As long as we're not signing up for the idea that only recovereds get to open businesses, work, etc. We need to test people for infection, or antibodies, and release based on either. If we do just antibody, you'll probably cause some pretty bad backlash.
91% specificity isn't ideal, but it may be perfectly adequate for getting a bunch of the workforce back, mobilizing essential workers strategically around high-risk populations & getting a handle on true CFR by demohttps://twitter.com/barneyp/status/1245042658914918400 …
-
-
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
It is amazing to see all the ingenuity at the moment of need. Though I hesitate to think of this as an American only quality. No, no one said that it was only ‘murican, just saying. This is happening all around the world. Proud of these folks.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It’s exceedingly rare to approach 100% sensitivity and specificity with any medical test. Honestly, 99% & 91% are so high as to beggar belief, especially for such a rapid result.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It beats the 30% in China's tests. Especially if it's basically never missing false positives. Sure, you'll get the story in the news "Guy goes back, infects half the office", but it lets you get back into the office.
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.