|
By:
|
|
By:
Well I've obviously upset you Fatslogger.
But that's what becomes of swimming out of your depth, you'll know better next time. |
|
By:
Thing is Crips, I can do the ad homs and I’m better at them than you but I also actually know the science.
I mean, I’m ready for your attempts to say that ITUs don’t really admit sick people, that deaths more than doubling and rising doesn’t suggest an impending problem in a condition where we know deaths lag infections by weeks and that sombrero wearing means all stats are off. Bring them on. Or might you prefer not even to try engaging on a sub set of the arguments you haven’t already run away from? I’m sure you’ll tell us. |
|
By:
But you don’t need the mock solicitousness, I rather enjoy making you retreat to your pretence that you didn’t just get humiliated safe space.
|
|
By:
You certainly get upset easily.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
I'm amazed crippen has stuck around this long. He's normally running off in the wind straight after he's had his arse handed to him. Must keep him fit I suppose.
|
|
By:
Porcupine has come for a tilt now.
He'll be blowing his top soon to join Fatslogger. |
|
By:
PP goes off like a rocket.
|
|
By:
If the false positive test is close to zero ( and it may be a bit worse than that) then you still have a problem if you are testing large numbers and the virus is quite rare. As in the UK
You can end up with more false positives than false negatives |
|
By:
It is possible for the number of false positives to be much greater than the real number
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
I would imagine that it is likely to be the case, and would certainly be the case if infection rates are small , as they have been in the UK ( we think )
|
|
By:
I think Dr Crippen may well be right
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Yes but even if it is very close to zero , and as I say it may be less accurate than that
You can have many more false positives , than true positives |
|
By:
When especially you have a situation as we have seen it in the UK over this last number of weeks
|
|
By:
I think it is almost inevitable that dr crippen is right
|
|
By:
In the real world
|
|
By:
Does anyone on here do jigsaws?
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Well if the accuracy was 95% ( quite possible or perhaps worse) we would have hundreds of false positives for a handful of true positives
|
|
By:
If it was 99.9% accurate we would still have more false positives than true positives
|
|
By:
Now how accurate do you think it is likely to be , in the real world ?
|
|
By:
The whole false positive question is one that has been ignored by MOST of the media.
Even in Spain that is weeks ahead of us deaths are still relatively low compared to other causes. We need to learn to live with Covid. It is not the only killer out there. |
|
By:
IT
Is this false positives an actual issue in the real or is it just something Icke's fans witter on about? There was a spectator link posted earlier from an article this week. They claimed that the positive results were 99.4% accurate (the negative outcomes are far less accurate) They seemed to think 99.4% was pretty good. Are you claiming that this figure is untrue or maybe that we should be really worried that only 99.4% accurate. You haven't explained your position IT , you just seem to be blaming others. Maybe you could explain , perhaps even mention where your "facts" come from? |
|
By:
|