Originally posted by Starlight
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
New Zealand concentration camps
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostYour logic, as usual, is unclear here.
Yes, no test is 100% accurate all the time, and the testing methodology can be adjusted to either limit the number of false positives or limit the number of false negatives. PCR testing in general is a very high quality very accurate testing method and it has been around for a decent amount of time now and is well-understood and widely used for all sorts of things.
Why should small inaccuracies in test methodology have an impact on political policies? Why would the general public care?
So, you are absolutely wrong (with no uncertainty), that it is a good test for seeing if someone is infected and/or contagious.
You can hear the scientist who made the PCR process on this video:
Comment
-
Originally posted by mikewhitney View PostIf you test 1000 people who have no illness, an 20% false positive will have 200 people quarantined.
Also it's common for PCR tests to be done in triplicate to triple-check the results. You can obviously also take another set of samples from the person a few days later and try the test again.
After New Zealand successfully eliminated Covid from the country, the government continued to do thousands of Covid tests per day on citizens who wanted to be tested, either because they had some cold symptoms or at random testing sites. For over a hundred days they did 1000-5000 tests per day, and not a single one of those ever tested positive. So the false-positive rate was incredibly close to zero with the tests the government was using.
So I'm left scratching my head at your crazy statement. They did test lots of people, and they didn't get false positives, and nobody got quarantined as a result. Your imaginary situation is the exact opposite of what literally actually happened in New Zealand.
The test is meaningless except for research purposes (as the nobel winning inventor said of it).
Plus, as I mentioned before (without so much detail), if you go from 40 cycles down to 35, you will go from near certain positive results down to results that might mean something for research purposes.Last edited by Starlight; 10-31-2020, 01:36 AM."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostThe PCR tests are vastly more accurate than 20% false positive rates. Here's an analysis. The majority of the Covid tests in use have a false positive rate listed as 0% (100% minus the listed specificity metric). Lets say they've rounded that, so what they mean is 0% to 0.5%.
Also it's common for PCR tests to be done in triplicate to triple-check the results. You can obviously also take another set of samples from the person a few days later and try the test again.
After New Zealand successfully eliminated Covid from the country, the government continued to do thousands of Covid tests per day on citizens who wanted to be tested, either because they had some cold symptoms or at random testing sites. For over a hundred days they did 1000-5000 tests per day, and not a single one of those ever tested positive. So the false-positive rate was incredibly close to zero with the tests the government was using.
So I'm left scratching my head at your crazy statement. They did test lots of people, and they didn't get false positives, and nobody got quarantined as a result. Your imaginary situation is the exact opposite of what literally actually happened in New Zealand.
That guy was infamous for being a nutbar and wrong about everything. He's a joke among the biological scientist community. He wrote books about how HIV wasn't the cause of AIDS, because he was nuts.
If you adjust the methodology on any test, you'll get different outcomes. So what?
Are you talking about Kary Mullis being nuts? How is he nuts for trying to find out what specifically to look for when testing for the agent that causes AIDS? If this is what you are talking about, you are going against the purpose of science. With science, concerning AIDS, you are supposed to ask questions and do studies to find out cause and effect scenarios. Is there a paper that solves the issue about HIV being the cause of AIDS? The problem that we have these days is that any scientist that questions the popular opinion is called a kook; this is such an easy way to short circuit the scientific discussion.Last edited by mikewhitney; 10-31-2020, 02:00 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mikewhitney View PostDoing a useless test 3 times still does not determine whether someone is infectious or has an ineffective remnant left. This sounds as good as flipping a coin three times to see which result to take.
Doing a highly accurate test is highly accurate. And if you do it three times, it's super duper highly accurate."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostMaybe try taking a year of stats or maths at school before you worry yourself too much over these calculations. Until then the question of why 0.5 ^ 3 isn't the same as 0.005 ^ 3 will have to remain a mystery to you.
Doing a highly accurate test is highly accurate. And if you do it three times, it's super duper highly accurate.
The other issue is as I understand it is that the tests only do a sampling of the DNA which does not narrow the virus down to the novel coronavirus -- but only gets a ballpark match. There is no differentiation to exclude all other viruses, so some other viruses may match as well.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mikewhitney View PostDoing a highly accurate meaningless test is still meaningless.
The other issue is as I understand it is that the tests only do a sampling of the DNA which does not narrow the virus down to the novel coronavirus -- but only gets a ballpark match. There is no differentiation to exclude all other viruses, so some other viruses may match as well."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostGood thing it's highly accurate and not meaningless.
Well you understand totally wrong. That's the exact opposite to how PCR tests work. They are created to specifically target the RNA or DNA of the organism of interest.
You could listen to the specialists on this. It could help you to understand things.
I'm just sharing this so you understand the constraints, the limits, of the testing. If you want to rely on fuzzy test results, you can do that to your own pleasure. You can listen to what the specialists say or continue to rely on your own ability (while calling the specialists kooks)
Comment
-
Mike, I'm a scientist working in that field. Look up the term "PCR primer" and have a read."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
You’re ability to be equally arrogant and ignorant at the same time is rather impressive.
I’m ‘steeped’ in the history of the British legal system so I can explain what rights are in the legal sense.
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
Please - aids does not spread to people in the air. It requires a close exchange of bodily fluids to be transmitted. We dont typically quarantine people unless a disease is transmitted easily, typically through the air.
But we prosecute those who knowingly transmit AIDS, and don't prosecute those who do not.
Glad that's cleared up.
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
Please - aids does not spread to people in the air. It requires a close exchange of bodily fluids to be transmitted. We dont typically quarantine people unless a disease is transmitted easily, typically through the air.TyphoidChina Flu Mary" phenomenon doesn't actually exist, so this notion that healthy, non-symptomatic people should stifle themselves with a face diaper in public is silly. Even the WHO recently admitted that asymptomatic spread is very rare. It's in extended, face-to-face interactions with a symptomatic person that you need to be careful. And yet the media has gotten people so paranoid that they'll stare with fear and suspicion at any one not wearing a mask, even if that person is outside and 20-feet away from them (you should see the looks of alarm I get just walking across a parking lot).Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
Your chances of catching the China flu through casual contact, such as walking past an infected person in a grocery store, is effectively zero -- the "TyphoidChina Flu Mary" phenomenon doesn't actually exist, so this notion that healthy, non-symptomatic people should stifle themselves with a face diaper in public is silly. Even the WHO recently admitted that asymptomatic spread is very rare. It's in extended, face-to-face interactions with a symptomatic person that you need to be careful. And yet the media has gotten people so paranoid that they'll stare with fear and suspicion at any one not wearing a mask, even if that person is outside and 20-feet away from them (you should see the looks of alarm I get just walking across a parking lot).
But you're as stubborn and anti science as your idol, and so I'll not waste time reciting the facts you already have been told but refuse to believe.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by Maranatha View Post
And yet some called for it. Perhaps you are too young to remember.
But we prosecute those who knowingly transmit AIDS, and don't prosecute those who do not.
Glad that's cleared up.
You also forget that AIDS was for quite some time nearly universally fatal. So prosecuting one for knowingly transmitting could in fact havr been a murder charge.
And, in fact, the reality is that if we're consistent wrt prosecuting those that knowingly spread aids, we should prosecute Rand Paul for reckless endangerment over his workout in the gym after his positive covid result.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
...we have a friend whose mother died exactly that way - picking up the virus shopping in a grocery store.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
|
16 responses
159 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
Yesterday, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
53 responses
400 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Yesterday, 11:32 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
25 responses
114 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 08:36 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
33 responses
198 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Roy
Yesterday, 07:43 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
84 responses
379 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Yesterday, 11:08 AM
|
Comment