Skip to content
By using Twitter’s services you agree to our Cookies Use. We and our partners operate globally and use cookies, including for analytics, personalisation, and ads.
  • Home Home Home, current page.
  • About

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Language: English
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • Bahasa Melayu
    • Català
    • Čeština
    • Dansk
    • Deutsch
    • English UK
    • Español
    • Filipino
    • Français
    • Hrvatski
    • Italiano
    • Magyar
    • Nederlands
    • Norsk
    • Polski
    • Português
    • Română
    • Slovenčina
    • Suomi
    • Svenska
    • Tiếng Việt
    • Türkçe
    • Ελληνικά
    • Български език
    • Русский
    • Српски
    • Українська мова
    • עִבְרִית
    • العربية
    • فارسی
    • मराठी
    • हिन्दी
    • বাংলা
    • ગુજરાતી
    • தமிழ்
    • ಕನ್ನಡ
    • ภาษาไทย
    • 한국어
    • 日本語
    • 简体中文
    • 繁體中文
  • Have an account? Log in
    Have an account?
    · Forgot password?

    New to Twitter?
    Sign up
GidMK's profile
Health Nerd
Health Nerd
Health Nerd
Verified account
@GidMK

Tweets

Health NerdVerified account

@GidMK

Epidemiologist. Writer (Guardian, Observer etc). "Well known research trouble-maker". PhDing at @UoW Host of @senscipod Email gidmk.healthnerd@gmail.com he/him

Sydney, New South Wales
theguardian.com/profile/gideon…
Joined November 2015

Tweets

  • © 2021 Twitter
  • About
  • Help Center
  • Terms
  • Privacy policy
  • Cookies
  • Ads info
Dismiss
Previous
Next

Go to a person's profile

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @

Promote this Tweet

Block

  • Tweet with a location

    You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more

    Your lists

    Create a new list


    Under 100 characters, optional

    Privacy

    Copy link to Tweet

    Embed this Tweet

    Embed this Video

    Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Hmm, there was a problem reaching the server.

    By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.

    Preview

    Why you're seeing this ad

    Log in to Twitter

    · Forgot password?
    Don't have an account? Sign up »

    Sign up for Twitter

    Not on Twitter? Sign up, tune into the things you care about, and get updates as they happen.

    Sign up
    Have an account? Log in »

    Two-way (sending and receiving) short codes:

    Country Code For customers of
    United States 40404 (any)
    Canada 21212 (any)
    United Kingdom 86444 Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
    Brazil 40404 Nextel, TIM
    Haiti 40404 Digicel, Voila
    Ireland 51210 Vodafone, O2
    India 53000 Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
    Indonesia 89887 AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
    Italy 4880804 Wind
    3424486444 Vodafone
    » See SMS short codes for other countries

    Confirmation

     

    Welcome home!

    This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.

    Tweets not working for you?

    Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.

    Say a lot with a little

    When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.

    Spread the word

    The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.

    Join the conversation

    Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.

    Learn the latest

    Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.

    Get more of what you love

    Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.

    Find what's happening

    See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.

    Never miss a Moment

    Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.

    Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 21 Sep 2020

    Health Nerd Retweeted Julia Hartley-Brewer

    This is remarkably wrong - Julia is here talking about a test with 90% sensitivity and specificity, but PCR for COVID-19 is MUCH better than this, with sensitivity of ~98% and specificity of ~99%+ in symptomatic individualshttps://twitter.com/JuliaHB1/status/1307588418260684800 …

    Health Nerd added,

    Julia Hartley-BrewerVerified account @JuliaHB1
    I'm going to tweet this again to give you an idea of how serious the rate of false positives really is. This image is an example of a test which is FAR more accurate than the Covid-19 tests being used in the community. The maths seems unbelievable but it's correct. pic.twitter.com/5XSvu3k4PM
    Show this thread
    12:43 AM - 21 Sep 2020
    • 49 Retweets
    • 190 Likes
    • Wendy Wilkinson 🙀🐱🐈🦘 Leena Taji Justin Nelson Another Runner Matthias Apfelthaler Tak Rene Hache Emma Sutherland, MPH 😷 Rod Cook
    17 replies 49 retweets 190 likes
      1. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 21 Sep 2020

        With PCR for COVID-19 in a population with prevalence of 5%, you'd expect to see 49 true positives, ~6-7 false positives, for a positive predictive value of about 90% Given that most positives are retested if they remain asymptomatic, the true PPV is close to 100%

        6 replies 7 retweets 47 likes
        Show this thread
        Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
        Undo
      1. enough ao6ix6ix.9ine9ine (WS), already‏ @21_7_b 21 Sep 2020
        Replying to @GidMK

        yes, but what about the pretty colors?

        0 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
        Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
        Undo
      1. New conversation
      2. o rly?‏ @Reasonableques3 21 Sep 2020
        Replying to @GidMK

        Specificity must be higher than that. You’re in NSW too, our test data is incompatible with claims that ~1% of negative people tested will result in a false positive. Otherwise we’d have 100+, daily

        1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
      3. Ryan Hisner‏ @LongDesertTrain 21 Sep 2020
        Replying to @Reasonableques3 @GidMK

        This is exactly what I was thinking. If there really are 6-7 false positives for every 49 real positives in widely tested populations with very low Covid prevalence (like NYC), I don't see how their positivity could be well below 1%.

        1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
      4. End of conversation
      1. Miro Kubicek‏ @new_crobuzon 21 Sep 2020
        Replying to @GidMK

        I always wondered: how exactly can PCR have false positive? If the sequence is not there how could it be found? Is there other reason for a false positive PCR test other than a contamination? And even if it's there there could be heaps of sequencing errors and false negatives...

        0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
        Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
        Undo
      1. New conversation
      2. Adam Fraise‏ @FraiseAdam 21 Sep 2020
        Replying to @GidMK @guffynicola

        She is also talking about testing a population irrespective of symptoms. No test performs well under these circumstances. Test people with symptoms in the middle of a pandemic and the PPV is quite high for any decent test

        2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
      3. Sarah Sorlien‏ @SarahSorlien 21 Sep 2020
        Replying to @FraiseAdam @GidMK @guffynicola

        The performance for asymptomatic patients is more important in this case and false negative is the greater concern from a public health perspective. The harm from “treating” a false positive (quarantine) is nit substantial.

        1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
      4. Show replies
      1. New conversation
      2. PaedsHaemDoc‏ @dr_barrett 21 Sep 2020
        Replying to @GidMK

        I think the sensitivity is actually much lower , 70% because it’s dependent on a good sample. The specificity is obviously higher than quoted - I think the point with CT values is you don’t know if they are on the way up or the way down , and the sample is not standardised

        2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
      3. TheObsAnaesthetist‏ @DrNickB_ObAnaes 21 Sep 2020
        Replying to @dr_barrett @GidMK

        Specificity at worst case is better than 99.96% - sensitivity is only moderate - in testing an enriched population ie: symptomatic/contacts the major issue is risk of FALSE NEGATIVESpic.twitter.com/BUBQDUzZ1i

        This media may contain sensitive material. Learn more
        1 reply 2 retweets 4 likes
      4. Show replies
      1. Jim‏ @jimatdisney 21 Sep 2020
        Replying to @GidMK

        I agree with your point. Also, she completely misses that the bigger risk is false negatives. Do you have a reference for the sensitivity and specificity of a PCR test?

        1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
        Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
        Undo

    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.

      Promoted Tweet

      false

      • © 2021 Twitter
      • About
      • Help Center
      • Terms
      • Privacy policy
      • Cookies
      • Ads info