@Antagoniste_net @factsfictionc19 @haldol étrange comme chiffres, aux uk ils parlent plutôt de 0.8m à 4% des tests effectués https://t.co/tj12XikxOj
RT @HiljaGebest: @LecatAlex @LCI @philippeherlin https://t.co/7QhDSiacJw Si un résultat est donne sans qu'on dise le seuil des cycles d'am…
@334Dragons @HolyAction1 @tanya_fitch @EricTrump False positives are nowhere near that. All research done shows figures under 4% and usually under 1%. Here are two sources. I’d be interested in seeing yours https://t.co/Emoud6psc4 https://t.co/hbufMXhr3
This explains why Elon Musk can get 2 positive and 2 negative tests in the same day. If their testing is this off, what do you think the vaccine failure rate will be? https://t.co/MKGTW4HdKV
A ještě něco k důsledkům "falešné pozitivity" testů Covid. Opět od The Lancet. https://t.co/sIrQcOlRm6
@DionysusElegu @Cooper16444223 @JUDEXJUDEXXX @MichaelYeadon3 Bah forgot the link https://t.co/3pzvNYqc9P
@PeskyFrozenPea @aus_spirit I didn't say "lots", the govt won't even confirm the rate. Lancet reports anywhere from 0.8-4% which when you are doing 100k tests a day adds up. #scamdemic https://t.co/UYk0ULuYa2
@john_mckane @MaryMargOlohan Which test? The antibody test is not as reliable, which is why it’s not used nearly as often as the nasal swab PCR test, which Lancet has said in the UK has an estimated false positive rate of 0.8-4%. The false negative rate is
RT @JuliaHB1: You think all this talk of false positives for Covid testing is conspiracy theorist nonsense? Then go tell that to the Lanc…
@Tim_Bousquet Does anyone know what cycle thresholds the positive test results are coming in at in NS? Is the trend going up or down? Aside from the Ct values, % positive rate still close to the lowest false positive estimates as published by the Lancet
RT @WCostituzione: 9. "The Lancet" conferma in un recente articolo il problema della mancanza di un gold standard dei test PCR e dei #tampo…
@AntonioKashaka @namibiansun https://t.co/8dCoHgJ4Pf 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%. So, the chance of a false positive is VERY low.
@glesperance ils ont juste à rajuster les protocoles de tests PCR et s'éviter 50% des cas qui ne mènent JAMAIS à une contagion cellulaire en laboratoire.Ça faciliterait le traçage. Ah, ils pourraient également utiliser les 1.2M de tests rapides qui dorment
@PhilzSoapbox @Marc_G_1963 @LP_LaPresse la propagande selon moi de faire confiance à un test non-validé: les réactifs ne sont pas homologués, avec des protocoles non validés. Se baser là-dessus pour des mesures publiques en ignorant les incertitudes assoc
@Marc_G_1963 @LP_LaPresse ici, on fait confiance en une campagne de dépistage qui est déficiente: des millions de tests rapides dorment sur des tablettes, les tests PCR ont des faux-positifs opérationnels ignorés, le traçage de contact est sous les 10%..
@Stohrm2 @_vanessavu Zu PCR-Tests: "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%." Ja, das ist natürlich ein Problem. Aber ist einfach nicht testen di
🌈LANCET 偽陽性の問題🤗
RT @JuliaHB1: You think all this talk of false positives for Covid testing is conspiracy theorist nonsense? Then go tell that to the Lanc…
@brendantech @Christi75367510 @LancasterAngus @AndreaDS0909 @TheFreds I understand the PCR test is not foolproof and a clinical diagnosis is necessary https://t.co/phB3bWJa7V
RT @scott_tracht: @PolitiBunny And here is another from a primary research journal. https://t.co/I13z2n9aqo
RT @scott_tracht: @PolitiBunny And here is another from a primary research journal. https://t.co/I13z2n9aqo
@PolitiBunny And here is another from a primary research journal. https://t.co/I13z2n9aqo
PCR tests and the realities of increased testing of countries like UK or US. https://t.co/qfzH5TEodv
@LewisHamilton PCR if interested see: https://t.co/ee6AEyWQ2G https://t.co/Az96gXXrXC https://t.co/meDRW94Jd8 https://t.co/TMZ055MWCh
@nazzeus The Lancet (joka on nyt jonkinlainen auktoriteetti ja luotettavana pidetty lähde) sanoo seuraavaa: RT-PCR assays in the UK have analytical sensitivity and specificity of greater than 95%, but no single gold standard assay exists. https://t.co/pL1
@AVFCSOTC @DaveRogersMMCEO @premierleague False negatives are more common than false positives. the false positive rate is between 0.8 and 4%. The false negative rate is between 2 and 33% https://t.co/V2bgVfIgH7
Just in case you were wondering? False-positive #COVIDー19 results: hidden problems and costs. @TheLancet #COVID19 #CovidTesting #RTPCR #PCR https://t.co/4WWF8rPLsg
@caz7984 @SkyNews https://t.co/md6jn4p6Tu of course there is no perfect test and as this paper suggests the test result and clinical symptoms together should form the basis of diagnosis, treatment and management. A false negative result would be worse
RT @kakeashi_ashika: The Lancet Respiratory Medicine10月29日号の「PCRの偽陽性率0.8-4%」という記事。 全文読んでの結論。検査の技術論に疎い臨床医(海外にも多いんですね)が都合の良い、非主流の、マイナーなソースを引…
RT @giuz73: @Zippo88lrr @nonpensante22 Già. La soglia di 40 o addirittura 45 per osservare la fluorescenza voluta, implica una quantità di…
RT @giuz73: @Zippo88lrr @nonpensante22 Già. La soglia di 40 o addirittura 45 per osservare la fluorescenza voluta, implica una quantità di…
@Zippo88lrr @nonpensante22 Già. La soglia di 40 o addirittura 45 per osservare la fluorescenza voluta, implica una quantità di duplicazioni tale che il materiale genetico iniziale bon appartiene più a un virus vivo e quindi in grado di replicarsi e pertant
RT @sinichol: @StefanSanchez15 @MichaelYeadon3 @ClareCraigPath @toadmeister As to my beef with Yeadon, in Sept I discussed with him the mis…
@StefanSanchez15 @MichaelYeadon3 @ClareCraigPath @toadmeister As to my beef with Yeadon, in Sept I discussed with him the mistakes in his attempts at data science (a job I've done for 20yrs), and he wilfully ignored the advice carrying on with his undermin
RT @WayneMo18011749: @simondolan I sent my MP and Mayor the Lancet paper on PCR false positives 👍 https://t.co/XnQOU5djsN
@JoeBatina @koronavirus_hr @koronatestiran1 @iDikic2 @GordanLauc @ViliBeros I druga studija (odnosno kratki komentar) na koju se sud poznao: "The current rate of operational false-positive swab tests in the UK is unknown; preliminary estimates show it coul
@ScottishBeav @ScotlandRobbed Lancet piece (below) suggesting a specificity of 95% in ideal conditions, the value in the wild will be lower. The Nass article I referred to suggests 94% in the wild. Nass gives examples of false +ve calculations using the s
@boldee101 @MsCCollins1 @fenzilward @mattstu555 Since when was 0.8 - 4% 'massive'? https://t.co/3MVy2lyJYq
@AcesJoses @BBCNews No the PCR tests have a false positive rate of 0.8 to 4%, that is at most 4% of positive results are false not that 4% of tests will result in a positive incorrectly. The false negative rate 8s far higher at between 21 and 67%. https:/
RT @rodswift2: @EdmundFordham @lucyfrazermp This paper in The Lancet gives a false +ve rate at 0.8-4%. Where I've applied 4% as an upper er…
@GorseFox @talkRADIO @JuliaHB1 @UsforThemUK Mass testing is not fit for purpose. Only infectious people can pass on virus https://t.co/P4xsJId7tk
@PhilipLoaderp @talkRADIO @JuliaHB1 @UsforThemUK Mass testing is not fit for purpose. Only infectious people can pass on the virus https://t.co/P4xsJId7tk
RT @JuliaHB1: You think all this talk of false positives for Covid testing is conspiracy theorist nonsense? Then go tell that to the Lanc…
@TheFinalSteve76 @HowardSteen4 @YouTube https://t.co/I8D8n44c99 Not saying everything in The Lancet will stand up over time but PCR is much more problematic than people understand it to be. https://t.co/pw39Z6wMWE
@TomTugendhat Societal ➡️Misdirection of policies regarding lockdowns and school closures ➡️Increased depression and domestic violence (eg, due to lockdown, isolation, and loss of earnings after a positive test). https://t.co/HR7oY8rpnI
@EdmundFordham @lucyfrazermp This paper in The Lancet gives a false +ve rate at 0.8-4%. Where I've applied 4% as an upper error bound using the formula in a spreadsheet of Daily UK Confirmed Cases - (Daily UK PCR tests * 4%) >= 0 else 0 the column is ma
@Tim_Bousquet Still hovering right around the minimum ‘false positivity’ rate as estimated by the Lancet https://t.co/5zY6ubm3qP
@steber232 @AndrewG69450487 @Covid_CallOut @piersmorgan https://t.co/nRYwZJuDK5 The lancet seems to place the OFPR at between 0.8-4%. Based on studies from August and September 2020. I’m still waiting for evidence to back your spurious claim that 0.05%
RT @kakeashi_ashika: The Lancet Respiratory Medicine10月29日号の「PCRの偽陽性率0.8-4%」という記事。 全文読んでの結論。検査の技術論に疎い臨床医(海外にも多いんですね)が都合の良い、非主流の、マイナーなソースを引…
@108Maia108 @Mark_J_Harper @michaelgove @FatEmperor Societal harms of false positives of COVID-19 testing Misdirection of policies regarding lockdowns and school closures Increased depression and domestic violence (eg, due to lockdown, isolation, and lo
@HpcJohn @JaneDryden4 @Beany_1 @johnredwood Correct. Of course it’s an issue but that figure is unsubstantiated. There are mitigations too. https://t.co/w0xE0ImLYs
@BorisJohnson @PHE_uk Sort out the testing mate it’s bollocks they’re just robbing the government https://t.co/kf0HNnbpnQ
False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs - The Lancet Respiratory Medicine https://t.co/8UMhv660yL
RT @DPH_MAshton: @richenergyceo @ShelaghFogarty @DefenceHQ @lpoolcouncil @MetroMayorSteve No test is perfect, but 93% is ridiculous. Try th…
@aidxn23 @WayneMo18011749 @MetPoliceEvents There is nothing wrong w PCR testing for viral RNA identification. The issue in the UK is the high rate of false positive but it is unknown why the test is giving such results. Contamination was given as a possibl
@Ichosefreedom11 Yes! Thank you. "..importantly, no data suggests that detection of low levels of viral RNA by RT-PCR equates with infectivity.." https://t.co/lOjeOyMMIg
RT @DPH_MAshton: @richenergyceo @ShelaghFogarty @DefenceHQ @lpoolcouncil @MetroMayorSteve No test is perfect, but 93% is ridiculous. Try th…
@richenergyceo @ShelaghFogarty @DefenceHQ @lpoolcouncil @MetroMayorSteve No test is perfect, but 93% is ridiculous. Try the following instead 👉 “The current rate of operational false-positive swab tests in the UK is unknown; preliminary estimates show it c
@Tim_Bousquet Why are Canadian indie media not asking Qs re interp of PCR+ test results? The Lancet, on Sept 29: “The current rate of operational false-positive swab tests in the UK is unknown; preliminary estimates show it could be somewhere between 0.8%
@StopCoronavir12 @alanmcn1 Perhaps, however the findings of this paper feeds into this published document in a really wacky far out journal called the Lancet https://t.co/JfvgeU6Jgh
@jamesmurray612 @hellogines @NYGovCuomo And here's one from the Lancet. https://t.co/RC4FeQuDs3
@Jupe511 @MichelleGhsoub 'However, importantly, no data suggests that detection of low levels of viral RNA by RT-PCR equates with infectivity unless infectious virus particles have been confirmed with laboratory culture-based methods' https://t.co/ESxoE6
ごく最近の研究では、https://t.co/fDlcCga3JM 「診断テストは、…省略…Covid-19の場合、 テストを実行するこの決定は、症状の存在の以前の評価、Covid 19の以前の病歴または抗体の存在、この病気への潜在的な曝露、および別の可能な診断の可能性がないことに依存します。」
@MaxCRoser Do you have a view on the testing false positives? With a focus on speed and volume, we lose accuracy. With this up to 4-5%, and varying results on day of the week. This could be a case of "bad data". Garbage in, garbage out. https://t.co/pa
@mcfunny @GregoryMcGrat12 @thereal_truther @timothywjohnson This is slightly concerning and does mention cross reactivity. Also in the paper they reference. https://t.co/ABJLkFEVLD
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 @Jaras07260509: @MZ_GOV_PL @AnnaSiarkowska @a_niedzielski jednak odpowiadacie, w związku z powyższym czemu nie ustosunkujecie się do bad…
@MZ_GOV_PL @AnnaSiarkowska @a_niedzielski jednak odpowiadacie, w związku z powyższym czemu nie ustosunkujecie się do badań naukowych które obalają wasze wszystkie teorie , chociażby to że nie ma testu złotego standardu. Rozumie że ja jestem nikim ważnym, w
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…