@bravenew_orwell @FatEmperor 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 between 0.8%-4% false positive.
@smile28554950 @Colin_Cambray 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 between 0.8%-4% false positive
@FatEmperor 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 between 0.8%-4% false positive. https://t.co/5b
RT @ChrisGr29264921: @MaizyDaizyZzzz They are doing >700,000 tests a day, if the false positive rate is just 0.15%, that's >1000. PCR is b…
@p_bennison @RealNormalPod Firstly a positive PCR is not a diagnosis of infection, but if it was it would unachievable. They are doing >700,000 tests a day, if the false positive rate is just 0.15%, that's >1000. PCR is between 0.8%-4% false positi
@RealNormalPod Firstly a positive PCR is not a diagnosis of infection, but if it was it would unachievable. They are doing >700,000 tests a day, if the false positive rate is just 0.15%, that's >1000. PCR is between 0.8%-4% false positive. https:/
@MaizyDaizyZzzz They are doing >700,000 tests a day, if the false positive rate is just 0.15%, that's >1000. PCR is between 0.8%-4% false positive. https://t.co/5bwrX0w0dO
RT @ChrisGr29264921: @LockdownLazarus They are doing >700,000 tests a day, if the false positive rate is just 0.15%, that's >1000. PCR is…
@LockdownLazarus They are doing >700,000 tests a day, if the false positive rate is just 0.15%, that's >1000. PCR is between 0.8%-4% false positive. https://t.co/5bwrX0w0dO
@NicTeeGolf @AlexMcNeil14 @BBCNews @SandraWeeden It's also unachievable: They are doing >700,000 tests a day, if the false positive rate is just 0.15%, that's >1000. PCR is between 0.8%-4% false positive. https://t.co/5bwrX0w0dO
RT @ChrisGr29264921: @BurnsideNotTosh They are doing >700,000 tests a day, if the false positive rate is just 0.15%, that's >1000. PCR is…
@mum_of_all_boys @pcrclaims @ONS You need a refresher course.https://t.co/XgfDor7LKj
@BurnsideNotTosh They are doing >700,000 tests a day, if the false positive rate is just 0.15%, that's >1000. PCR is between 0.8%-4% false positive. https://t.co/5bwrX0w0dO
@Pierceck2 @EssexPR They are doing >700,000 tests a day, if the false positive rate is just 0.15%, that's >1000. PCR is between 0.8%-4% false positive. https://t.co/5bwrX0w0dO
@PoliticsForAlI @Telegraph They are doing >700,000 tests a day, if the false positive rate is just 0.15%, that's >1000. PCR is between 0.8%-4% false positive. https://t.co/5bwrX0w0dO
@Heachy_1979 They are doing >700,000 tests a day, if the false positive rate is just 0.15%, that's >1000. PCR is between 0.8%-4% false positive. https://t.co/5bwrX0w0dO
@MrGoose59899263 They are doing >700,000 tests a day, if the false positive rate is just 0.15%, that's >1000. PCR is between 0.8%-4% false positive. https://t.co/5bwrX0w0dO
@LucyTelBar Google delivered. This study is 6 months old but estimates the false positive rate in UK PCR testing at 0.8-4%. No testing regime is perfect, but speedy repeated testing would reduce the level of impact of any false alarms on peoples day-to-day
@gianlucac1 @ThManfredi @CrossWordsCW Tu 50 e io 35 che sono più serio! Cosa dice The Lancet su stime PCR false positives: https://t.co/x60Y3rlyEb A livelli cosí bassi il PCR misura white noise!
@hundenrajna @jfcpni @Sven_Roman @omni_red Här en artikel aom förklarar bra om den rent tekniska felprocenten, i vanliga fall: https://t.co/EqQ5qfdFBP Nu är det ju då inte ett vanligt fall, utan labbpersonal snabbutbildas, & går på knäna. Tester tas h
@Johnnyr1970 @ForteShadesof @ross_stalker @JNRaeside https://t.co/qNFn1go8kb overnight armchair epidemiologist sharing their ignorance- what evidence is there that flu is actually being tested at the rate of covid. the PCR tests themselves are a huge conc
@KamilSzczepane1 @PBasiukiewicz W Australii swoistosc kliniczna jest bliska laboratoryjnej czyli bliska 100%. Na północnej półkuli jest max 96-99%. https://t.co/TXoiDZSfe9
@MaddyLove2018 @Raf_Epstein @VictorianCHO Even “The Lancet” has published a list of problems with the RT-PCR test. The test we use here, to establish the majority of “positives”, yet here, in Victoria, a positive, is called a case. https://t.co/49tRAyAa8P
@Bungoloshe1 @MariaSTsehai @shilton1990 @Nnauye_Nape @kigogo2014 Ila pia soma hii articles hlf utafanya right judgement kny -ve +ve tests na kuwapunguzia watu fear: https://t.co/dHlmRzSuAk https://t.co/cZRp6HxsVf
@lucalucas14 @mill_pit @silvano_trotta https://t.co/9H3eHuxZKS J'avais déjà expliqué cela ici. Le test est très précis avec que 1-4% de faux positifs. Mais les joies des statistiques viennent s'immiscer.
@vonFreiheit @ainyrockstar „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/qiNz3w1LZT erst recherchieren, dann tweeten...
@Ziegelstein6 @MathematikerRuR @QuakDr Mathematisch nichts. Es ist, wenn Zweifel berechtigt sind, ein Qualitätsproblem der Praxis. In kurzer Zeit durchgeführte Massentests sind normalerweise anfälliger für Laborfehler oder Kontaminationen. Nachtestungen ??
@MathematikerRuR @QuakDr 10 Millionen Bewohner werden in 19 Tagen getestet, wie wahrscheinlich ist es, dass es in der Praxis zu so einer niedrigen FPR kommt? https://t.co/peLE7FLMj5
@rw_christian @danjcyr @hauxton @chillipope @timcurtisart @fgavingavin @GeorgeMonbiot @JuliaHB1 "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:
@SwartzLesley @imgrund I don't know. This article indicates between 0.8% and 4%: https://t.co/8TmS364Xw7 But are we talking about same test?
@InCytometry @Oz_UK @cuckmasks @yorkshirehiker @chrischirp These were the articles he linked.https://t.co/lmVki2Topd
@danjcyr @hauxton @chillipope @timcurtisart @fgavingavin @GeorgeMonbiot @JuliaHB1 You're trying to claim peer reviewed studies are wrong, and coming across like a fool. "The current rate of operational false-positive swab tests in the UK is unknown; preli
@danjcyr @hauxton @chillipope @timcurtisart @fgavingavin @GeorgeMonbiot @JuliaHB1 Which part of this study do you disagree with? https://t.co/TwVJPCUW7I
@hauxton @danjcyr @chillipope @timcurtisart @fgavingavin @GeorgeMonbiot @JuliaHB1 I'm sending you peer reviewed studies. You send insults. https://t.co/TwVJPCUW7I
@hauxton @danjcyr @chillipope @timcurtisart @fgavingavin @GeorgeMonbiot @JuliaHB1 You do not seem to be aware of what operational false positives even mean. "The current rate of operational false-positive swab tests in the UK is unknown; preliminary estim
RT @CalamityDjon: Elena Surkova, Vladyslav Nikolayevskyy i Francis Drobniewski ho assenyalen també en un article a "The Lancet" (una de les…
@redscar16 @_PauI__ @GarethPriest @Citizenofevery1 @kirpputar @oke_jason I think I'll take the information from the Lancet over the bbc https://t.co/pc28euHoGl
@ONVentura @VignoloLasa @BrunoVuan @SciutoDr @extramurosuy Profe, lo menciono por la discusión de PCR, y por el hecho de que si la carga viral es baja, quizás deba tomarse en cuenta al evaluar la validez del resultado PCR positivo. A esto sumar que los asi
@crafty_cheapsk8 @GeorgeMonbiot @OscarNMFranklin @miffythegamer An article in the Lancet medical journal says false positives are potentially quite a problem: https://t.co/psXU3ju6PS
@danjcyr @scientist_pop @d_spiegel Now multiply that by the number of tests being conducted. NB the numbers reported do not take that into account........ also probable higher FP rate https://t.co/5loEbR6wQJ
@TanyaLlb @DonaldWelsh16 @LDBildy Here is a Lancet paper (Lancet is recognized as one the THE best medical journals in the🌍 - or it used to be, anyway), clearly stating that, "no single gold standard assay exists." - First para. https://t.co/h1cM3M4de1
RT @FrndsofDurruti: @GeorgeMonbiot @naomirwolf @JoannaBlythman https://t.co/48IhLlSa4j Drobniewski is a leader in the ID laboratory field.
RT @FrndsofDurruti: @GeorgeMonbiot @naomirwolf @JoannaBlythman https://t.co/48IhLlSa4j Drobniewski is a leader in the ID laboratory field.
RT @FrndsofDurruti: @GeorgeMonbiot @naomirwolf @JoannaBlythman https://t.co/48IhLlSa4j Drobniewski is a leader in the ID laboratory field.
RT @FrndsofDurruti: @GeorgeMonbiot @naomirwolf @JoannaBlythman https://t.co/48IhLlSa4j Drobniewski is a leader in the ID laboratory field.
RT @FrndsofDurruti: @GeorgeMonbiot @naomirwolf @JoannaBlythman https://t.co/48IhLlSa4j Drobniewski is a leader in the ID laboratory field.
RT @FrndsofDurruti: @GeorgeMonbiot @naomirwolf @JoannaBlythman https://t.co/48IhLlSa4j Drobniewski is a leader in the ID laboratory field.
@GeorgeMonbiot @naomirwolf @JoannaBlythman https://t.co/48IhLlSa4j Drobniewski is a leader in the ID laboratory field.
@CTVNews Who would know if PCRs cycle thresholds are being adjusted? The cycle in which a +POS result is found, isnt told. Despite studys showing lockdowns dont work, if cycle was altered, it could seem like stay home orders work? Who oversees this? @rand
@Bob_Mc_Gill @systemanalysen @SHomburg Vielleicht fragen Sie sich ja mal was es bedeutet, bei einer geschätzten falsch-positiv Rate von ca. 0,8 - 4,0% und bei 1,5 Mio. Tests pro Woche (je nachdem wer getestet wird). Wenn Sie Hilfe beim rechnen benötigen da
@danjcyr @davidwright1 @FatEmperor https://t.co/Wnkscxm3Be 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/U0TYRKlc09
@MartinKulldorff In addition to is the great fallacy of massive test that has no clear purpose and target as well no benefit to control virus transmission https://t.co/yt0YlT59V2
@KontanNews Lantas bagaimana tanggapan Satgas terhadap kajian seperti ini yang memberikan gambaran tentang False Positive PCR Test ? Ini menunjukkan miskinnya wawasan satgat @BNPB_Indonesia https://t.co/yt0YlT59V2
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…
@CTVNews If 1 takes a look at who's the 1s pushing lockdowns does it seem that they're the PPL who benefit either by $$$ or by a Power Fest? Many Ldrs showed Cdns "rules 4 thee, but not 4 me," suggesting rule makers dont fear covd as much as they want PPL
@LisaD72514313 @denisrancourt Although no one likes death, without knowing the actual cause its fear mongering to blame covid. Its not like most PPL havent learned about the false positives with the PCR screening tool. https://t.co/wpE94zDpW3
@KatyMcconkey @JimTimberthing @PamJulian8 @Ridercoms @JuliaHB1 @InCytometry Here’s a nice read https://t.co/GgBdtkXyLW
RT @MConceptions: Lancet on false positives (29th September).
RT @MConceptions: @DazzyNicks @timjames16 @Stuffysays @BhamUpdates Darren, I have recently looked more at false positives rather than asymp…
@Mannid1 @SvenVendel @Baloo24 @holmenkollin Ja, wenn du nur ganz ganz fest daran glaubst, wird es in deiner ganz eigenen Welt wahr. Die Wissenschaft sieht es zwar anders, aber das Verweigern von Fakten ist ja nichts Neues für dich. Hier mal was vom versc
@Joe911S @Dov_EL @loren_ch @spud85 @svissero @IMoresi @GuidiMarchand @EleninFake @davide_schroeer @Martinetus @marcocf69 @Donadelli74 @EdoardoCiotti @pallacico @BobbiaOdille @michele_donna È pieno di studi contraddittori; avevo letto un articolo su un gior
@hexaOrthorexia @Jssy_Lnn z.B. @carlheneghan @BorgerPieter @MichaelYeadon3 @angelovalidiya, um nur ein paar zu nennen. https://t.co/gbhTS0ac9b https://t.co/jTDsgwe3d3 https://t.co/mZegQtcHR8
@MostlyProblema1 @JoTibballs @OwenJones84 PCR swab test have between 1-4% chance of a false positive. So the current stats are broadly right. https://t.co/2k9NhkoOJX
@notacunningplan @NurseHappy2 @SueC00K @Jacko7110 False negative results depend on when the test is taken. After 5 days there is up to 20% false negatives, but earlier it can be very much higher. Check Google you will see some interesting articles on PCR
@rugbyandlife @jneill @hartgroup_org I suppose every single expert on this could be wrong and you're right but it's unlikely. You can't state how FPR is calculated or what it depends on but confidently state it must be less than the % of positive tests, ev
@matigary @MoHCCZim @nickmangwana While lancet labs has to investigate and look into the matter seriously I still dont see how they make profit from a positive result. The concept of false positive is a know phenomenon affecting all labs across the world e
@JohnTal6 @dimgrr @BrunoVuan @AletheiaHappy @SwissArk Current rate of operat/ FP swab tests in UK is unknown; preliminary estimates show: betw/ 0·8% & 4·0%. This translates into a significant proportion of FP results daily due to the current low preva
@Binnsteryorkie @bmj_latest @ian_hamilton_ @jrfAleks In addition to being a doctor, I have a PhD in basic science from Oxford University. False positives exist in every screening test which is why they're taken in context but its rate in COVID is actually
理論値、理想的環境下の値、通常業務ピンキリ“As such, diagnostic or operational performance of swab tests in the real world might differ substantially from the analytical sensitivity and specificity.” alse-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs https://t.co/v68FkqK
RT @EARL_COVID19_tw: 「検証されたPCRでは偽陽性は出ないことは医学界の常識」 どこの星の常識ですそれ? PCR検査の偽陽性率は0.8〜4%(Lancet Respir Med 2020,Sep29) https://t.co/6CgtyTYdjk R…
False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs https://t.co/qsxrCDuwQD
RT @EARL_COVID19_tw: 「検証されたPCRでは偽陽性は出ないことは医学界の常識」 どこの星の常識ですそれ? PCR検査の偽陽性率は0.8〜4%(Lancet Respir Med 2020,Sep29) https://t.co/6CgtyTYdjk R…
@MatanHolzer @perry_ohad "לאחר שהתברר כי יש עלייה בסבירות שתוצאות הבדיקה חיוביות שגויות" ???? ??? ?? WTF איך ה"סבירות" למסקנה הזאת עלתה פתאום? גילו מתמטיקה חדשה? אולי סוג חדש של מוטציה מתמטית? דאטה "חדשה"? חבל שהם לא קוראים מחקרים מדעיים הנה אחד מלפני 4
@reveldecc @cecilia7500 Probablemente la misma infección https://t.co/YfuoV3KgXg Nadie va dos veces al hospital x COVID.
RT @CagatayTarhan: Her yöntemde olduğu gibi PCR'da dikkat edilmesi gerekenlerle, yanlış sonuç verme ihtimalleriyle ilgili aylardır aşağıdak…
@lucasllach @cecilia7500 https://t.co/AP9GjMNRES Originalmente en The Lancet sobre los riesgos de los falsos positivos.
@manzanera90 @Albert_is_out @CoronaDades @govern @salutcat A veure... ni idea d'on treus aquesta xifra del 0,2%. T'ho has mirat bé? (sobre les automostres, hauries d'haver vist com es feien als instituts..🙄). Vinga, un altre articulet pel senyor.. aquest
@fish100 @BristOliver 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/TdNdd6Qcin False positives are only an issue when virus prevalence
RT @CalamityDjon: Elena Surkova, Vladyslav Nikolayevskyy i Francis Drobniewski ho assenyalen també en un article a "The Lancet" (una de les…
RT @MarkReady47: @ClareCraigPath “The current rate of operational false-positive swab tests in the UK is unknown; preliminary estimates sho…
@CJMbolo2020 Note the WHO didn’t and doesn’t recommend to stop using the test, but to use it as advised. 45+ Ct is too high, obviously, but 35 as an industry standard was and is considered appropriate https://t.co/zKmSQKyJQK
RT @CagatayTarhan: Her yöntemde olduğu gibi PCR'da dikkat edilmesi gerekenlerle, yanlış sonuç verme ihtimalleriyle ilgili aylardır aşağıdak…
Her yöntemde olduğu gibi PCR'da dikkat edilmesi gerekenlerle, yanlış sonuç verme ihtimalleriyle ilgili aylardır aşağıdaki gibi yayınlar zaten var. Öyle bir hava esiyor ki şimdiye dek pozitif sonuç verilmiş bütün insanların cT değeri 40'mış. https://t.c
@cjsnowdon There's no one false positive rate. Depends how the tests are performed. We would need to know precisely how they are performed in New South Wales. PCR cycles, etc. See Lancet for instance: "preliminary estimates ... between 0·8% and 4·0%" htt
@thierry99879959 @silvano_trotta https://t.co/4aacNv0Iwm On est entre 1 et 4% de faux positifs. Mais entre 5 et 33% de faux négatifs