| 2nd Covid wave starting? on 21:59 - Jun 28 with 1545 views | londonlisa2001 |
| 2nd Covid wave starting? on 21:43 - Jun 28 by Professor |
Leicester does not have a large Muslim population, as I said earlier it’s largely Hindu and Sikh. Indian not Bangladeshi or Pakistani |
The area where the outbreak is worst (North Evington and surrounds) has a majority Muslim population.
Leicester as a whole though you’re absolutely right. |  | |  |
| 2nd Covid wave starting? on 22:21 - Jun 28 with 1518 views | Professor |
| 2nd Covid wave starting? on 21:59 - Jun 28 by londonlisa2001 |
The area where the outbreak is worst (North Evington and surrounds) has a majority Muslim population.
Leicester as a whole though you’re absolutely right. |
Worked there for a while.
Even a sizeable Jain population, but was not aware that local was strongly Islamic.
Only know the centre | | | |
| 2nd Covid wave starting? on 22:29 - Jun 28 with 1507 views | Jack123 |
| 2nd Covid wave starting? on 22:21 - Jun 28 by Professor |
Worked there for a while.
Even a sizeable Jain population, but was not aware that local was strongly Islamic.
Only know the centre |
Hi Professor, could I ask you a question about this PCR test, from what I have read even the fella who invented the test in the 80's said it was not meant for covid testing? And the testing will display inaccurate false/positive results..So why on earth should we be worried about new infections, when the testing is inaccurate? |  |
| |
| 2nd Covid wave starting? on 23:00 - Jun 28 with 1479 views | Scotia |
| 2nd Covid wave starting? on 22:29 - Jun 28 by Jack123 |
Hi Professor, could I ask you a question about this PCR test, from what I have read even the fella who invented the test in the 80's said it was not meant for covid testing? And the testing will display inaccurate false/positive results..So why on earth should we be worried about new infections, when the testing is inaccurate? |
I don't know much about this specific issue. But I would be amazed if any test like this is 100% accurate, but would be correct the vast majority of the time.
So if there are 600+ positive tests in one relatively small area in a shot space of time, the vast majority of which are accurate, shows there is something to worry about. | | | |
| 2nd Covid wave starting? on 23:09 - Jun 28 with 1458 views | Jack123 |
| 2nd Covid wave starting? on 23:00 - Jun 28 by Scotia |
I don't know much about this specific issue. But I would be amazed if any test like this is 100% accurate, but would be correct the vast majority of the time.
So if there are 600+ positive tests in one relatively small area in a shot space of time, the vast majority of which are accurate, shows there is something to worry about. |
What I am saying is the fella who invented the test they are doing for covid, has stated it's a waste of time, and wasn't meant for that, so 600+ plus positive tests means absolutely nothing, if the test is not accurate , or precise. It doesn't give a true figure, so IMHO we can't go by those figures.. | |
| |
| 2nd Covid wave starting? on 23:11 - Jun 28 with 1453 views | Scotia |
| 2nd Covid wave starting? on 22:21 - Jun 28 by Professor |
Worked there for a while.
Even a sizeable Jain population, but was not aware that local was strongly Islamic.
Only know the centre |
I don't know the area at all, just read the article in the Times and the timings seemed to coincide. I can remember seeing crowds outside takeaways around the time of Ramadan in Birmingham and they were pretty big.
It doesn't bode well for next weeks p1ss up though. | | | |
| 2nd Covid wave starting? on 23:45 - Jun 28 with 1419 views | Scotia |
| 2nd Covid wave starting? on 23:09 - Jun 28 by Jack123 |
What I am saying is the fella who invented the test they are doing for covid, has stated it's a waste of time, and wasn't meant for that, so 600+ plus positive tests means absolutely nothing, if the test is not accurate , or precise. It doesn't give a true figure, so IMHO we can't go by those figures.. |
Well if the test was invented in the 80's it wouldn't have been designed to test for covid which has only existed for 6 months or so would it? Vaccination was discovered 200 years ago but I hope we find one that works for covid - the test has probably been adapted as a vaccine would be.
I've read it is over 90% accurate for symptomatic cases - but let's say it is wrong 51% of the time. Over 300 cases in a small area over a fortnight is a cause to worry. [Post edited 28 Jun 2020 23:47]
| | | |
| 2nd Covid wave starting? on 23:53 - Jun 28 with 1409 views | Jack123 |
| 2nd Covid wave starting? on 23:45 - Jun 28 by Scotia |
Well if the test was invented in the 80's it wouldn't have been designed to test for covid which has only existed for 6 months or so would it? Vaccination was discovered 200 years ago but I hope we find one that works for covid - the test has probably been adapted as a vaccine would be.
I've read it is over 90% accurate for symptomatic cases - but let's say it is wrong 51% of the time. Over 300 cases in a small area over a fortnight is a cause to worry. [Post edited 28 Jun 2020 23:47]
|
I'm thinking wrong 80% of the time mate!! And most probably higher that that, it's a fcking scandal that the uk media are scaring people shitless with piss poor reporting, I am ferking ferked off, and the next time my missis thinks it will be ok to go out, next March.. thank you so much bbc scum media, and all of the other reptillians. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| 2nd Covid wave starting? on 00:55 - Jun 29 with 1385 views | Professor |
| 2nd Covid wave starting? on 23:53 - Jun 28 by Jack123 |
I'm thinking wrong 80% of the time mate!! And most probably higher that that, it's a fcking scandal that the uk media are scaring people shitless with piss poor reporting, I am ferking ferked off, and the next time my missis thinks it will be ok to go out, next March.. thank you so much bbc scum media, and all of the other reptillians. |
Right. The technique called PCR -Polymerase Chain Reaction- was developed by Cary Mullis. To put it simply it amplifies many thousands of times a short sequence of DNA. There are lots of variants. Modern biology uses it all the time.
It was not developed as a diagnostic originally but is a very good tool to detect viruses
In the case of SARS CoV2 the virus which causes Covid 19 there are three big steps.
Coronaviruses have an RNA genome. So the first part is to extract RNA from a sample . The second is to change the RNA into DNA. DNA is the code which is converted to RNA to be translated into a protein. So to measure RNA signals either as I do to work out which genes are switched on or detect an RNA virus we use a reaction to make a DNA copy or cDNA. This is run on a type of machine called a real time PCR. We add in the sample, short specific DNA sequences called primers which bind to the target DNA, enzymes that copy the DNA , the chemical components that make DNA labelled with a fluorescent dye. The reaction runs in 30-40’cycles. If you have 2 DNA copies at the start you have 4 after the first cycle, then 8, 16 etc. The more copies made the more dye is incorporated and the stronger the fluorescence which the machine reads. A threshold is set for fluorescent signal. The fewer the cycles, the more the original target. So for examples less than 25
Cycles may be considered as positive. This is highly automated. One of my research team is in MK at one of the labs as we are not allowed back To work yet.
So the big problems are usually the primers - too
Specific-which leads to false negatives or not specific enough giving false
Positives . The other problems are contamination, RNA being very unstable and non-specific primer binding to other related viruses.
Most of these tests get about 98% reliability.
I am told the coronavirus test may be lower in reliability, but well above 80%.
Sorry this is a bit complex.
We use it so much we don’t think enough about it now [Post edited 29 Jun 2020 0:56]
| | | |
| 2nd Covid wave starting? on 00:59 - Jun 29 with 1383 views | Professor |
| 2nd Covid wave starting? on 00:55 - Jun 29 by Professor |
Right. The technique called PCR -Polymerase Chain Reaction- was developed by Cary Mullis. To put it simply it amplifies many thousands of times a short sequence of DNA. There are lots of variants. Modern biology uses it all the time.
It was not developed as a diagnostic originally but is a very good tool to detect viruses
In the case of SARS CoV2 the virus which causes Covid 19 there are three big steps.
Coronaviruses have an RNA genome. So the first part is to extract RNA from a sample . The second is to change the RNA into DNA. DNA is the code which is converted to RNA to be translated into a protein. So to measure RNA signals either as I do to work out which genes are switched on or detect an RNA virus we use a reaction to make a DNA copy or cDNA. This is run on a type of machine called a real time PCR. We add in the sample, short specific DNA sequences called primers which bind to the target DNA, enzymes that copy the DNA , the chemical components that make DNA labelled with a fluorescent dye. The reaction runs in 30-40’cycles. If you have 2 DNA copies at the start you have 4 after the first cycle, then 8, 16 etc. The more copies made the more dye is incorporated and the stronger the fluorescence which the machine reads. A threshold is set for fluorescent signal. The fewer the cycles, the more the original target. So for examples less than 25
Cycles may be considered as positive. This is highly automated. One of my research team is in MK at one of the labs as we are not allowed back To work yet.
So the big problems are usually the primers - too
Specific-which leads to false negatives or not specific enough giving false
Positives . The other problems are contamination, RNA being very unstable and non-specific primer binding to other related viruses.
Most of these tests get about 98% reliability.
I am told the coronavirus test may be lower in reliability, but well above 80%.
Sorry this is a bit complex.
We use it so much we don’t think enough about it now [Post edited 29 Jun 2020 0:56]
|
Just to clarify each set of primers is specific to its target. So the primers are for part of the SARS CoV2 genome. What I hear is that 90%+ of symptomatic cases are positive and over 80% of carriers. So right around nine times out of ten on first test. | | | |
| 2nd Covid wave starting? on 01:18 - Jun 29 with 1347 views | Jack123 |
| 2nd Covid wave starting? on 00:59 - Jun 29 by Professor |
Just to clarify each set of primers is specific to its target. So the primers are for part of the SARS CoV2 genome. What I hear is that 90%+ of symptomatic cases are positive and over 80% of carriers. So right around nine times out of ten on first test. |
Thank you, and you have gone way over the odds of explaining, butt he top point my friend, the rise in cases are shite [Post edited 29 Jun 2020 1:28]
| |
| |
| 2nd Covid wave starting? on 05:56 - Jun 29 with 1309 views | Whiterockin |
| 2nd Covid wave starting? on 00:55 - Jun 29 by Professor |
Right. The technique called PCR -Polymerase Chain Reaction- was developed by Cary Mullis. To put it simply it amplifies many thousands of times a short sequence of DNA. There are lots of variants. Modern biology uses it all the time.
It was not developed as a diagnostic originally but is a very good tool to detect viruses
In the case of SARS CoV2 the virus which causes Covid 19 there are three big steps.
Coronaviruses have an RNA genome. So the first part is to extract RNA from a sample . The second is to change the RNA into DNA. DNA is the code which is converted to RNA to be translated into a protein. So to measure RNA signals either as I do to work out which genes are switched on or detect an RNA virus we use a reaction to make a DNA copy or cDNA. This is run on a type of machine called a real time PCR. We add in the sample, short specific DNA sequences called primers which bind to the target DNA, enzymes that copy the DNA , the chemical components that make DNA labelled with a fluorescent dye. The reaction runs in 30-40’cycles. If you have 2 DNA copies at the start you have 4 after the first cycle, then 8, 16 etc. The more copies made the more dye is incorporated and the stronger the fluorescence which the machine reads. A threshold is set for fluorescent signal. The fewer the cycles, the more the original target. So for examples less than 25
Cycles may be considered as positive. This is highly automated. One of my research team is in MK at one of the labs as we are not allowed back To work yet.
So the big problems are usually the primers - too
Specific-which leads to false negatives or not specific enough giving false
Positives . The other problems are contamination, RNA being very unstable and non-specific primer binding to other related viruses.
Most of these tests get about 98% reliability.
I am told the coronavirus test may be lower in reliability, but well above 80%.
Sorry this is a bit complex.
We use it so much we don’t think enough about it now [Post edited 29 Jun 2020 0:56]
|
Prof you are brilliant, thanks for the input. I just wish I could understand what you are talking about. |  | | |
| 2nd Covid wave starting? on 09:48 - Jun 29 with 1251 views | Professor |
| 2nd Covid wave starting? on 00:59 - Jun 29 by Professor |
Just to clarify each set of primers is specific to its target. So the primers are for part of the SARS CoV2 genome. What I hear is that 90%+ of symptomatic cases are positive and over 80% of carriers. So right around nine times out of ten on first test. |
and should also add this is the way the diagnostic is done-which can in theory also quantify viral loads (the amount of infection) if refined a bit more. The original 1988 PCR was what we call an endpoint-it runs for 30 cycles without fluorescent dyes- you just accumulate amplified target DNA and visualise by gel electrophoresis. Its much slower. The advantage with using these PCR rests is that it accommodates a lot of automation in extraction of DNA or RNA, setting up the reaction (hundreds of tests can be run simultaneously) and gathering the data. Just to give you an idea, a relatively time PCR machine is about the same in cost as a BMW 3 series. You can double this with the automation. Most of the machines are 'borrowed' from universities.
Just to be doubly clear-each test is specific. You detect the presence of a specific section of DNA code from a pathogen or the presence of a specific gene. There are ways to use PCR to show which genes are 'switched on' and how much they are being converted to a signal to make protein (this is called transcription). The signal (messenger RNA) codes for proteins put together on ribosomes. The code is based on 3 base pairs which designate the amino acid added to make the protein chain (this is called translation)
Without the use of PCR, you would need to be able to culture of visualise the virus from patient samples (both extremely difficult) or measure an antibody response-which is usually at least 10-14 days from the onset of infection [Post edited 29 Jun 2020 9:54]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
