Generic Virus Thread

[limpid]

8 minutes ago, Ingram85 said:

Yeah mine was at UHB not a surgery. 

It's okay, just keep my screenshot in case that's all you need to get in to places.

[blandy]

7 minutes ago, Ingram85 said:

Yeah mine was at UHB not a surgery. 

I guess they’ll either pass on to your GP surgery that they gave you the jag, or they’ll have an overworked admin bod doing thousands of record updates and it’ll show up in a few days. It looks like mine took about 2 weeks to get added.

[villakram]

35 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

The false positive rate of these tests is only about 00.32%. Which is very good, really, but if we're saying we want to run up to 100,000,000 tests per week we're still looking at 320,000 false positives a week, and those people are meant to isolate? Most of them either on SSP or with no income at all. Yeah, not going to happen, is it? 

Meanwhile it misses a quarter of people who actually do have the virus. 

We're apparently at the point now where we've vacinnated the groups that account for over 90% of the deaths from this virus. A lot of the ideas coming out of the government would have been very sensible months ago, but it feels like we've not just missed the horse bolting, but have found a dead horse, dragged it miles back to the stables, then shut the gates.

Who measured that false positive rate? For a process with so many human manual entry/interaction points, that's astonishingly low. Likely based off 100 samples done in a state of the art lab or some other such shenanigans. There was a time earlier in the pandemic where the known calibration sample was only put into the process at the very final step, hence demonstrating the reliability of the process... although not accounting at all for all of the other steps along the way.

Have we all forgotten about the PCR cycling threshold nonsense already.

 

[blandy]

Just now, villakram said:

Likely based off 100 samples

Mathematically impossible.  You can’t get 00.32% from 100 people. 

[LondonLax]

4 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

This conversation shows how easy it is to slip into authoritarianism. 

Not just accepted but cheered on.

That happened a year  ago when people gleefully cheered on laws to make it illegal to leave your house except for government approved reasons. 

[Genie]

54 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Happily giving away other people's liberties, privacies and rights simply because you are not interested in them and have managed to convince yourself that you're okay with it is beyond silly - it's downright grim.

What do you mean other peoples liberties? I’m not sharing other peoples information on their behalf.

If I had told posted on social media I’d had the vaccination, like millions of others, why would I take deep offence at telling the pub, airline, concert, football stadium about it so I could go in? 
The information is already out there in many places for millions of strangers to see. I put it out there as I wasn’t bothered about it.

If I wanted to keep it private that’s absolutely my choice too, I could potentially see the argument that it was my right to keep it secret.

I just don’t understand why someone would chuck the information out into the world but then complain about civil liberties if actually asked for it as part of an aligned agreement to gain entry to somewhere I wanted to go. 

 

[maqroll]

I got the single jab Johnson and Johnson vaccine. Other than slight nausea, I feel fine.

[HanoiVillan]

14 minutes ago, blandy said:

Mathematically impossible.  You can’t get 00.32% from 100 people. 

LOL yes, that's true, but the point about the conditions that false positive rate was achieved in is nevertheless a good one, or at least worthy of further thought.

We might remember that Panorama investigated one of Lighthouse laboratories recently, and found:

Covid: Secret filming exposes contamination risk at test results lab

'Secret filming at one of the biggest UK Covid testing labs has found evidence of potential contamination, discarded tests and pressure to hit targets.

[...]

Evidence at the lab captured on film shows:

• Checks to ensure samples could be identified, were rushed, meaning tests were sometimes discarded unnecessarily
• Some test samples "glooped" across an area where other samples had been placed, risking contamination
• Swabs used by people to take Covid tests were left in their tubes when processed, presenting a further contamination risk
• A quality control scientist telling the reporter that the quality of the results progressively got worse throughout the day'

more on link: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56556806

Edited April 5, 2021 by HanoiVillan

[chrisp65]

1 minute ago, Genie said:

What do you mean other peoples liberties? I’m not sharing other peoples information on their behalf.

If I had told posted on social media I’d had the vaccination, like millions of others, why would I take deep offence at telling the pub, airline, concert, football stadium about it so I could go in? 
The information is already out there in many places for millions of strangers to see. I put it out there as I wasn’t bothered about it.

If I wanted to keep it private that’s absolutely my choice too, I could potentially see the argument that it was my right to keep it secret.

I just don’t understand why someone would chuck the information out into the world but then complain about civil liberties if actually asked for it as part of an aligned agreement to gain entry to somewhere I wanted to go. 

 

Isn’t this a very similar argument to the ‘nothing to hide so not a problem’ argument around facial recognition cameras in town centres/

I know shops have cctv and I still choose to go in them. But I object to the police having a van scanning the crowd as a fishing trip.

The chances are that they could catch some very bad people and protect me. but in doing that, they are setting up the infrastructure and greasing the slippery slope for big brother to have more and more control in the future in ways i possibly don’t yet understand.

If I choose to, I can leave the house without my wallet and without my phone and without my i.d.. I don’t do it very often, but I absolutely love my freedom to do that. I don’t want to have to take i.d. to meet friends and family at the football. But if enough people are ok with it, as you appear to be then the feedback the govt gets is that its ok to chip away another tiny piece of liberty. An inconsequential liberty for our own wellbeing and convenience. Then in a year or three, another tiny inconsequential liberty goes. Then another a year or two after that.

Choice, versus government control. It’s a massive difference. I don’t understand how it’s a difficult concept.

[HanoiVillan]

Results from Pfizer's study in South Africa show no infections in the vaccine group:

Incidentally, that tweet is the start of a short thread which is well worth reading.

[Rodders]

16 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

That happened a year  ago when people gleefully cheered on laws to make it illegal to leave your house except for government approved reasons. 

surely even some libertarians should acknowledge one basic role of government is to protect the lives of it's citizens?

the principle of lockdown as the least harmful option seemed eminently sensible and should have been done sooner, no-one can seriously believe it was part of a mendacious plot. 

[Genie]

Alas, it’s BoJo time...

[LondonLax]

The Authoritarian argument always comes down to basic personality types. Some people feel more secure when the government exercises control over its population and some people feel more secure when they have freedom from government control. 

[villakram]

37 minutes ago, blandy said:

Mathematically impossible.  You can’t get 00.32% from 100 people. 

With biology types, anything is possible!

[maqroll]

Are most Villatalkers still waiting to get their jabs?

[snowychap]

33 minutes ago, Genie said:

If I had told posted on social media I’d had the vaccination, like millions of others, why would I take deep offence at telling the pub, airline, concert, football stadium about it so I could go in?

I am Bob Sodoff and I'm fully vaccinated.

Edited April 5, 2021 by snowychap

[chrisp65]

22 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

The Authoritarian argument always comes down to basic personality types. Some people feel more secure when the government exercises control over its population and some people feel more secure when they have freedom from government control. 

The government should be here for my benefit, not me for theirs.

[Genie]

22 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Isn’t this a very similar argument to the ‘nothing to hide so not a problem’ argument around facial recognition cameras in town centres/

To a degree, but these things happen passively without explicit permission.

The scenario with passports is that as part of the “contract” to enter is confirming your vaccination status. I appreciate those that want to keep this information private it gives them a dilemma.

The most confusing part for me though is making it common knowledge on public platforms what their vaccine status is, but then complaining about big brother taking over on the topic of a purely voluntarily declaration in return for admission to an optional activity.

[chrisp65]

1 minute ago, maqroll said:

Are most Villatalkers still waiting to get their jabs?

It’s based on age and risk profile.

It should now be the case that if you’re 50 or older, or in a medical risk group, then you’ve had the jab or have an appointment in a day or two. It’s varying slightly geographically, some areas are already vaccinating healthy people in their 40’s.

Where I am, all 9 risk groups have been done and we’re now in to general population.

[blandy]

31 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

LOL yes, that's true, but the point about the conditions that false positive rate was achieved in is nevertheless a good one, or at least worthy of further thought.

OH, yes. Please don't take my jocular disapproval of @villakram's maths to be approval of the lamentable test Track and Trace system in place.