Perhaps unsurprisingly for a blog called "lockdown skeptics", this piece makes basic mathematical and epidemiological mistakes. In fact, very few positive COVID-19 tests are falsehttps://twitter.com/JuliaHB1/status/1307586325663698945 …
-
-
We can see this in the % positive of COVID-19 tests run in the UK. While it's relatively low now, it is still above 1% (i.e. >1/100 tests run come back positive)pic.twitter.com/nozHjsCgaE
Show this thread -
In other words, we EXPECT the rate of true positives to be FAR HIGHER in those receiving PCR tests than in the general population BY DESIGN So the central premise of the article is completely flawed
Show this thread -
I'd say it's not unlikely that there are 10-20% false positives, depending on the population sampled, but since many/most people who get a positive PCR test are re-tested it's largely a non-issue in terms of the statistics
Show this thread -
Anyway
@MichaelYeadon3, probably worth correcting the factual mistakes in your piece, they are currently rather glaringShow this thread -
Oh, and some more on PCR tests and the actual rate of false positives from
@MackayIMhttps://virologydownunder.com/and-another-thing-on-false-positives/ …Show this thread -
I should also clarify that, as has been pointed out to me, 10-20% false positives for PCR testing of COVID-19 is unlikely except in areas of vanishingly low prevalence where enormous community testing is taking place. In the UK, it's probably closer to 0%
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
He’s basing his figures on ONS data which relies on random testing . ‘It is reasonable to assume that most of the time, those being tested do not have symptoms’. Read his article again
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.