- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
A new member joining just to sell unrelated stuff by the looks of itWTF is that all about?
A new member joining just to sell unrelated stuff by the looks of itWTF is that all about?
Just watched this reported on BBC Breakfast. Funny they didn't mention that the cases came from the UK in spite of it being on their own website.
That has now been proven and Jacinda has admitted that procedures were not followed. I have heard of two cases recently where people have tested positive and the next day negative followed by another negative. I can understand how you can get a false negative but how do you get a false positive unless the test is extremely unreliable?Heathrow to Doha = 6hr 55 mins.
Doha to Brisbane 13 hr 50 mins.
Brisbane to Auckland 3 hr 15 mins.
Plus probably between 2 and 4 hours at each transit stop, so around 30 hours of travelling time arriving at the Auckland quarantine site on June 7th.
Reportedly it CV-19 takes 5 days to develop so that fits with becoming infected on the flights.
Had the NZ testing procedures been followed to the letter then these cases would have been identified within the quarantine hotel in Auckland before the women travelled (self drive) to a relatives house in Wellington where they where they had a compassionate exemption to visit a dying relative. They were too late and are now self isolating for a further 14 days in Wellington as is their relative. The funeral is being delayed so that they can all attend after the quarantine period and further testing.
That has now been proven and Jacinda has admitted that procedures were not followed. I have heard of two cases recently where people have tested positive and the next day negative followed by another negative. I can understand how you can get a false negative but how do you get a false positive unless the test is extremely unreliable?
It is imprecise - all tests fail an amount positive and negative. This is just how it is.That has now been proven and Jacinda has admitted that procedures were not followed. I have heard of two cases recently where people have tested positive and the next day negative followed by another negative. I can understand how you can get a false negative but how do you get a false positive unless the test is extremely unreliable?
Military is now going to oversee quarantine procedures.
I think I understand what you are saying but I am still not sure how you can have a test that finds the presence of something that is not actually there. One example is a friend who has been on and off having cancer treatment for a few years. He was diagnosed as having a relapse early in the year and commenced new treatment. Just before a new wave of treatment was due to commence he was diagnosed positive and treatment was cancelled. A follow up test a few days later showed negative and this was reinforced by another negative but he was still sent home to isolate. I think this interrupted the course of treatment and it had to restart from the beginning two weeks later. This was bad for him and bad for the health service. If the tests are unreliable why did they base the original decision to cancel treatment based on just one test?It is imprecise - all tests fail an amount positive and negative. This is just how it is.
When you have a lot of infection you tolerate tests saying that you are negative. Because you know a lot of people are infected you want to get *most* out but can let a few slip through
When infection is low, you tolerate tests that fail saying more are postive. You want to catch everyone infected and accept a few more.
You use different tests for different times
You also have to take into account the cost of tests - everyone wants a test that is always accurate AND costs the least - mostly it doesn't work like that.
Sadly it isn't simple.
Medical tests rarely test what they are actually trying to determine. Most of them test for something that Indicates what they are looking for. With Covid 19 the test looks for antibodies to the virus, not the virus itself. Different tests may find it hard to differentiate between Covid 19 antibodies and those to other similar viruses.I think I understand what you are saying but I am still not sure how you can have a test that finds the presence of something that is not actually there. One example is a friend who has been on and off having cancer treatment for a few years. He was diagnosed as having a relapse early in the year and commenced new treatment. Just before a new wave of treatment was due to commence he was diagnosed positive and treatment was cancelled. A follow up test a few days later showed negative and this was reinforced by another negative but he was still sent home to isolate. I think this interrupted the course of treatment and it had to restart from the beginning two weeks later. This was bad for him and bad for the health service. If the tests are unreliable why did they base the original decision to cancel treatment based on just one test?
I get this information from his wife who is an ex nurse. She is obviously very upset but I don`t think she is overplaying the situation.
OK, nothing is infallible. So this is an antibody test that finds antibodies one day but they have disappeared the next . I understand that the difficulty in exactly identifying antibodies may cause confusion but by the same token do all these asymptomatic carriers really exist or are they at least to a great extent the result of unreliable tests. The other problem that occurs to me, if antibody identification is so unreliable the production of a reliable vaccine is also very hit and miss.Medical tests rarely test what they are actually trying to determine. Most of them test for something that Indicates what they are looking for. With Covid 19 the test looks for antibodies to the virus, not the virus itself. Different tests may find it hard to differentiate between Covid 19 antibodies and those to other similar viruses.
Also you may have the virus but be too early to have developed the antibodies and people vary in how quickly and how well they develop those antibodies.
Very few medical tests are 100% accurate.
All governments have to delegate. Jacinda cannot personally supervise volcanoes and all aspects of quarantining incomers. In this case the blame must lie with some person or persons not doing their job but if the government have not delegated correctly then it is a failure of the government. Delegating responsibility to the military is utilising a body of public servants who are probably underutilised anyway, who theoretically are well organised and well disciplined. Not a bad plan I think.Gives the government someone else to blame when it goes wrong and they can bypass a few regulations that might hinder them.
I believe they did a similar thing with the White island eruption search, sign it over to the military then if it goes sideways its on them.
The election cant come soon enough for Labour, people are starting to get on their case.
Surely, in the middle of the biggest crisis in modern times that had just tanked the economy, the relevant minister would stay "on top of their brief" though?All governments have to delegate. Jacinda cannot personally supervise volcanoes and all aspects of quarantining incomers. In this case the blame must lie with some person or persons not doing their job but if the government have not delegated correctly then it is a failure of the government. Delegating responsibility to the military is utilising a body of public servants who are probably underutilised anyway, who theoretically are well organised and well disciplined. Not a bad plan I think.
Yes, I know you cannot blame Jacinda but at the same time the relevant minister is next in line which increases the focus but he/she would not be on the front line either. I suppose you would call it a national security issue and that department has failed. Why not involve the military therefore.Surely, in the middle of the biggest crisis in modern times that had just tanked the economy, the relevant minister would stay "on top of their brief" though?
This is not correct. There are two Covid tests, one is an anti body test which reveals if you have had the disease and often will not give a very accurate result for 2-3 weeks after you recover. this test is a blood test.Medical tests rarely test what they are actually trying to determine. Most of them test for something that Indicates what they are looking for. With Covid 19 the test looks for antibodies to the virus, not the virus itself. Different tests may find it hard to differentiate between Covid 19 antibodies and those to other similar viruses.
Also you may have the virus but be too early to have developed the antibodies and people vary in how quickly and how well they develop those antibodies.
Very few medical tests are 100% accurate.
That is far more plausible. The worrying thing is the virus is widespread and with social distancing it is possible to get a non viable load without getting the disease. Any relaxation will surely increase the incidences of full blown infection.This is not correct. There are two Covid tests, one is an anti body test which reveals if you have had the disease and often will not give a very accurate result for 2-3 weeks after you recover. this test is a blood test.
Theo there test which is far more widely used it looking for the virus by means of a swab test of the nose and throat. It is possible to find traces of the virus without infection if you have been in close proximity to a sufferer, just as they have found traces in pets. It does not mean 100% certain, that you have the disease but is a pretty good indicator. looking for anti bodies in the nose would be a waste of time as they live in the bloodstream
This is not correct. There are two Covid tests, one is an anti body test which reveals if you have had the disease and often will not give a very accurate result for 2-3 weeks after you recover. this test is a blood test.
Theo there test which is far more widely used it looking for the virus by means of a swab test of the nose and throat. It is possible to find traces of the virus without infection if you have been in close proximity to a sufferer, just as they have found traces in pets. It does not mean 100% certain, that you have the disease but is a pretty good indicator. looking for anti bodies in the nose would be a waste of time as they live in the bloodstream
That is far more plausible. The worrying thing is the virus is widespread and with social distancing it is possible to get a non viable load without getting the disease. Any relaxation will surely increase the incidences of full blown infection.
That is far more plausible. The worrying thing is the virus is widespread and with social distancing it is possible to get a non viable load without getting the disease. Any relaxation will surely increase the incidences of full blown infection.
Another contactor complaining about no staff.
Stuff
www.stuff.co.nz
They don't help themselves sometimes. Comments like new people would have to spend 2 months with another driver. Really?
Are the Irish drivers he usually gets really "specialist Ag drivers" or just keen lads that are cheap.
There's plenty of operators in NZ that would do the job if it was made more attractive.
Lines like we want to have people allowed in until we train kiwis sound good but they're not going to do it.
Maybe these places should put more effort into creating full time roles or annualised hours etc. After all they expect people to drive gear "valued between $500,000 and $1 million.
That all sounds well and good in theory, however NZ regulations are a lot stricter that the UKs, it is two weeks mandatory managed isolation, effectively you are locked in a hotel room for two weeks, swabs and testing are done at 3 days and again at 11, if it is a positive test then you are moved to another isolation centre where the positive cases are kept.In that situation, the thing to do would be fly in the people you want, swab test (PCR) them, obtain the results within 48 hours (as happens in the UK) and you will know if they have the virus or not with about as accurate a picture as you are going to get.