kind of fun watching the general public slowly, so slowly discover these issues
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Any study without a sensitivity and selectivity in the headline is worthless.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
They never claimed these are results for the whole country. They even provided a breakdown by region of NY state.pic.twitter.com/TXO6qWhBJa
End of conversation
-
-
-
My understanding is that we're still a bit iffy on the whole issue of immunity and antibodies even before we get to mass serological testing and how sensitive the tests would need to be, so I'm taking these kinds of findings with a pinch of salt
-
(Summoning
@halvorz in case I am completely wrong) - Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Iffy because they sampled people who happened to go to stores.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
No, other than the quote in the NYT reporting "State officials said the test had been calibrated to err on the side of producing false negatives — to miss some who may have antibodies — rather than false positives"
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I've found it's best to just accept the results that support my existing beliefs
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
For starters we need to know both the sample biased and unbiased (raw) false negative and false positive rates in order to make an objective judgement. Not mentioning that these rates could shift with changes to sampling protocols and processing.
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.