fuck, I´m a male chauvinist pig aren´t I?

So Cyclists banned from Richmond Park for breathing stating Plumes of Exhalation!!!

That's quite some selective quoting, although much of the initial report is full of guff.

Superdrug selling antibody tests although at that price figure people aren't going to be queueing around the block to buy

https://onlinedoctor.superdrug.com/coronavirus-antibody-test-kits.html

If it was reliable i think a lot of ppl would buy that no? You can cuddle with your grandkids w/o worries etc.

Antibody tests arent 100% accurate nor are they a guarantee against reinfection...but yes, does provide a higher degree of certainty

although at that price figure people aren't going to be queueing around the block to buy

"Due to the high demand of orders, this service is currently not available. "

but yes, does provide a higher degree of certainty

The degree of certainty is much higher for a negative test than a positive test if you play with the maths.

Let's assume 5% of the population actually have the antibodies.
Now assume the test has a 95% sensitivity (i.e. for every 100 who it should report as positive it misses 5%) and a 95% specificity (i.e. for every 100 who it should report as negative it falsely reports 5% as positive).

The number of negative tests will be a combination of:-
a) the number of people who don't have it (95% of the population) who get an accurate test results (95%). 0.95 * 0.95 = 90.25%
b) the number of poeple who do have it (5% of the population) who get an inaccurate test result (5%). 0.05 * 0.05 = 0.25%

So a negative test result will be correct 90.25/90.5 = 99.7% of the time (to 1dp).

Where as a positive test will be combination of:-
a) the number of people that do have it (5% of population) who get an accurate test result (95%). 0.05 * 0.95 = 0.0475%
b) the number of poeple that don't have it (95% of population) who get an inaccurate test result (5%). 0.95 * 0.05 = 0.0475%

(See what that does to the figures...)

So a positive test result will be correct 0.0475/0.095 = 50% of the time.

I'd be wary of any test results that didn't provide the sensitivity and specificity values.

(Looks like it's 97.5% specificity for the Superdrug test: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/21/superdrug-coronavirus-antibody-test/ although they claim it is 99.6% if done by a medical professional)

So if the numbers are 2.5% amongst the population and the test is 97.5% sensitivity and specificity then you get the same 50:50 confidence in a positive result.

"Due to the high demand of orders, this service is currently not available. "

I would take any quote like that with a pinch of salt, they may have just wanted to test the waters with small order and then look to roll out with larger numbers when demand is proven.

Yeah I was going to say I'd expect big demand.

I did an antibody test yesterday, I ordered it from Medichecks and it was the same price as Superdrug. Considering people were paying over £300 for antibody tests early on I actually thought £69 was OK.

I've since had a lot of people ask me for the link. Medichecks launched their service last Friday, so Superdrug's didn't exist when I ordered mine, but the info Medichecks give on their test (particularly on evaluation and accuracy) is a lot better than Superdrug's.

I doubt there will ever be a 100% accurate test. I'd recommend doing your research and understanding what it can and can't tell you before ordering one.

https://www.covid-19.medichecks.com/product-page/covid-19-antibody-test

Given the complete failure of the government to provide any antibody testing, and the fact I've had this link sent to me three times already today, I very much doubt it.

I'd gladly pay that money if this was a test with a result that was considered reliable enough to be officially/legally recognised.
Let's say there was a test which could prove immunity and then your travel insurer would be happy for you to go about willy nilly and benefit from the lull in tourism everywhere.

who produces this "test"?

#followthemoney

Is it Theresa May’s pharma farmer husband?

Yeah ... I could write for the Guardian.

The Superdrug one is made by Abbot, a US pharma company. Just received PHE approval earlier this week.

It has a 100% sensitivity and 97.5% specificity.
I bought one yesterday morning and it should arrive tomorrow.
Take blood, send it back and get results in 48hours.

It will be good to know either way.

fair do's, i'd get a couple myself if there was a chance.

as yer man fox says, it really is a sad indictment of our current administration that only the financially secure can afford this - disaster capitalism at its worst, and not too much of a stretch to presume this is entirely be design.

dark.