Fork me on GitHub
#clojure-uk
<
2020-08-28
>
dharrigan06:08:54

Good Morning!

dharrigan07:08:14

anyone here use CopyQ on Linux (i3?)

dharrigan08:08:33

I'm struggling with java-time this morning!

dharrigan08:08:04

I have a string "2020-07-03T23:00:00.000+00:00" that I'm trying to parse into an offset-date-time, but java-time refuses to keep the +00:00, squashing it down to a Z. I know Z means the same as +00:00, but even the Java DateTimeFormatter allows you to keep the "+00:00" if you want to (and I want to!)

dharrigan08:08:11

I think I'll have to hit the java api directly

dominicm08:08:54

why do you care that it's Z?

dominicm08:08:04

won't it come out how you want on the other side once parsed?

dominicm08:08:46

heh, those reasons might be met without affecting the parse stage

dharrigan08:08:19

Actually, I think I know what I can do...man, I hate messing with times 🙂

dominicm08:08:28

time is the worst

dharrigan08:08:45

I'm trying to ensure a kotlin application, using Spring and Jackson can also work with the same data that Clojure using Cheshire can produce

dharrigan08:08:53

and there is some quirks going on with the times 🙂

dharrigan09:08:05

one thing that I would love to see in Cheshire, and it was raised as a bug (then closed), is to maintain the order of JSON keys. Now, I know that according to the RFC, json key ordering is not a requirement - but the majority of other libraries maintain the order of the keys in the map

dharrigan09:08:20

it makes comparing things a lot simplier 🙂

alexlynham09:08:43

Z is better if you're shuffling around JSON timestamps usually

alexlynham09:08:36

I spent a good chunk of last week faffing with JS/typescript time parsing and let me tell you, at least java times have runtime errors and meticulously specified parsers

alexlynham09:08:54

not 'I didn't understand that - you must mean now() in your system timezone'

dharrigan09:08:51

🙂 I solved the problem. It was something I introduced a few weeks ago to make things "prettier", but that ended up storing the wrong thing in the db.

Ben Hammond10:08:18

trouble with Pandemic AND schools going back, then when your child brings a cold back from school, theres quite a long period of doubt about what you are suffering from

Ben Hammond10:08:40

however none of us have a dry cough

Ben Hammond10:08:53

or an obvously high fever

Ben Hammond10:08:13

or impared tast/smell (other than what a blocked nose brings)

Ben Hammond10:08:20

so I guess its just a heavy cold...

Ben Hammond10:08:36

annoying sore throat though

cddr11:08:40

Hope you get better soon.

rickmoynihan12:08:47

@U793EL04V Get tested. I’ve been tested 4 times, very easy to book, and there are test sites everywhere now. Last two times we got the results back within 24h.

rickmoynihan12:08:30

sore throat is also officially recognised as a symptom now

Ben Hammond13:08:24

oh is it, I've not been keeping up

rickmoynihan13:08:47

A sore throat was why I got one of those tests (negative)

seancorfield15:08:07

How accurate are the tests over there? We have a cousin with COVID and her husband tested negative, even tho' he was clearly sick, and the wife tested positive with milder symptoms.

seancorfield15:08:54

He caught it first -- his symptoms started August 7th -- and then her symptoms started exactly a week later. He was getting better but he's gotten worse in the last couple of days.

seancorfield15:08:37

I would guess it doesn't cost anything to get tested in the UK (unlike here)?

rickmoynihan16:08:50

Yeah it’s totally free for the anti-gen tests, the anti-body tests aren’t as widely available… Though IIRC about £80 to get a private one. I think the tests are pretty accurate; if you fall in the right window at least. I did look at the claimed false positive/negative rates and I seem to remember them being pretty high (like 95+%) but can’t recall the exact figure. I remember finding the exact test process and the official results for it too. I think the biggest risk is that you can test too early or too late for it.

seancorfield16:08:10

Could be. Larry and Vikki both got tested at the same time and he was a week further along with his symptoms. They've been so careful about exposure (they live in rural Alaska so there's not many people to get exposed to -- they think he got it from visiting a government building about a week before his symptoms appeared). Despite BoJo's incompetence, right now I think I'd prefer to be in the UK than in the US, for the affordable healthcare 😐

seancorfield16:08:19

Thanks for the info.

Ben Hammond16:08:41

I had an idea the accuracy was around 80%

Ben Hammond16:08:01

although I'm not sure I could lay my hands on the source of that figure

Ben Hammond16:08:37

quaranting seems to be emphasing TWO tests a few days apart

Ben Hammond16:08:03

although if you get a positive, followed by a negative you will be left uncertain...

Ben Hammond16:08:24

doing your own, or your loved one's swab must be quite a learned skill

rickmoynihan07:09:36

> The RT-PCR assays used for the UK’s COVID-19 testing programme have been verified by PHE, and show over 95% sensitivity and specificity. This means that under laboratory conditions, these RT-PCR tests should never show more than 5% false positives or 5% false negatives. It goes on to discuss the operational rates: > An attempt has been made to estimate the likely false-positive rate of national COVID-19 testing programmes by examining data from published external quality assessments (EQAs) for RT-PCRassays for other RNA viruses carried out between 2004-2019 [7]. Results of 43 EQAs were examined, giving a median false positive rate of 2.3% (interquartile range 0.8-4.0%). Operational false negatives are of course much harder to assess: > The UK operational false negative rate is unknown. A recent study [6] combined results from seven studies (>1300 swab test results associated with time of disease onset) to create a model of the false negative rate for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assays against time since infection. Their model suggested that in the first four days of infection (pre-symptomatic phase) the probability of a false negative in an infected person decreased from 100% on day 1 (i.e. a false negative was certain) to 67% on day 4. It then decreased to 38% on day 5 (dayof symptom onset) to a minimum of 20% on day 8 of infection (i.e. one in five people still give a false negative result despite having experienced three days of COVID-19 symptoms). The false negative rate then increased from day 9 (21%) to day 21 (66%). Point estimates and confidence intervals are shown in Figure 1 [taken from 6]. So in practice there’s quite a lot of operational error… Having taken the tests 4 times (3x self administered) I can confirm it’s pretty unpleasant and quite awkward to self administer. I very nearly threw up the last time doing the throat swab. more details in the Public Health England report: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/895843/S0519_Impact_of_false_positives_and_negatives.pdf