@jayne_puligan @braidedmanga @SylvainL_Cote @LaymansScience @TakethatCt @JuliaHadley15 @gp1980cos @PunkSunflower @DarthWinston @Let_it_ride2021 @Awithonelison @robursylvestris @sarahasnoh_ @BeverlyA1984 @colleenfkelley Two NHS authors advising requirements
@LaymansScience @braidedmanga @jayne_puligan @SylvainL_Cote @TakethatCt @JuliaHadley15 @gp1980cos @PunkSunflower @DarthWinston @Let_it_ride2021 @Awithonelison @robursylvestris @sarahasnoh_ @BeverlyA1984 @colleenfkelley So these NHS authors made up external
@TheUpsetter71 @cypriotiranic @ES53069807 @semuelman @henrydodds @toadmeister This talks about the false positive rate of pcr tests https://t.co/jCl3exgA2d
False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs https://t.co/S8YQcSX6vi
@Peliteiro @Sier2012 Esta conversa nasce porque há evidências de que testar à maluca, ainda mais com os rápidos, faz disparar a incidência de pessoas marcadas como positivas sem o estarem. Este artigo da Lancet discute isso. https://t.co/HnmVUOBa43
@LaymansScience @MrQuantity @TakethatCt @jayne_puligan @Let_it_ride2021 @Awithonelison @DarthWinston @robursylvestris @sarahasnoh_ @JuliaHadley15 @BeverlyA1984 @colleenfkelley So, you too are a liar. Well, well... https://t.co/Gn6epUc5Cl
Isto é um debate que é feito no UK, por exemplo https://t.co/oMGUI4airj e documentado já na literatura científica como aqui na Lancet (onde se referem os 4%). Por isso a pergunta importante será: testar em massa faz sequer sentido? https://t.co/HnmVUOBa43
@alice31001474 @WolneCentrum Szacuje się, że testy PCR dają wynik fałszywie pozytywny w 0,8%-4% przypadków i fałszywie negatywny w 2%-33%. https://t.co/S3kICJshgC
PCR schandaal !! cijfers uit de UK tonen aan dat ziekenhuisopnames per dag met een factor 30 daalden (van 3000 naar 100) maar de positieve tests p/dag juist een factor 16 stegen (van 12 naar 190 duizend) om vooral de angst erin te houden. https://t.co/
@Viaantje1 @hommel_b @AuroriaTwittori Das denk ik niet waar in the lancet https://t.co/OSxuX8GTGf Maar Australië is denk ik in tegenspraak met deze onderzoeken. Australië is denk wel een gigantisch veel groter en beter experiment.
@DrSandyThomson Also keep in mind False positive results https://t.co/SlQQhIHACx
Why we're on the subject, the chances of a false negative in the first 4-5 days of infection is huge. Which is why I've never understood the idea that testing negative is a safe guarantee of not being infected. Having antibody & T cell protection is fa
@timspector But at these huge 800,000+ daily testing figures and just 6,500 positives (under 0.8%) are we not firmly in the area of never going much lower due to operational false positives? Estimated at 0.8% to 4%. https://t.co/rUpju583HR
So when there's 6,573 positive tests (0.76%) from a whopping 863,658 tests conducted & the false positive rate is estimated to be 0.8% to 4% it gets a bit concerning that perhaps the plateau now is largely due to operational false positive testing? Cos
Guten morgen @M_T_Franz Eine Bestätigung für dich und für uns😎 #Verschwörungstheoretiker https://t.co/p4HNyW14UT
@0Laseria @georgeorwell67 Por eso, como cualquier otro diagnóstico, se apoya en la probabilidad pre–test (prevalencia de la enfermedad entre otras, aerologías…) para confirmarlo. Pero esto es así con cualquier patología. [Adjunto enlace al artículo de Th
RT @DrGee777: An article in the Lancet detailing the unreliable PCR test: False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs. https…
@hugodejonge @Iederin @PerSaldo95 @KansPlusNL @PatientenNL Jij bent zelf ziek machtsgeile leugenaar. Straks vluchten of voor het tribunaal. Complotdenkers zei je toch. https://t.co/CgzyQVHz5j . Levenslang moeten jullie krijgen. Leugens, leugens en nog een
@sense_strand @Kevin_McKernan @WWakeUpTime @PerpetualValue 2/: In other words, the sensitivity and specificity of PCR are determined with the PCR test itself as “operational gold standard”. PCR tests should be calibrated to replication competent organisms.
@Cameron03482305 @JuliaHB1 Also worth a look (especially the comment re. prolonged post-viral RNA shedding as a souce of false positive results): https://t.co/QF8ugQnS4r
Für die Berechnung wurde angenommen, dass die Tests eine durchschnittliche Sensitivität von 83% und eine Spezifität von 97.6% haben. (Quelle: https://t.co/8xgn0r4myP)
@SwaledaleMutton @DawnDublin @DarrenPlymouth It is, from the Lancet https://t.co/bchfAiitzR
@MaxiHolt Zie 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% in. https://t.co/OSxuX8GTGf
RT @elvercat: @Teletekst .........de testkits in maart 2020 intrekken, toen werd aangetoond dat ze een hoog percentage fout-positieven hadd…
@michaelmina_lab Suspect you are well aware these tests have never been correlated with contagiousness or presence of a clinical infection. Also variable Over 40% of low incidence persons have neither an infection or are contagious. https://t.co/IsaH5RxPoS
RT @elvercat: @Teletekst .........de testkits in maart 2020 intrekken, toen werd aangetoond dat ze een hoog percentage fout-positieven hadd…
Well. We know that even the gold-standard rtPCR tests yield false positives. At what rate? Estimations rank from 0.8%-4% (https://t.co/B1MpsAcipC)
@Dirku51 @NUnl Raar dat the Lancet een ander artikel heeft https://t.co/CYUWkJNmvT
@Dirku51 @telegraaf Raar the Lancet meld iets anders https://t.co/CYUWkJNmvT
@brischi79 @Corriere @repubblica @fattoquotidiano @SkyTG24 Quindi torno al punto: a che serve il dato “nuovi casi” oltre a torturare il pubblico, confonderlo, stressarlo e spedirlo dallo psichiatra in preda agli incubi? #COVID19 #COVIDー19 #coronavirus h
@brischi79 @Corriere @repubblica @fattoquotidiano @SkyTG24 Quindi torno al punto: a che serve il dato “nuovi casi” se non a torturare il pubblico? https://t.co/5AMec3q9Vy
@twitonatrain @JoeGosh_ @cinnibob2 @10DowningStreet https://t.co/UkMjrWXzfP A rate of between 0.8 and 4.0% is mentioned in this article. This is a potential problem even at the lower end when prevalence is low and there a huge testing volumes.
@hugodejonge
@MarkDavidsonAfr @NickHudsonCT @MackayIM The other thing to take into account is the change in the relative significance of FP's depending on prevalence. https://t.co/SR62J6uRUM
@BigBarrybam @LesleyToner1 @bidoogiri @devisridhar I was shocked to discover there's an accepted false positive rate of about 1%. That's not a lot but be ones a significant number (6k) when testing 600k a day. So how low is low? https://t.co/vPBgnlJrzR
Being able to read is dangerous. https://t.co/zEvgyZBdP5
@nedyamonarch @ForgetfuP @RickyProsnit @Breaking911 As for the tests, this article gives some insight into issues with PCR and false positives. If you go test millions around the world with PCR- especially healthy people, you literally can create an illusi
@nationalpost The article doesnt say if the +Pos is sick or healthy, and it doesnt say what the cycle threshold was set out that found positive & it doesnt say if a second test was done to confirm PPL need more info VS assuming the worst & stoking
False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs - The Lancet Respiratory Medicine https://t.co/UHw7a75jOq
@RandallF91 @SonnyCrockett04 @SharpieDj @thedatadonald https://t.co/ixziZDiLMv not sure if this is the exact one but this is a good read. Took me 5 seconds to find it.
@Spyda333 @FTP1996 @davidkurten Don't know much about PCR, but think it's a distraction. Doesn't change the huge number of excess deaths. You need to copy and post the website address from the toolbar. This from Lancet suggests false +ve and -ve at about 5
@VictorianCHO And then there’s the other problem with the RT-PCR test, you guys have been using, as the basis of lockdowns Well, it’s not that accurate, (false positives) and there are all the other problems associated with it From the good people at “The
on PCR https://t.co/Ch5DucLmVR
@aryahwales @postmanhat1 @UKCovid19Stats 0.8% to 4% false positives = between 3200 to 16000 https://t.co/dT1zemMPLz
@SteffenFrolund 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/kedWs3Ldj4
@BeautifulLifeIE @grahamcarrick84 @leoie In case you're both interested :) https://t.co/p3EUe1EBha
@LucasArcady @farnsworth_adam @N_Shirtcliffe @zoeharcombe Source? False positives from PCR tests are estimated in the range of 0.8% - 4%. https://t.co/wik15z90qv
@YorkusMarcus @SharpieDj Numbers justify the lockdown narrative, with no numbers, they’re stuffed..... Why do you think they use the RT-PCR test.....? It’s not that accurate, ...... just ask The Lancet https://t.co/49tRAyAa8P
On the 18th feb 333,398 PCR #COVID19 tests were carried out in the UK. 12,057 positive cases were reported the same day (PCR+lateral flow[0.32% false positive]). False positivity of PCR test = between 0.8% and 4% (I assume 2% for fairness) https://t.co/kd3
RT @jonarnoldimages: @FatEmperor Ivor, where did you get the 0.2% false positive rate from? The Lancet in Sept 20 said the kits were produc…
RT @WCostituzione: 9. "The Lancet" conferma in un recente articolo il problema della mancanza di un gold standard dei test PCR e dei #tampo…
@summerstay1 @robinhanson This article in Lancet says the false positive rate on covid tests is somewhere between 0.8% and 4.0%. Given the increased covid testing, how much of a reduction in flu cases could be accounted for by mistakenly labeling it covid
RT @ChrisGr29264921: @smile28554950 @Colin_Cambray A positive PCR is not a diagnosis of infection, but if it was it would be unachievable.…
@Iromg This is the problem with the Covid debate. Your GP guest dismisses the f.positive issue outright, but the likes of Michael Yeadon, Virologist & 14 years a senior at Pfizer, has been warning of the failures of testing, for months. Someone is wron
RT @jonarnoldimages: @bobscartoons “The current rate of operational false-positive swab tests in the UK is unknown; preliminary estimates s…
@bobscartoons “The current rate of operational false-positive swab tests in the UK is unknown; preliminary estimates show it could be somewhere between 0·8% & 4·0%” according to a report in the Lancet in Sept, but I don’t know what’s the latest estimat
RT @ChrisGr29264921: @smile28554950 @Colin_Cambray A positive PCR is not a diagnosis of infection, but if it was it would be unachievable.…
RT @ChrisGr29264921: @smile28554950 @Colin_Cambray A positive PCR is not a diagnosis of infection, but if it was it would be unachievable.…
RT @jonarnoldimages: @FatEmperor Ivor, where did you get the 0.2% false positive rate from? The Lancet in Sept 20 said the kits were produc…
@KristianLaurid4 @jonasholmdk @henrik_ullum 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/kedWs3Ldj4
RT @ChrisGr29264921: @smile28554950 @Colin_Cambray A positive PCR is not a diagnosis of infection, but if it was it would be unachievable.…
@whippletom @rugbyandlife @TheRustler83 @FatEmperor @NeilClark66 helpful reading perhaps on the basic issues from a world leader in lab quality (Drobniewski) https://t.co/R2BWkZxYIX
@LPerrins @SirGrahamBrady @SteveBakerHW @CharlesWalkerMP A positive PCR is not a diagnosis of infection, but if it was it would be unachievable. They are doing >700,000 tests a day, if the false positive rate is just 0.15%, that's >1000. PCR is bet
@JamesMelville we've been testing closer to 700k a day recently. Even with covid entirely eliminated the false positives will be way above 1k a day. If the Lancet is right, estimating the pcr tests have a min 0.8% fpr then that produces >5,600 false pos
@neatfeet74 @FatEmperor the ct value is a different thing (high ct value picking up dead virus in a patient no longer infectious) rather than strictly a false positive from the kit i.e. giving a positive result when no covid is present in the sample. I rea
@FatEmperor Ivor, where did you get the 0.2% false positive rate from? The Lancet in Sept 20 said the kits were producing 0.8%-4% false positives! So even without any covid whatsoever at 700k tests a day, 5.6k - 28k would be false positive. What have I mis
RT @ChrisGr29264921: @FatEmperor A positive PCR is not a diagnosis of infection, but if it was it would be unachievable. They are doing >7…
RT @ChrisGr29264921: @PoliticsForAlI @Telegraph They are doing >700,000 tests a day, if the false positive rate is just 0.15%, that's >1000…