Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

HELP THE NHS ~ I've let my adjoining empty house (fully furnished) to four NHS nurses free of charge during this National Emergency. We have a very large General Hospital at the top of the r

Very very Harsh Geko. I see a man, in an unenviable position, doing his utmost to balance the impossible tasks of trying to control the spread of a new novel virus - for which there is no treatme

By the book...

Posted Images

4 minutes ago, iain said:

Crawfie.

False negatives are a problem, keep abreast of your symptoms and do as necessary. Even in  hospital with clinically confirmed patients, sometimes they come back negative. Hence the exaggerated benefits being promoted by the press and the unfair haranguing of the government and their apparent slowness to test........the test we have now are way better than those at the beginning, mystic meg was probably more accurate!

Iain

Thanks 

Iain... will do !

Link to post
Share on other sites

John 

I didn’t realise how positive you are,  I not sure who is right,

I read this:-

The Department of Health and Social Care and Public Healt England both deny the failure rate is this high.

A spokesman for the Department of Health and Social care spokesperson said: “It is completely false to suggest PHE’s tests missed a quarter of positive cases.”

“Our tests are extremely accurate and have been through rigorous quality control. They are as accurate as those provided through commercial partners.”

Prof Sharon Peacock, PHE infection director, said: “No diagnostic test is 100% sensitive.

“Following a rigorous evaluation we learned the PCR test produced different results to alternative tests in less than 2% of samples and we issued immediate actions to laboratory staff to ensure the continued reliability of the test.

It is inaccurate to claim that the PHE diagnostic test provides false negative results 25% of the time.

It is standard practice to move to commercial test kits once available, and this work is already underway.”

Me again
Crawfie

just be sensible keep your distance from everyone if the symptoms persist get a second test. 

Keep safe

Link to post
Share on other sites

Crawfie, better a false negative than false positive that might lead you think youre immune enough to feed the hoarses. Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding, based on conversation with someone familiar with the lab processes, is that the analysis of the test samples is extremely accurate. However the self-administered swab to get the sample is done incorrectly by many people. The nasal swab needs to be taken from so far up the nose that it is painful, so it is extremely difficult for anyone to do themselves. I believe there are also issues with how carefully the swab is handled after taking the sample.

Pete

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, stillp said:

My understanding, based on conversation with someone familiar with the lab processes, is that the analysis of the test samples is extremely accurate. However the self-administered swab to get the sample is done incorrectly by many people. The nasal swab needs to be taken from so far up the nose that it is painful, so it is extremely difficult for anyone to do themselves. I believe there are also issues with how carefully the swab is handled after taking the sample.

Pete

That's interesting...my nasal swab was taken b my nostrils. It was not put right up my hooter !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Folks,

I had a bugle swab done last Wednesday and the nurse said she had to push it up until she could feel the ridge at the very top.

And yes there was serious discomfort and a little pain - and watery eyes.

 

Roger

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, iain said:

A whiff of Cow perfume is around! 

What are you saying Iain, are you suggesting I“m Possibly full of S#!t. :angry:

I only quoted what I read.
:wacko:
 

Still Crawfie good advice is to keep your distance from everyone and if necessary get another test if the symptoms persist, don’t go out. 
Derek

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if PHE is quoting the accuracy of the lab analysis and the New Scientist the results of the whole process? It seems likely that ~25 - 30% of people won't push the swab far enough up their nose or down their throat, or will mis-handle the swab before putting it in the tube.

Pete

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rod1883 said:

It does seem odd that the swab has to go so far, when all the advice about infection risk suggests that it is in droplets being breathed in and out.

The nose lining is quite robust at the entry and more soft mucosal at the back. Designed to trap foreign bodies with hairs etc at the entry  and kill more foreign bodies as soon a possible with its own mucosal lining.The chances of finding live virus particles are therefore greatly enhanced by going for the nice warm moist deep cavity.

Iain

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Peter.....I don’t think you need to ask the question.

Martineau was so much more credible. The other chap was playing the emotion card, and  then trying to use the circumstantial data which as I have said for weeks shows coincidence for sure ......and as Martineau stated not necessarily causality.

Sorry 2 - O to my old Uni!  In my humble opinion:-)
Iain
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, iain said:

Hi Peter.....I don’t think you need to ask the question.

Martineau was so much more credible. The other chap was playing the emotion card, and  then trying to use the circumstantial data which as I have said for weeks shows coincidence for sure ......and as Martineau stated not necessarily causality.

Sorry 2 - O to my old Uni!  In my humble opinion:-)
Iain
 

Martineau's complacency was alarming in the face of observational and mechanstic evdence and in the face of the urgency of the pandemic.

How he can posssibly do an RCT on supplements in summer withour as Robert Brown said keeping his cohorts in darkness, beggars belief. Brown made that point quite clear, 10 to 20,OOO IU from 15 min sunbathing ruins any possiblity of a meaniingful  result. There is no measurement of 25(OH)D3 plaaned in the trial, just dose,and if the sun swamps the pills we will, pardon the pun, still be left in the dark

I  reckon Brown will get invited to do more interviews, the professor turned out to be just another establsihment epidemiologist...boring.

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked them both and think they both have a valid point. If there is a high enough correlation and I think Peter believes there is then raise the visibility and step up the 400 IU dose to 1000 while you do the controlled study or  have enough data from covid19 victims to draw an irrefutable conclusion like the parachute.

What if the vit D status of every covid19 victim were known and 100 percent of the people that died were deficient ?. We would not be having this debate. But because we dont have the data to show causation we need the study.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Martineau and NICE/SACN are formidable oppos because they fail to recognise the importnace of understanding D3 from all scientifc perspectives.Evolution, physiology, cell.molecular,genetics, immunology, the other ologies, geography, behaviour, ..........all carry no weight with them. And the poilticinas think thay have expert advice on D3 when they do not. Much as I fight the corner of science in this debate, I doubt it will win in the UK.  However COVID is a global emergency and soon, becasue the Beeb has global  reach, another nation's politicians  wil pick up on D3 and act. My guess it will be a small, developed nation that can source the amount of D3 required to supplement every one. Maybe Switzerland or Iceland, Denmark maybe. I shall watch for a nation advising sunbathing now and predict it will buy a ton or so of D3 on the quiet, ready for autumn supplementation. But it wont be UK.

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice do not dispute that VitD3 Deficiency  is poor for health. PHE have reinforced this with “lockdown and made it abundant clear that high risk self isolators should take 400iu per day. Is this enough..perhaps not but it’s better than nothing and remember it’s in addition to dietary intact and one would hope some exposure to sunlight.

I found the parachute analogy a little daft. Parachutes went though a huge development process, design, testing, refining, more testing QC and finally precision packing and more QC before release for use.............sound familiar ......thought so.

Or alternatively as RogerH "might" say....I have an idea........"I'll sew some straps to a sheet of silk  and a trouser  belt, you put it on and we'll fly my plane up to 10000 feet and you jump out..................it might just work :D

Iain
 

Edited by iain
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, iain said:

Nice do not dispute that VitD3 Deficiency  is poor for health. PHE have reinforced this with “lockdown and made it abundant clear that high risk self isolators should take 400iu per day. Is this enough..perhaps not but it’s better than nothing and remember it’s in addition to dietary intact and one would hope some exposure to sunlight.

I found the parachute analogy a little daft. Parachutes went though a huge development process, design, testing, refining, more testing QC and finally precision packing and more QC before release for use.............sound familiar ......thought so.

Or alternatively as RogerH "might" say....I have an idea........"I'll sew some straps to a sheet of silk  and a trouser  belt, you put it on and we'll fly my plane up to 10000 feet and you jump out..................it might just work :D

Iain
 

Yeah but (wait for it, you know how this is going to go...) ACTUALLY that's more or less what happened. A Venetian/Croatian bishop called Faust Vrančić took Da Vinci's famous sketch of a parachute type contraption and built one. I don't know if he borrowed Roger H's belt. He popped up to the top of St Mark's and jumped. It worked.

Now THAT's empiricism.

(Vrančić is also credited with the first design for a wind turbine.)

Nigel

:D

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fortune clearly favoured the brave or foolish!" (There do however seem to be many claimants for that prize according to Google.)

Iain

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Bleednipple said:

Yeah but (wait for it, you know how this is going to go...) ACTUALLY that's more or less what happened. A Venetian/Croatian bishop called Faust Vrančić took Da Vinci's famous sketch of a parachute type contraption and built one. I don't know if he borrowed Roger H's belt. He popped up to the top of St Mark's and jumped. It worked.

Now THAT's empiricism.

(Vrančić is also credited with the first design for a wind turbine.)

Nigel

:D

 

image.png.3029c7637cf054cd05a60143267a46aa.png

This is the only 'evidence' of that event, from the Wiki, that also says "No evidence has ever been found that anybody ever tested Veranzio's parachute."

IMHO, the above device would be hopelessly unstable, like a sheet of paper launched into the air.  If it did not collapse - note no cross bracing, a parachute uses air presure to hold it open, this would strain those straightspars apart - then it would oscillate and fall.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please familiarise yourself with our Terms and Conditions. By using this site, you agree to the following: Terms of Use.