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

Have I misunderstood something? You know more than me but I figured that if you test a bunch of people who are all in contact then you'll get a better idea of what's going on looking at a group of people that have been tested rather than one. Although I think 1 positive test will shut down a year anyway.

SiL helped out with the testing at a local secondary school in SW London.

~1000 pupils, no positives over the two weeks.

Given that the total positive rate in schools is 0.05% (2,588/4.6M), the false positive must be even lower than that Tom Chivers

OK. So the thing I meant about false positives/false negatives is that it's more risky to have false negatives as they obviously will be wandering around shedding virus everywhere. That was my point on that.

I don't think @snottyotter you've missed anything.

We're going to look at positivity rates in the local area in school lfd tests. It's comparing two different testing methods and different test populations. And knowing what's going on is important.
(bland obvious statement right?)

Is it one test in a year = year closed? And then multiple +ve tests = school closed?

The low numbers in London kids probably indicate the low numbers in London overall, I'm guessing.

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4848
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n287

"But a “green light” negative result should not be taken as a sign that all is well, he says, and particularly not to do anything you would not have done otherwise"
Jon Deeks, who leads the Biostatistics, Evidence Synthesis and Test Evaluation Research Group at the University of Birmingham’s Institute of Applied Health Research

There's a whole load of stuff to get into here:
https://www.bmj.com/search/advanced/lateral%20flow

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n706

OK. So the thing I meant about false positives/false negatives is that it's more risky to have false negatives as they obviously will be wandering around shedding virus everywhere. That was my point on that.

Cool, I figured the good thing about essentially batch testing people is that false negatives wouldn't be as bad either as I'd assume that if someone had managed to already infect a couple of classmates then the likelihood of false negatives is negated a bit by testing more possibly infected people.

This is where I scratch my head, look at my updating power BI, wonder why it's taking so long.

The false negatives (or undeclared positive results - which could happen I suppose) and also the not great performance in Liverpool (https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4848) are something I (personal) am concerned about. Not in a "oooh, I know so much more", as tbh, I don't. I've not looked at this too much in the last week or more.

If the accuracy and the detection rate is low, it's not just kids at school that'll be affected. If the idea of using schoolkids as the canaries, then having low detection rates/accuracy when the circulating population of the virus is low sounds like it might be a problem. Because you'd want to do something when it's low and not when everything is hotting up.

I think that's how it works. I am tired though.

Are we concluding that schools being back hasn’t caused any additional spread? Or that it’s too early to tell? Or that there’s not enough virus around for them to spread?

I think it is too early to tell but I'm expecting spread to increase, but that might not be a problem. Hospitalisation rates going back up would be a problem.

No chance. He’s too short.

Is the rate of positives amongst school kids very low because parents are unwilling to report a positive result and look after their own kids for two weeks?

You would be in the same camp as someone in one of the links I posted.

It depends where we are talking about?
London? Rates are lower.

The first 3 tests were done in school, we only started testing at home last night.

positive result and look after their own kids for two weeks?

The trouble with a positive is less about looking after the kids and more having to isolate the whole household.

I was feeling worn out all weekend, wife wasn’t great yesterday and has a temp today. She is working from home but can’t get time off so I have booked a test for me for tomorrow.

Good luck mate. I had general fatigue and a temp - negative test and currently feeling completely normal.

Yeh we started home testing yesterday as well, can see lots of people binning off the home testing quickly

I know Monday's numbers are generally lower due to the reporting delays over the weekend but the death numbers are really falling.

17 today (which will climb a bit obviously, but still, that's the lowest that's been reported on a day for a long long time).

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/22/health/covid-psychosis.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Rare occurrence of psychotic symptoms several weeks after a covid infection.

Are there other well-known pathogens that cause such a diverse clinical presentation, or is covid-19 unique in that regard? Damn virus just has malady after malady associated with it.

COVID-19 is unique is that it’s the first global pandemic in a long time that affecting a staggering number of countries, moreso in an era of social media and people movement.

Point being; there’s nothing to compare this.

COVID-19

I meant to write sars-cov-2, but the points are related.

Scientists and the military have been studying viruses for a long time now, and even nasty bugs like smallpox, dengue and HIV don’t seem to cause the plethora of signs and symptoms associated with sars-cov-2 infection. Is your point that other similarly bad bugs haven’t had the same opportunity to show their capabilities? Or is it that we haven’t come across another virus as varied and unpredictable in its effects as sars-cov-2? It’s the second question I’m looking for an answer to.

(I know that ‘bad’ and ‘bug’ aren’t formal terms.)

Reuters on a WHO report:

The findings were largely as expected and left many questions unanswered, and the team proposed further research in every area except the lab leak hypothesis,

https://www.reuters.com/article/reutersComService_2_MOLT/idUSKBN2BL0J8

Fodder for the tin foil hat crew, or co-option of an intl institution?

co-option of an intl institution?

How independent is the WHO in the first place?

Fodder for the tin foil hat crew, or co-option of an intl institution?

I think that is just lazy copy on the part of Reuters. The full AP article says this

The findings were largely as expected and left many questions unanswered, but the report provided in-depth detail on the reasoning behind the team’s conclusions.

...which kind of makes me think that the report gives good reasons why there was no need for furether research into the lab leak theory.

https://apnews.com/article/animals-coronavirus-pandemic-bats-united-nations-china-8a839c179c330c56fa46a763b7286a7f?utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_medium=AP

co-option of an intl institution?

How independent is the WHO in the first place?

Not enough to detect and warn against a deadly pandemic, sadly.

The findings were largely as expected and left many questions unanswered, but the report provided in-depth detail on the reasoning behind the team’s conclusions.

...which kind of makes me think that the report gives good reasons why there was no need for furether research into the lab leak theory.

Oh I don’t think the researchers didn’t do a good and thorough job. If they’ve discounted the theory, there’s likely legitimate reason for it.