That sounds like you are not too keen on rational debate @KatyMcconkey ......
@FatEmperor @ClareCraigPath @ClarkeMicah @MichaelYeadon3
-
-
Replying to @NeilHar38005083 @manda251 and
These people you list do not engage in rational debate, they feed information to trolls and bots to distribute.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @KatyMcconkey @NeilHar38005083 and
Dr Claire Craig is one of your medical peers. Surely you are not dismissing her analysis out of hand, particularly as she is a diagnostic pathologist. No disrespect Katy, but you are a General Practitioner.
@ClareCraigPath is amply qualified to offer her expertise on a virus.pic.twitter.com/iPwy1jmxvc
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
John Rogers Retweeted Health Nerd
If she were practicing diagnostic pathology during this pandemic you might have a point. Instead she has devoted herself to spreading misinformation. You should read this to see how insane her output has become.https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1317920314072866816?s=20 …
John Rogers added,
Health NerdVerified account @GidMKPeople have been asking me to debunk this thread "proving" that COVID-19 deaths are false positives by correlating things, but instead I thought I'd simply list a few things that are more well correlated than this https://twitter.com/ClareCraigPath/status/1317009608448290816 …Show this thread3 replies 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @ronnytodgers @KatyMcconkey and
It appears this person is also spending most of his time ( whilst living in Sydney) writing for The Guardian and The Observer. Is he still a practising epidemiologist?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Yes. I write a column about once every two months for the Guardian at the moment. Also, lol at "whilst in Sydney" what does that even mean?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @ronnytodgers and
My tweet was not a personal snipe at you. I was responding to a previous post which included a retweet of one of your posts. My point re your residence in Sydney, was to illustrate that Dr Claire Path is based in the UK, thus her views are more relevant to me personally.pic.twitter.com/HmbUNtU5NV
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
The ONS agrees with my views, as I cite in my blog on the matter. I was also born and raised in London if that makes a difference


2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @ronnytodgers and
I’m sure your views are just as valid as all practising medical professionals. As a non-medical person, I’m out of my depth with regards to epidemiology & virology. But I have the ability to analyse ONS stats & other data, which is how I form some of my own independent views.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Well, the ONS states that the false positive rate of COVID-19 PCR tests in England is at most 0.08%, and likely quite a bit lower. This is a mathematical fact, despite the myths spread by people who do not like mathspic.twitter.com/sriozqTPuw
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes
Very simply - if you do 210,000 tests, and 160 of them come back +ve (the July numbers from the ONS), then AT MOST the false +ve rate is 160/210,000 = 1 per 1,250 tests. But since it's extremely unlikely that ALL of those tests were false +ves, the rate is probably lower
-
-
In NSW, Australia, we recently ran 236,201 COVID-19 PCR tests during an outbreak and found 96 +ves. With 1 confirmed false +ve (we retest most positives), we can say that the false positive rate is at most 0.04% but is probably 0.0004% or lower (1 per 250,000 tests)pic.twitter.com/52OojXH9IW
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Some people like to say that as prevalence in the community increases, so too does the false positive rate, which is not entirely untrue - most false positives in PCR are due to cross-contamination and this becomes more common as case numbers rise...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
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.