With a side order of 'too busy counting my money to give a f.ck'.
I may have over-reacted btw, I think this is just a mild cold but I did feel rough yesterday. Easy to panic at the moment, especially if you're me.
With a side order of 'too busy counting my money to give a f.ck'.
Coronavirus tests could be picking up dead virusshpalman wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 6:45 pmI posted a link in the wrong thread in which it was found that the body sheds dead non-infectious virus during the recovery phase.KAJ wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 6:19 pmAm I correct ? in my understanding thatIf so, would the antigen test be more useful than the RT-PCR test for monitoring the progress of the outbreak?
- the RT-PCR test detects the virus, so is only positive for active infections
- the described antigen test would also be positive for those who had recovered
... but if people are being tested because they present symptoms it's reasonable to assume it's because the covid is alive, not that it's dead already but they caught something else in the meantimeshpalman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 5:22 pmCoronavirus tests could be picking up dead virusshpalman wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 6:45 pmI posted a link in the wrong thread in which it was found that the body sheds dead non-infectious virus during the recovery phase.KAJ wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 6:19 pmAm I correct ? in my understanding thatIf so, would the antigen test be more useful than the RT-PCR test for monitoring the progress of the outbreak?
- the RT-PCR test detects the virus, so is only positive for active infections
- the described antigen test would also be positive for those who had recovered
In Italy there is 'screening' for antibodies but if you're positive they do a swab. I wonder if it wouldn't be better to do it the other way around.
While that might be part of it, I think the major part is preventing other organisations showing up the governement incompetence by showing that it is perfectly practical to do it right.shpalman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:26 amHospitals told not to test staff or patients for Covid-19
It basically seems to be that they're being told that if they set up something as an alternative to the piss poor Test and Trace system they won't get any money to pay for it. Because the government wants to protect the monopoly it gave to the private sector.
And confusing statements about when those positive cases were told to isolatebob sterman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 6:03 amGreat - so our "world leading" test and trace system managed to temporarily lose 16,000 cases in one week - more cases than Norway has experience during the entire pandemic.
Worse, their contacts wouldn't have been traced. There could be tens of thousands of extra infections caused because of this.jimbob wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 7:47 amAnd confusing statements about when those positive cases were told to isolatebob sterman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 6:03 amGreat - so our "world leading" test and trace system managed to temporarily lose 16,000 cases in one week - more cases than Norway has experience during the entire pandemic.
I was thinking it depended on how and where the data went missing. And the answer is - early enough in the process to completely be uselessshpalman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 8:19 amWorse, their contacts wouldn't have been traced. There could be tens of thousands of extra infections caused because of this.jimbob wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 7:47 amAnd confusing statements about when those positive cases were told to isolatebob sterman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 6:03 amGreat - so our "world leading" test and trace system managed to temporarily lose 16,000 cases in one week - more cases than Norway has experience during the entire pandemic.
The doubling time is about a week, and this data came in a week late, but it was "only" maybe ~25% of the cases. Somebody else can work out how many extra deaths this will lead to, assuming this still isn't enough to push the health service into saturation leave-people-to-die triage mode. It's too early on a Monday for me.
It also depends who the data was from. A lot of the Nottingham cases seem to be students and I think most unis are running some variety of track and trace themselves, which hopefully will limit the impact somewhat. A massive shitshow though.shpalman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 8:19 amWorse, their contacts wouldn't have been traced. There could be tens of thousands of extra infections caused because of this.
The doubling time is about a week, and this data came in a week late, but it was "only" maybe ~25% of the cases. Somebody else can work out how many extra deaths this will lead to, assuming this still isn't enough to push the health service into saturation leave-people-to-die triage mode. It's too early on a Monday for me.
Surely the most likely scenario is that the dropped cases are from one lab? Perhaps a new lab facility that came online last week - or one that had some sort of IT "upgrade" last week? Or perhaps a network of labs belonging to a single test providing organisation?mediocrity511 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 9:28 amIt also depends who the data was from. A lot of the Nottingham cases seem to be students and I think most unis are running some variety of track and trace themselves, which hopefully will limit the impact somewhat. A massive shitshow though.
No, it hasn't opened yet and apparently not until the end of October.bob sterman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 11:30 amE.g. in early September there was talk of a new "Loughborough lighthouse lab" opening by the end of September. No idea if it actually opened - but anything that opening in that last week of September has got to be a prime suspect.
OK - cross Loughborough off the list of suspects!RoMo wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 11:56 amNo, it hasn't opened yet and apparently not until the end of October.bob sterman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 11:30 amE.g. in early September there was talk of a new "Loughborough lighthouse lab" opening by the end of September. No idea if it actually opened - but anything that opening in that last week of September has got to be a prime suspect.
I'm hearing they had 1 column per test !bob sterman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 11:59 amOK - cross Loughborough off the list of suspects!RoMo wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 11:56 amNo, it hasn't opened yet and apparently not until the end of October.bob sterman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 11:30 amE.g. in early September there was talk of a new "Loughborough lighthouse lab" opening by the end of September. No idea if it actually opened - but anything that opening in that last week of September has got to be a prime suspect.
Actually latest rumour in the news is that it was something to do with an Excel spreadsheet getting too full![]()
Johnson used the word 'truncated' which does, if he wasn't just using a big word to sound clever yet again, have a specific meaning wrt databases. Or so MrRaven tells me. Something something limits on the size of a datadump something something.bob sterman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 11:59 amActually latest rumour in the news is that it was something to do with an Excel spreadsheet getting too full![]()
Truncate (or TRUNCATE) is a command in the SQL database language, but it is also a perfectly good computer-related word to describe what happens to any file containing 80,000 records of data when you open them in a system that can't handle that many, and it can be used for a plain text file as well. The use of this word in SQL is derived from its ordinary English meaning. So I think MrRaven is being a little too keen to bash Boris here. (Which is otherwise entirely understandable, of course.)
URGENT NOTIFICATION
UNFORTUNATELY THERE IS A NATIONAL PROBLEM WITH THE CHEMICALS USED BY LABORATORIES WHEN TESTING BLOOD SAMPLES.
SO, WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT, WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED TO PAUSE ROUTINE TESTING OF BLOOD SAMPLES. WE DO NOT KNOW WHEN A NORMAL SERVICE WILL RESUME.
REGRETTABLY WE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT MANY PATIENTS TO CANCEL THEIR BLOOD TEST APPOINTMENTS. WE RECOGNISE THIS WILL CAUSE FRUSTRATION AND ANXIETY AND APOLOGISE FOR THIS BUT THIS SITUATION IS COMPLETELY OUTSIDE THE PRACTICE'S CONTROL.
THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH IS LOOKING INTO THIS AND WE WILL KEEP YOU UPDATED ONCE WE HAVE MORE INFORMATION.
PATIENTS WHO REQUIRE URGENT BLOOD TESTS WILL BE PRIORITISED BY THE CLINICAL TEAM.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR UNDERSTANDING AT THIS TIME.
Thanks, Brexit.Boustrophedon wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 12:53 pmAnd now there's a shortage of Roche testing kits due to a problem in an automated warehouse. https://www.ft.com/content/aa48893b-9c9 ... bda727bbda
Interesting, because if you spread out today's 17,500 over date of specimen, and then extrapolate (assuming 9 day doubling) you get 21/22k today.bob sterman wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 5:41 pmSo the number of new cases reported today was about 17,500 - but the Kings College Zoe symptom study is only estimating 21,903 new cases per day.
Can we really be detecting 80% of infections????
No of course we can't.bob sterman wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 5:41 pmSo the number of new cases reported today was about 17,500 - but the Kings College Zoe symptom study is only estimating 21,903 new cases per day.
Can we really be detecting 80% of infections????