Covid 19: What’s the lesson ?

[Francie 6,368]

4 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

It's from the CDC's website. The same people who you originally quoted to justify your belief that it's all bollocks. I just read it fully because I knew you had taken their statement and gone down a rabbit hole with it. Those 'initial studies' that showed them it only produces 1% false positives are the same studies that made them write "However, there is a chance that a positive result means you have antibodies from an infection with a different virus from the same family of viruses (called coronaviruses)" in the quote.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/serology-testing.html

And what's your point born, I know where it came from I read it meself. 

[Born Hunter 17,775]

Just now, Francie said:

And what's your point born, I know where it came from I read it meself. 

You read it so well you completely missunderstood it. How can you claim that a 99% accurate test for positive reactors is "for f**k all"?

 

[Greb147 6,809]

2 minutes ago, Francie said:

And what's your point born, I know where it came from I read it meself. 

Come on Francie give best son.

[Francie 6,368]

2 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

Mate, you're so out of your depth here. Define accurate? You're throwing this word around like you know what it means.

Haha am I, OK well il use your quoted one percent, what if down the line they evaluate again, an it's upto five percent, don't be trying to act smart about meanigs of words bud, you know what I mean. 

[Born Hunter 17,775]

Do you know what 95% confidence intervals are in reference to measurement accuracy?

[Francie 6,368]

Just now, Born Hunter said:

Do you know what 95% confidence intervals are in reference to measurement accuracy?

Of course I do

[Born Hunter 17,775]

Just now, Francie said:

Haha am I, OK well il use your quoted one percent, what if down the line they evaluate again, an it's upto five percent, don't be trying to act smart about meanigs of words bud, you know what I mean. 

Do you know what the 95% confidence interval in that 99% is?

[Born Hunter 17,775]

2 minutes ago, Francie said:

Haha am I, OK well il use your quoted one percent, what if down the line they evaluate again, an it's upto five percent, don't be trying to act smart about meanigs of words bud, you know what I mean. 

I can't help sounding smart when explaining how science works. If it's too 'smart' for you stop making false statements.

[Francie 6,368]

2 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

You read it so well you completely missunderstood it. How can you claim that a 99% accurate test for positive reactors is "for f**k all"?

 

Because its not a hundred percent is it, an that means there's discrepancies, yes there maybe small, one percent they say, but that leaves room fo error. 

So if they evaluate the test couple months down the line, an it's upto five percent, what does that mean? 

[Francie 6,368]

3 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

Do you know what the 95% confidence interval in that 99% is?

No explain please

[Francie 6,368]

1 minute ago, Born Hunter said:

I can't help sounding smart when explaining how science works. If it's too 'smart' for you stop making false statements.

I'm being sarcastic born lol

[Born Hunter 17,775]

Just now, Francie said:

Because its not a hundred percent is it, an that means there's discrepancies, yes there maybe small, one percent they say, but that leaves room fo error. 

So if they evaluate the test couple months down the line, an it's upto five percent, what does that mean? 

Half of science is error analysis ffs! Of course there's error, they explicit state there's error. There's error in ever measurement. 1% error isn't "for f**k all".

Yes, down the line that 99% might be refined. But given their 95% confidence interval is something like 97% - 99.9% it makes any likely change near as damn it irrelevant. But you knew that.....

[Francie 6,368]

5 minutes ago, Greb147 said:

Come on Francie give best son.

Why would I do that big dog? 

[Francie 6,368]

Just now, Born Hunter said:

Half of science is error analysis ffs! Of course there's error, they explicit state there's error. There's error in ever measurement. 1% error isn't "for f**k all".

Yes, down the line that 99% might be refined. But given their 95% confidence interval is something like 97% - 99.9% it makes any likely change near as damn it irrelevant. But you knew that.....

But you said in same statement half of science is error, but on down your saying if its refined its irrelavant? 

If half of science is error then how can you be sure that the refinement won't take it to under 90 percent? 

[Francie 6,368]

Born your saying stats an percentages are the dogs dangles, but if someone went to the hospital with a lump, an was told it benign, but it was really cancerous, an died because of misdiagnosis, would that be within your one percent? 

f**k em like. 

Edited September 23, 2020 by Francie