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.

    1. Dr Clare Craig‏ @ClareCraigPath 22 Sep 2020
      Replying to @GidMK @m0102940 and

      With a specificity of 99.95% then you would expect all of the summer ONS 'cases' to be false positive. Either that or you assume 100% specificity with R-value rock steady at 1.0000. Here is evidence so far that summer COVID was minimal -https://logicinthetimeofcovid.com/2020/09/07/waiting-for-zero/ …

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    2. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 22 Sep 2020
      Replying to @ClareCraigPath @m0102940 and

      That is incorrect. With a % positive of 0.5% (the average over summer). and a specificity of 99.95% you would expect that roughly one in 10 cases detected would be a false positive, so around 10% As I've noted, the specificity is probably higher, but that's the lower bound 👍

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    3. Dr Clare Craig‏ @ClareCraigPath 22 Sep 2020
      Replying to @GidMK @m0102940 and

      99.95% for ONS. 99.6% for pillar 1 and 99.2% for pillar 2.

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    4. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 22 Sep 2020
      Replying to @ClareCraigPath @m0102940 and

      Those are the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM values, yes. If every single positive was false (extraordinarily unlikely) in testing datasets, those are the lowest possible values for specificity. A more realistic range would use that as the lowest estimate and 100% as the highest

      2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
    5. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 22 Sep 2020
      Replying to @GidMK @ClareCraigPath and

      Worth noting that we know the sensitivity of these tests, and it is not 0%, so a specificity of 99.92% is actually impossible. Using the ONS numbers, and a sensitivity of 80% (low, but for the sake of argument) you get a specificity of ~99.9947%

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    6. Dr Clare Craig‏ @ClareCraigPath 22 Sep 2020
      Replying to @GidMK @m0102940 and

      Based on what gold standard?

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    7. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 22 Sep 2020
      Replying to @ClareCraigPath @m0102940 and

      That's literally the mathematics assuming a sensitivity of 80% with the numbers from the ONS. 159 samples positive in 209,000 tests means minimum possible spec is 99.92%, 80% sensitivity gives you ~99.9947%

      1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
    8. Dr Clare Craig‏ @ClareCraigPath 22 Sep 2020
      Replying to @GidMK @m0102940 and

      You can only do that maths with a ground truth. What's your ground truth?

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    9. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 22 Sep 2020
      Replying to @ClareCraigPath @m0102940 and

      Sorry what? As I said, if we assume that the PCR test used by ONS is totally worthless and NEVER picks up any actual infections, because the rate of +ve results is ~8 per 10,000 the minimum POSSIBLE specificity is 99.92%

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    10. Dr Clare Craig‏ @ClareCraigPath 22 Sep 2020
      Replying to @GidMK @m0102940 and

      For the ONS data. You can't then extrapolate that to pillar 1 and pillar 2 testing over the summer which selected the population in a totally different way.

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
      Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 22 Sep 2020
      Replying to @ClareCraigPath @m0102940 and

      This is test specificity, not population prevalence. Applying the test specificity to a different prevalence is of course another point, but that's not what we were discussing

      10:25 PM - 22 Sep 2020
      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        1. New conversation
        2. Dr Clare Craig‏ @ClareCraigPath 22 Sep 2020
          Replying to @GidMK @m0102940 and

          I am saying the specificity will change based on who you select for testing. This is biology.

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        3. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 22 Sep 2020
          Replying to @ClareCraigPath @m0102940 and

          Sorry, are you saying that the acute patient sample from Phase I/II (who have a much higher chance of COVID-19 infection than the ONS random sample) would lower the test specificity substantially?

          2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
        4. Show replies

      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