Recent serology studies may be wrong. But if wrong, they‘re all wrong *in the same direction.* Finnish: 20-50x undercount Scottish: 27-55x Stanford: 50-85x Italian: 30x Mass: 17x Germany: 0.37% CFR Denmark: 0.21% If true, COVID19 has much more spread and much lower fatality.
-
-
Or no.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
True. Fatalities are also underreported.
-
By much, much less.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
No, but given true positives are in the order of <10% false positives have a higher relative impact
-
if false positive rate is 2% and 1% of population had it then 3 out of 100 test positive. But only 1 of them really had it. 2% of false positives leads to error factor of 3. 2% of false negatives to error factor of 0.98!
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Yes. In such tests the sensitivity should be in faviour of minimizing false negatives. This means that the chances of false positives are higher.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
What about the reports from Spain & Italy that many of the tests originated from CN had false negative by 70%?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The impact will be higher. But they should calibrate for that. Did they all miscalibrate? Or did I miss a well calibrated serology study? https://twitter.com/drwhisky1/status/1252190723140714497?s=21 …https://twitter.com/drwhisky1/status/1252190723140714497 …
-
but with what do you calibrate? Say if you have expensive very precise test, then you can calibrate a mass, cheap test. Then perform cheap test on large part of population. Is there a different, precise method to calibrate mass tests?
End of conversation
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.