Hamilton players who tested positive return negative results

A relation of mine was taken to hospital by ambulance with all the symptoms of covid, she was tested three times in hospital, first two tests came back negative, third came back positive. These tests are a joke !!
 
Hobjo said:
The false positives with community testing are running at an average of 2.5% - that just happens to be slightly less than the percentage who are testing positive every day in Scotland. Bearing in mind a small number of these are hospital tests which are far more accurate and community testing is clustered in areas with so called spikes - I’d suggest many of the 260 odd +ve tests (not cases) in Scotland today are false.

We’re being taken for a ride by politicians who are using fear to shroud the (decreasing) risk of them missing a second wave.

stats are all there if people whose to look at them
Click to expand...
A relation of mine was taken to hospital by ambulance with all the symptoms of covid, she was tested three times in hospital, first two tests came back negative, third came back positive. These tests are a joke !!
 
allmodcons said:
A relation of mine was taken to hospital by ambulance with all the symptoms of covid, she was tested three times in hospital, first two tests came back negative, third came back positive. These tests are a joke !!
Click to expand...

does she have it? Hope all is ok .

I think hospital tests are supposed to be pretty accurate but false positives in the community tests (PCR) are notoriously bad. Checks have shown COVID positives from water and a papaya!
 
Lossie Bear said:
Looks like the bold Scottish CMO was correct in his prediction that the Covid Tests are a "bit rubbish" the 3 Hamilton Accies players who tested positive yesterday are now negative after 3 false positives. How anyone can trust these test figures is beyond me.
Click to expand...

The tests are not rubbish, the CMO said no such thing (Leitch, who has another job, said some of the words in a different context) and the whole “false positive” thing is a piece of misunderstood nonsense.

Private companies produce a test result which may find a trace of virus - not enough to be infectious and not enough to cause bother. But they have to say “positive” because of liability. Show that same test to the NHS and they’ll give an answer based on their binary threshold. The player still has some virus but the NHS seems it safe.
 
How many days between both tests though? Definitely not accurate these tests, and still too much unknown about the virus
 
Supposedly the tests get amplified too much.

its supposed to be done up to 15 tines but labs have been amplifying them 20-40 times, which means positive results are found when the sample is so small it shouldnt be classed as positive (or something along those lines)

seen an article, (think it was the New York Times/Post) that mention 90% of tests should have been negative
 
Hobjo said:
The false positives with community testing are running at an average of 2.5% - that just happens to be slightly less than the percentage who are testing positive every day in Scotland. Bearing in mind a small number of these are hospital tests which are far more accurate and community testing is clustered in areas with so called spikes - I’d suggest many of the 260 odd +ve tests (not cases) in Scotland today are false.

We’re being taken for a ride by politicians who are using fear to shroud the (decreasing) risk of them missing a second wave.

stats are all there if people chose to look at them
Click to expand...
Where are you taking the 2.5% for false positives from?
 
Buffel87 said:
Where are you taking the 2.5% for false positives from?
Click to expand...

it’s a median figure for the range found with PCR tests (2.3% my mistake)


But if you were just to use SPFL examples as a measure you’d get a far higher percentage. There are various issues with these tests - apparently we have a higher threshold for what constitutes a positive than other countries. They run cycles to get positive signal from sample - above 30 cycles and you are getting into very weak territory, certainly asymptomatic and probably a remnant from having the virus before or even an old cold. I saw a graph a few days ago that showed a large proportion (I’d say just under half) of tests needing over 30 cycles to produce a signal.

but for me, the biggest thing we’re ignoring is our own common sense and instincts. It’s obvious the virus is a) nothing like as deadly as we first though and treatment means we’re even less likely to die of it than we were before (something like 6% of hospitalised folks died in March, now it’s 1.5-%) and (b) there’s no epidemic any more. Humans know how to deal with viruses and have done for millions of years, but today we've outsourced this instinct to professionals and politicians with personal reputations and agendas (as all professionals and politicians always have, this is nothing new).

the repeated SPFL false positives is an obvious indicator of our over reaction IMO
 
The Golden God said:
I wonder how many tests out in the general population are like this?

You're results are positive but you actually aren't.
Click to expand...
A high proportion I'd guess. PCR tests are almost meaningless as they find fragments of the virus from up to 9 weeks back from point of infection.

It makes the hysteria going on in the UK and talks of 2nd lockdown truly, moronically bizarre.
 
Hobjo said:
it’s a median figure for the range found with PCR tests (2.3% my mistake)


But if you were just to use SPFL examples as a measure you’d get a far higher percentage. There are various issues with these tests - apparently we have a higher threshold for what constitutes a positive than other countries. They run cycles to get positive signal from sample - above 30 cycles and you are getting into very weak territory, certainly asymptomatic and probably a remnant from having the virus before or even an old cold. I saw a graph a few days ago that showed a large proportion (I’d say just under half) of tests needing over 30 cycles to produce a signal.

but for me, the biggest thing we’re ignoring is our own common sense and instincts. It’s obvious the virus is a) nothing like as deadly as we first though and treatment means we’re even less likely to die of it than we were before (something like 6% of hospitalised folks died in March, now it’s 1.5-%) and (b) there’s no epidemic any more. Humans know how to deal with viruses and have done for millions of years, but today we've outsourced this instinct to professionals and politicians with personal reputations and agendas (as all professionals and politicians always have, this is nothing new).

the repeated SPFL false positives is an obvious indicator of our over reaction IMO
Click to expand...
Cheers for the link. Was interested to see if something Covid-19 specific had been published. The 2.3% rate is an estimate based on other viral RNA PCR tests.

There is a lack of consensus around the cycle threshold that should be used yeah but it's difficult to set it without much data. The correlation between viral load and ability to spread isn't known. PHE are apparently setting guidelines soon however, from what I understand.
Too high a threshold does risk detecting levels of Covid-19 that are too low to be infective or recent remnants but the virus is still there. You won't get a false positive due to an infection with the common cold however.

Like most things in life, taking the SPFL as an example is probably a bad idea :)
We seem to be returning a number of "false" positives compared to other leagues. Whether that's down to the companies that our teams are outsourcing to (and perhaps thier already discussed cycle thresholds) or what it is, I'm not sure. I don't have the figures to hand but I certainly don't recall premier League teams reporting such high numbers of positives, be them false or otherwise.
 
Buffel87 said:
Cheers for the link. Was interested to see if something Covid-19 specific had been published. The 2.3% rate is an estimate based on other viral RNA PCR tests.

There is a lack of consensus around the cycle threshold that should be used yeah but it's difficult to set it without much data. The correlation between viral load and ability to spread isn't known. PHE are apparently setting guidelines soon however, from what I understand.
Too high a threshold does risk detecting levels of Covid-19 that are too low to be infective or recent remnants but the virus is still there. You won't get a false positive due to an infection with the common cold however.

Like most things in life, taking the SPFL as an example is probably a bad idea :)
We seem to be returning a number of "false" positives compared to other leagues. Whether that's down to the companies that our teams are outsourcing to (and perhaps thier already discussed cycle thresholds) or what it is, I'm not sure. I don't have the figures to hand but I certainly don't recall premier League teams reporting such high numbers of positives, be them false or otherwise.
Click to expand...

yes there’s not enough data on the reliability of Covid testing but anecdotal stuff does appear quite damning - plus studies where they were getting signals from water etc.

I might well be mixing up separate issues re:common cold. That was a study re: antibodies which may be effective against COVID I think?
 
Buffel87 said:
Cheers for the link. Was interested to see if something Covid-19 specific had been published. The 2.3% rate is an estimate based on other viral RNA PCR tests.

There is a lack of consensus around the cycle threshold that should be used yeah but it's difficult to set it without much data. The correlation between viral load and ability to spread isn't known. PHE are apparently setting guidelines soon however, from what I understand.
Too high a threshold does risk detecting levels of Covid-19 that are too low to be infective or recent remnants but the virus is still there. You won't get a false positive due to an infection with the common cold however.

Like most things in life, taking the SPFL as an example is probably a bad idea :)
We seem to be returning a number of "false" positives compared to other leagues. Whether that's down to the companies that our teams are outsourcing to (and perhaps thier already discussed cycle thresholds) or what it is, I'm not sure. I don't have the figures to hand but I certainly don't recall premier League teams reporting such high numbers of positives, be them false or otherwise.
Click to expand...

you’ve probably seen this by now https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-cases-in-england-arent-rising-heres-why/
 
The reality is the tests have considerably less than a 100% accuracy rate so this is going to keep happening
 
Hobjo said:
yes there’s not enough data on the reliability of Covid testing but anecdotal stuff does appear quite damning - plus studies where they were getting signals from water etc.

I might well be mixing up separate issues re:common cold. That was a study re: antibodies which may be effective against COVID I think?
Click to expand...
The water and papaya testing positive for Covid-19 was from a testing lab in Tanzania.
Although would anyone be surprised if it turned out the SPFL were using similar tests?

An antibody test could come up positive for the "common cold" yes. But your recent cold would have to have been due infection by another coronavirus which isn't that likely. Usually a rhinovirus will be the infective agent for a cold and in that instance you wouldn't test positive on the antibody test.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top