Possibly the most underwhelming election pledge in history

This entry was posted in Elections, Federal politics. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Possibly the most underwhelming election pledge in history

  1. rosie says:

    Any demand for rats will evaporate before the federal election

  2. rosie says:

    There are 13.5 million cases in France, I saw a queue of six young people queuing up for tests? vaccines? this morning in Marseilles.
    Why can’t Australia have rats tests 5 for $10 at the supermarket like France.

  3. C.L. says:


    Always good to hear from TCL’s European correspondent. 🙂

  4. rosie says:

    Even at 5 for €9.90 I didn’t buy any.
    I did bring some with me in case required for border crossings but at this stage the only time I’m planning to use one is to jump on a plane home.
    Fingers crossed by then Australia says don’t worry about it.

  5. Jay says:

    Morrison gambled the house and the furniture that the conservative voters would never preference Labor. Every policy move he’s ever made is suck up to the ‘doctor’s wives’ set. Honestly, better off with Albanese.

  6. Shy Ted says:

    Yeah, about the RAT and the debunked PCR

    After considering all advantages and disadvantages of both PCR and RAT, for screening, Rapid Antigen Testing is good, but for a clear diagnosis, the PCR is best.

    It’s only money.

  7. Tel says:

    Shy Ted, that article you linked to is astounding … it is completely Bass Ackwards and gets whole thing upside down. Astounding how far Australia has fallen. This is what they say:

    Unlike Rapid Antigen Tests, PCR tests can detect the presence of the virus even at very low concentrations, hence why a PCR test is used to make a definite diagnosis of COVID-19.

    You want the high sensitivity test for screening, and the high specificity test for diagnostic. This is taught as student basics … here is one link but there are many others.


    Table 3.3.1 Differences between screening and diagnostic tests

    Screening tests: Generally chosen towards high sensitivity not to miss potential disease.

    Diagnostic tests: Chosen towards high specificity (true negatives). More weight given to accuracy and precision than to patient acceptability.

    PCR is bad for diagnosis precisely because it is so sensitive that it picks up false positives (as has happened several well publicized times in Australia, and no doubt many times less publicized). That’s acceptable in a screening test, where the whole idea is to get early warnings on people who are not yet sick, but in the early stages and showing either mild symptoms or no symptoms. Unfortunately PCR also has problems as a screening test in those cases when the virus is establishing itself in the gut, or else deep in the lungs, which are places the PCR cannot sample.

    The advantage with a diagnostic test is that you only worry about diagnostics AFTER a patient gets sick … or at least that used to be the method before everything went strange in 2020. Therefore the lower sensitivity doesn’t matter. Like I said, this is textbook stuff.

  8. Tel says:

    A very quick search of the published articles confirms that RAT is poor as a screening test because of low sensitivity. It is however, excellent in terms of high specificity and therefore a good choice as a diagnostic test.


    Conclusions: This study shows the poor sensitivity of AT in asymptomatic subjects, specificity being however excellent. The performance results fall below the World Health Organization recommendation of 80% sensitivity and question using AT in general population, especially when asymptomatic.

    I can’t possibly believe I’m the only person capable of clicking on a search engine.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *