[Devongone]

Whilst all the discussion concerning Covid and its spread is interesting, it is important to note that the figures with which we are bombarded each day are scientifically contentious and may not mean what we think they mean, or have the weight attached to them that the media is keen to lay upon them. The swab test for Covid is thought to present at least 0.8% False Positives. That seems insignificant, but figures we see quoted daily to represent the spread of cases are quoted per 100,000. I'm no mathematician but I can do 0.8% of 100,000 ......... So the following is from a government website published in June -

What is the UK operational false positive rate?

The UK operational false positive rate is unknown. There are no published studies on the operational false positive rate of any national COVID-19 testing programme.
An attempt has been made to estimate the likely false-positive rate of national COVID-19 testing programmes by examining data from published external quality assessments (EQAs) for RT-PCR assays for other RNA viruses carried out between 2004-2019 [7]. Results of 43 EQAs were examined, giving a median false positive rate of 2.3% (interquartile range 0.8-4.0%).

Why are false positives a problem?

DHSC figures show that 100,664 tests were carried out on 31 May 2020. 1,570 of those tests were positive for SARS-CoV-2 (1.6%). The majority of people tested on that day did not have SARS-CoV-2 (98.4% of tests are negative). When only a small proportion of people being tested have the virus, the operational false positive rate becomes very important. Clearly the false positive rate cannot exceed 1.6% on that day, and is likely to be much lower. If the operational false positive rate was 0.4%, 400 of the 1,570 positive tests would be false positives. That would represent 400 people being isolated when they are well, and much wasted effort in contact tracing. It is possible that a proportion of infections that we currently view as asymptomatic may in fact be due to these false positives. Unless we understand the operational false positive rate of the UK’s RT-PCR testing system we risk overestimating the COVID-19 incidence, the demand on track and trace, and the extent of asymptomatic infection.

Back to me - all kinds of bits of old virus apparently give a false positive. If the data is inaccurate the conclusions are going to be dubious. Maybe that's why the best we come up with is the Eyam approach to the Plague.

For all the science, tests don't differentiate between infected and infectious. So TheoLuddite on here may be right to talk about superspreaders, because evidence we do have is that whilst some infected people come into contact with not that many people but they pass the virus on to almost all of them, whilst others have had wide contacts without infecting anyone .......

The average age of Covid deaths is 82 ish and the average life expectancy anyway is 81. In case you are wondering I am 68, with enough of a heart problem to be at risk of dying. I wouldn't mind isolating for however long it takes IF younger people could live their lives and find a little joy, instead of hiding in the shires like a set of hobbits.

The virus is still going to exist however long we are locked down. Tell Australians about how well fire breaks work when the wind blows. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be sensible.

[hibeejim21]

The false positive issue is a total red herring and is being seized upon by certain people in the press who frankly we really shouldn't be giving oxygen to.

If false positives were behind the spike in numbers, it would be uniform across the UK and it clearly isn’t. Hospital admissions are at their highest level since the summer, you dont go to hospital with a severe case of false positives.

Positive test rates are going up as a percentage of total tests, no doubt about it. But this can’t be because of an increase in false positives as the rate of false positives remains constant unless the actual method of testing changes, which it hasn’t.

[theo_luddite]

You are highly unlikely to be in an ICU for very long, if at all due to a false +ve for anything. Highly likely you wouldn't get passed A&E. Then again, not many did before we got an attack of the Covids even with a real +ve. Far too many died on a stretcher in a corridor or in the ambulance in the car park. Now they die at home too scared to call the ambulance.

---

Yup. I've worked in a sector of the Chemical industry most of my working life. If you wanted to sell more than 1000 kg of a substance or novel mixture you registered it through the HSE with REACH. Now you have to register it with REACH UK, probably still HSE, AND EU REACH if you want to sell into EU countries plus a few others. 2x paperwork, likely 2x cost and probably 2x delay. What happens if one accepts and the other doesn't, other than you can't move the stuff from one place to the other?

[St Charles Owl]

The false positive issue is a total red herring and is being seized upon by certain people in the press who frankly we really shouldn't be giving oxygen to.

If false positives were behind the spike in numbers, it would be uniform across the UK and it clearly isn’t. Hospital admissions are at their highest level since the summer, you dont go to hospital with a severe case of false positives.

Positive test rates are going up as a percentage of total tests, no doubt about it. But this can’t be because of an increase in false positives as the rate of false positives remains constant unless the actual method of testing changes, which it hasn’t.

100% agree with this. I read an article the other day where the CDC said the same and stated that the number of hospitalizations is now the key indicator in fighting this, not the number of cases. Testing is important in identifying those who have it in the hope it might make them quarantine and at least prevent further spread, and on that basis I will take a few false positives rather than false negatives!!

[hibeejim21]

Greater Manchester predictably thrown to the wolves by these tory bastards.

Money is no object for their pals at Serco and Deloitte, but the plebs up north get thrown a few crumbs and told to suck it up.

[ritchiebaby]

I'm inclined to agree, jim, but, for me, this is the opening gambit in Andy Burnham's Labour leadership bid. There should be no bargaining regarding planned restrictions anywhere in the UK, but I'm afraid the pandemic and the resultant presure on the NHS is becoming a bit of a sideshow to the financial side and political muscle.

Boris has lost all semblance of control and therefore any minimal respect he had left.

[St Charles Owl]

I'm inclined to agree, jim, but, for me, this is the opening gambit in Andy Burnham's Labour leadership bid. There should be no bargaining regarding planned restrictions anywhere in the UK, but I'm afraid the pandemic and the resultant presure on the NHS is becoming a bit of a sideshow to the financial side and political muscle.

Boris has lost all semblance of control and therefore any minimal respect he had left.

Agree with this. The government offered 60m to Manchester, Burnham wants 65m, all the while the citizens of Manchester are the ones who suffer because politicians are trying to score points off each other!!

Like everyone else I am tired of dealing with Covid, you guys should try dealing with a pandemic during an election, but we cannot shut down whole economies again and again, the damage that will do is unmeasurable. This tiered approach is the same sort as the one that is showing positive results here in California when compared to the rest of the US states. The way it is calculated has to be clear and succinct and there should be no exceptions given. If you want to move the needle in the right direction then the whole of society has to take part and follow the basic rules, if not then none of it will work.

[hibeejim21]

I'm inclined to agree, jim, but, for me, this is the opening gambit in Andy Burnham's Labour leadership bid. There should be no bargaining regarding planned restrictions anywhere in the UK, but I'm afraid the pandemic and the resultant presure on the NHS is becoming a bit of a sideshow to the financial side and political muscle.

Boris has lost all semblance of control and therefore any minimal respect he had left.

Naah. That ship has left the port, you need to be a MP or a peer to be labour leader. Not an earthly Starmer is going to allow him near a leadership challenge now. Thing is if he'd argued as passionately when he last stood he would have beaten Corbyn.

The crux of the issue is simple I think. If you want people to get behind those kind of restrictions you have to put up the money or they wont work. The tories are going to have to up the ante or they could lose a lot of the northern seats they won.

Your right though the Boris/Cummings administration has lost all authority and instead of sitting down and trying to make a plan to fund all areas hit by the lockdown in a fair and sensible manner..... they have doubled down on the stupidity and tried to strong arm Burnham.

Burnham is standing up for the poorest and weakest in his community, I'd actually forgotten what it looks like to see a labour politician do that.

[0762]

Plus Greater Manchester has a larger and varied business community as well as having endured more stringent COVID for a lot longer than some of the other outlying regions/cities/towns that have a similar govt financial commitment per capita.

[ritchiebaby]

I'm afraid Burnham is not standing up for the poorest and weakest, they are the ones who will be hit hardest in any increases in Covid cases, hospitalisations and deaths, which could easily happen with all the delay in putting Tier 3 into operation. He's intent on standing up to Boris in a political battle.

Perhaps Keir Starmer is giving Burnham the bullets and getting Burnham to fire them - good cop/bad cop, or am I just being cynical? Perhaps Boris wanted a fight in order to blame Burnham for any of the above increases? Whatever the reason, it's all extremely unsavoury.

Don't forget Boris was an MP, then London Mayor and managed to get elected as an MP again and eventually PM. Burnham was an MP, now Manchester Mayor and then?.... you just never know.

Having said that, it's good to see that Labour still have fire in their bellies.