FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Is mass testing..
Is mass testing..
Jump to: Newest in thread
"The best way we have at present if managing the virus?
Given the figures from some studies indicate up to 40 percent of people are asymptomatic and currently not being tested .."
In England... No. The figures I've seen are that 4 out of 5 are asymptomatic. The issue is how the individual responds when they find out they are positive. From what is being increasingly reported, any attempts to isolate, quarantine, wear a mask, restrict movements to slow down the spread, are being resisted by an increasing population... See reports on greater Manchester area. No point testing if you do nothing with the results.
Conversely, if when you find the result you restrict your movements so that you don't spread it further, or if negative are permitted to go about your business... Its a great way forward. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
We are one of the highest testing countries in the world at 2.26 tests per thousand people.The latest test positivity rate is 2.8%. so lets say for every 100 tests 3 are positive of which 80 % are asymptomatic.
It does explain why the number of hospitalisations are not increasing in any great number. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago
upton wirral |
"We are one of the highest testing countries in the world at 2.26 tests per thousand people.The latest test positivity rate is 2.8%. so lets say for every 100 tests 3 are positive of which 80 % are asymptomatic.
It does explain why the number of hospitalisations are not increasing in any great number."
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Actually yes 
Its a great tool when used with face coverings, hand sanitisation and social distancing
Now since a large portion of the population fail in 1 or more of the above, there's no point implementing it as a person could test negative and then go and catch it up the pub, easier to keep to hotspot chasing as we are
If the saliva test became effective and in large quantities available we could all do a coronavirus test day |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Imagine if you will, a virus so different to existing flu viruses (for example) that you have to be tested in order to discover if you’ve actually contracted it.
Not to mention that the said terrible virus can be on millions of disposable facemasks that do not have to be carefully put in biohazard bins to be incinerated but are quite happily filling up waste bins, dust bins, public transport seats, city centres, rivers and beaches.
CASES DO NOT MATTER -only excess deaths and hospitalisations which have been below the 5 year average for several weeks now. The more you test, the more cases there will be, but you can't stop the natural progression of a virus; you can only alter the rate of transmission - nothing else. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We did a mass testing (voluntary) research study where I work and the number of positive cases out of over 7000 tests were so small they cancelled on of the next rounds of testing. "
Going off national testing results out of 7000 tests I'd expect to be seeing approx 200 positives. Of course the national picture is heavily skewed by testing in the hotspots. So if your work place is in a low risk area then yes a low to zero positive result would be likely.
That's the downside of just using headline case figures in an attempt to show a picture of the nationwide spread of the disease. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We did a mass testing (voluntary) research study where I work and the number of positive cases out of over 7000 tests were so small they cancelled on of the next rounds of testing.
Going off national testing results out of 7000 tests I'd expect to be seeing approx 200 positives. Of course the national picture is heavily skewed by testing in the hotspots. So if your work place is in a low risk area then yes a low to zero positive result would be likely.
That's the downside of just using headline case figures in an attempt to show a picture of the nationwide spread of the disease."
If it gets in its quite a high risk place to be due to it being similar in some ways to cruise ships or care homes (captive audience you could say).
But nationally I think we are fairly low risk although staff do travel far and wide to get here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Imagine if you will, a virus so different to existing flu viruses (for example) that you have to be tested in order to discover if you’ve actually contracted it.
Not to mention that the said terrible virus can be on millions of disposable facemasks that do not have to be carefully put in biohazard bins to be incinerated but are quite happily filling up waste bins, dust bins, public transport seats, city centres, rivers and beaches.
CASES DO NOT MATTER -only excess deaths and hospitalisations which have been below the 5 year average for several weeks now. The more you test, the more cases there will be, but you can't stop the natural progression of a virus; you can only alter the rate of transmission - nothing else."
Yes the -7.3 deaths per 100 000 in the last 14 days is impressive. Any info on how long the people brought to life had been dead for before they were resurected?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We did a mass testing (voluntary) research study where I work and the number of positive cases out of over 7000 tests were so small they cancelled on of the next rounds of testing.
Going off national testing results out of 7000 tests I'd expect to be seeing approx 200 positives. Of course the national picture is heavily skewed by testing in the hotspots. So if your work place is in a low risk area then yes a low to zero positive result would be likely.
That's the downside of just using headline case figures in an attempt to show a picture of the nationwide spread of the disease."
How do you get to that figure are you saying you believe 2% of the population are currently infected? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We did a mass testing (voluntary) research study where I work and the number of positive cases out of over 7000 tests were so small they cancelled on of the next rounds of testing.
Going off national testing results out of 7000 tests I'd expect to be seeing approx 200 positives. Of course the national picture is heavily skewed by testing in the hotspots. So if your work place is in a low risk area then yes a low to zero positive result would be likely.
That's the downside of just using headline case figures in an attempt to show a picture of the nationwide spread of the disease.
How do you get to that figure are you saying you believe 2% of the population are currently infected?"
Currently 7 per 100000 in worcester....so in 7000 tested you would be luck to find the 1. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We did a mass testing (voluntary) research study where I work and the number of positive cases out of over 7000 tests were so small they cancelled on of the next rounds of testing.
Going off national testing results out of 7000 tests I'd expect to be seeing approx 200 positives. Of course the national picture is heavily skewed by testing in the hotspots. So if your work place is in a low risk area then yes a low to zero positive result would be likely.
That's the downside of just using headline case figures in an attempt to show a picture of the nationwide spread of the disease.
How do you get to that figure are you saying you believe 2% of the population are currently infected?"
The latest test positivity percentage rate for the U.K. is 2.8%. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We did a mass testing (voluntary) research study where I work and the number of positive cases out of over 7000 tests were so small they cancelled on of the next rounds of testing.
Going off national testing results out of 7000 tests I'd expect to be seeing approx 200 positives. Of course the national picture is heavily skewed by testing in the hotspots. So if your work place is in a low risk area then yes a low to zero positive result would be likely.
That's the downside of just using headline case figures in an attempt to show a picture of the nationwide spread of the disease.
How do you get to that figure are you saying you believe 2% of the population are currently infected?
The latest test positivity percentage rate for the U.K. is 2.8%. "
I need to get back to school. Just re read the data. The actual rolling seven day average percentage rate is 0.7%. Apparently there are approximately 150 negative tests before a positive test.
So my figure of of 200 out of 7000 was wildly out.
My apologies. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Public Health England reduced the deaths to 29,000 from 46,000 back in July. 58,000 died of flu in 2018. The MSM doesn't report this.
The NHS have reported only 1388 people have died of C19 without any underlying issues. Which translates to, unexplained deaths, as they cant even test for C19. I believe they've further reduced that to around 1220.
21,000 have died as a direct result of lockdown.
200,000 are predicted to die because of lockdown.
The normal flu has been killing more people in the last 7 weeks than C19.
Cases are up, but death rate is near non existent????
From a population of around 67 million! That's 1220 dead of c19 from 67,000,000!!!!
They've run tests on asymptomatic spread. Zero cases. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Public Health England reduced the deaths to 29,000 from 46,000 back in July. 58,000 died of flu in 2018. The MSM doesn't report this.
The NHS have reported only 1388 people have died of C19 without any underlying issues. Which translates to, unexplained deaths, as they cant even test for C19. I believe they've further reduced that to around 1220.
21,000 have died as a direct result of lockdown.
200,000 are predicted to die because of lockdown.
The normal flu has been killing more people in the last 7 weeks than C19.
Cases are up, but death rate is near non existent????
From a population of around 67 million! That's 1220 dead of c19 from 67,000,000!!!!
They've run tests on asymptomatic spread. Zero cases."
Lots of claims there. Apart from your first sentence can you give me your sources for the rest. Especially the 1220 deaths and the zero transmission of asymptotic patients. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
You know when the seasonal flu’s, colds & illnesses start hitting?
As they have always done since I can remember anyway
People are going to be hysterical......
Because
Every thing is going to be
COVID-19
Get ready to witness it
In the media
And
From people
Because
By now the programming is deeply imbedded
They won’t be able to help but think it’s C-19 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
You know when the seasonal flu’s, colds & illnesses start hitting?
As they have always done since I can remember anyway
People are going to be hysterical......
Because
Every thing is going to be
COVID-19
Get ready to witness it
In the media
And
From people
Because
By now the programming is deeply imbedded
They won’t be able to help but think it’s C-19"
100% true
The minute anyone gets the sniffles or a cough everyone will be thinking oh shit i got covid.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Just to remind you.
Government downgraded covid19 to non highly infectious just before the flatten the curve 2 week lockdown in march.
They allow you to belief it was highly infectious to get their agenda moving.
Now more recently they downgraded the covid19 to just a normak corona virus
.. just like it always was. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Imagine if you will, a virus so different to existing flu viruses (for example) that you have to be tested in order to discover if you’ve actually contracted it.
Not to mention that the said terrible virus can be on millions of disposable facemasks that do not have to be carefully put in biohazard bins to be incinerated but are quite happily filling up waste bins, dust bins, public transport seats, city centres, rivers and beaches.
CASES DO NOT MATTER -only excess deaths and hospitalisations which have been below the 5 year average for several weeks now. The more you test, the more cases there will be, but you can't stop the natural progression of a virus; you can only alter the rate of transmission - nothing else."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You really do just ramble on don’t you. I asked for sources for the figures you quoted. You never seem to supply them.
What 'sources'would you acceptM"
Any that actually gives the figures you quoted. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You really do just ramble on don’t you. I asked for sources for the figures you quoted. You never seem to supply them.
What 'sources'would you acceptM
Any that actually gives the figures you quoted."
You going to start believing this is all a scam if i do? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You really do just ramble on don’t you. I asked for sources for the figures you quoted. You never seem to supply them.
What 'sources'would you acceptM
Any that actually gives the figures you quoted.
You going to start believing this is all a scam if i do?"
Yeah right. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Search flu death 2018 uk and it wil bring upmolenty of sourse for both 2018 and 2017
"
The winter 2018 flu death figures are 1692
The highest recent winter death figures was 28,330 in 2014. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Search flu death 2018 uk and it wil bring upmolenty of sourse for both 2018 and 2017
The winter 2018 flu death figures are 1692
The highest recent winter death figures was 28,330 in 2014."
Fron ONS
2019 flu and pneomonia 25k
2018 similar figure
And if you downoad the spreadaheet title
Deaths registered weekly in england and wales
You can see there arw lots of creative ways they are counting covid related deaths.
It the last tab actual covid deaths seems be 2544 as of last week
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Search flu death 2018 uk and it wil bring upmolenty of sourse for both 2018 and 2017
The winter 2018 flu death figures are 1692
The highest recent winter death figures was 28,330 in 2014."
I love it when people give a load of stats, then you ask for sources and they become really vague after reeling off a load of numbers  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Search flu death 2018 uk and it wil bring upmolenty of sourse for both 2018 and 2017
The winter 2018 flu death figures are 1692
The highest recent winter death figures was 28,330 in 2014.
Fron ONS
2019 flu and pneomonia 25k
2018 similar figure
And if you downoad the spreadaheet title
Deaths registered weekly in england and wales
You can see there arw lots of creative ways they are counting covid related deaths.
It the last tab actual covid deaths seems be 2544 as of last week
"
Ok you have now added on pneumonia which was not what you originally asked.
So you’re now comparing figures for one disease in a 5 month period with mitigation to 2 diseases over a 12 month period with no mitigation.
You also appear to be discarding Covid deaths if they involve underlying health conditions whilst failing to differentiate the underlying health conditions of those who die of flu and pneumonia. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I am absolutely gobsmacked that after everything we've gone through in last few months people still don't get Covid-19.
Seriously? What would it take?
Perhaps people are willing to accept ANY reality that does not involve them having to make personal sacrifices to save the lives of others, regardless of how many facts have to be simply disregarded. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Public Health England reduced the deaths to 29,000 from 46,000 back in July. 58,000 died of flu in 2018. The MSM doesn't report this.
The NHS have reported only 1388 people have died of C19 without any underlying issues. Which translates to, unexplained deaths, as they cant even test for C19. I believe they've further reduced that to around 1220.
21,000 have died as a direct result of lockdown.
200,000 are predicted to die because of lockdown.
The normal flu has been killing more people in the last 7 weeks than C19.
Cases are up, but death rate is near non existent????
From a population of around 67 million! That's 1220 dead of c19 from 67,000,000!!!!
They've run tests on asymptomatic spread. Zero cases."
Everyone is entitled to their opinion
Fortunately some people have intelligent opinions
This isn't a good example |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
