Actually what I read by Dr. Mina at Harvard was that as many as 75% of Covid positive patients were unlikely to be infectious. Others said 90%. Stay on topic here.
-
-
-
That is, of course, not at all a "false positive". These are people who have or have recently had a COVID-19 infection who may no longer be passing the virus on (although we don't know that for certain). Very different to a false result
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
This is lies and propaganda. The false positive rate is NOT less than 0.1%, it is about 0.8%.
-
That is mathematically irreconcilable with the positive rate observed in NSW Australia, which is about 1 positive for every 2,000 tests done. Even if every single test was falsely positive, the "false positive rate" cannot be higher than 0.05%
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
This article completely misses the point. False positives become an issue where disease incidence in society is lower than the FPR. In the UK, rate of infection is assessed as 0.11% - a generous FPR would be 0.8% based on historic EQAs.
-
Do the maths in the article again with these figures.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I like to remind people that New York State testing is <1% positive putting a hard upper limit on RNA false positives. Also that most RNA false positives seem to be from cross contamination in the lab--so there needs to be some true positives to get false positives.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I don't believe it is true either. That is such a harmful statement.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Are you positive?
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.