Norwegian Health Authorities Assert 14 Out of 15 False Positives- Scotland's National Clinical Director: Test is "Rubbish&q

Any positive that required more than 30 cycles should be questioned without good corroborative evidence.

Don't forget that these issues apply to hospitalizations and deaths too. Everybody admitted to hospital is tested so at least some percentage of hospitalizations are false positives and some percentage for non-Covid problems. Thus hospitalizations and deaths MUST be overstated as well.

https://ccforum.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s13054-020-03244-3

Allen53 wrote:

The ENTIRE "pandemic" is being steered by this fragile string of data of unreliable quality. Were it not for this fraudulent testing regime you would have rightly concluded it was all over months ago.

The Norwegian health authorities FHI have calculated that with the current level of assumed prevalence, if you test 12,000 RANDOM people, you will get 15 positives. Out of those, 14 will be false positives. Reflect on that for a second. This is why general testing is an awful idea and will essentially keep the case-demic going on forever.

14 / 12,000 * 100% implies a false positive rate of about 0.1%.

Texas, for instance, over the past week has a positivity rate of a little over 5% implying virtually all positive tests are real.

The robust conclusion is that you, sir, are a purveyor of dangerous disinformation.

Monkeys typing wrote:

Allen53 wrote:

The ENTIRE "pandemic" is being steered by this fragile string of data of unreliable quality. Were it not for this fraudulent testing regime you would have rightly concluded it was all over months ago.

The Norwegian health authorities FHI have calculated that with the current level of assumed prevalence, if you test 12,000 RANDOM people, you will get 15 positives. Out of those, 14 will be false positives. Reflect on that for a second. This is why general testing is an awful idea and will essentially keep the case-demic going on forever.

14 / 12,000 * 100% implies a false positive rate of about 0.1%.

Texas, for instance, over the past week has a positivity rate of a little over 5% implying virtually all positive tests are real.

The robust conclusion is that you, sir, are a purveyor of dangerous disinformation.

Nice try but it is 14 out of 15 "positives".

Monkeys typing wrote:

Allen53 wrote:

The ENTIRE "pandemic" is being steered by this fragile string of data of unreliable quality. Were it not for this fraudulent testing regime you would have rightly concluded it was all over months ago.

The Norwegian health authorities FHI have calculated that with the current level of assumed prevalence, if you test 12,000 RANDOM people, you will get 15 positives. Out of those, 14 will be false positives. Reflect on that for a second. This is why general testing is an awful idea and will essentially keep the case-demic going on forever.

14 / 12,000 * 100% implies a false positive rate of about 0.1%.

Texas, for instance, over the past week has a positivity rate of a little over 5% implying virtually all positive tests are real.

The robust conclusion is that you, sir, are a purveyor of dangerous disinformation.

Did you even read the article?

In big bubbly hand writing for you- there were 15 positives- 14 of those were calculated to be false.

Very tricky you see.

You sir have zero % reading comprehension.

My daughter was “positive” for Covid…without ever being tested

Helen Ilitha is a South African/Scottish lawyer currently living in Scotland. Working in the legal tech sector.

https://off-guardian.org/2020/09/11/my-daughter-was-positive-for-covid-without-ever-being-tested/

Monkeys typing wrote:

[quote]Allen53 wrote:

The ENTIRE "pandemic" is being steered by this fragile string of data of unreliable quality. Were it not for this fraudulent testing regime you would have rightly concluded it was all over months ago.

The Norwegian health authorities FHI have calculated that with the current level of assumed prevalence, if you test 12,000 RANDOM people, you will get 15 positives. Out of those, 14 will be false positives. Reflect on that for a second. This is why general testing is an awful idea and will essentially keep the case-demic going on forever.

14 / 12,000 * 100% implies a false positive rate of about 0.1%.

Texas, for instance, over the past week has a positivity rate of a little over 5% implying virtually all positive tests are real.

WTF? You wanna explain that lovely little piece of logic?

Allen53 wrote:

My daughter was “positive” for Covid…without ever being tested

Helen Ilitha is a South African/Scottish lawyer currently living in Scotland. Working in the legal tech sector.

https://off-guardian.org/2020/09/11/my-daughter-was-positive-for-covid-without-ever-being-tested/

Disgusting story!

I wouldn't doubt that people coming to the ER for a heart attack, stroke, advanced cancer, etc. who die in the hospital are being chalked off to a Covid positive and subsequently listed in the death count.

Allen53 wrote:

Did you even read the article?

In big bubbly hand writing for you- there were 15 positives- 14 of those were calculated to be false.

No. There is a statistical expectation that 14 out of 12,000 will be false positives or about 0.1%.

For a testing pool with a low infection rate (Norway at 0.008%) then most of the positive results will be false positives. The test by itself has serious limitations.

However, given the same false positive rate and a testing pool with an infection rate significantly higher than than the false positive rate the test by itself is a reasonably reliable indicator of a current or recent infection. As an example, using Texas at a 5.2% positivity rate over the past week, the expectation is that about 624 out of 12,000 will test positive and 610 of those are true positives.

(Ronald Reagan voice) There you go again.

The testing issue is not a question of getting a positive result for someone who was never infected. That is what a false positive would be. The problem with testing is that it can be too sensitive and show a positive for someone who was actually infected, but is no longer contagious and could either be recovered or an asymptomatic case. That is a significant problem because testing serves two purposes. Testing is needed for diagnosis in a health care setting. Over sensitivity is not a problem when someone is symptomatic and needs hospitalization. But when someone is asymptomatic and gets tested prior to having non-COVID treatment/procedure in a health care setting, a positive test will result in a delay of care. Then, there is surveillance testing. This is testing to determine whether people in the community have been exposed to the virus to get them to quarantine and limit further spread. Over sensitivity is a problem because you are trying to find people before they become contagious. The test is not helpful if it comes up as positive after people have become contagious. There are ways to deal with this problem that are already being put into place. Test sensitivity can be controlled. Another approach is to do a quick test within 48 hours of the positive test. The quick tests are less sensitive. If the quick test is positive, then odds are good the virus is progressing and quarantine is appropriate. But it is completely dishonest to take this issue and twist it into the false narrative that COVID is actually harmless except in octogenarians in nursing homes.

Monkeys typing wrote:

Allen53 wrote:

Did you even read the article?

In big bubbly hand writing for you- there were 15 positives- 14 of those were calculated to be false.

No. There is a statistical expectation that 14 out of 12,000 will be false positives or about 0.1%.

For a testing pool with a low infection rate (Norway at 0.008%) then most of the positive results will be false positives. The test by itself has serious limitations.

However, given the same false positive rate and a testing pool with an infection rate significantly higher than than the false positive rate the test by itself is a reasonably reliable indicator of a current or recent infection. As an example, using Texas at a 5.2% positivity rate over the past week, the expectation is that about 624 out of 12,000 will test positive and 610 of those are true positives.

If 14 in 15 are false positives, then x in 624 = 582 are false positives, leaving 42 real positives, not 610.

Precious Roy wrote:

But it is completely dishonest to take this issue and twist it into the false narrative that COVID is actually harmless except in octogenarians in nursing homes.

Here's another of your never-ending Covid lie stories Mr. Precious- remember Australia's "youngest Covid victim"- seems he died of an overdose- no doubt Covid induced in your fevered imagination.

Would be pretty hilarious if people's lives weren't being destroyed by the policies you fear mongers promote. Frankly I don't even think you believe this crap any longer. You're just dug in deep in your hidey-hole and drooling out various versions of Mad Hatter (il)logic at this point.

There is no suggestion Mr Andrews was aware of the possible involvement of drugs or another cause of death before his August 14 daily briefing, but The Age has been told by people familiar with the case that officials in the Health Department had discussed the circumstances of the man's death as being indicative of an overdose.

Daniel Andrews at his press conference on August 14.

Daniel Andrews at his press conference on August 14.CREDIT:JASON SOUTH

The young man was infected with coronavirus when he died, but the State Coroner, John Cain jnr, has in recent days decided to classify the case as a "reportable death" requiring a coronial investigation.

Judge Cain's decision is significant because the Coroners Court’s general advice to doctors is to regard COVID-19 deaths as being from natural causes, which would not be "reportable", and not prompt an inquiry.

The announcement by Mr Andrews on August 14 that a man in his 20s was among the latest 14 COVID-19 victims shocked many and sparked national headlines. The other 13 deaths announced by the Premier that day were people aged in their 80s and 90s.

.....

The database shows a handful of deaths of people aged in their 30s, while the majority of those who have died have been aged 80 and over.

Pajac wrote:

If 14 in 15 are false positives, then x in 624 = 582 are false positives, leaving 42 real positives, not 610.

But the reality is that 14 in 12,000 are false positives. This is a characteristic of the test protocol that can be applied to any test population.

In the specific case of Norway only 1 of 12,000 is a true positive, but that's because Norway has very few real infections in the general population. This is explicitly the point of the Norwegian article, that widespread screening isn't a very effective tool if there aren't many real cases to find.

It is wrong to conclude that the test is not useful in all cases. Screening results are clearly meaningful when the positivity rate is significantly higher than the false alarm rate which is the case in the United States.

I reported this thread. Why is it still here?

Oh, right, this site is now a disinformation blog not a running site. Carry on!

Allen53 wrote:Given the current infection situation in Norway, health professionals must test around 12,000 random people to find a positive case with covid-19. In such a sample, there will be about 15 positive test results, but 14 of these will be false positives.

C'mon man, you can do better than this.

You highlighted the wrong part. It should be:

Given the current infection situation in Norway,health professionals must test around 12,000 random people to find a positive case with covid-19. In such a sample, there will be about 15 positive test results, but 14 of these will be false positives.

1 in 12,000 randomly selected people have COVID

but

14 in 12,000 tests are false positive.

So yes, most positives will be false when there are very few cases.

reporterr wrote:

I reported this thread. Why is it still here?

Oh, right, this site is now a disinformation blog not a running site. Carry on!

Why would you report this thread- sincerely curious.

We have a report by the national Norwegian Health Institute and an article about one of the highest ranking health officials in Scotland and what he said about tests.

How is that disinformation and do you deem that as something that should be censored?

The overall infection fatality ratio among community-dwelling people in Indiana was 0.26%, or one death for every 385 people infected. Age, more than race or sex, was the biggest factor affecting the death rate.

For people 60 or over, one in every 58 infections resulted in death, an IFR of 1.7%. For comparison, the IFR from influenza in the U.S. among people over 65 years is 0.8%. COVID-19 is approximately 2.5 times more deadly than the flu in this age group.

Risk drops off as age decreases. For middle-aged adults between 40 and 59 years old, the IFR was 0.12% — or one death for every 833 infections.

And for infected people under 40, death was uncommon at only about one in 10,000 — an IFR of 0.01%.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2020/9/10/21430971/indiana-university-covid-19-coronavirus-infection-mortality-rates-study

I just resoundingly destroyed your COVID denier theory about testing issues being evidence of some massive reporting of positive cases that are really people who never had COVID. Your response? A story about a single death and whether it was properly reported as a COVID death. You are a master of disinformation. You never follow through with real science from real scientists that actually support your conclusion. Instead, it is just a constant campaign of "oh look over here!!" "now look over there!!" Anecdote her, anecdote there. Never any real science. No one is falling for it. The windmills are winning.

Precious Roy wrote:

Never any real science. No one is falling for it. The windmills are winning.

Roy, this is being said by all sides. I remember a few long months ago, I was being told by MD's, nurses, and scientists "it's a war zone out here", but, it never was. Virtually ALL of my medical friends have gone quiet on social media, and have admitted to me that things were never that bad.

The goalposts have moved so much, that a large portion of the world doesn't agree with you. But, there is a portion who doesn't agree with Allen.

Nobody knows what "the real science" is... the goal posts keep moving.

In a population with which has a extremely low degree of infections. Random testing. FHI estimates that up to 3 of 15 positive tests may be false positives, but says it is probably lower. I.e. the tests between 10th and 16th of August. It is very easy to misunderstand But this claims set fire on Facebook, and now here.