News Forum - First local Omicron case, officials consider cancelling quarantine exemption Test & Go

[Stonker]

11 hours ago, MrNovax said:

Have you watched the full video?  This is one question from a long segment and is completely in context

'Yes', but evidently although opinions vary the whole point is moot as it's ignoring thirty years of development that he wasn't involved in or privy to.

11 hours ago, MrNovax said:

Yes, there are videos of people following the procedures perfectly and finding false positives on inanimate objects.   

If they were testing "inanimate objects" they weren't "following  procedures perfectly".

It really doesn't get much more obvious than that.

11 hours ago, MrNovax said:

This story and whole conversation started with a person coming into the country and testing negative multiple times, therefore was allowed to proceed only to find out the tests (plural) gave a false negative according the the official story.      

He had three negative results. The first was a PCR test. Not all PCR tests are able to test for Omicron, as has been widely reported, and neither of us know which PCR test was used. Even if the correct test was used, if he was tested in the early stages after infection his viral load would have been too low to register which is why many countries still have quarantine and a second PCR test after three to five days.

He had two ATK tests, which are unlikely to give a correct result for Omicron - as, again, has been widely reported.

11 hours ago, MrNovax said:

Elon Musk tweeted earlier in the year taking 4 tests administered by doctors (and id speculate some of the best in the world) and getting two positives and two negatives in the same day.     

I have no idea what Elon Musk tweeted (I'll look it up later), but I wouldn't believe a tweet from him if he said water was wet.

 

11 hours ago, MrNovax said:

In light of all of this you keep repeating the same talking point from the "fact checkers" that we are supposed to look past all of the evidence and without providing anything that would amount to a shred of credibility for using this as a diagnostic tool.    

No, I've told you some facts which you don't like about Mullis, particularly that he wasn't involved in developing PCR testing for the last thirty years so is in no position to be taken as a current authority, and held some rather bizarre views about HIV / AIDS,  explained that you have to follow the manufacturers' instructions when using any piece of testing equipment which you insist were followed but then describe being completely ignored, quoted directly from the links you yourself gave which contradict what you claimed they said, and explained in detail, twice, why it's perfectly understandable that the pilot had three negative tests while being positive.

[Stonker]

12 hours ago, MrNovax said:

Elon Musk tweeted earlier in the year taking 4 tests administered by doctors (and id speculate some of the best in the world) and getting two positives and two negatives in the same day.     

I wasted twenty seconds I won't be getting back to check this and 'no', that wasn't what he tweeted.

He tweeted that he'd taken four Becton, Dickinson and Co.’s rapid antigen tests in a row, and that two had been positive and two negative so he thought the tests were "bogus".

If his symptoms were mild he would have been borderline, and those particular tests would have been no more than between 50 and 60 % accurate at best.

https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1676

One twitter user subsequently asked him what his symptoms were as the manufacturers only claim accuracy over 90% when diagnosed as symptomatic for Covid by a doctor and he replied that his symptoms were of a "slight cold", so asymptomatic, and the tests were all administered by the same nurse.

Had he had the tests administered by a doctor, as you claimed and underlined, they could have told him that the test wasn't going to be accurate as he wasn't symptomatic.

But he didn't.

The twenty seconds weren't entirely wasted, though, as they simply confirm that if you don't follow the instructions, or you don't read the detail, you get it wrong.

 

[LoongFred]

3 hours ago, Stonker said:

I wasted twenty seconds I won't be getting back to check this and 'no', that wasn't what he tweeted.

He tweeted that he'd taken four Becton, Dickinson and Co.’s rapid antigen tests in a row, and that two had been positive and two negative so he thought the tests were "bogus".

If his symptoms were mild he would have been borderline, and those particular tests would have been no more than between 50 and 60 % accurate at best.

https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1676

One twitter user subsequently asked him what his symptoms were as the manufacturers only claim accuracy over 90% when diagnosed as symptomatic for Covid by a doctor and he replied that his symptoms were of a "slight cold", so asymptomatic, and the tests were all administered by the same nurse.

Had he had the tests administered by a doctor, as you claimed and underlined, they could have told him that the test wasn't going to be accurate as he wasn't symptomatic.

But he didn't.

The twenty seconds weren't entirely wasted, though, as they simply confirm that if you don't follow the instructions, or you don't read the detail, you get it wrong.

Rapid tests are generally for screening and should be biased to give some false positive results. A rapid test should be backed up with a more specific test. The purpose of rapid tests is to provide quick results for negative patients.

That said there are sources of error, must commonly in sample collection or how sample was handled. This doesn't mean the tests were bad, but indicates they strattled the cut off.

 

[Stonker]

The latest research just out from Imperial College London on Omicron isn't quite as good as some had hoped / thought.

"The estimates suggest that Omicron cases have, on average, a 15-20% reduced risk of any hospitalisation and an approximately 40-45% reduced risk of a hospitalisation resulting in a stay of one or more nights.".

With up to five times the number infected at a time, a reduction of even 45% in the chances of being admitted still means at least double the numbers hospitalised based on that.