Book 1 of 376849276491.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Look in the mirror for denial
-
It's always worth examining one's biases. What am I denying?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Another excellent
#epi teaching resourceThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I mean you're bang on. t is being ignored in almost all testing discussion. Not to mention complete lack of awareness of FN vs FP. Even most MDs hate to talk about it - so media has no chance.
-
All thanks go to the brilliant
@LeaMerone who pointed this out in our systematic review! - Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
In general, agree. Highly assay dependent, as well. I believe our local NAT assay detects down to 5 viral genomic RNA / microliter
-
Definitely. And the Wuhan sampling methodology (which we were discussing) would probably bias towards a lower rate of false negatives. But it's still a bit silly to maintain that it has to be low because you want it to be
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
