PCR tests and false positives

[talldave]

That article has one major flaw. With present policy, testing will find a much higher percentage of positives than the general prevalence, because people are only supposed to have a test if they think they are infected.

The ONS are paying people to get tested. That seems a bit weird.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

The ONS are paying people to get tested. That seems a bit weird.

Indeed. Especially when the government were forced to revise downwards the official death toll for reasons well covered in other threads.
It does seem that now deaths are at low levels, there is massive focus on infection numbers. The very people that are poor at assessing risk are exactly those who fail to spot that change. There will be small number who think infection = certain death, they’ve failed to spot the subtle change in the dissemination of fear.
It is not just a U.K. phenomenon, however.
There was a guy on Sky Australia saying that Daniel Andrews (State Premier, Victoria) has ordered more testing in regional areas, where there are no cases. You get it? Looking for new numbers!’

Why, one wonders?

 

[AdamWW]

The ONS are paying people to get tested. That seems a bit weird.

I don't know what the above refers to. Possibly the following..?

The ONS have been running a study for several months now where a randomly picked set of households are repeatedly tested, to give an idea of infection levels. It wouldn't seem unreasonable to compensate people for the hassle involved.

 

[talldave]

I don't know what the above refers to. Possibly the following..?

The ONS have been running a study for several months now where a randomly picked set of households are repeatedly tested, to give an idea of infection levels. It wouldn't seem unreasonable to compensate people for the hassle involved.

What happened to "for the greater good" we've had rammed down our throats for months?

They're going to get a higher take-up from poorer households- particularly high occupancy ones (they pay per person tested) and hence the results will be skewed. It doesn't take a genius to work that out.

 

[DelayRepay]

They're going to get a higher take-up from poorer households- particularly high occupancy ones (they pay per person tested) and hence the results will be skewed. It doesn't take a genius to work that out.

I would be amazed if they haven't taken that into account. They may get more poorer households willing to participate but they surely make sure that the sample population actually used is reasonable reflective of society.

 

[AdamWW]

What happened to "for the greater good" we've had rammed down our throats for months?

They're going to get a higher take-up from poorer households- particularly high occupancy ones (they pay per person tested) and hence the results will be skewed. It doesn't take a genius to work that out.

No, it doesn't take a genius to work it out, and possible they've thought of it too and allow for it?

If they asked people to do it for nothing, that would likely skew things too, just differently?

Anecdotally, I know someone who is on this who has happily taken the vouchers, but I don't think it made any difference to agreeing to do it.

 

[talldave]

No, it doesn't take a genius to work it out, and possible they've thought of it too and allow for it?

Not sure why, but I have very little confidence in any government statistics at the moment.

If they asked people to do it for nothing, that would likely skew things too, just differently?

It would be less of a skew because everybody has the same incentive - ie: none.

 

[AdamWW]

Not sure why, but I have very little confidence in any government statistics at the moment.

It would be less of a skew because everybody has the same incentive - ie: none.

What has made you doubt the ability of the ONS in particular?

 

[talldave]

What has made you doubt the ability of the ONS in particular?

A track record of f*** ups?

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

A track record of f*** ups?

I think you're confusing the ONS data with the PHE/Government data

 

[talldave]

I think you're confusing the ONS data with the PHE/Government data

No I'm not. ONS death data is less unrealistic than PHE. But we're talking about testing and confidence in ONS who have made plenty errors in the past.