Covid 19 testing

Ianric
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2020 11:46 pm

Re: Covid 19 testing

Post by Ianric »

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.

guy153
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2020 5:29 pm

Re: Covid 19 testing

Post by guy153 »

Ianric wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 8:57 pm 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-cas ... 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.

p02099003
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2020 10:04 am

Re: Covid 19 testing

Post by p02099003 »

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.

guy153
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2020 5:29 pm

Re: Covid 19 testing

Post by guy153 »

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.

Ianric
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2020 11:46 pm

Re: Covid 19 testing

Post by Ianric »

guy153 wrote: Sat Aug 08, 2020 9:18 am 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?

guy153
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2020 5:29 pm

Re: Covid 19 testing

Post by guy153 »

The official narrative is that if we weren't testing everyone all the time (and wearing masks and all the other crap) then we would be in the middle of a pandemic with hundreds of thousands of deaths.

This is pretty obviously nonsense.

TomK
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2020 12:34 am

Re: Covid 19 testing

Post by TomK »

Positive results are indicative of active infection with 2019-nCoV but do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease.
It sounds on first reading like they're saying bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses might cause the positive test. But they aren't, and it won't-- it's just that if you have a SARS2 infection you might also have some other infection, and it might be the other one that's making you ill.
.....well, I find the CDC statement to be quite ambiguous, and possibly made intentionally so for legalistic reasons. The use of the term "indicative" implies possibility of infection by SARS2, but that's not an absolute, as the test itself is fraught with imperfections and is not binary. The statement is not clear whether the test is actually detecting the virus or merely the results of prior infection which could also have been caused by "bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses".

"The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease."
What agent is this referring to, SARS2, the bacterial infection or some other possible viruses? Once again vague. If the positive test results could be the result of a compounding with bacteria and/or other viruses, then this needs to be clarified.

The fact that governments and the MSM are erroneously reporting dubious test results as if they are definite positive infections is a great concern.

Here are two audio interviews conducted by David Crowe with Professor Stephen Bustin on the pitfalls of the RT-PCT test - they are rather technical:

https://infectiousmyth.podbean.com/e/th ... th-rt-pcr/
https://infectiousmyth.podbean.com/e/th ... ng-rt-pcr/

AFAIK, there is still no evidence of any virus, as it has it not been put through an isolating purification process and undergoing the usual Golden Standard of rigorous scientific evaluation/validation.

I can recommend reading Dr. Stefan Lanka's article (translated from German) on COVID-19:
https://truthseeker.se/wp-content/uploa ... tbChe4BNpU

Ianric
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2020 11:46 pm

Re: Covid 19 testing

Post by Ianric »

TomK wrote: Sun Aug 09, 2020 12:36 am
Positive results are indicative of active infection with 2019-nCoV but do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease.
It sounds on first reading like they're saying bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses might cause the positive test. But they aren't, and it won't-- it's just that if you have a SARS2 infection you might also have some other infection, and it might be the other one that's making you ill.
.....well, I find the CDC statement to be quite ambiguous, and possibly made intentionally so for legalistic reasons. The use of the term "indicative" implies possibility of infection by SARS2, but that's not an absolute, as the test itself is fraught with imperfections and is not binary. The statement is not clear whether the test is actually detecting the virus or merely the results of prior infection which could also have been caused by "bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses".

"The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease."
What agent is this referring to, SARS2, the bacterial infection or some other possible viruses? Once again vague. If the positive test results could be the result of a compounding with bacteria and/or other viruses, then this needs to be clarified.

The fact that governments and the MSM are erroneously reporting dubious test results as if they are definite positive infections is a great concern.

Here are two audio interviews conducted by David Crowe with Professor Stephen Bustin on the pitfalls of the RT-PCT test - they are rather technical:

https://infectiousmyth.podbean.com/e/th ... th-rt-pcr/
https://infectiousmyth.podbean.com/e/th ... ng-rt-pcr/

AFAIK, there is still no evidence of any virus, as it has it not been put through an isolating purification process and undergoing the usual Golden Standard of rigorous scientific evaluation/validation.

I can recommend reading Dr. Stefan Lanka's article (translated from German) on COVID-19:
https://truthseeker.se/wp-content/uploa ... tbChe4BNpU

If coronavirus is such a dangerous disease which produces severe symptoms why is it necessary to rely on tests where it is uncertain how reliable the test is to find coronavirus cases.

guy153
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2020 5:29 pm

Re: Covid 19 testing

Post by guy153 »

TomK wrote: Sun Aug 09, 2020 12:36 am AFAIK, there is still no evidence of any virus, as it has it not been put through an isolating purification process and undergoing the usual Golden Standard of rigorous scientific evaluation/validation.

I can recommend reading Dr. Stefan Lanka's article (translated from German) on COVID-19:
https://truthseeker.se/wp-content/uploa ... tbChe4BNpU
Although some of this skepticism was justified earlier on I think it's now extremely unlikely that there is no such thing as SARS-CoV-2 or that it doesn't cause COVID-19 (well, it causes COVID-19 by definition, but I don't think there is any doubt that COVID-19 is a disease with symptoms ranging from nothing through a mild cold to a viral pneumonia with some blood clotting issues thrown in).

Here is a nice album of electron microscope picture of the actual coronavirus particles, which have been isolated and cultured in human cells:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/niaid/496 ... 2914621487

As for the Koch postulates, mice and monkeys have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 as a part of early vaccine trials and they developed fever, pneumonia, etc.

Of course when looking at an individual patient a doctor always has to keep an open mind-- there may be superinfections, other reasons for the symptoms, etc.-- but this is nearly always the case with any disease.

guy153
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2020 5:29 pm

Re: Covid 19 testing

Post by guy153 »

OK thought I'd just add a quick update on test result interpretation.

According to the latest ONS data, about 10% people who have Covid symptoms (cough, fever, etc.) are actually positive for SARS2. Incidentally this is a good indication of the extent of herd immunity to Covid-- if the only reason more people aren't getting it is lockdowns/masks/restrictions, how are people catching 9x as many different viruses?

In the general population, symptomatic or not, about 0.05% are testing positive for Covid.

A reasonable assumption of the accuracy of Pillar 2 tests is that they are 99.5% specific and 70% sensitive. It would be much easier to estimate if they told us what ratio of positives are asymptomatic but I can't find this information anywhere.

So under these assumptions, the probability of having a real SARS2 infection if you test positive in Pillar 2 is only 6.55%, and 0.02% if you test negative.

Given that Pillar 2 is finding about 600 positives out of an estimated 3000 new infections per day, I would estimate that they are finding about 1.3% of the actual infections in the country.

But if you have symptoms the prior probability of having a real SARS2 infection goes up from 0.05% to 10%. Therefore the probability of having SARS2 if you test positive with the same test, and also have symptoms, is 94% (and 3.24% even if you test negative).

In fact if the prevalence is about half that 0.05%, and the sensitivity 60% (which they easily might be) you'd be more likely to have SARS2 if you had symptoms but tested negative than if you didn't have symptoms but tested positive!

As it is, already if you have symptoms and don't even have a test, you have about a 10% chance of being infected with SARS2, higher than the 6.55% chance of having it if you tested positive but had no symptoms. In other words, presence of symptoms is already a better test on its own for SARS2 than the actual test.

If you don't have symptoms don't worry, you probably don't have Covid (even if you test positive) and aren't very infectious either. If you do, never mind that it's a 90% chance it's some other cold, get plenty of rest and try not to infect anyone. If your condition worsens, the doctor can do a PCR test and confirm (with 94% accuracy or better, as she probably has a better test, but that doesn't matter, the 99.5% specific test will be fine) whether it's likely Covid to decide on treatment.

Post Reply