False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs https://t.co/Kf2Qju31Jo
RT @critpraxis: @uTobian @dianette1979 They need to step testing immediately https://t.co/gIDZF7XGyP
@uTobian @dianette1979 They need to step testing immediately
@doctor_oxford No, it’s a direct result of over-testing. Perhaps you should do some homework instead of playing politics? https://t.co/Irw5a8PiUK
There are some important takeaways from this, leaders and Health Officials are ignoring some important elements @fordnation @celliottability @PublicHealthON Reorganize and Reassess #NoCurfews #PCRFails https://t.co/k1CThhYxgS
@y_alibhai No. It’s down to staff being falsely tested for coronavirus but I guess you’ll spin it like that, regardless. #PCR #coronavirus https://t.co/e1G4izQafB
RT @LonsdaleKeith: Given the pivotal role in government strategy played by PCR testing,this is outrageous and unacceptable. "The current r…
@10DowningStreet You don't say...🤔 "...stricter standards should be imposed in laboratory testing. This includes the development and implementation of external quality assessment schemes and internal quality systems" https://t.co/wUYmGzJbwO
Given the pivotal role in government strategy played by PCR testing,this is outrageous and unacceptable. "The current rate of operational false-positive swab tests in the UK is unknown" https://t.co/wUYmGzJbwO
@PhilipWatson_ Or this. https://t.co/f1VTp18Qdy
@cassandrasbox @JacquiThornton1 @Jemmapalmer @LordShaxxy @ColinLunt2 @drjanaway That’s not how the test works. It is difficult to define sensitivity and specificity when there is no gold standard, but this paper is a good place to start. https://t.co/PaK
@SmallRedOne @deeksj Don't think I can get what I understand of this into one tweet. You are suggesting it is a complex issue, which it is, but what use is a test we don't know it's accuracy in a clinical setting for government planning? https://t.co/uAkw
@bloouise @bensbandyblurts @ClaudiaWebbe PCR test does not tell you if you are infectious or currently dealing with anbactive infection. A positive test is meaningless without symptoms and further investigation to determine likelihood of actual Covid.https
@Hydraviolet1 @NatalieElphicke OK, just read further on in article. "The current rate of operational false-positive swab tests in the UK is unknown; preliminary estimates show it could be somewhere between 0·8% and 4·0%." 97%, my arse. https://t.co/OtBOi96
False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs. The rate of false-positive swab tests in the UK is unknown https://t.co/jIrz9e5OJZ
@allan5oh @_ReviveYourself @TheoFleury14 “To summarise, false-positive COVID-19 swab test results might be increasingly likely in the current epidemiological climate in the UK, with substantial consequences at the personal, health system, and societal leve
RT @JuliaHB1: You think all this talk of false positives for Covid testing is conspiracy theorist nonsense? Then go tell that to the Lanc…
RT @JuliaHB1: You think all this talk of false positives for Covid testing is conspiracy theorist nonsense? Then go tell that to the Lanc…
RT @JuliaHB1: You think all this talk of false positives for Covid testing is conspiracy theorist nonsense? Then go tell that to the Lanc…
RT @JuliaHB1: You think all this talk of false positives for Covid testing is conspiracy theorist nonsense? Then go tell that to the Lanc…
@Reasonableques3 @ClarkeMicah False positives cause particular problems with NHS staff see https://t.co/zoEIovTtWS
RT @JuliaHB1: You think all this talk of false positives for Covid testing is conspiracy theorist nonsense? Then go tell that to the Lanc…
https://t.co/lYzfV4WiF7 Glad to be out of COVID19 testing, however, better to be safe than sorry with precautionary isolation based on current PCR testing capabilities
RT @JuliaHB1: You think all this talk of false positives for Covid testing is conspiracy theorist nonsense? Then go tell that to the Lanc…
@955196 @rachaelvenables @LBC More recently the PCR test has been refined and is used as a gold standard CVD-19 test. See Lancet Sept 2020 https://t.co/cSlRksGUDw
@DanielTuijnman @SimoneGezond @helene_vries @NOS He kut, mij aanspreken op m'n autocorrect. https://t.co/jnGydH6ocg Shit, meerdere onderzoeken zeggen dat het tussen de 2% en 33% zit. Daarom worden in veel landen ook meerdere keren achter elkaar 'swabs' af
RT @khairul_hafidz: @fatihinisme PCR sensitivity can up to 95% RTK sensitivity can be 80-90% Link: https://t.co/NPpEp5jMJe
@SwaledaleMutton @OldMackIsBack @jneill @StevenW44446801 @carlheneghan @SunetraGupta So the three scientists who presented this paper to the Lancet are also wrong in your opinion? https://t.co/iQYikKLMHn
RT @khairul_hafidz: @fatihinisme PCR sensitivity can up to 95% RTK sensitivity can be 80-90% Link: https://t.co/NPpEp5jMJe
RT @khairul_hafidz: @fatihinisme PCR sensitivity can up to 95% RTK sensitivity can be 80-90% Link: https://t.co/NPpEp5jMJe
RT @khairul_hafidz: @fatihinisme PCR sensitivity can up to 95% RTK sensitivity can be 80-90% Link: https://t.co/NPpEp5jMJe
@fatihinisme PCR sensitivity can up to 95% RTK sensitivity can be 80-90% Link: https://t.co/NPpEp5jMJe
@chigrl @amlivemon When the cases are at a low level, false positives are an issue, when high, negligible. https://t.co/VPPMwCh1I1
@jimmy31922581 @LeahButlerSmith @JuliaHB1 Do you have an actual link? Do you really believe that tests are being used that are 3% accurate? The Lancet suggests 96 to 99% accurate.https://t.co/nTKPPaNx3t
@AuthorMonika This is almost certainly not true. "PCR tests are the gold standard... with 95% accuracy...". See the link below. https://t.co/owVS1z4R4d
I wonder why! Hmmm... https://t.co/e1G4izQafB #clapforheroes #PCRtest
@andrew_lilico Which bit? e.g. FPR: "To summarise, false-positive #COVID19 swab test results might be increasingly likely in the current epidemiological climate in the UK, with substantial consequences at the personal, health system, and societal levels" h
@RealJoelSmalley Looking forward to seeing your evidence, will read with an open mind. As of September it was estimated to be somewhere between 0·8% and 4·0%. Although this wouldn't explain why rates are increasing exponentially while tests are increasing
@LaymansScience @folkmooney @indepdubnrth Would The Lancet do? https://t.co/couQsXu8XM
@Ashlomas83 @talkRADIO more important info from The Lancet https://t.co/fGY2IeuXfw
@westerby1 SAGE experts are often wrong. Here are some other experts in last month's "Lancet" on false-positive PCR tests which are fuelling this hysteria. https://t.co/nY6Q2cU8or. The govt's own (incomplete) assessment of economic damage is here: https://
@Demigur1 @sueonum @Sven_Roman Delar gärna med mig t.ex. denna: https://t.co/6o7TLsyu81 Som funnit upp till 33% falskt negativa, och upp till 4% falskt positiva (alltså 4000 FP när 100K asymptomatiska testas). Men gott iaf att WHO gått ut med nya direktiv
@simon_ball46 @NadiaWhittomeMP They will be, just like those of NHS workers 👉 https://t.co/e1G4izQafB
@KarenJukes2 @bizmanic @woodman7717 The WHO sensibly released guidance to make sure that these errors were addressed. Do you know how bad they were? This article suggested a worst case scenario of a 4% error rate. Doesn't sound too shocking to me. https:
@ClarkeMicah @penkett_arthur I worked out that 62% of the tests in Scotland up until early October would be false postives if you take the median false positive rate from the estimates in this article. To me, everyone's missing the most important aspect o
@xRelentless7x @GarySlegg @MrsMckenzie19 @Goodixlady @MichaelYeadon3 No, it’s is more than 95% accurate. It is creating a false positive between 0.8 to 4%. Hence for a second test is often followed https://t.co/aUxp83iixK
RT @mik61scot: False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs - The Lancet Respiratory Medicine https://t.co/Ae0XkXAi1H
RT @mik61scot: False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs - The Lancet Respiratory Medicine https://t.co/Ae0XkXAi1H
False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs - The Lancet Respiratory Medicine https://t.co/Ae0XkXAi1H
@ParkinJim @JuliaHB1 Do you know that ‘cases’ mean diddly-squat? Infections my friend, infections- now they are an entirely different matter 🙃 https://t.co/Irw5a8PiUK
https://t.co/YZHJ1bcdpe https://t.co/NOYLDgic1Z hoe geschikt is de #PCRtest ? in ieder geval niet voor massaal #testen #verspillingindezorg
@sabrinariso @HelenAshby72 @matthaig1 PCR tests are widely discredited- even the Lancet. But the evidence is that the PCR test are just not fit for purpose and the ‘cases’ and ‘infection’ numbers they generate are so inaccurate that it is completely wrong
This was published in September. WHY are we still using this unreliable test 6 months later?? https://t.co/8Qi5kmFsWp
@CMacdon12 @smokeouttie @canada7hansen @randyhillier This is the study they referenced. How did they get 97% out of this i dont know, it say .2-4%. Also mentions probable, and more reaearch needed. https://t.co/ENdolSCEu8
@john_actuary @pheadtony @Paulscw1988 @thecunningmick @Gareth_Jenks23 Plenty of papers highlighting the issue. https://t.co/qWtm44YQ9O
@chef_leopold @flipsidejames @PatrickBHenry @GuidoFawkes I’m copying journal articles here but I don’t expect you can understand them. But here’s hoping 🤞 Meanwhile enjoy your click bait Reddit nonsense. https://t.co/EgHTnBE7ME
@MarkusLanger10 @QuakDr Nur so als Beispiele ... https://t.co/accTyrXYhn https://t.co/GDpmiHDDNL https://t.co/oVJUYSUdYG https://t.co/uVYjMRbisG dazu kommt natürlich, dass in D mittlerweile über 300 Labore testen, mit unterschiedlichen Tests und Primern .
RT @janbartspang: @sandygratt @The_PlugSeeker @rtenews @FatEmperor So show me maths of how a 4% false positivity rate (higher estimate as p…
False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs https://t.co/QkculCxqMm
@sandygratt @The_PlugSeeker @rtenews @FatEmperor So show me maths of how a 4% false positivity rate (higher estimate as per study) turns into a 90% false positive (your assertion) rate? Because that sounds pretty impossible to me. You can use 10% infectio
@havanah1988 @BottomleyFiona @lisakeb007 @rupert_pearse Repeating lies doesn’t make them true. “preliminary estimates [of false positives] show it could be somewhere between 0·8% and 4·0%.” https://t.co/gDrP1EUeya
@StopCoronavir12 @Lisa_McNally1 @JohnEdwards33 The Lancet not good enough for you?: https://t.co/YAiVYEY7PX
@Lisa_McNally1 @StopCoronavir12 @JohnEdwards33 The Lancet good enough for you? https://t.co/YAiVYEY7PX
@goals60 @AlexKerrSNP @JeaneF1MSP Thats simply not true. It's between 0.8 and 4% false positives. https://t.co/zOa3wCuUwr
@TheresaBish1 @mp3michael The false positive rate (estimated 0.8%-5%) is due to contamination of samples, reagents, etc. Not flu viruses. https://t.co/HSP1vIGt4h I’d worry more about false claims.
@mcfunny @OneHorse_Pony @Catheri14308173 @vegsource @robinmonotti https://t.co/acRKIa619l there is no gold standard
@YerTalkingShite @IAmFrankButcher @SkyNews WHO say watch out for false positives with high cycles (like the UK does) https://t.co/FIEBolJFJf The Lancet says "false-positive COVID-19 swab test results might be increasingly likely in the current epidemiolog
@basler33 @PBasiukiewicz @PetrosTovmasyan może w końcu zaczniemy słuchać nauki, nie tego co próbują nam wdrukować media. Jak można używać testów, do których nie ma nawet testu złotego standardu? @zajob nigdy się nie skończy jak będziemy słuchać paranoików,
@DaveSmithSkvn Fair point. I don’t remember where I got that from so back to google <The current rate of operational falsepositive swab tests in the UK is unknown; preliminary estimates show it could be somewhere between 0·8% and 4·0%.> https://t.c
@SquidiaUK @swingdownbeat @drphiliplee1 @andyoval We know it is lower than that because the proportion of positives in the UK pillar 2 testing was 0.5% (https://t.co/XI8JHDFN0h).
@twatcheck @SnookerJudge @johnreppion @abiroberts @richardosman Latest #PCR tests have "evolved" tone the most reliable. Read this from "https://t.co/cSlRksGUDw" The #Lancet is probably world's most trusted medical journal. I'd trust it 100% over any other
@MattWalls99 @Phil198811 @SepsisUK The Lancet on PCR tests. And have a look at what Kary Mullis himself said about the use of his invention being used for such testing https://t.co/RGls0v9OOm
@boodad12 @hochbergjason @SanDiegoCounty Well designed hydrolysis probe (Taqman) based RT-PCR are very specific even over 30 cycles. Not a single false positive was found on certification tests and below 0.8% can be attributable to the PCR according to thi
@JohnnyRichards Here’s your starter for 10 ... https://t.co/iidlSFu2Qc
@2ChainPool @TimberGroen @thierrybaudet @AbOsterhaus Osterhaus maakt of verkoopt geen COVID-vaccins. Over PCR lees ik bijv. de Lancet. Zij hebben het over een false-positive rate van 0.8-4% procent en false negative tot wel 30%. Met PCR meet je dus eerder
RT @SorenSchifter: Nu begynder de endog at forstå problemerne med falsk positive PCR tests i The Lancet. - Testen er uegnet til bred screen…
RT @SorenSchifter: PCR-tests anvendt til personer uden relevante symptomer holder pseudoepidemien i gang. - Falsk positive PCR-tests er et…
@AlistairHaimes @MrMarmite_ I know what you mean. But everything is so confusing right now. There is so much data that sings both ways. https://t.co/bk4gC0I7AM
@EmTaylorBooks @JohnbullEsq @BBCScotlandNews Is the Lancet any good for you or do you want to keep believing MSM https://t.co/RGls0v9OOm
RT @grayphil27: @ClareCraigPath I dont get it, it's published in respected journals. A rate of between 0.8% and 4% but why don't they admit…