monkie

This is great information. I need to sort mine too at some point. I used autosparks to get the items do build my own engine loom. It cost about 30% less than off the shelf but it educated me a little more about what goes where. I think getting the correct coloured wires is essential for fault finding in years to come.

Please show my posts to your friends and son. I have explained in previous posts, I am working first hand with molecular Pathology labs to support them with Covid testing. Pathology is a hidden part of a hospital, as a result knowledge of tests done in Pathology typically does not extend beyond the labs to doctors and nurses. Instead the results are simple given to clinicians to be able to make a clinical decision. The misconception as I understand comes from the fact initial tests that were provisionally procured by the NHS which were rapid lateral flow devices (similar in principle to a pregnancy test you buy in a shop for use at home) before any commercial PCR tests were launched for covid-19. These lateral flow tests were found to be inaccurate and unreproducible. This is why their use was not rolled out for the diagnosis of Covid-19. Instead as PCR tests became available it is these that were validated by molecular labs in the UK and are now being used to test people with clinical symptoms of the infection. There is much confusion between the different types of tests around. It is this confusion I am doing my best to try and provide clarity, dispelling any misconception or misinformation. I can categorically tell everyone that the rapid lateral flow tests which are not accurate are NOT being used atleast in the UK Pathology labs to confirm a diagnosis of covid-19. They may be purchased by individuals on ebay or amazon, but these results are worthless. If your son or someone he lives with has been tested positive by PCR and is being made to work, this is completely contrary to government instruction. As such it should be escalated as high as possible within the place he works at. I hope this helps.

Please can you explain where this information is coming from. I have 11 years experience working in molecular diagnostics with NHS pathology laboratories. I have already explained how this view is a misconception. The PCR tests being used to diagnose sars-cov-2 have very high reproducibility, are 100% specific and have a sensitivity down to just a few genomic copies per mililitre of sample.

There's that old thing about good, fast and cheap but you can only ever have 2 at any one time. Rapid tests are often fast and cheap (compared to pcr) but not good. They are not being used in the UK and (as far as I know) nor other European countries such as France, Germany, Spain to screen people and generate the numbers of how many people have the virus. Lab based antibody tests will be released within the coming weeks which will be used on current lab serology equipment. The roll out of these tests will be cheaper and easier to do than the PCR and will be helpful for identifying who is and who is not at risk of becoming infected. These tests will also be critical once a vaccine is available so it can be determined who needs it and how effective it is.

We need to know what test is being talked about here. Is it one of the rapid tests done outside of the lab which have no FDA approval? This is not PCR that is being used currently in the UK for testing. The only people with a real sound knowledge of the test will be consultant microbiologists/virologist, clinical scientists or biomedical scientists. In my experience (no disrespect to your Dr wife) when I talk to hospital staff outside of the lab they often don't know much about the mechanics of the tests done in Pathology as it isn't their area of focus.

It depends on the test they are talking about and who said it. Something about that figure doesn't sound right to me from a laboratory perspective. A commercial test with 30% lack of specificity or sensitivity would not pass approval, even emergency approval for use in a lab. If it was a hurried lab developed assay and they hadn't had time to do a large validation study then maybe they could say something like we aren't quite sure of 30% but even that sounds too high to me. I would say that figure of 30% certainly isn't from a biomedical scientist referring to a commercial PCR test. PCR tests are often 100% specific and can detect down to just a few copies of DNA/RNA in 1ml of sample which I think is impressive stuff. Additionally, a nurse (my wife is also a nurse) must assume everyone is positive and will be taking the precautions they are able to and have been trained to take. In the same way if they may come into contact with blood for example it must be assumed the patient has HIV or Hep C and the appropriate precautions taken.

Yes you are correct. It is PCR tests being used across the world to diagnose Covid. Antibody tests are to see who has had the virus but recovered. The poor tests were the rapid tests to do at home, not lab based tests

Sorry Red to contradict you here but I'm not sure where you are getting that information from. That last part about false negatives simply isn't true. I have a degree in this very area and work for a very large molecular diagnostics company who are providing one of the commercial PCR tests for Covid. Let me explain why it isn't true: A false negative is when a patient sample which is actually positive is falsely reported as negative by a test because something has gone wrong within the test for that sample. False negatives on the commercial PCR tests are almost impossible because of an internal control. An internal control is integral to each test in addition to a positive target control being run on each sample batch to demonstrate the covid target can be detected. A false negative result would be caused by a problem with the test reagents or most likely an inhibitory substance within the sample caused by poor nucleic acid extraction. This inhibitor would shut down the reaction in the individual test. Each test result that is negative has to be validated by the internal control being valid to prove the test has worked. If both the target and the control are negative, the test is automatically flagged as invalid and no result is given. This is part of the requirement for FDA approval which our test and others being used have. The main worry with PCR tests compared to other types of testing is actually the opposite: false positives. That's because PCR is an incredibly sensitive technique. However this effect is eliminated with modern tests by using additives in the test (UDG if you would like to look it up) that destroy amplified material from previous positive tests which could contaminate other tests. This again must be demonstrated in each batch of tests run by running a negative control to prove no contamination is present. So for a negative result to be valid and reportes as such 3 things must all be true: the internal control must be positive, the positive control must be positive and the negative control must be negative. If any one or more is not true the instrument will not release the result. Simple. The tests in the UK at least are mainly being done on inpatients with clinical symptoms to build a picture of what is happening in hospitals. I do this for a living. I don't claim to be an expert, but I do speak to and work alongside experts every working day.

I disagree, the more data you collect a clearer picture you will have of how the infection is spreading. If you are doing little testing to confirm cases how can you possibly analyse the progression of infection?

This is a great example of why it's going to be really hard to compare one country against another. When China was suffering as we are now in the West there was no commercial test. They would have been using none standardised lab developed tests where they could if at all. The USA are doing a lot of testing using standardised tests. The data is only as good as the testing strategy. I would imagine the actual figures in China are way higher than reported but rather because of lack of testing facilities rather than some cover up. Edit: apart from examples like Belarus. That's just pure stupidity!

I get the thing about if you haven't got anything to hide but I rather like living in a country where you are innocent until proven guilty. How about if everytime you popped out to the shop and the police demanded to search your land rover for no other reason than they didn't like the look of you. With respect to Facebook. Imagine going back in time just 20 years and if someone suggested there would be a thing on the Internet where millions of people will volunteer to put all their personal details, photos of where they they are and what they are doing not to mention publicly slagging off their work colleagues for all to see. You'd probably be laughed out of the room!

I have a spare used 300tdi intercooler in the shed you can have for free. It's not in tip top condition but looks better than the one in your pictures. PM your address if you would like it and I'll post it to you on tuesday

I should think so, spitting at anyone is abhorrent behaviour, but during times like these.... I'm glad he's been locked up, the dirty ******. During WW2, is it true you get fines or even a spell behind bars for showing a light at night? Similar principle I think in terms of one idiotic event risking the safety of others. I heard in the news that a couple from Leicestershire got stopped towing their caravan up to the lake district for the Bank holiday. Why can't people follow a very basic instruction? To be honest idiots like that should be named and shamed in my opinion.

Me too. Last time I went to London it was so odd to drive on the M3/M25 section with just me and few lorries. Personally I can see the restrictions lasting a bit longer but who knows.

Just a thought, does it have a sedimenter fitted between the tank and lift pump? If so, give that a clean out as well.

^^^this along with checking the timing and adjustments. Its surprising what a difference a nice clean fuel filter can make. Until these are complete you aren't at the modification to the fuel transfer stage.

What I don't understand about American gun law enshrined by the second amendment of the constitution is the range of weapons you can leagaly own if you are a US citizen. I'm not saying I agree with it but a hand gun is one thing for self protection but Joe public being allowed to have assult rifles, semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons (pre 1986) really seems odd to me.

I think your problem is in here. Give it a thorough service renewing oil and all filters for quality parts. Check and adjust where necessary valve clearance and timing as 2 years is plenty of time for something to have wandered off from where it should be. 2 years is also plenty of time for your mechanical lift pump to have failed or start to fail. I would just replace your current one with a quality part such as Delphi.

I think it could be a combination of things adding up. I would get the injectors checked out (but if it isn't smokey they are likely to be fine). Check the timing, both cam and pump. Check the valve clearances. Get a new fuel lift pump (a quality mechanical one should deliver plenty of fuel to the injection pump). Change the fuel filter and air filter. Are you using the correct grade of engine oil? Have you had someone sit in the drivers seat with their foot right down on the accelerator pedal while you check that the lever on the pump moves all the way?

I would presume because the army is government run so part of some sort of conspiracy in their minds?

I think that good old Louis Theroux did one of his programmes on this but in the USA.

Very powerful stuff. Every idiot who refuses to play by the rules for their own and others safety should be made to listen to that. I hope the new found thanks for medical professionals sticks after we out the other side of this. I have nothing but the utmost respect for that Dr and his colleagues. Can you imagine having to work day after day in the conditions he describes?

Of course not if it helps to spread calm

No need to thank me - but I'll take it to the bank! When I'm not in labs I too am staying at home do work remotely where possible. I want to reassure people of the truth as there is a lot of nonsense out there causing confusion. I don't want people to be anxious that we are all going to die and we aren't able to test - this is not true at all. Its like a big game of chinese wispers going up the chain in the government, then to top ministers who appear on TV and the radio who (no fault of their own) can't accurately describe the science and is then misrepresented to the members of the public who (mostly) don't understand the science by the press who don't understand the science.

For anyone interested I would also like to give an insight it to the "testing fiasco" in the UK hospitals that has been reported in the news this week and give the facts. I am working for a company who directly supplies and supports hospital laboratories for virology testing. I was in an NHS lab in London this week preparing instruments to do the testing. Various ministers and the press have been comparing our testing to other countries as inadequate and why can't we ramp up the testing as others have done. Here are the reasons: The NHS Pathology laboratories have undergone a large consolidation over the past years to a hub and spoke model under NHSi (improvement). This has reduced year on year the number of labs able to do this sort of molecular test using PCR. The labs left who do have molecular facilities and trained staff have been and are working flat out to meet testing demand. The thing is they don't just have tests, spare equipment and spare staff waiting for a pandemic, they of course have to also do routine testing for STI screening, HIV, Hep C and Hep B viral loads etc. It has also been reported some labs have been told by the government they aren't allowed to test. This is because those labs mostly don't have the right equipment and staff for the PCR test. The government are managing the resources we have to make sure the testing is done where it is needed most ie large cities. Companies like the one I work for have been placing extra equipment in labs and getting them up and running with the test. The laboratory staff have to be trained and then validate the tests to ensure they are passing QC and work with absolute reliability. Highly skilled Biomedical Scientist staff have to be retrained on safely processing the infectious patient samples and using the test. All of this can't just happen overnight. Commercial companies have designed, produced, gained FDA approval for the tests in a record time the likes of which have never been seen. Now we have to manage the distribution with assistance from government to get the tests to where they are needed. The materials required for the tests are correctly refered to as reagents. One government minister tried to explain to the press the above but said the "chemicals are in limited supply". Someone then contacted the chemical industry to ask if chemicals are in short supply. Of course bulk and fine chemicals are not. So the answer came back as such causing further confusion as if someone is not telling the truth. In short despite what the press report and some ministers say. Please be assured that diagnostic companies and NHS Molecular laboratories up and down the UK are working flat out to deliver the testing to those who need it. Antibody tests which are less complex than PCR tests to roll out are now being produced and gaining approval. It is these tests which can determine who has had the infection and is immune. Molecular tests directly detect the viral RNA to diagnose a current acute infection. I hope this clarifies atleast some of the murky water we find ourselves in.