Just because the premier league can throw money at it doesn’t suddenly make the test accuracy jump from 90% to 98%, unless they are taking multiple swabs (at least 4-6 swabs) from each player throughout the day
Football and the Coronavirus
- Thread starter Robbo
- Start date
No offence woppy but I'm guessing you're not a medical expert, neither am I. If there are tests out there that are producing high 90s percentage accuracy then the PL will be getting these. Relatively speaking they only need a small number and can afford to spend millions, which is what they have done.
Which is what I put in an earlier post, it’s just been cleared for use last week by PHE(queues will be huge to get a hold of them) and you could use that in conjunction with the swab tests to get better accuracy.What what I'm gloating here.
I work in pharmaceuticals
Roche has a 99% test that's was cleared by the FDA. Not sure how widely available it is.
Edit: it's for Antibodies so probably no use for the premiership lol
That test has only just been approved and it’s an antibody test(tells you if you have had the virus and NOT if you currently have it) your trying to tell me that the Premier League is going to be allowed to jump the queue ahead of country’s, your deluded if you think that’s the case the premier league is far less important than country’s
I wasn't referring to that test. I was referring to the test the PL are currently using, which the company claims to have already been used (partially in the NHS) and has produced accurate results of 98.8%. It would be delusional of me to take the word of you, somebody that has a history of stating factually incorrect things, over medical experts on issues I don't fully understand myself.
Go on then stop bumping your gums and prove that the swab test (which the Premier League are using) is more accurate than 90%, because the links I have provided say otherwise which is why a lot of people require testing more than once to get a result
there are only swab tests and blood tests, blood tests are more accurate but not once has the PL mentioned blood tests it’s always been swab
I said I'm not a medical expert, just like you're not. I can only take the word of those more informed than me (and you) so unless you can disprove the claims made by Prenetics then I'm not really going to pay too much attention to your posts. You initialy made a sweeping statement about the level of accuracy of swab tests as a whole, not acknowledging that several factors will effect the results.
I couldn't tell you if the results really are 98.8% accurate but I'm not going to disbelieve the experts on this because somebody on a forum disagrees, certainly not yourself.
wow we have a Miracle all other swab tests max out at about 95% yet Prenetics can hit 98.8%, I wonder why the rest of the world are not using them, maybe it’s because they have exaggerated the accuracy do you not think? You know how almost every country has underestimated the true death toll and other figures.
posted the link 24-30%
Last edited:
Sorry, can you back up the claim that all other tests max out at 95%. You just saying it doesn't make me believe you. Just skimming over a few articles about the accuracy of tests it states that various conditions will effect the accuracy level and I'd assume that to reach the higher levels you need optimum conditions that might be difficult to do for large volumes of tests and or very expensive - neither factor should be an obstacle for the PL
Have a look at every medical article on covid-19 swab testing not one of them has any sort of accuracy above 95% and I’m being generous as most articles have them top out at 88-92% there are too many variables to get it any higher according to articles, look at the disparity between tests carried out and people tested most days it’s almost half, blood tests are the only tests that give high 90s you could even say 100%(depending on how long you have had the virus, now if the premier league are carrying out blood tests I will STFU and sit down but I stand by what I have posted if it’s swab tests
No, I'd rather not read all these articles. You're arguing that tests max out at 95%, can you show me one reputable article that says this. As yet all you've posted is articles claiming accuracy can be as low as 70% but also explaining that this depends on the conditions the tests are being carried out. As I've said repeatedly, I'm not medical expert and if the claims being made by Prenetics are wrong then I'd be interested it knowing this however I'm not going to disbelieve them without reason to do so.
I may be completely wrong but I my uninformed view is that the highest accuracy tests will be either very expensive and or difficult to carry out on large scales, which possibly excludes them from being used in the NHS. I would have thought that these things wouldn't be an issue for the PL when they're carrying out a max of 40 tests at a time and the cost (reportedly £4m) is a drop in the ocean to them.
Anyway, we're starting to get away from the main point. Whether it's low, mid or high 90s, the league will know that there's a chance of players slipping through the net after one test however the chance of having back to back false negatives is extremely small and with twice weekly tests, the chances of a player training for more than a week with corona is pretty much non existent.
The way it was explained to me by my BIL(who is a scientist working in Liverpool university on covid)the accuracy is below 95% because of the area the swab has to be taken from (back of throat and back of nose), You can’t get 100% accuracy because the area you take the swab from may not have enough of the virus(shedding) to give a positive test which is why some people take multiple tests to get a positive result, especially with those people who are showing very little symptoms or asymptomatic, so it’s not about paying more for a more accurate test it’s the person getting tested. AFAIK hospitals now only do 2 swab tests on someone they’re sure of having Covid before doing a blood test if they keep returning negatives.
so getting back to it, that is possibly why playing could slip through the net
Last edited:
As I said, that was just my uninformed assumption - the article you linked states that the level of accuracy is dependent on the conditions the tests are carried out and you can usually buy the best conditions if you need them. I'd be shocked if the PL weren't using experienced professionals, the best equipments etc and we know (or at least have been told) they have fast tracked results.
Like I've said, until I see a reputable source disproving the claims made by Prenetics then I have no reason to not believe them. And again, we're getting away from the original point. The chances of back to back false negatives are tiny if the PL's testing accuracy is anything close to 90%, let alone high 90s. Touch wood everything is going smoothly in Germany and our first round of results have been more encouraging than theirs. Hopefully this trend continues next week and when we move into contact training.
Like I've said, until I see a reputable source disproving the claims made by Prenetics then I have no reason to not believe them. And again, we're getting away from the original point. The chances of back to back false negatives are tiny if the PL's testing accuracy is anything close to 90%, let alone high 90s. Touch wood everything is going smoothly in Germany and our first round of results have been more encouraging than theirs. Hopefully this trend continues next week and when we move into contact training.
right so when you don’t like the evidence presented you dismiss it as non reputable, bit of a change in attitude from other threads, I guess whichever suits your purpose eh?
You call me out whenever I say fake news in the Newcastle thread but when I present you with the evidence that doesn’t match your opinion it’s dismissed
Woppy mate, I don't want to be rude but you really struggle with reading and understading things. If you can point out where I've dismissed evidence then please do. I have dismissed your claims as I do not believe you're a medical expert and requested that you back them up and shock horror, you've failed to do so. Now lets try one more time, can you provide anything to back up your claims that testing maxes out at 95% accuracy or have you just made that up?
I have to give you some credit, you are persistent and won't let facts get in the way of your arguments.
Take your pick every single one of them states the the Antigen tests have error rates of up to 30%, but I’m sure you will be able to spin it in a way that I haven’t backed it up
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020...9-tests-pandemic-virus-antibodies-swab-blood/
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...sults-from-self-testing-for-covid-19-at-home/
https://www.aruplab.com/news/4-21-2020/How-Accurate-Are-COVID-19-Tests
https://arc-w.nihr.ac.uk/news/coronavirus-how-accurate-are-coronavirus-tests/
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-...ick-covid-19-test-near-15-percent-study-67451
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...-currently-cheap-fast-and-not-very-accurate1/
So none of them say it maxes out at 95%, you made that up? Come on Woppy, just admit you made it up and I'll respect you more.
Saying it can be as low as 70% doesn't mean it can't be higher than x%. I think if you carried out the tests you could even make it lower than 70%. I have that faith in you.
What part of error rate of 30% don’t you understand if 100 people are tested up to 30 will get the wrong result, your twisting it to suit what you say as usual