Football and the Coronavirus

woppy101 said:
What part of error rate of 30% don’t you understand
Click to expand...
None whatsoever and I've never argued that the error rate could be as high as 30%. As I've said in the post above, I think if you carried out the tests you could make that error rate even higher. I'm disputing and asking you to back up your claim that tests max out at 95% accuracy. I've repeatedly asked you to back up this claim as it's crucial to whether the PL's testing could possibly be 98% accurate but you will not provide anything to back that up and it's starting to look like you can't, because you made it up.

So one more time Woppy, can you provide anything to back up your claim that these tests have an absolute maximum accuracy of 95%? It's a very simple, very clear question, please don't keep avoiding it.
 
woppy101 said:
So as a mod your now abusing members of the community?
Click to expand...
I'm not abusing you. You're not medically trained so I'm sure you could make the accuracy level lower. I could too as could 99% members of the forum. Please don't avoid the question about your 95% accuracy claim.
 
BaZ87 said:
I'm not abusing you. You're not medically trained so I'm sure you could make the accuracy level lower. I could too as could 99% members of the forum. Please don't avoid the question about your 95% accuracy claim.
Click to expand...
You clearly are you said if I carried out tests you had FAITH that I would make it lower
 
woppy101 said:
You clearly are
Click to expand...
No, I'm just trying to prove that you've been blagging it and your failure to answer the same question and continuous twisting and turning proves it. You made up the 95% claim. And you wonder why I don't take your word on anything.

edit: yes, I have faith that you could do that as you're trying to twist facts and make them up. I'm sure somebody with no medical training could botch the testing up far more than trained experts could and somebody that's clearly trying to twist things could do so even more
 
BaZ87 said:
No, I'm just trying to prove that you've been blagging it and your failure to answer the same question and continuous twisting and turning proves it. You made up the 95% claim. And you wonder why I don't take your word on anything.
Click to expand...
Same reason I don’t take your know it all word for anything you say, you try to twist thing to match your agenda
 
BaZ87 said:
I back up what I say. You're just blagging it. At least we've exposed that now.
Click to expand...
No you don’t, I have backed up what I said with the accuracy of the tests, but you twist what is said, anyone that disagrees with you is automatically wrong and you hound them until they stop posting
 
woppy101 said:
No you don’t, I have backed up what I said with the accuracy of the tests, but you twist what is said as unusual
Click to expand...
Where? I'm still waiting for anything saying the tests max out at 95% accuracy. That is the only point I've questioned. I 100% believe that accuracy can be far lower, I'm questioning the maximum level. I'll happily apologise if you can provide anything that proves it maxes out at 95%.
 
BaZ87 said:
Where? I'm still waiting for anything saying the tests max out at 95% accuracy. That is the only point I've questioned. I 100% believe that accuracy can be far lower, I'm questioning the maximum level. I'll happily apologise if you can provide anything that proves it maxes out at 95%.
Click to expand...
Ok I will rephrase what I have said, the Antigen tests are on average about 90% accurate, how’s that for you?
 
woppy101 said:
Ok I will rephrase what I have said, the Antigen tests are on average about 90% accurate, how’s that for you?
Click to expand...
Absolutely fine. I've never questioned or argued against that. My only question was whether it's possible for tests to have an accuracy level over 95%, or more specifically if the Prenetics claim of 98.8% was possible. You clearly stated that wasn't possible and I asked, very politely too, to provide something that would back that up.

And so there is no confusion, I will make a point of not replying to your posts wherever possible in future. I have no interest in drawn out debates (not really true, I enjoy them) and having my words twisted when all I've asked is simple questions.
 
BaZ87 said:
Absolutely fine. I've never questioned or argued against that. My only question was whether it's possible for tests to have an accuracy level over 95%, or more specifically if the Prenetics claim of 98.8% was possible. You clearly stated that wasn't possible and I asked, very politely too, to provide something that would back that up.

And so there is no confusion, I will make a point of not replying to your posts wherever possible in future. I have no interest in drawn out debates (not really true, I enjoy them) and having my words twisted when all I've asked is simple questions.
Click to expand...
No I used the wrong word I ment that they were on average not very accurate, but I couldn’t seem to get that across properly
 
No problem. I have no idea whether they are that accurate but until I have reason to doubt it then all I can do is believe it. We've gone round in circles too long - the main point is that our results have been very encouraging. We've had fewer positive tests than Germany and touch wood they have been able to return without issue for the last couple of weeks.
 
BaZ87 said:
No problem. I have no idea whether they are that accurate but until I have reason to doubt it then all I can do is believe it. We've gone round in circles too long - the main point is that our results have been very encouraging. We've had fewer positive tests than Germany and touch wood they have been able to return without issue for the last couple of weeks.
Click to expand...
With them now testing negative this would be the perfect time for each club to put all of there players in one place for the next 6 weeks, then there is no chance of them getting infected
 
I can only assume that players wouldn't agree to this idea. It would be the safest way if they could isolate players for however long it takes to complete the season.
 
BaZ87 said:
I can only assume that players wouldn't agree to this idea. It would be the safest way if they could isolate players for however long it takes to complete the season.
Click to expand...
TBH they do it on international duty so shouldn’t really object to it(as you say though they probably would) they could have the season finished in 5 weeks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom