When the news broke over the weekend that poor old Eamon Ryan would not be able to travel, after all, to COP 26, in the aftermath of a positive Covid test, the heart of any person with compassion in their souls will have broken for him.
But then, just like in the movies, at the last minute, and when all hope was lost, came a reprieve:
Minister Eamon Ryan has tested negative for COVID-19 after taking a second PCR test. It follows an initial positive test result yesterday. The Minister will now be free to travel to COP26 in Glasgow tomorrow. pic.twitter.com/j35coo2PqT
— Virgin Media News (@VirginMediaNews) November 7, 2021
This story raises some interesting questions that the public, really, should be asking:
First: Why, if the first test was wrong, is it simply good enough to assume that the second test is correct? Clearly, either Minister Ryan, or his doctors, did not trust the first test result, and sought a second test. But why is the second test any more worthy of trust than the first? Shouldn’t he at least be expected to take a few more tests, and await a consistent pattern?
Second: Why is Eamon Ryan entitled to get multiple covid tests to determine if he is sick, or not? That is not a privilege, after all, customarily granted by the state to the ordinary citizen. While private PCR tests are available, the general rule is that if you test positive once, you’re in isolation for a week and a half, before being tested again. Certainly, a test “to be sure to be sure” isn’t something the ordinary punter in Ireland could expect the state to provide if a positive test had prevented them, say, taking their son to Anfield to watch Liverpool.
Third: How common are these false positives, if this was indeed a false positive, and how are they taken into account in the daily covid figures?
Well, the Journal.ie and Newstalk both agreed to prominently report a claim by NPHET that the false positive rate is no more than one in every 500 tests – about 0.2%. So there was a one in five hundred chance that Eamon Ryan’s positive test was a mistake.
Eamon Ryan then tested negative on a subsequent test. So what were the chances that that second test – the negative result – could be wrong?
Well, in truth, it’s very hard to know, for various reasons. Most prominently, somebody who has covid, but has no symptoms, and tests negative, has no reason to go for a second test, usually. So if there is a false negative, it will not be noticed in most cases. But early in the pandemic, the HSE did some research on false negatives, and took data on PCR testing from China as their baseline:
It is unclear the exact percentage of tests that produce false negatives but evidence from China proposes that this could be as high as 30%
“Could be as high as 30%”? Well, if it was 30% (which is unlikely, but that’s the number they give) then basic maths say that Eamon Ryan’s second – negative – test was one hundred and fifty times more likely to be wrong than his first – positive – test. That’s what the data published by his own Government says.
So how, then, can it possibly be justified for him to swan off to Glasgow, and risk inflicting a terrible plague upon the whole Global climate movement, based on one false test? Nothing in the science that has been published by his own Government justifies that decision.
We are left, then, with only a limited number of possibilities:
First: That the data published by the Government is wrong, and Eamon Ryan has access to secret, better, data.
Second: That Eamon Ryan is more interested in attending COP 26 than in protecting public health. One, after all, is only about sick people. The other is about the very fate of our planet, which only Eamon can save.
Third: There is one rule for the ordinary person, and another for the great and the good.
The most likely answer, if you ask me, is all three. But as ever, make your own minds up.