"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...


quote

Only 22% of people testing positive for coronavirus reported
having
symptoms on the day of their test, according to the Office for
National Statistics.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53320155


Depends on how many symptomless are tested, stupid.

Most are in fact tested because they have symptoms.


The above link stated that 78% of those tested had *no* symptoms.

But that’s not all tests, stupid.

Maybe not Rodney. Maybe they *mainly* test psople who are *already*
showing symptoms. Which if categorised accordingly, would tell them
how many of *those* people who do have symptoms, are carrying the
antibodies.

This set of results was however different. These subjects were
tseted regardless of whether or not they were reporting symptoms.
And of the ones who tested positive, 78% of them weren't
showing any any symptoms at all. All of whom would been missed
completely by the kind of tests you were referring to, aimed
solely at people who were already showing symptoms.

But its very far from clear how typical that sample
was. let alone how reliable that particular test was
given that no one else has ever got anything like
that result when testing everyone.

So what result did they get ?

Nothing even remotely like that, not even in Stockholm.
Stockholm didn’t even get double digit positives.

That is, the percentage of people carrying antibodies who were not showing
any symptoms.