Another rant about why it’s dangerous to trust #nCoV2019 “experts” with no credibility in epi or virology, and obviously a minimal understanding of fundamental molecular biology or ID diagnosticspic.twitter.com/drRn9GOqHJ
U tweetove putem weba ili aplikacija drugih proizvođača možete dodati podatke o lokaciji, kao što su grad ili točna lokacija. Povijest lokacija tweetova uvijek možete izbrisati. Saznajte više
And the last thing anyone anywhere needs is a bunch of people overwhelming providers with demands for tests that are either unproven technology not yet evaluated in patients or some primers that haven’t been adequately validated for clinical use
With all due respect, I also don’t want people to NOT go to their provider and/or not trust their provider to use a trusted test if they truly are at risk of having it. Tests will not be used for clinical use without being vetted in the US and it’s dangerous to say otherwise.
That’s true and I agree. What is also left out here is that our testing capabilities are low rn. All testing is done at CDC and they have to finish validating it before it can be shipped out to a lab near you
Ok, but there *are* RT-qPCR tests ready for *outbreak tracing* (as technically, but probably not importantly to laymen, distinct from "FDA approved diagnostic") https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/rt-pcr-detection-instructions.html …
Furthermore "specificity" and "sensitivity" are calculated in specific and well established ways. A test that is perfect on a small sample is just that, the sample size being the problem not the way of describing its performance.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.