Doomed!

[threechilliman]

public area?

Well enough birds will have seen his tackle, so technically correct.

[Belgarion]

public area?

Pubic

[Zeusthedoc]

I used the Veet for men once and it wasn't pleasant, so a girlfriend suggested I try hers.

Basically I start from the arse, public area then do the balls last. By then, wait 7 to 10 mins.

Wash it off with warm water and I've never had any problems. Been doing it for years now.

Power to you if you're able to use hair removal cream on your arse in a public area!

[Littlefoot]

Well.......to look on the good side, my antibody test came back today: positive. So I picked it up from somewhere and never had symptoms.
I'm in my 60's so the idea that age is a problem doesn't always hold true

I hear of some similar cases. Which poses the question just how many of us have contracted this virus without even knowing? I know of a 80 year old man, had heart surgery last year. He went to hospital recently for a minor procedure and was tested positive for coronavirus, despite having no symptoms whatsoever. And didn’t Something similar happen to 69 year old kenny Dalglish?

[Belgarion]

Power to you if you're able to use hair removal cream on your arse in a public area!

It is a beautiful arse. Would not be right to keep it away from the public 

[threechilliman]

I hear of some similar cases. Which poses the question just how many of us have contracted this virus without even knowing? I know of a 80 year old man, had heart surgery last year. He went to hospital recently for a minor procedure and was tested positive for coronavirus, despite having no symptoms whatsoever. And didn’t Something similar happen to 69 year old kenny Dalglish?

The number of confirmed cases is >300K but I reckon th real number is probably 2 or 3 times that if not more.

[Hobbit]

Well.......to look on the good side, my antibody test came back today: positive. So I picked it up from somewhere and never had symptoms.
I'm in my 60's so the idea that age is a problem doesn't always hold true

Where did you get your antibody test from? I thought they were not available as yet to the general public.

[Zeusthedoc]

Where did you get your antibody test from? I thought they were not available as yet to the general public.

i think they're available to NHS staff
and if IIRC, OP works in local hospital

[winkywanky]

Where did you get your antibody test from? I thought they were not available as yet to the general public.

Lloyds Pharmacy online.

Although they may be out of stock. I got in quickly.

[Doc Holliday]

The number of confirmed cases is >300K but I reckon th real number is probably 2 or 3 times that if not more.

There were three epidemiological surveys recently updated which put the number between around 7% to 10% of all UK so we probably are looking at around 6 million people who have had the virus.

This will not be spread evenly around the country though with London having a higher proportion.

[scutty brown]

Where did you get your antibody test from? I thought they were not available as yet to the general public.

My team qualify as essential medical support staff

[scutty brown]

Lloyds Pharmacy online.

Although they may be out of stock. I got in quickly.

That test has been discredited and withdrawn

[winkywanky]

That test has been discredited and withdrawn

The latest one? Are you sure? It was CE accredited and cited as 99% accurate. This was one from only around 4wks ago now.

[Hobbit]

My team qualify as essential medical support staff

What do I need to do to join your team? Is it like the A-Team? Can I play the role of Murdoch?

[Hobbit]

The latest one? Are you sure? It was CE accredited and cited as 99% accurate. This was one from only around 4wks ago now.

If it's been accredited and the NHS are using it, or a version of the antibody test, then why is it not provided to the public? What's wrong with this Government?

[Doc Holliday]

If it's been accredited and the NHS are using it, or a version of the antibody test, then why is it not provided to the public? What's wrong with this Government?

The laboratory component of the test is accurate .. the problem lies with the home test kit being a finger prick blood sample. To be accurate it requires a full venous blood sample .. which takes us full circle to Scutty's collapsing veins

[Hobbit]

The laboratory component of the test is accurate .. the problem lies with the home test kit being a finger prick blood sample. To be accurate it requires a full venous blood sample .. which takes us full circle to Scutty's collapsing veins

I see. I hope they are still working on making the fingering aspect more accurate? Sorry I meant the finger prick sample.

[winkywanky]

The laboratory component of the test is accurate .. the problem lies with the home test kit being a finger prick blood sample. To be accurate it requires a full venous blood sample .. which takes us full circle to Scutty's collapsing veins

....if you remember my post about bleeding copiously all over the kitchen floor after using three lancets (because the first one 'didn't work'    ) then you can take it as read that my sample was pretty well venous   

[scutty brown]

The laboratory component of the test is accurate .. the problem lies with the home test kit being a finger prick blood sample. To be accurate it requires a full venous blood sample .. which takes us full circle to Scutty's collapsing veins

All of the fingerprick tests have been discredited, they simply don't give enough material to test.
At the moment only two manufacturers have tests (both venous) approved by the NHS. Roche is one, I can't remember the other - 'Baxter possibly? Remember the big order the government placed and then had to cancel? That was for fingerpricks.
If anyone offers you a home or fingerprick antibody test, at present reject it -they really are inaccurate. The hope is that things will change

[scutty brown]

The latest one? Are you sure? It was CE accredited and cited as 99% accurate. This was one from only around 4wks ago now.

Quite simply it wasn't accurate. They lied.

[winkywanky]

Quite simply it wasn't accurate. They lied.

What wasn't accurate about it?

The basic method was flawed, the lab was unreliable, or the gathering of the blood by the punter compromised it?

[Doc Holliday]

What wasn't accurate about it?

The basic method was flawed, the lab was unreliable, or the gathering of the blood by the punter compromised it?

The latter. They used the Roche lab test but Roche said the test was only meant to be used on full venous samples not finger samples.

[winkywanky]

The latter. They used the Roche lab test but Roche said the test was only meant to be used on full venous samples not finger samples.

Indeed, I saw your helpful comment earlier Doc  .

Scutty seemed very sure of his comment so I wondered what it was based on.

[MilleMiglia]

Re-tested on Monday morning, and got a text message mid morning today to tell me that it'd come back negative, so straight back into work! Just as well, as it was starting to look like Old Mother Hubbard's at my place, and I really needed to get some shopping done. Apart from a few sneezes, which were probably down to the rather profuse greenery where I live, I was asymptomatic, and really had it easy - not bad for a guy in his mid 50's. That's more than can be said for others who have been off in my department in the last few weeks; comparing notes, so to speak, some of them were in quite a bad way.

Anyway, here's another version of the BOC classic. Can't really call it a cover, as the guitarist does look rather familiar......

External Link/Members Only

[David1970]

Re-tested on Monday morning, and got a text message mid morning today to tell me that it'd come back negative, so straight back into work! Just as well, as it was starting to look like Old Mother Hubbard's at my place, and I really needed to get some shopping done. Apart from a few sneezes, which were probably down to the rather profuse greenery where I live, I was asymptomatic, and really had it easy - not bad for a guy in his mid 50's. That's more than can be said for others who have been off in my department in the last few weeks; comparing notes, so to speak, some of them were in quite a bad way.

Anyway, here's another version of the BOC classic. Can't really call it a cover, as the guitarist does look rather familiar......

External Link/Members Only

Good news you are clear of the virus

[LLPunting]

Re-tested on Monday morning, and got a text message mid morning today to tell me that it'd come back negative, so straight back into work! Just as well, as it was starting to look like Old Mother Hubbard's at my place, and I really needed to get some shopping done. Apart from a few sneezes, which were probably down to the rather profuse greenery where I live, I was asymptomatic, and really had it easy - not bad for a guy in his mid 50's. That's more than can be said for others who have been off in my department in the last few weeks; comparing notes, so to speak, some of them were in quite a bad way.

Anyway, here's another version of the BOC classic. Can't really call it a cover, as the guitarist does look rather familiar......

External Link/Members Only

Glad to hear it has passed for you without repurcussions.   
Do you feel more or less wary than before?

[j_181]

The latest one? Are you sure? It was CE accredited and cited as 99% accurate. This was one from only around 4wks ago now.

CE mark tells you that the product conforms to EU environmental and safety regulations. Or rather, that the manufacturer CLAIMS that it does. It says nothing about test efficacy.

It might be 99% accurate (depending on what they mean by "accuracy" - usually this is true positive rate, but not always) when done by a trained lab tech. Certainly won't be when done at home. Accuracy also depends on how long after infection the test is done - too early and the false negative rate can be very high.

tl;dr don't trust that result as far as you can throw it.

[j_181]

Anyway, here's another version of the BOC classic. Can't really call it a cover, as the guitarist does look rather familiar......

External Link/Members Only

Awesome song - saw BOC in Birmingham a year or two back - wtill going strong in their 70s!

[MilleMiglia]

Glad to hear it has passed for you without repurcussions.   
Do you feel more or less wary than before?

More confident than before, given that, at my age, I am coming into the "At Risk" category. That said, I do wonder what may happen in a case of a second infection.

[winkywanky]

CE mark tells you that the product conforms to EU environmental and safety regulations. Or rather, that the manufacturer CLAIMS that it does. It says nothing about test efficacy.

It might be 99% accurate (depending on what they mean by "accuracy" - usually this is true positive rate, but not always) when done by a trained lab tech. Certainly won't be when done at home. Accuracy also depends on how long after infection the test is done - too early and the false negative rate can be very high.

tl;dr don't trust that result as far as you can throw it.

I didn't buy the test with the intention of relying on it 100%. Although it may sound bizarre, I did it almost out of curiosity above anything else. I had an inkling that I may have been exposed to the virus after a couple of trips into London on the Underground in very early March, so was curious to see what the result might be.

The stated accuracy rate was 98% one way and as good as 100% the other, one in terms of a positive, the other in terms of a negative (I can't remember which way round). But the overall accuracy was stated as 99%. This was at a time when previous antibody tests had recently been discredited, but newer, more reliable tests had become available. The research I went into at the time led me to believe my test was from the latter group. This was also borne out by the advertising on the Lloyds website at the time I bought my test.

Of course those figures those are based on 'perfect' collection of blood (eg by a trained haematologist) which certainly wouldn't apply to Joe Public doing a home test, with anywhere between dripping blood on the floor and mopping it up with a used tissue before squeezing out it into the vial - and cleaning and preparing the digit properly, before getting a steady flow of clean blood (a fast, continuous drip) with the use of the provided lancet(s) which came in individually sealed packets. Obviously my sample was the latter  . After getting a rather disappointing 'spot' of blood on my pinkie from one lancet, I proceeded to use the other two supplied which had me suddenly dripping fast and copiously, and filled the supplied vial in around 3s flat. I put the lid on and then spent 10mins cleaning up all the blood off the kitchen floor!

Perhaps my result wasn't the full 99% accurate, but I reckon it wasn't far off.

[scutty brown]

I didn't buy the test with the intention of relying on it 100%. Although it may sound bizarre, I did it almost out of curiosity above anything else. I had an inkling that I may have been exposed to the virus after a couple of trips into London on the Underground in very early March, so was curious to see what the result might be.

The stated accuracy rate was 98% one way and as good as 100% the other, one in terms of a positive, the other in terms of a negative (I can't remember which way round). But the overall accuracy was stated as 99%. This was at a time when previous antibody tests had recently been discredited, but newer, more reliable tests had become available. The research I went into at the time led me to believe my test was from the latter group. This was also borne out by the advertising on the Lloyds website at the time I bought my test.

Of course those figures those are based on 'perfect' collection of blood (eg by a trained haematologist) which certainly wouldn't apply to Joe Public doing a home test, with anywhere between dripping blood on the floor and mopping it up with a used tissue before squeezing out it into the vial - and cleaning and preparing the digit properly, before getting a steady flow of clean blood (a fast, continuous drip) with the use of the provided lancet(s) which came in individually sealed packets. Obviously my sample was the latter  . After getting a rather disappointing 'spot' of blood on my pinkie from one lancet, I proceeded to use the other two supplied which had me suddenly dripping fast and copiously, and filled the supplied vial in around 3s flat. I put the lid on and then spent 10mins cleaning up all the blood off the kitchen floor!

Perhaps my result wasn't the full 99% accurate, but I reckon it wasn't far off.

Those fingerprick tests have been reported as being less than 50% accurate, both for positive and negative. You'd get a more accurate result by tossing a coin.
I don't care what the advertising says: its a false claim. It doesn't matter how accurate or sensitive the reagents used are: if the blood sampling method is flawed, the whole test is flawed. As for a CE mark, in this context its virtually meaningless

[winkywanky]

Those fingerprick tests have been reported as being less than 50% accurate, both for positive and negative. You'd get a more accurate result by tossing a coin.
I don't care what the advertising says: its a false claim. It doesn't matter how accurate or sensitive the reagents used are: if the blood sampling method is flawed, the whole test is flawed. As for a CE mark, in this context its virtually meaningless

Depends what you mean by those fingerprick tests. There were some earlier tests which were rubbish.

As you rightly say, the blood sampling method is where the errors can occur, so it really doesn't matter how well I explain how I took my blood, if you weren't there at the time, you simply cannot know 

[scutty brown]

Depends what you mean by those fingerprick tests. There were some earlier tests which were rubbish.

As you rightly say, the blood sampling method is where the errors can occur, so it really doesn't matter how well I explain how I took my blood, if you weren't there at the time, you simply cannot know 

unless you tapped into a vein and withdrew about 50ml of blood there isn't enough to test, and no pharmacy is going to sell a kit that needs that degree of skill

[winkywanky]

unless you tapped into a vein and withdrew about 50ml of blood there isn't enough to test, and no pharmacy is going to sell a kit that needs that degree of skill

Jolly good Scutty, well because you know so much about it (even though you aren't a doctor), you'll hopefully also know that the error that is most likely to occur, is a false negative for antibodies (rather than a false positive).

So at least tests with errors aren't gong to give a false sense of security for the user.

[scutty brown]

Jolly good Scutty, well because you know so much about it (even though you aren't a doctor), you'll hopefully also know that the error that is most likely to occur, is a false negative for antibodies (rather than a false positive).

So at least tests with errors aren't gong to give a false sense of security for the user.

Given the fact that I spent nearly thirty years of my life providing drug companies with their reseach chemicals I don't think I need to be a doctor..........
The reality a false positive is as likely as a negative. At the minute concentrations used in your test you have numerous issues. Partly from contamination, partly due to the sensitivity of the detection process which at low volumes could easily misidentify a common cold coronavirus as corvid. Its like trying to determine if something is sweet or salty from tasting one white crystal grain - simply not enough to differentiate

[winkywanky]

Given the fact that I spent nearly thirty years of my life providing drug companies with their reseach chemicals I don't think I need to be a doctor..........
The reality a false positive is as likely as a negative. At the minute concentrations used in your test you have numerous issues. Partly from contamination, partly due to the sensitivity of the detection process which at low volumes could easily misidentify a common cold coronavirus as corvid. Its like trying to determine if something is sweet or salty from tasting one white crystal grain - simply not enough to differentiate

Really? So if I dropped my blood on the floor and scooped it up and put it in the vial, there's a possibility the sample would pick up Covid antibodies?

You obviously know more about this than me, but you've obviousy also already made up your mind so any further discussion is a bit futile really, so let's leave it there 

Obviously I was sold a completely useless test which is about as good as a chocolate teapot.

[scutty brown]

Really? So if I dropped my blood on the floor and scooped it up and put it in the vial, there's a possibility the sample would pick up Covid antibodies?

You obviously know more about this than me, but you've obviousy also already made up your mind so any further discussion is a bit futile really, so let's leave it there 

Obviously I was sold a completely useless test which is about as good as a chocolate teapot.

Not covid antibodies, but something which at low volume could be misidentified as such

[Zeusthedoc]

There's all sorts of odd results
A lab tech I was speaking with said there was a high rate of inconclusive test results on non-covid tests as of late (she was mainly referring to syphilis) and that about 50/60% of those were having to be redone about a month later...
The latest syphilis test is (she was telling me) is around 99% accurate but the results are being affected for some reason...the point being that even established tests are not as efficacious in the current context.

[MilleMiglia]

The saga continues! I got an e-mail this morning, telling me that I've got an antibody test later this week. They are getting keen here.

[scutty brown]

The saga continues! I got an e-mail this morning, telling me that I've got an antibody test later this week. They are getting keen here.

The governments told them to get all NHS staff tested...........I think they're trying to build evidence to defend the negligence cases that will be heading their way when the families of BAME staff who have died start suing.