It feels to me as if the existence of the RT-PCR test has restricted people's thinking. If it had not existed, we would have used other lower-tech ways to estimate spread, for example flu symptoms with a negative flu test.
-
-
-
In areas where RT-PCR testing is inadequate (almost everywhere, sadly) we don't use estimates, we just use the inadequate PCR numbers. It's a failure of imagination. Obviously the PCR test is the gold standard, but we handled previous epidemics without it.
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I partly agree, but would you trust their estimates? For a while there, WHO was saying there was no human to human transmission.
-
I am still undecided if the WHO has some kind of politically motivated master plan (like when they lied about Chernobyl death rates to strengthen support for nuclear energy), or if they are just plain stupid.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
It is very hard to estimate cases accurately, it requires access to a lot of information and sophisticated predictive modeling to do it well. The best place to look for hard info is total deaths across ALL causes compared to previous months. Any kind of spike is a red flag!

-
All cause mortality change compared to previous year is an important data point, if you can get it, as we did for Italy (although we have lots of H1N1, too). But we don't know CFR all too well yet, so it does not give us all we need to know about infection rates.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I feel it's a bit like a soccer game, not so important who wins in the end but to keep people engaged.
-
WHO, CDC and FDA are supporting team virus...
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
would be nice, to see a 3rd number: „positiv tested on COVID19 Antibodies“ Anybody with AB could work!
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.