So how many false positives aren't we being told about?
It's well known that rapid "point of collection" tests like the one initially used on DeWine are not very accurate, and for the purposes of keeping people from getting infected, they should be biased towards false positives. The later "gold standard", normal PCR test is a lot more trustworthy, assuming a good sample was taken, and absent contamination of the sample, is extraordinarily unlikely to report a false positive.
I remember when eating eggs was bad for you. Of course that was before they were good for you. And then they were bad for you again.
I think that guy is still at the CDC and is now in charge of Wuhan Flu press releases. (Yeah, I know, calling it that is racist but I'm a White guy, so at least according to BLM it is in my DNA. Just like their skin color is in theirs. So I figure I might as well milk it for all its worth.)
So I figure most of what you hear from the experts, who heard about this disease about a month before some of us began dieing from it, is at best educated guesses. They are experts in name only. Their educated guess work has proven to be just about as accurate as mine.
Besides, if you get tested today, the results might just become invalid if you get exposed on the way home. And certainly before you get to see said results.
A lot. Several states are using that rapid antigen test as definitive, without a follow-up PCR test to confirm. One town where the antigen test was used did follow-up PCR and found that 73% of the presumed-positives were actually false positives.
The antigen test doesn't look at RNA; it looks at the protein coat binding proteins. I expect that give a positive for most betacoronaviruses.
So how many false positives aren't we being told about?
ReplyDeleteIt's well known that rapid "point of collection" tests like the one initially used on DeWine are not very accurate, and for the purposes of keeping people from getting infected, they should be biased towards false positives. The later "gold standard", normal PCR test is a lot more trustworthy, assuming a good sample was taken, and absent contamination of the sample, is extraordinarily unlikely to report a false positive.
I remember when eating eggs was bad for you. Of course that was before they were good for you. And then they were bad for you again.
ReplyDeleteI think that guy is still at the CDC and is now in charge of Wuhan Flu press releases. (Yeah, I know, calling it that is racist but I'm a White guy, so at least according to BLM it is in my DNA. Just like their skin color is in theirs. So I figure I might as well milk it for all its worth.)
So I figure most of what you hear from the experts, who heard about this disease about a month before some of us began dieing from it, is at best educated guesses. They are experts in name only. Their educated guess work has proven to be just about as accurate as mine.
Besides, if you get tested today, the results might just become invalid if you get exposed on the way home. And certainly before you get to see said results.
A lot. Several states are using that rapid antigen test as definitive, without a follow-up PCR test to confirm. One town where the antigen test was used did follow-up PCR and found that 73% of the presumed-positives were actually false positives.
ReplyDeleteThe antigen test doesn't look at RNA; it looks at the protein coat binding proteins. I expect that give a positive for most betacoronaviruses.