Dear @guardian
This article is incomplete & represents a minority view of the science.
The experts here are gravely misinterpreting the data and sowing confusion among the masses.
The rapid tests are working well!
This coverage isn’t balanced theguardian.com/world/2021/jan…
This article is incomplete & represents a minority view of the science.
The experts here are gravely misinterpreting the data and sowing confusion among the masses.
The rapid tests are working well!
This coverage isn’t balanced theguardian.com/world/2021/jan…
The details are difficult to describe via Twitter but I’ve tried on many occasions. The described low accuracy is false. These tests are doing very well to catch infectious people. We do NOT want to detect and isolate people who are not infectious and just have old remnant RNA.
I know people want to hate on the government for purchasing tests - but the Innova test is working entirely as expected. Very good for detecting contagious people. Which is the only goal here.
I’d be happy to write an OpEd for @guardian to explain.
I’d be happy to write an OpEd for @guardian to explain.
It’s the evaluation of the data that is problematic here. It is not the test or its performance. These statisticians have waded in without knowing what to look for in the “ground truth” PCR data and this is causing them to unknowingly report incorrect findings.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
