Barrett's nomination ceremony turning into a full-blown superspreader event is like something ripped straight from a Hollywood script
Show this thread
Perhaps trying to prevent distrust in the testing infrastructure, media has (IMO) underreported the disconcertingly high false negative rate for COVID PCR tests. Attendees were tested before entering and may have been given a false sense of security as a resultpic.twitter.com/V72hcOZJXe
-
-
I *also* don't want to discourage anyone from getting tested, but the fact of the matter is that a one-off negative test result is VERY far from conclusive that you do not have COVID. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1495 …pic.twitter.com/GLtIkar1sA
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
What is your source for this? I have read that only white house inner circle were tested ahead of time (admittedly don't have the source on this one)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I do wonder if anyone will be able to tease out this effect when it comes to masks. Given the present evidence you'd be crazy to not wear a mask, but it would be really something if it turned out their influence on behavior negated their benefit. Certainly seems possible.
-
The way to view masks is simply as a factor multiplied against the value of R0. If R0 starts at some value like 1.2 that allows numbers to increase, and mask reduce risk of transmission by some amount, say, 30%, R0 is now below 1.0.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Not even PCR- if it was a rapid test it was antigen, so was much higher false negative.
-
Isothermal molecular NAA is the process for rapid viral RNA testing. It still seeks the virus and not the antigen. But according to the Presidents physician they were diagnosed by PCR
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Medicine has been aware of this since early days. The false negative rate is only an input into the metric that really counts, which is the negative predictive value. In the context of high expected prevalence the NPV of PCR is too low to count on.
-
It has only ever made sense in a regime that views the primary defense as masks and separation, with testing only as the backup. So it's easy to see why testing failed when they all acted like testing was instead some kind of primary force field protecting them.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
If it was a fast test then it wasn’t PCR.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I have heard high false positive rates, which early on we could say was "high" only because the ratio of positives to negatives was so small. Since the number of people who've had it by now is much larger, false negatives are now something you can measure.
-
Which also implies that with such a large chunk of people having had it, testing isn't going to help us isolate cases anymore. You're gonna get it regardless, not that you need to worry much about it. We're well beyond the point at which testing made any sense.
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.