NPR

dpedin wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:06 am

dpedin wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:00 am

Raggs wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 9:52 am

Thing is, it doesn't look like any western European country succeeded doing that. Even Germany, who had a seemingly hugely successful testing system in place straight away, have been hit by a relatively massive second wave too.

Agreed but that doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do, just that we need to learn from mistakes and try even harder. Otherwise we are fucked! Our current strategy and implementation has led us to have the highest number of deaths per capita in the world and one of the biggest drops in GDP. The definition of madness is ...

Also cases in Germany per million - 195, in the UK 650. Deaths per million - Germany 10, UK 18. Massive 2nd wave is all relative - they seem to be doing a bit better?

Biffer wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:07 am

dpedin wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:06 am

dpedin wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:00 am

Agreed but that doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do, just that we need to learn from mistakes and try even harder. Otherwise we are fucked! Our current strategy and implementation has led us to have the highest number of deaths per capita in the world and one of the biggest drops in GDP. The definition of madness is ...

Also cases in Germany per million - 195, in the UK 650. Deaths per million - Germany 10, UK 18. Massive 2nd wave is all relative - they seem to be doing a bit better?

And they've actually done substantially fewer tests than the UK.

Raggs wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:11 am

dpedin wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:06 am

dpedin wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:00 am

Agreed but that doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do, just that we need to learn from mistakes and try even harder. Otherwise we are fucked! Our current strategy and implementation has led us to have the highest number of deaths per capita in the world and one of the biggest drops in GDP. The definition of madness is ...

Also cases in Germany per million - 195, in the UK 650. Deaths per million - Germany 10, UK 18. Massive 2nd wave is all relative - they seem to be doing a bit better?

Look just at their second wave, we fucked up bigger, but they didn't do much better, especially considering how well they did the first time around.

They may have tested less now, but we were forced into testing more due to the scale of our original cockup, they tested more earlier, which meant they barely suffered a first wave. 1000 tests then were worth 10000 a month later sort of thing.

dpedin wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 9:47 am An elimination strategy, as adopted by those countries who have been most successful in managing this pandemic, is about getting community transmission as low as possible and then to ensure you have a robust test, track and trace system in place to identify and control any outbreaks as soon as they emerge. It also requires strong support and regulation to make sure those identified isolate as required and that we stop inward seeding of the population by bring more cases of the virus in from abroad. We did get the numbers very low in the summer but instead of adopting the correct strategy our Gov failed to get a working TTT system in place, didn't control the borders, encouraged folk to go and spread the virus by paying them to go and eat out and told everyone we had won the war on the virus and everyone let their defences down. Despite seeing the trends we then sent schools and university students back and increased the spread. Hopefully vaccination will provide our escape route out of this otherwise, given our current strategy we will be in a constant loop of lock downs for many years yet. Even with vaccinations we will need a functioning TTT system, systems and support for self isolation and border controls - we just dont know if further variants will emerge and be resistant to current vaccines. My worry is our Gov do not have a plan beyond vaccination.

tc27 wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:26 am Not wanting to downplay how bad it being in the UK but I am curious to see if the way deaths are recorded here (Deaths with COVID-19 on the death certificate) are compared to how figures are reached in other nations.

In GDP terms the UK was looking like it had the worse hit economy but in turns out this is just due to the way the UK records GDP so there is precedent.

robmatic wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:28 am

dpedin wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 9:47 am An elimination strategy, as adopted by those countries who have been most successful in managing this pandemic, is about getting community transmission as low as possible and then to ensure you have a robust test, track and trace system in place to identify and control any outbreaks as soon as they emerge. It also requires strong support and regulation to make sure those identified isolate as required and that we stop inward seeding of the population by bring more cases of the virus in from abroad. We did get the numbers very low in the summer but instead of adopting the correct strategy our Gov failed to get a working TTT system in place, didn't control the borders, encouraged folk to go and spread the virus by paying them to go and eat out and told everyone we had won the war on the virus and everyone let their defences down. Despite seeing the trends we then sent schools and university students back and increased the spread. Hopefully vaccination will provide our escape route out of this otherwise, given our current strategy we will be in a constant loop of lock downs for many years yet. Even with vaccinations we will need a functioning TTT system, systems and support for self isolation and border controls - we just dont know if further variants will emerge and be resistant to current vaccines. My worry is our Gov do not have a plan beyond vaccination.

Turkey has a really strong track and trace setup as it's how they controlled measles and TB outbreaks throughout the 20th century. As well as the smartphone app, they have local public health teams doing contact tracing, they swing by the house to monitor that people are self-isolating, deliver medicines, food etc. It's honestly streets ahead of anything I can imagine the UK implementing. And it still couldn't cope by the time we reached autumn.

Saint wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:28 am

tc27 wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:26 am Not wanting to downplay how bad it being in the UK but I am curious to see if the way deaths are recorded here (Deaths with COVID-19 on the death certificate) are compared to how figures are reached in other nations.

In GDP terms the UK was looking like it had the worse hit economy but in turns out this is just due to the way the UK records GDP so there is precedent.

The daily reporting is deaths within 28 days of a positive test. Deaths with Covid on the certificate is a much worse number.

But I agree that there's a lack of clarity as to how numbers are recorded across different countries

The daily reporting is deaths within 28 days of a positive test

robmatic wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:28 am

dpedin wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 9:47 am An elimination strategy, as adopted by those countries who have been most successful in managing this pandemic, is about getting community transmission as low as possible and then to ensure you have a robust test, track and trace system in place to identify and control any outbreaks as soon as they emerge. It also requires strong support and regulation to make sure those identified isolate as required and that we stop inward seeding of the population by bring more cases of the virus in from abroad. We did get the numbers very low in the summer but instead of adopting the correct strategy our Gov failed to get a working TTT system in place, didn't control the borders, encouraged folk to go and spread the virus by paying them to go and eat out and told everyone we had won the war on the virus and everyone let their defences down. Despite seeing the trends we then sent schools and university students back and increased the spread. Hopefully vaccination will provide our escape route out of this otherwise, given our current strategy we will be in a constant loop of lock downs for many years yet. Even with vaccinations we will need a functioning TTT system, systems and support for self isolation and border controls - we just dont know if further variants will emerge and be resistant to current vaccines. My worry is our Gov do not have a plan beyond vaccination.

Turkey has a really strong track and trace setup as it's how they controlled measles and TB outbreaks throughout the 20th century. As well as the smartphone app, they have local public health teams doing contact tracing, they swing by the house to monitor that people are self-isolating, deliver medicines, food etc. It's honestly streets ahead of anything I can imagine the UK implementing. And it still couldn't cope by the time we reached autumn.

Biffer wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:38 am Excess Deaths in Scotland worse than any peacetime year since the 1891 'Russian Flu' pandemic (which may have been another coronavirus, not flu)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-52214177

As an aside one of the things I noticed in that is that Spanish Flu didn't seem to have a huge impact in Scotland.

tc27 wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:42 am

Biffer wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:38 am Excess Deaths in Scotland worse than any peacetime year since the 1891 'Russian Flu' pandemic (which may have been another coronavirus, not flu)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-52214177

As an aside one of the things I noticed in that is that Spanish Flu didn't seem to have a huge impact in Scotland.

There seems to be a lack of correlation between case numbers and recorded/ excess deaths in Scotland. Since deaths are a 'reliable' figure it does make you wonder about how useful recorded case numbers are.

JM2K6 wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 11:33 am It's really fucking weird having someone on here who doesn't engage in discussion but just posts whatever the conspiracy peddlers are latching onto on any given day.

Denny Crane wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 11:23 am PCR sampling protocols revisited after persistent lobbying by scientists and doctors around the world.

https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-202 ... rs-2020-05

WHO Information Notice for IVD Users 2020/05
Nucleic acid testing (NAT) technologies that use polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for detection of SARS-CoV-2
20 January 2021

Target audience: laboratory professionals and users of IVDs.

Purpose of this notice: clarify information previously provided by WHO. This notice supersedes WHO Information Notice for In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Device (IVD) Users 2020/05 version 1, issued 14 December 2020.

Description of the problem: WHO requests users to follow the instructions for use (IFU) when interpreting results for specimens tested using PCR methodology.

Users of IVDs must read and follow the IFU carefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is recommended by the manufacturer.

WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.

WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.

Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.

Actions to be taken by IVD users:

Please read carefully the IFU in its entirety.
Contact your local representative if there is any aspect of the IFU that is unclear to you.
Check the IFU for each incoming consignment to detect any changes to the IFU.
Provide the Ct value in the report to the requesting health care provider.

Contact person for further information:

Anita SANDS, Regulation and Prequalification, World Health Organization, e-mail: rapidalert@who.int

References:

1. Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020, WHO reference number WHO/2019-nCoV/laboratory/2020.6.

2. Altman DG, Bland JM. Diagnostic tests 2: Predictive values. BMJ. 1994 Jul 9;309(6947):102. doi: 10.1136/bmj.309.6947.102.

Saint wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:35 am

robmatic wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:28 am

dpedin wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 9:47 am An elimination strategy, as adopted by those countries who have been most successful in managing this pandemic, is about getting community transmission as low as possible and then to ensure you have a robust test, track and trace system in place to identify and control any outbreaks as soon as they emerge. It also requires strong support and regulation to make sure those identified isolate as required and that we stop inward seeding of the population by bring more cases of the virus in from abroad. We did get the numbers very low in the summer but instead of adopting the correct strategy our Gov failed to get a working TTT system in place, didn't control the borders, encouraged folk to go and spread the virus by paying them to go and eat out and told everyone we had won the war on the virus and everyone let their defences down. Despite seeing the trends we then sent schools and university students back and increased the spread. Hopefully vaccination will provide our escape route out of this otherwise, given our current strategy we will be in a constant loop of lock downs for many years yet. Even with vaccinations we will need a functioning TTT system, systems and support for self isolation and border controls - we just dont know if further variants will emerge and be resistant to current vaccines. My worry is our Gov do not have a plan beyond vaccination.

Turkey has a really strong track and trace setup as it's how they controlled measles and TB outbreaks throughout the 20th century. As well as the smartphone app, they have local public health teams doing contact tracing, they swing by the house to monitor that people are self-isolating, deliver medicines, food etc. It's honestly streets ahead of anything I can imagine the UK implementing. And it still couldn't cope by the time we reached autumn.

The fact is that over summer with all the Eat our to Help out stuff going on, the numbers didn't really move. Covid really was just a a background number. In itself, those summer policies didn't really cause any damage. What they did do was relax everyone's guard, so that when positive tests started to climb in September everyone was far more lax, and then the government didn't respond quickly enough. Lockdown 2 was pretty half hearted both in limitation and its observation, but in a large part of the country it did work (sort of). But that was the stage where the numbers continued to climb in the South East, which ultimately was put down to the new Strain. I'm not at all sure that any TTT would work with this Strain given just how transmissible it appears to be

tc27 wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:41 pm

Biffer wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 11:41 am

Denny Crane wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 11:23 am PCR sampling protocols revisited after persistent lobbying by scientists and doctors around the world.

https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-202 ... rs-2020-05

WHO Information Notice for IVD Users 2020/05
Nucleic acid testing (NAT) technologies that use polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for detection of SARS-CoV-2
20 January 2021

Target audience: laboratory professionals and users of IVDs.

Purpose of this notice: clarify information previously provided by WHO. This notice supersedes WHO Information Notice for In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Device (IVD) Users 2020/05 version 1, issued 14 December 2020.

Description of the problem: WHO requests users to follow the instructions for use (IFU) when interpreting results for specimens tested using PCR methodology.

Users of IVDs must read and follow the IFU carefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is recommended by the manufacturer.

WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.

WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.

Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.

Actions to be taken by IVD users:

Please read carefully the IFU in its entirety.
Contact your local representative if there is any aspect of the IFU that is unclear to you.
Check the IFU for each incoming consignment to detect any changes to the IFU.
Provide the Ct value in the report to the requesting health care provider.

Contact person for further information:

Anita SANDS, Regulation and Prequalification, World Health Organization, e-mail: rapidalert@who.int

References:

1. Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020, WHO reference number WHO/2019-nCoV/laboratory/2020.6.

2. Altman DG, Bland JM. Diagnostic tests 2: Predictive values. BMJ. 1994 Jul 9;309(6947):102. doi: 10.1136/bmj.309.6947.102.

Care to give us an explanation of what you think that actually means?

Insane_Homer wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 3:45 pm

Saint wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:53 pm

tc27 wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:41 pm

So once you factor in NI, probably 365K-367K in total

Denny Crane wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 11:23 am PCR sampling protocols revisited after persistent lobbying by scientists and doctors around the world.

https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-202 ... rs-2020-05

WHO Information Notice for IVD Users 2020/05
Nucleic acid testing (NAT) technologies that use polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for detection of SARS-CoV-2
20 January 2021

Target audience: laboratory professionals and users of IVDs.

Purpose of this notice: clarify information previously provided by WHO. This notice supersedes WHO Information Notice for In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Device (IVD) Users 2020/05 version 1, issued 14 December 2020.

Description of the problem: WHO requests users to follow the instructions for use (IFU) when interpreting results for specimens tested using PCR methodology.

Users of IVDs must read and follow the IFU carefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is recommended by the manufacturer.

WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.

WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.

Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.

Actions to be taken by IVD users:

Please read carefully the IFU in its entirety.
Contact your local representative if there is any aspect of the IFU that is unclear to you.
Check the IFU for each incoming consignment to detect any changes to the IFU.
Provide the Ct value in the report to the requesting health care provider.

Contact person for further information:

Anita SANDS, Regulation and Prequalification, World Health Organization, e-mail: rapidalert@who.int

References:

1. Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020, WHO reference number WHO/2019-nCoV/laboratory/2020.6.

2. Altman DG, Bland JM. Diagnostic tests 2: Predictive values. BMJ. 1994 Jul 9;309(6947):102. doi: 10.1136/bmj.309.6947.102.

Saint wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 4:17 pm

Saint wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:53 pm

tc27 wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:41 pm

So once you factor in NI, probably 365K-367K in total

Almost 367K on the dot

5.43 million doses total

Biffer wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:31 am

Saint wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:28 am

tc27 wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:26 am Not wanting to downplay how bad it being in the UK but I am curious to see if the way deaths are recorded here (Deaths with COVID-19 on the death certificate) are compared to how figures are reached in other nations.

In GDP terms the UK was looking like it had the worse hit economy but in turns out this is just due to the way the UK records GDP so there is precedent.

The daily reporting is deaths within 28 days of a positive test. Deaths with Covid on the certificate is a much worse number.

But I agree that there's a lack of clarity as to how numbers are recorded across different countries

Yeah, Belgium's headline figure is from Covid being mentioned on the death certificate, so it's numbers look very high.

Biffer wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 11:41 am

Denny Crane wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 11:23 am PCR sampling protocols revisited after persistent lobbying by scientists and doctors around the world.

https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-202 ... rs-2020-05

WHO Information Notice for IVD Users 2020/05
Nucleic acid testing (NAT) technologies that use polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for detection of SARS-CoV-2
20 January 2021

Target audience: laboratory professionals and users of IVDs.

Purpose of this notice: clarify information previously provided by WHO. This notice supersedes WHO Information Notice for In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Device (IVD) Users 2020/05 version 1, issued 14 December 2020.

Description of the problem: WHO requests users to follow the instructions for use (IFU) when interpreting results for specimens tested using PCR methodology.

Users of IVDs must read and follow the IFU carefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is recommended by the manufacturer.

WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.

WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.

Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.

Actions to be taken by IVD users:

Please read carefully the IFU in its entirety.
Contact your local representative if there is any aspect of the IFU that is unclear to you.
Check the IFU for each incoming consignment to detect any changes to the IFU.
Provide the Ct value in the report to the requesting health care provider.

Contact person for further information:

Anita SANDS, Regulation and Prequalification, World Health Organization, e-mail: rapidalert@who.int

References:

1. Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020, WHO reference number WHO/2019-nCoV/laboratory/2020.6.

2. Altman DG, Bland JM. Diagnostic tests 2: Predictive values. BMJ. 1994 Jul 9;309(6947):102. doi: 10.1136/bmj.309.6947.102.

Care to give us an explanation of what you think that actually means?

.OverThere wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 6:39 pm If a person with no symptoms tests positive with a high Cycle threshold, then the tester should consider testing again, either using same test or different one. This is more particularly so when there are low numbers being tested.

It also of course throws up question marks re the real number of positive cases measured during last summer.

Raggs wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 6:42 pm

.OverThere wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 6:39 pm If a person with no symptoms tests positive with a high Cycle threshold, then the tester should consider testing again, either using same test or different one. This is more particularly so when there are low numbers being tested.

It also of course throws up question marks re the real number of positive cases measured during last summer.

That was specifically aimed at Denny I suspect, he likes to pop in, post something to try and lure you down the rabbit hole of conspiracy under the guise of "asking questions" and then never actually respond to any of the responses.

Once again. 0.35% is basically the highest the false positive rate can be, since that was the positive rate for 160k tests in a single day. So you may question if it was 600 or so cases, or in fact only 300, but it seems to be a little too quibbling for me, and the truth of the matter is, it wasn't 0, so it didn't help.

Bimbowomxn wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 6:24 pm

Biffer wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:31 am

Saint wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:28 am

The daily reporting is deaths within 28 days of a positive test. Deaths with Covid on the certificate is a much worse number.

But I agree that there's a lack of clarity as to how numbers are recorded across different countries

Yeah, Belgium's headline figure is from Covid being mentioned on the death certificate, so it's numbers look very high.

Which is the same as the UK. One of the reasons ours are measured so high.

tc27 wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 7:17 pm


The redacted delivery schedule the Scottish government accidently released.

Assuming volumes are population based it indicates what the UK government is expecting supply wise.

Saint wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 7:31 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 6:24 pm

Biffer wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:31 am

Yeah, Belgium's headline figure is from Covid being mentioned on the death certificate, so it's numbers look very high.

Which is the same as the UK. One of the reasons ours are measured so high.

No. Our headline figure is deaths within 28 days of a positive test. ONS are keeping a separate record of deaths with Covid on the death certificate, which is quite a lot worse, and then there's our excess death figure which is worse again

Biffer wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 8:41 pm

Saint wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 7:31 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 6:24 pm



Which is the same as the UK. One of the reasons ours are measured so high.

No. Our headline figure is deaths within 28 days of a positive test. ONS are keeping a separate record of deaths with Covid on the death certificate, which is quite a lot worse, and then there's our excess death figure which is worse again

Is that Bimbo lying again?