ChatterBank2 mins ago
More Lies From Matt Hancock
For every (one) person they now test, they are counting it as two, one swob up the nose, and one too the back of the mouth =two tests, this is so they can say they have reached the 200.000 tests per day, what the hell is this government playing at? Should they continue to lie to the public in this way you will see breakdown in law and order sooner or later. So the US rioting started off with a murder, but the real issue is their government handling of the virus and the loss of thousands of jobs and a spineless Trump who's not got a clue, very much like Boris. The virus is winning with global breakdown of law and order. 81% of the public now say Cummings broke the rules so if Boris tries another lockdown it won't work, and that is when the problems will start in the UK.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by teacake44. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Why can't people understand that this is not about repeating tests - we all know that that happens for many reasons - no-one has any problem with each separate test being counted.
What is at issue is
1. You receive a single testing kit in the post
2. It has two swabs - throat and nose
3. You return the single kit
4. That is then counted as TWO tests for the stats
That is plainly not what joe public expects to happen and is a fiddle.
What is at issue is
1. You receive a single testing kit in the post
2. It has two swabs - throat and nose
3. You return the single kit
4. That is then counted as TWO tests for the stats
That is plainly not what joe public expects to happen and is a fiddle.
they say on the TV every night that not each test is a separate individual. What kind of "fiddler" gives the game away on TV? It's just the way it's counted it's not a "fiddle" - it may prove challenging for the hard of thinkng or those with an agenda but it's pretty clear to those of us whose IQ exceeds our shoe size.
I'll try once more ...
> The reasons for the gap include:
> ◾some people have to be retested because their test was void
> ◾to check whether someone who had previously tested positive was now negative
> ◾to double check a negative test if someone still appeared to be infected
These are the reasons we all expected and knew about, when we see "not each test is a separate individual" on the news each day.
What we didn't expect and didn't know about was that if one individual, in one test session, has two swabs and gets one result, that can be counted as two tests - not one. Since they seem to do two swabs as a matter of course, the number of individuals tested is never going to get close to the test capacity. It's rather as I said in my first post at 11:33 ... I'm more interested in how many people were tested than how many tests were done [which, given the way it's reported, has become an almost meaningless stat]. What I'd really like to know is the results of the tests, things like:
p people were tested
q currently had coronavirus
r had the antibodies
s neither currently had coronavirus nor had the antibodies
> The reasons for the gap include:
> ◾some people have to be retested because their test was void
> ◾to check whether someone who had previously tested positive was now negative
> ◾to double check a negative test if someone still appeared to be infected
These are the reasons we all expected and knew about, when we see "not each test is a separate individual" on the news each day.
What we didn't expect and didn't know about was that if one individual, in one test session, has two swabs and gets one result, that can be counted as two tests - not one. Since they seem to do two swabs as a matter of course, the number of individuals tested is never going to get close to the test capacity. It's rather as I said in my first post at 11:33 ... I'm more interested in how many people were tested than how many tests were done [which, given the way it's reported, has become an almost meaningless stat]. What I'd really like to know is the results of the tests, things like:
p people were tested
q currently had coronavirus
r had the antibodies
s neither currently had coronavirus nor had the antibodies
OK first things first - incidence is new cases per day ( rate with time) prevalence is how many are positive in snapshot
things like:
p people were tested
q currently had coronavirus
r had the antibodies
s neither currently had coronavirus nor had the antibodies
Liar matt has just come on telly and told us
p people were tested - 128 k today ( no tests not people)
q currently had coronavirus - 1500 new cases
so p and q are rates ( per day)
and so the incidence ( geddit ) is 1 in 128 (*)
r had the antibodies
s neither currently had coronavirus nor had the antibodies
over all 4 mtests and 128 k - overall so it must a prevalence
and that should work out as 1 in 400
r is zero - no antibodies detected coz there is no test
s zero - as no antibody test available
it probably ISNT given in these terms as prevalence and incidence is very difficult for a walk=in to understand
well you asked and that is some sort of answer
things like:
p people were tested
q currently had coronavirus
r had the antibodies
s neither currently had coronavirus nor had the antibodies
Liar matt has just come on telly and told us
p people were tested - 128 k today ( no tests not people)
q currently had coronavirus - 1500 new cases
so p and q are rates ( per day)
and so the incidence ( geddit ) is 1 in 128 (*)
r had the antibodies
s neither currently had coronavirus nor had the antibodies
over all 4 mtests and 128 k - overall so it must a prevalence
and that should work out as 1 in 400
r is zero - no antibodies detected coz there is no test
s zero - as no antibody test available
it probably ISNT given in these terms as prevalence and incidence is very difficult for a walk=in to understand
well you asked and that is some sort of answer
foo ! yeah
p 128 000
q 2m
r zero
s zero
altho I have to say the Nat Stats authority says that the presentation has been shoddy and er misleading
my own view is that the difference between prevalence and incidence is so difficult that
everyone would say
"foo ! you're having a turkish! that's about as clear as PP does! yeah foo dat!"
p 128 000
q 2m
r zero
s zero
altho I have to say the Nat Stats authority says that the presentation has been shoddy and er misleading
my own view is that the difference between prevalence and incidence is so difficult that
everyone would say
"foo ! you're having a turkish! that's about as clear as PP does! yeah foo dat!"
Latest Posts
Body & Soul4 mins ago
Motoring6 mins ago
Crosswords6 mins ago
Film, Media & TV7 mins ago
I Think I've Found P Ps True...
Society & Culture19 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.