Is it the case that local lockdowns are being introduced on the basis of a very small number of positive tests and when people are asymptomatic or only suffering mild symptoms. In the early days of the scamdemic the BBC would give figures as how many tested negative and positive which the BBC no longer does. Could this be because the number of negative tests outnumber the number of positive tests which doesn't fit in with the fear porn narrative the MSM is pushing. Is it possible the government and MSM are lying about the number of positive tests to justify lockdowns.
Is it the case that local lockdowns are being introduced on the basis of a very small number of positive tests and when people are asymptomatic or only suffering mild symptoms. In the early days of the scamdemic the BBC would give figures as how many tested negative and positive which the BBC no longer does. Could this be because the number of negative tests outnumber the number of positive tests which doesn't fit in with the fear porn narrative the MSM is pushing. Is it possible the government and MSM are lying about the number of positive tests to justify lockdowns.
It certainly looks like it.
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-cases-in-england-arent-rising-heres-why/
is a good analysis of the situation. Pillar 2 positive ratio isn't growing. Are the government really so stupid that they think it makes any kind of sense to only look at absolute number of positive tests? Surely not. More likely it's all just spin and the "local lockdowns" are just a way of pretending they're doing something to control the virus (which looks like it has dropped to endemic levels or close to there because of herd immunity, albeit with a perhaps lowered threshold, but they refuse to admit this).
It also looks like most of the Pillar 2 results are probably false positives. The ONS data appears to be much better and their test more specific (or why are they finding 10x lower prevalence?) I trust the ONS a lot more than Pillar 2 to know what they're doing. They're actually a very good source of data and they explain it and how to interpret it very well.
The test is not for CoViD19 but for the SARS-COV-2 virus. CoViD19 is the disease caused by the virus. Therefore positive tests without symptoms should not be counted as CoViD19 cases as there’s no evidence of disease. The RT-PCR test was never meant to be used as a diagnostic tool, it may detect parts of the RNA of the virus but it cannot say how much is present.
If I was tested for Strep A bacteria I would probably test positive, but I don’t have symptoms therefore I’m not infected, just colonised.
If I was tested for Herpes Zoster I would definitely show positive as I have had chicken pox, but I am neither infected or infectious.
Yes this is a fair point. But if the goal is to eradicate a virus, it's the virus you're interested in. And even though it's unlikely asymptomatic infected people will spread it much, if you're trying to eradicate it you have to catch everything.
Of course it's completely and utterly ridiculous to try to eradicate SARS2, and even if you were, there's no way you would do it just with PCR testing (as it's only about 70% sensitive for one thing). Some governments however think (or more likely pretend) this is what they're trying to do.
If you're just trying to suppress a virus with contact tracing-- to lower the herd immunity threshold-- I don't think there's much point doing any testing. You might as well concentrate on the symptomatic, which just means advising people not to go out if they're ill. This way you also save quite a few tens of million quid and a lot of fuss.
My estimate is that the contact tracing program in the UK is finding about half the contacts of about 1.3% of the people infected. The amount of difference this is having on the transmission of an (anyway endemic) virus is approximately the square root of bugger all.
The ONS, who appear to have a more specific test and also to know what they're doing, estimate the prevalence to be around 0.05%, which works out to about 30,000 infected with 3000 new infections (and about 3000 recoveries) per day. It's been constant at around this level for months.
The Pillar 2 tests however find about 10x the rate of positives. There will be some selection bias (people getting tested because they're ill), but the most likely reason for this, as suggested uptrhread, is that their test is 99.5% specific-- i.e. has a 0.5% false positive rate.
If the test has 70% sensitivity and 99.5% specificity, and the prevalence is 0.05%, then the chances of really having SARS2 if you test positive are 6.55% (you can work this out with Bayes Formula).
They're finding about 600 positives a day in Pillar 2. 6.55% of that is about 40. So of those 600, 40 are true positives. So they have found 40 out of the actual number of infections (which is about 3000) so that's 1.3%. This is going to have an absolutely minimal impact on transmission.
Yes this is a fair point. But if the goal is to eradicate a virus, it's the virus you're interested in. And even though it's unlikely asymptomatic infected people will spread it much, if you're trying to eradicate it you have to catch everything.
Of course it's completely and utterly ridiculous to try to eradicate SARS2, and even if you were, there's no way you would do it just with PCR testing (as it's only about 70% sensitive for one thing). Some governments however think (or more likely pretend) this is what they're trying to do.
If you're just trying to suppress a virus with contact tracing-- to lower the herd immunity threshold-- I don't think there's much point doing any testing. You might as well concentrate on the symptomatic, which just means advising people not to go out if they're ill. This way you also save quite a few tens of million quid and a lot of fuss.
My estimate is that the contact tracing program in the UK is finding about half the contacts of about 1.3% of the people infected. The amount of difference this is having on the transmission of an (anyway endemic) virus is approximately the square root of bugger all.
The ONS, who appear to have a more specific test and also to know what they're doing, estimate the prevalence to be around 0.05%, which works out to about 30,000 infected with 3000 new infections (and about 3000 recoveries) per day. It's been constant at around this level for months.
The Pillar 2 tests however find about 10x the rate of positives. There will be some selection bias (people getting tested because they're ill), but the most likely reason for this, as suggested uptrhread, is that their test is 99.5% specific-- i.e. has a 0.5% false positive rate.
If the test has 70% sensitivity and 99.5% specificity, and the prevalence is 0.05%, then the chances of really having SARS2 if you test positive are 6.55% (you can work this out with Bayes Formula).
They're finding about 600 positives a day in Pillar 2. 6.55% of that is about 40. So of those 600, 40 are true positives. So they have found 40 out of the actual number of infections (which is about 3000) so that's 1.3%. This is going to have an absolutely minimal impact on transmission.
Is it the case in some parts of the country people have been invited for coronavirus tests even if they don't show symptoms. If this is true, this raises the question if we are are in the middle of a deadly pandemic why do the authorities have to look for people with the disease?
