@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…
RT @grayphil27: @MichaelYeadon3 I'm sure you have seen it but it's appearing in the Lancet. So should full face also check this? https:/…
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…
@MichaelYeadon3 I'm sure you have seen it but it's appearing in the Lancet. So should full face also check this? https://t.co/bk4gC0I7AM
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
@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? Of come out and flat deny it. Surely it would literally clear any of this up? https://t.co/bk4gC0I7AM
@TakethatCt @Eddiedragon2 @M1k3ySCC @cjsnowdon Depends on your idea of tiny. It could be as high as 4%. It's a problem that's being investigated. https://t.co/TUoxB1uhwa
RT @critpraxis: @alberttrigg All the rules around contact tracing are ridiculous. Completely asymptomatic (ie healthy) people are forced to…
@alberttrigg All the rules around contact tracing are ridiculous. Completely asymptomatic (ie healthy) people are forced to isolate based on dodgy tests https://t.co/Sy0Vfa3fhg and ridiculous track and trace procedures. Thousands of healthy healthcare staf
RT @WayneMo18011749: @GMB @DrHilaryJones The word "cases" 🤣 based off a PCR test that is not fit for purpose I've never had a test, I don'…
RT @grayphil27: @toryboypierce U know the answer already, but increased testing with an fpr of between 0.8% and 4% would do it https://t.co…
@Eddiedragon2 @M1k3ySCC @cjsnowdon As regards PCR testing; there is no perfect way to identify people who have the virus, but the PCR seems to be the best available. They're working on ways to mitigate the risks of false positives. https://t.co/TUoxB1uhwa
@stephmac2507 @rjfeatherstone @rupert_pearse @standardnews And another example of parroting rubbish. No, they are not 97% ineffective or anything like it. https://t.co/nujebQtpAc
@toryboypierce U know the answer already, but increased testing with an fpr of between 0.8% and 4% would do it https://t.co/bk4gC0I7AM
@ockinger @ThomasR60214156 @JacobGudiol @Nils_Littorin Artikel i thelancet uppskattar mellan 0,8-4% vara falska positiva. https://t.co/jCTvpEURVO
@MeganGilbertYog @GoodyPunch @ArjaRoxe @NSWHealth This paper suggests that in the UK the false positive rate from PCR testing is between 0.8 and 4.0% https://t.co/trAQYvfSdv
@redscar16 @livelovenofear @emmakennytv The people died within 28 days of a pcr test. Here is another article from a medical journal saying there is between 0.8 & 4 % of false positives. What do you think happens when you test lots of patients, they ge
@VicGovDHHS Who are you quoting with: "Every test helps..." I'll quote The Lancet if you like, naww, you guys read the whole thing, we'll all wait- locked up like criminals. https://t.co/uB584a4r6S When do you start "following the science," and stop this
@_johnbye @profnfenton Or maybe the Lancet? "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%." https://t.co/y1Le2nHW5i
RT @JuliaHB1: You think all this talk of false positives for Covid testing is conspiracy theorist nonsense? Then go tell that to the Lanc…
@strong_apollo @HyperBaroque @naperstek @CDCgov Pt.2: Just so I understand, your opinion is that PCR tests have more false +'s than people know (supported by some studies) https://t.co/01uI99soOP But that wouldn't explain the surge unless a. more tests pe
@JohnMKeynes1936 @9NewsMelb Fauci said no to masks initially Shut down healthy people is a grevious assault on liberty, I think the have had work from home Less testing (read the Lancet artck8) Less "dan" air https://t.co/gpcVzo2m13
@mikefromohio13 @RealDeal2AD @GovMikeDeWine https://t.co/cC46IYOSNS https://t.co/ydkc8v3zf3 False positives account for less than .4% of all cases lmao, that's literally 4 cases per thousand *at best*. Oh, and they blocked me for liking your tweet. So muc
@JohnMcEwen21 @BogochIsaac Not just an issue in Ontario https://t.co/Tqj5buAzrY
@Mike_aka_Logiqx https://t.co/Ut1R5anKAI Is the lancet wrong ? Take Norway pillar 2 community positive community tests are always always followed up with a pillar 1 and rightly so .. In fact it would shore up either sides argument would it not
@JojosTweety @9NewsMelb How about this for a conspiracy... https://t.co/BL8KCqKkI6
@bizwarre @boriquagato I think you need to research PCR testing. https://t.co/TRvWIYsz0s
@3AW693 What tests do we use in Australia, if someone could let me know @VicGovDHHS @VictorianCHO ? https://t.co/uB584a4r6S
"No data suggests detection of low levels of viral RNA by RT-PCR equates with infectivity unless infectious virus particles are confirmed with laboratory culture-based methods. If viral load is low, it might need to be taken into account when assessing the
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…
@GrumpyOLSoldier Facts from the Lancet: https://t.co/y1Le2nHW5i
@PhilipCarterGP @MackayIM Some info on PCR issues: https://t.co/nr0zZLkWQo https://t.co/B74G1ZBhSt https://t.co/ibgAmtb8x3 https://t.co/6sJdNEsoqU
@doctor_oxford Watchout for false positives preventing normal NHS care for patients https://t.co/5wcMTS4sAk
False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs https://t.co/bgwHGVofCq
RT @JuliaHB1: You think all this talk of false positives for Covid testing is conspiracy theorist nonsense? Then go tell that to the Lanc…
@William25844148 @rapidgator99 @barflydan @ScaryTimes2 @TCarraghan @BenQuin62369463 @CroghanJohn @FatEmperor You cannot determine fpr, it's something that will vary significantly depending on each day and each lab and it's something that isn't being taken
@Cameron03482305 @Ghandya @Dijkinho @UKCovid19Stats Similar thing within the Lancet around confirmatory testing and live cultures. https://t.co/BkT0xZXpgE
RT @critpraxis: False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs - The Lancet Respiratory Medicine https://t.co/Sy0Vfa3fhg
False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs - The Lancet Respiratory Medicine https://t.co/Sy0Vfa3fhg
@William25844148 @rapidgator99 @barflydan @ScaryTimes2 @TCarraghan @BenQuin62369463 @CroghanJohn @FatEmperor Not contaminated, PCR is molecular biology, in the lab under perfect conditions, false positives can be 0.8%, in lighthouse labs, it will vary but
“En el panorama epidemiológico actual, la probabilidad de que las pruebas Covid-19 den resultados falsos positivos está aumentando, con implicaciones significativas para las personas, el sistema de salud y la sociedad«. #coronavirus #COVID19 #COVIDー19 ht
RT @hommel_b: Ik laat nog even buiten beschouwing dat inmiddels meer dan eens is bewezen dat de RT-PCR ook 'technisch' de nodige fout-posit…
RT @hommel_b: Ik laat nog even buiten beschouwing dat inmiddels meer dan eens is bewezen dat de RT-PCR ook 'technisch' de nodige fout-posit…
"Samenvattend kunnen vals-positieve COVID-19-swabtestresultaten in het huidige epidemiologische klimaat in het VK steeds waarschijnlijker worden, met aanzienlijke gevolgen op persoonlijk, gezondheidssysteem en maatschappelijk niveau" https://t.co/7lznrxiT5
@letsdostarbux @SteveKrak @Crowntiptoe A quick google leads me here: https://t.co/8SETP6GuEP, which says between 0.8% and 4%. There's also false negatives, which seem harder to get good numbers on. Maybe 20% or so? (https://t.co/FUSLoF9uGi) This depends
RT @hommel_b: Ik laat nog even buiten beschouwing dat inmiddels meer dan eens is bewezen dat de RT-PCR ook 'technisch' de nodige fout-posit…
@cp_macinblack @TheOneTrueAllan @JerryYIMBY @LBC @AndrewCastle63 Mate, it’s around 80-90% on accuracy, with a false positive/negative/retest result being the remainder. We’re looking at about 95% efficiency on subsequent tests. Raab is spinning it, and you
@jjaron This gives 2-33% https://t.co/3yzHGR3O86 but reading the citation abstract ( https://t.co/U3Xi9agN1T) they say 2-54% (95% CI). Not sure how the nuances play out in the UK, and of course things have changed since August.
RT @etxberria55: False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs - The Lancet Respiratory Medicine https://t.co/3eysUmSbt6 #Cov…
RT @JuliaHB1: You think all this talk of false positives for Covid testing is conspiracy theorist nonsense? Then go tell that to the Lanc…
@Wil_Gibb False positives are as high as 4% according to this paper in The Lancet: https://t.co/lxBU3wFoN9
@Right2LeftUK @bealelab @eyejosh Positive PCR tests are 95% accurate. Significant for individuals but doesn’t affect upward trend. https://t.co/dzPnBSWny5
@RonnieM9999 @karenmdunne @MarilynShephe15 @ClareCraigPath https://t.co/GvoRhzWUYO 4% of all tests false positve so if you test 200k a day what would 4% of that total be ? https://t.co/LI56hsoryo
False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs https://t.co/3xec8dX5cH
RT @WCostituzione: 9. "The Lancet" conferma in un recente articolo il problema della mancanza di un gold standard dei test PCR e dei #tampo…
RT @WCostituzione: 9. "The Lancet" conferma in un recente articolo il problema della mancanza di un gold standard dei test PCR e dei #tampo…
RT @WCostituzione: 9. "The Lancet" conferma in un recente articolo il problema della mancanza di un gold standard dei test PCR e dei #tampo…
@ALinnean1000 Har inte testat mig ännu, men är snart tvingad att resa och landet i fråga testar samtliga vid inresa och även om du är frisk finns alltid en risk för sk false-positive/specificity på upp till 4% med dessa RT-PCR-tester med lång karantän som
@pagetsam @Zindagi78487867 @ofthereds @karl2k10 @simondolan https://t.co/HitwAGZNnm Another article from the sun
@stacey_rudin Anyone interested in facts rather than opinions should spend some time on finding facts. Here's where a peer reviewed medical journal, the Lancet, says they expect 0.8 - 4% of PCR tests to come back false positive. https://t.co/y1Le2nHW5i
RT @WCostituzione: 9. "The Lancet" conferma in un recente articolo il problema della mancanza di un gold standard dei test PCR e dei #tampo…
@HuwJonesLabour @SkyNewsBreak This article in the Lancet should help explain that false positives are a problem with the PCR test https://t.co/yNHVFie4Q0
@Peter36829555 @thierrybaudet @WybrenvanHaga https://t.co/1b7L9UyM3L (Dit artikel gaat over de 0.8 - 4.0 % false positives, een laag getal dus)
@DjtTyler @mariannaspring https://t.co/1Fp7t8rUVe Pcr test study used in Portugal court case. From the Lancet, highly regarded. Stop telling me shit is bollocks. Use your eyes. Read.
@Weimar61369949 Just in case anyone thinks this is fake, here is where the Lancet (peer reviewed medical journal, not MSM) said they would expect 0.8 - 4% false positives https://t.co/y1Le2nHW5i
@jaapstronks PCR-test is ook niet alles! False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs - The Lancet Respiratory Medicine https://t.co/ZaFe3kU6LN
@SiWOism @Rose59627061 @JackNationalist The Lancet. “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%” No one is hiding this info. High sensitivity of P
@mzelst Hoe hoger de virusload, hoe beter de test! False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs https://t.co/ZaFe3kU6LN
@MarthaPharker Where's the false positives? There should be 0.8%-4% false positives according to the Lancet. That's 560-2750 expected.... https://t.co/y1Le2nHW5i
@SimonJonesNews That's 0.24%. Far below the expected false positive rate of 0.8 - 4% published by the Lancet. I'm not sure what your angle is, but now you have data from a peer reviewed medical journal, thanks in advance for considering what's right, @Sim
False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs https://t.co/zKdfQsbbC5
RT @DoctorSebastian: La PCR para SARS-CoV-2 es una excelente herramienta para confirmar diagnósticos, pero se habla poco de los falsos posi…
RT @DoctorSebastian: La PCR para SARS-CoV-2 es una excelente herramienta para confirmar diagnósticos, pero se habla poco de los falsos posi…
RT @ClimateWarrior7: @grantshapps Interesting. "The current rate of operational false-positive swab tests in the UK is unknown; preliminar…
@grantshapps Interesting. "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%." https://t.co/yJpLfgPm4H
False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs https://t.co/UBE0GYPZeX from the LANCET PCR FALSE POSITIVES its an utter FARCE and JOKE we're being PLAYED like HAARPS.
@DannyRLUFC @northernlifer @ClareCraigPath Still doesn’t mean false positives are likely without proper GLP and quality control https://t.co/ZgQDuJow08
@mynameisjerm @RenaldoGouws @RoelofseSantie This "errorneus pcr tests" is Panda's agenda driven imagination running wild. Go read The Lancet or BMJ. https://t.co/06W3e3TrW0
RT @JuliaHB1: You think all this talk of false positives for Covid testing is conspiracy theorist nonsense? Then go tell that to the Lanc…
@ByronKruger @RenaldoGouws @RoelofseSantie For the UK, according to The Lancet. There's a discrepancy because of the prevalence in the UK. https://t.co/AmLNR2iq3G https://t.co/s0iJEEdIcP
@nicoledesco Depende, pero todos los estudios dicen que es menos de 5%, están entre 0.8 y 4% según The Lancet. https://t.co/KKZ5ws3tWp Respecto a lo 2o, sí, se resta del número de positivos.
@StephenNolan It should require 2 positive tests to confirm Covid. Best current indication of Covid cases has to be hospital admissions. It seams that our actions are the result of excited fear, not clear understanding. ----- PCR false positives. https:/