@RobertTamiola @krecik_jfc Procenty się Panu pomyliły. 11% szybkich testów miało wynik fałszywie pozytywny. A co do politycznego paraliżu służby zdrowia to ma PAN RACJĘ! Odpowiadały za niego sposoby stojące za akcją Otwieramy! Dlatego było tyle zarażeń
@AnnieTehworst @makeupartist524 Not a rare as people are led to believe and depends on prevalence https://t.co/c0wgXJqarP https://t.co/QNVZSr7J1F
@RJ_NerdDad @luckytran A lot of numbers out there, but not a lot of accurate data. “In people with confirmed COVID-19, antigen tests correctly identified COVID-19 infection in an average of 73% of people with symptoms, compared to 55% of people without sym
@HeureDecod @MichelJeanDomi1 Comme je le dis vous noyez le poisson dès que le narratif ne vous convient pas. Ces tests faisant du faux positif sur une population ou le virus ne circule pas n'auraient jamais dû être mis sur le marché. https://t.co/svpMc53le
@lacavernemythe @MichelJeanDomi1 Vous surestimez grandement cette histoire de faux positifs. Je vous conseille cette étude qui permet de démêler le farfelu du réel. https://t.co/8adfAo2mI5 Avec entre autre ce passage: https://t.co/ifUnUQrKJS
@ChesterHOnline @drvolts I saw a reply about testing negative for COVID, which I truly hope is the case. However, the public's been poorly informed of the limitations of RATs, particularly how common false negatives are due to timing/technique. See: https:
@DrapiniPablo @DaveTCM17 @ProjectReality8 @KTHopkins @Lord_Sugar https://t.co/nlMQAnklQX). for a quick antigen test, these numbers are really good. 2 tests for statistical comfort and they're very reliable.
@WeertMarco @Random_Dragon @IanCopeland5 Heres another article you'll "read" in record time, I'm sure. Over 10% false positive results. https://t.co/rtfiIndca1.
@Kate_Depressin @Barbielynn01 @ABDanielleSmith They were pretty bad... https://t.co/HsQaDn6uB4
@beatabooo @Lobuz123 @VonMieuhlbagge Och enligt studie av personer utan symptom så visar de 48% falskt positivt. Ska vi verkligen lita på dessa då? https://t.co/HSKtBiy2cG
@ElleryKlein @slucy If you are referring to antigen tests, false positives are common. Depending on Covid prevalence, it's around 10%. https://t.co/ybIykSWPif PCR tests rarely have false positives if you use a correct cycle threshold cutoff.
Rapid, point‐of‐care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) https://t.co/iP0ngOCQXm Paxlovid: A Regulatory Gamble https://t.co/HmgGFFRXKI
@Lilas_T_ @CleanAirClassrm With a 0.2% false negative rate and a warning - the *much* bigger risk is someone not testing... which we know is happening(!!!) The NB/ afterwards makes it clear so it isnt misinformation. Do not make perfect the enemy of good
@Commander__Keen Il y a également la possibilité de faux positifs : https://t.co/J1AqiizBZZ
@patriciaorpat @ghost_gurney Data from 2022 (based on previous strains): “For people with no symptoms, rapid tests were most accurate in people likely to have been in contact with a case of COVID-19 infection (an average of 64% of confirmed cases had posit
RT @R_Maralia: @vrachelv9 @favfavalore I know people do RATs with just Nasal swab Throat swab Nasal + Throat swab Saliva False neg rate…
RT @R_Maralia: @vrachelv9 @favfavalore I know people do RATs with just Nasal swab Throat swab Nasal + Throat swab Saliva False neg rate…
@vrachelv9 @favfavalore I know people do RATs with just Nasal swab Throat swab Nasal + Throat swab Saliva False neg rate is approx 1% https://t.co/YnzaEJ9WC8
@DrKellyVictory @unmasking_media With an 11% false positive rare on RATs, you only need 10 days of testing to turn most long stay patients into COVID patients. Test twice a day and almost everyone staying a week will "have COVID". https://t.co/O78IlIa3Gn
@kabosiene @Powiuke @martynas_margis @TankiaiTaskuota 40-50% False Positive rodymus ignoruoju :P https://t.co/HWoHwvnT0F https://t.co/WGBiHnJnAX.
@miss4714 @MichelJeanDomi1 @jabla63 Faux ! S'il peut y avoir des faux négatifs (personnes infectées par la covid mais non détectées par les tests antigéniques), les faux positifs sont rares (moins de 0,5% des tests réalisés). https://t.co/eQxVx9gL0B
RT @Mikeysaidthis: I’m trying to understand this data further - it sounds like if you have zero symptoms, the antigen tests give false posi…
I’m trying to understand this data further - it sounds like if you have zero symptoms, the antigen tests give false positive 48% of the time. https://t.co/SiYCUqE1aT
@bitchwitch1969 @ArmelleBevilac1 en principe ce genre de tests sont conçus pour avoir plus de faux positifs que de faux négatifs https://t.co/pz9ipFfMO0
@lacavernemythe @zanfr @Un_EtreHumain @Connardanonyme1 Tentez de lire cela tout de même : https://t.co/fECTXaXfJX.
@mkarolian @ShiraDoronMD Thing is, right now, if you tested everyone in the US and a million came back positive, they could all be false positive and it would be consistent with the average specificity of rapid tests. No need for much more analysis than th
@cripwriter @BeamMeUpScotee @Yash25571056 @nhgrown "Rapid antigen tests are most accurate when they are used in people who have signs or symptoms of COVID-19, especially during the first week of illness. People who test negative may still be infected". htt
@AlexOKeefe1994 Source: https://t.co/RvHid5rv4X).
@danjurgens_ @robcollins2016 @RogerMHunt2 @SkyNews Roger said he eventually had 2 negative tests after being pretty ill for a while and you felt it appropriate to jump on his tweet to tell him he probably had a severe case of flu and spread misinformation
@Edouard_Pinson_ @vaccinologie @goutraillon @EmmanuelMacron @VLSdirect @les_vaxxeuses https://t.co/5zdBjmzGzB Ça pète pas le nez 🤦
RT @fulltimesickgal: I should add because a lot of people don't know, antigen tests aren't all that effective. 73% is symptomatic, 55% if n…
I should add because a lot of people don't know, antigen tests aren't all that effective. 73% is symptomatic, 55% if not. https://t.co/2nG4Z7hjCx).
@AstroKatie This meta-analysis found that sensitivity of rapid antigen tests varied widely, and were most sensitive in patients showing signs and symptoms of COVID infection, raising questions about use for targeted or systematic screening outside of these
@Ologies The false positive rate in symptomatic people is usually very low, whereas false negatives are somewhat common, so I'd err on the side of caution. Get well soon! Here's a couple study reviews: https://t.co/ntUUyFzw30 https://t.co/2MKEsyIfY0
@JeannieBowers20 @AmyKosari @myburneracct76 @gtamoeb @Laurie_Garrett Won't be looking it up yourself though, will you, Jeannie - that's a bit tough to do. Better off just picking on flaws in what other people are posting - that way you don't have to face t
@gtamoeb @AmyKosari @Laurie_Garrett You have exactly no idea what you're talking about. None. "the positive predictive value (PPV) of 89% means that 1 in 10 positive results will be a false positive" https://t.co/NRHyZWJcbW
@GrgoryBouchier1 @Alcyon_34 @fluidloading on fait avec ce qu'on a, et les tests ne sont pas spécialement fiables, entre autre parce que déjà il faut les faire correctement, ce qui n'est pas évident. On a pas des études là dessus ? Je crois que si https://t
@EpiEllie @CochraneLibrary - PoC rapid testing https://t.co/xh01GNNqGU and masking https://t.co/NrVv5tIkV3 (rather subjective list, there's more than 70 of these. I'm sure citation metrics would yield different impactful reviews)
@gtamoeb @unkwicky @VPrasadMDMPH According to this Cochrane report, false positives with antigen tests happen more often than you realize. About 11% of the time in symptom free people. https://t.co/QLau3hARho
Also interesting https://t.co/FmzJsTh2U9
@AcrossTheMersey My experience with COVID-19 shows that rapid antigen tests are less accurate during the beginning of infection, especially when viral loads are low. Only RT-PCR resulted in an accurate diagnosis. https://t.co/gynunzluyM
@PeteUK7 “In people with confirmed COVID-19, antigen tests correctly identified COVID-19 infection in an average of 73% of people with symptoms, compared to 55% of people without symptoms.” https://t.co/ts3uqrjiPI
@hellozeik https://t.co/nTrfNcOZms "Average sensitivity was higher in symptomatic (73.0%, 95% CI 69.3% to 76.4%; 109 evaluations; 50,574 samples, 11,662 cases) compared to asymptomatic participants (54.7%, 95% CI 47.7% to 61.6%; 50 evaluations; 40,956 samp
RT @KelleyKga: I hate to break it to Jerome here, but the evidence says otherwise. "Rapid antigen tests are considerably less accurate whe…
RT @KelleyKga: I hate to break it to Jerome here, but the evidence says otherwise. "Rapid antigen tests are considerably less accurate whe…
I have never taken one, even when sick. Mass hysteria, mass hypochondria
RT @KelleyKga: I hate to break it to Jerome here, but the evidence says otherwise. "Rapid antigen tests are considerably less accurate whe…
RT @KelleyKga: I hate to break it to Jerome here, but the evidence says otherwise. "Rapid antigen tests are considerably less accurate whe…
RT @KelleyKga: I hate to break it to Jerome here, but the evidence says otherwise. "Rapid antigen tests are considerably less accurate whe…
RT @KelleyKga: I hate to break it to Jerome here, but the evidence says otherwise. "Rapid antigen tests are considerably less accurate whe…
@JeromeAdamsMD @ScottTDaley Dude, you are one of the biggest purveyors of misinformation on the internet. Getting even basic things wrong. https://t.co/0W1lL9gbKV
RT @KelleyKga: I hate to break it to Jerome here, but the evidence says otherwise. "Rapid antigen tests are considerably less accurate whe…
RT @KelleyKga: I hate to break it to Jerome here, but the evidence says otherwise. "Rapid antigen tests are considerably less accurate whe…
@JeromeAdamsMD @ScottTDaley You’re just wrong, man. Just wrong. https://t.co/R0eI0zWoTx
I hate to break it to Jerome here, but the evidence says otherwise. "Rapid antigen tests are considerably less accurate when they are used in people with no signs or symptoms of infection" https://t.co/MhTddxaBA7
@cochranecollab 👇 • RAT's are less accurate when used in ppl with no signs or symptoms of infection • Accuracy of #RAT's varies between tests that are produced by different manufacturers...lack of evidence for many commercially available tests https://t.co
@cochranecollab • Rapid antigen tests are most accurate when they are used in people who have signs or symptoms of COVID-19 • RAT's are considerably less accurate when they are used in people with no signs or symptoms of infection https://t.co/FdnFfWX7my
@RVentir @Rude_JudeT @DrEliDavid What a pointless response. Someone said they always turn positive. My own experience is sufficient to invalidate that claim. The false negative rate is high based on research. False positives are very rare. https://t.
@DrCWebbDO @JLimHospMD 45% of positive antigen tests done in asymptomatic with no exposure ( like in this case) are not real positive. I suspect those are quite light. https://t.co/7ExR8yT1JW
@Dollydooby Ok. FYI - evidence shows testing in people without symptoms is 55% accuracy. (Flipping a coin is 50%) https://t.co/QqHfDWu8LC https://t.co/c8pssz6GHf
@bristolboudicca @Absurd_Penguin @YouAreLobbyLud @IAmMardikins "In people with confirmed COVID-19, antigen tests correctly identified COVID-19 infection in an average of 73% of people with symptoms, compared to 55% of people without symptoms. " https://t.
@bristolboudicca @YouAreLobbyLud @IAmMardikins Who cares if they tested first? "In people with confirmed COVID-19, antigen tests correctly identified COVID-19 infection in an average of 73% of people with symptoms, compared to 55% of people without sympt
@zealcapone @fcancio "In people with confirmed COVID-19, antigen tests correctly identified COVID-19 infection in an average of 73% of people with symptoms, compared to 55% of people without symptoms. " https://t.co/nCmTpgpg7n
@BaltimoreBanner Get the vax if it's appropriate for you. But vaccine mandates led to the Supreme Court's approval of forced eugenic sterilization in Buck v. Bell & anyone advocating them should be publicly shamed. Home tests are pretty useless in asym
@DBaziet @mrtbollen Dat is helaas niet waar. Als je geen klachten zou hebben dan zou slechts 2 op de 1000 vals negatief zijn. 480 van de 1000 positieven zou echter thuis moeten blijven terwijl ze eigenlijk niks onder de leden hebben. Veel maar niet meer da
@satobtc @ftoshirs 抗原検査の偽陰性率は0.5〜1%ですから、100人に1人程度は感染者が紛れ込むことになります。 https://t.co/1HBKN6grlT 患者がサージカルマスクを着けていれば直径50μm以上の粒子はほぼブロックできますから、その予防効果は高いと考えられています。 https://t.co/cGr3qnXRkJ
RT @silentsantaNZ: @Caleb_Speak Cochrane review of false -ve and false +ve rates for RAT testing, including discussion of how these unfold…
RT @C_A_Gustave: 1/2 Revue systématique à propos des tests antigéniques SARS-CoV-2 (autotests exclus). 2ème mise à jour (juillet 2022) htt…
RT @churuandtaka: https://t.co/ca9ToFN45v WHOの基準でacceptable or desirableな抗原定性検査キットとして、以下の7種。 Abbott ‐ BinaxNOW COVID‐19 Ag card 感度80.9%…
RT @C_A_Gustave: 1/2 Revue systématique à propos des tests antigéniques SARS-CoV-2 (autotests exclus). 2ème mise à jour (juillet 2022) htt…
RT @C_A_Gustave: 1/2 Revue systématique à propos des tests antigéniques SARS-CoV-2 (autotests exclus). 2ème mise à jour (juillet 2022) htt…
RT @C_A_Gustave: 1/2 Revue systématique à propos des tests antigéniques SARS-CoV-2 (autotests exclus). 2ème mise à jour (juillet 2022) htt…
1/2 Revue systématique à propos des tests antigéniques SARS-CoV-2 (autotests exclus). 2ème mise à jour (juillet 2022) https://t.co/xXNOyv4bIV
@DocWSJames @c_s_wallace @AlboMP @Mark_Butler_MP RATS tests for people without symptoms are 55% accurate. People who took tests daily even when they had no symptoms may as well have flipped a coin every day … literally. #CovidIsNotOver https://t.co/QqH
RT @BlightedTruth: @AvivaWilliams So WRONG! The false positive rate in asymptomatic testing is ASTOUNDING. https://t.co/7rPoFcoNBL Cochran…
@AvivaWilliams So WRONG! The false positive rate in asymptomatic testing is ASTOUNDING. https://t.co/7rPoFcoNBL Cochrane is a gold standard source: https://t.co/QEgsww9Auc
@ChristelAdina 1/10 chance of false positives is very significant. https://t.co/khEYk046iH.
RT @deeksj: @JolyonMaugham Not only is it the money, but we were given poor tests, which our school children and healthcare workers were gi…
RT @deeksj: @JolyonMaugham Not only is it the money, but we were given poor tests, which our school children and healthcare workers were gi…
RT @deeksj: @JolyonMaugham Not only is it the money, but we were given poor tests, which our school children and healthcare workers were gi…
@JolyonMaugham Not only is it the money, but we were given poor tests, which our school children and healthcare workers were given to use - and the data were always there. Data are in the Cochrane reviews https://t.co/RSj7MKjqHy
which is why our results with AptameX are groundbreaking. In a world that thinks of PCR vs Rapid Tests, and testing in LMICs vs 1st world countries was a much as an 1:80 times gap, a new alternative like AptameX promises to give fa…https://t.co/GGpjEheiW6
THIS HAS BEEN SHOWN IN A LARGE NUMBER OF STUDIES, AND KNOWN FOR SOME TIME. https://t.co/slWhZOT1SE
RT @Massi_Fantini84: 1) I test antigenici rapidi danno risultati più accurati in persone sintomatiche entro 1a settimana di malattia 2) son…
RT @Massi_Fantini84: 1) I test antigenici rapidi danno risultati più accurati in persone sintomatiche entro 1a settimana di malattia 2) son…
RT @Massi_Fantini84: 1) I test antigenici rapidi danno risultati più accurati in persone sintomatiche entro 1a settimana di malattia 2) son…
FYI non esistono linee guida per "tamponi ~ asintomatici". Ogni persona fa come crede: può fare 20 tamponi a settimana come zero ed è libera di farlo. Tralascio il fatto che l'accuracy tamponi per asintomatici si aggira attorno al 50%. https://t.co/gCuK
1) I test antigenici rapidi danno risultati più accurati in persone sintomatiche entro 1a settimana di malattia 2) sono meno accurati in soggetti asintomatici ma accuratezza aumenta se si è venuti a contatto con un positivo 2/n https://t.co/R3ZDjTQAoX
👇👇👇