More broadly, the testing methodology used here is pooled testing, which by design sacrifices specificity because a single false positive requires retesting of a larger group of people
-
-
Show this thread
-
If we looked at the false positive rate in the pooled testing program as a whole, this has so far happened a single time, with a specificity of ~99.7%pic.twitter.com/0MksT9IEiH
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
0.1% is even more impressing seeing as they were blanket testing everyone and not picking symptomatic cases like normal testing.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It might be quite something, but it's sadly also quite usual.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Similar to the tripe I dealt with earlierhttps://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1336689428488654854 …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
They JHB and Tice both also overlook the fact it was testing of samples taken from asymptomatic people, and omitted to state they there were actually 9 +ves from 71 cases that were symptomaticpic.twitter.com/I0Ksg4qrLA
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I just signed up to Twitter to say 2 things: 1. I really enjoy following your feed. 2. As far as I see, there were _10_ pooled tests and not 1 pooled test: 9,376 students, 1,937 pools, 10 positive pools.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Says right there in the paper that its 0.3% I don't know what she is looking at
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.