I read that, but no mention of any adjustments for AB undercount bias And the 4 wk time didn't account for overlap with fatalities from infections post-measurement date Why didn't you use fatalities by "date of death" instead of date of report? You could nix your extra 7 days
I have no idea what you mean by "were provided", we cited a number of very recent studies on exactly this point. I also don't think you've actually understood the point about test sensitivity here
-
-
From recent evidence, we know that ELISA sensitivity is ~80% i.e. https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m2516 … What you're suggesting, as far as I can tell, is that there is an ADDITIONAL element, aside from the 20% false negatives we already know about, that would be missed by the ELISA
-
Correct. Obviously depends on the exact test used. But generally it's the % of infections that have decayed by the measurement date, and therefore changes the weighting of decay, similar to how true prev effects PPV. This is relative to each community & their point on curve
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Sens & Spec "Provided by the Manufacturers" I didn't see the source provided in the Appendix or Supp Materials, it may be there, just didn't see it. The point is, whether you're in month 6 and have lost X% AB's or week 3 and haven't dev as much, matters. You didn't adj for it
-
We're really going around in circles here. To put it another way - you calculate test sensitivity using PCR +ve cases as your benchmark, then testing serology several months later. Thus, the reduction in ABs is ~already accounted for in test sensitivity calculations~
- Show replies
New conversation -
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.
