Hilarious, but no it simply means that, again, the test specificity is very high and thus the false positive rate is extremely low as demonstrated mathematically above
-
-
Wishful thinking I'm afraid. I've presented you with evidence and you are reverting to stating what you believe to be true. I give up.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ClareCraigPath @m0102940 and
What an odd thing to say. As I've pointed out, the evidence you presented has nothing to do with the matter at hand, and the mathematics is very simple
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
If you want to know the specificity of a test you need to work out how many results of testing are false positives. This involved measuring the whole testing process. That is what they and others have done and the specificity is significantly below 100%
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ClareCraigPath @m0102940 and
They did not. That is the point, they looked at between-lab agreement. That is not the same thing as specificity validation analyses. Anyway, as I've said numerous times, what you're proposing is mathematically impossible so it's just a bit silly
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
They had no other golf standard to go on and neither do you.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ClareCraigPath @m0102940 and
While it's a complete non-sequitur and has no bearing on the matter at hand, I'm also confused by that statement. Are you saying that PCR for COVID-19 has never been compared to cultures?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
PCR COVID testing has been done on other viruses and bacteria but never at scale. Safety checks required one sample of up to 40 bugs.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ClareCraigPath @m0102940 and
Sorry, I'm still not sure what you mean. Are you saying that every PCR should be confirmed with a culture?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
No. I am saying that if you are going to mass screen for COVID then first you need to know what the false positive rate is for testing in different situations. This includes running the test on other viruses to figure out the % positives for each of them. This hasn't been done
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Oh, that's definitely not true. In Australia it was done by the Doherty Institutehttps://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/post-market-validation-of-the-beijing-genomics-institute-bgi-sars-cov-2-real-time-pcr-platform …
-
-
The biggest sample size there was 24 and that was for a group of coronaviruses. Where's the statistical power?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
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.