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
Show this thread
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
-
-
This swings both ways to some extent. I.e., one positive test isn’t conclusive that you *have* COVID either.
-
Not foolproof, but false positive rate is thought to be quite a lot lower than false negative AFAICThttps://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30453-7/fulltext …
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
This also applies to positives
-
Not true actually. From what I've read, the false positive rate is quite low, especially compared to false negative rate
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Very large error/confidence intervals on those estimates. I wonder if there are any better estimates done in other studies.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
My friends, please understand what these terms mean. (I have no idea what the ovals in this diagram are supposed to represent)pic.twitter.com/45jENwfqZW
-
Perhaps ovals meant to represent alt test technologies; wider oval shows test with *both* more false-positives and false-negatives. (Next point chart might make: "So why would we ever use the wider-oval test? Maybe it's 10x cheaper, or gives results in minutes not days, etc.")
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I know a couple people that had symptoms, tested negative, got worse almost immediately, then went to hospital and subsequently tested positive. Rapid test fidelity def not high enough to excuse abandoning other common sense safety measures (masks, distance, etc.).
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Is this a function of the virus or sensitivity of the test? I.e - would taking 2 of the same tests right after each other have a quadratic lower false negative rate?
-
The math strongly suggests this works, but in the antigen and genomic tests the sampling itself is the largest variable. In antibody tests the patient’s response varies in several ways so a single kind of test’s “false” will be fairly consistent.
- Show replies
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.