Testing for Covid-19 - Revision history

Rasmusen p1vaim at 17:18, 3 October 2020

2020-10-03T17:18:50Z

Rasmusen p1vaim at 14:37, 3 October 2020

2020-10-03T14:37:16Z

Rasmusen p1vaim at 14:26, 3 October 2020

2020-10-03T14:26:10Z

Rasmusen p1vaim at 14:16, 3 October 2020

2020-10-03T14:16:30Z

Rasmusen p1vaim at 14:04, 3 October 2020

2020-10-03T14:04:50Z

Rasmusen p1vaim: Created page with "[https://www.statnews.com/2020/09/23/fast-low-cost-coronavirus-testing-avert-new-wave-covid-19/ Fast, low-cost testing is essential for averting a second wave of Covid-19] By..."

2020-10-03T13:57:47Z

Created page with "[https://www.statnews.com/2020/09/23/fast-low-cost-coronavirus-testing-avert-new-wave-covid-19/ Fast, low-cost testing is essential for averting a second wave of Covid-19] By..."

New page

[https://www.statnews.com/2020/09/23/fast-low-cost-coronavirus-testing-avert-new-wave-covid-19/ Fast, low-cost testing is essential for averting a second wave of Covid-19]
By MENACHEM FROMER, PAUL VARGHESE, and ROBERT M. CALIFFSEPTEMBER 23, 2020 notes that Abbot Labs's 5-minute test has a 1.5% false positive rate (a 98.5% "specificity").

----

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 [https://www.statnews.com/2020/09/23/fast-low-cost-coronavirus-testing-avert-new-wave-covid-19/ Fast, low-cost testing is essential for averting a second wave of Covid-19] by MENACHEM FROMER, PAUL VARGHESE, and ROBERT M. CALIFFSEPTEMBER 23, 2020  notes that Abbot Labs's 5-minute test has a 1.5% false positive rate (a 98.5% "specificity"). If universities use that test or one of similar quality, that just about matches the infection rates they're finding in students. No wonder it seems none them are actually sick (we can't tell for sure because universities are secretive about actual sickness rates and won't say whether any of the students testing positive have any symptoms).
@@ Line 30: / Line 36: @@
 individuals could include the following:
-a recommendation for isolation of the patient, monitoring
+:a recommendation for isolation of the patient, monitoring
 of household or other close contacts for symptoms,
 patient isolation that might limit contact with family or

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 This could backfire disastrously. Universities are acting as if students testing positive are deadly dangerous. They are obviously not. Students figure this out. Students might well conclude, as I have been thinking, that covid is harmless, not even producting symptoms in 99% of cases. They would then abandon all safeguards. But they would be wrong--- covid could still be   a big danger; it's just that the supposed high incidence is a false product of university publicity.
 Widespread testing is good, but it needs to be done intelligently, with full knowledge, understanding, and explanation that testing positive is not the same as (a) really being infected, (b) being infectious, or (c) being sick. It should be used for monitoring population levels,  for tracing,  and for mild precautions, not for quarantine.
 The  draconian quarantine policies backfire in another way. Their harshness means that if a student testis positive, he doesn't want to reveal his contacts because he doesn't want to ruin their lives. He knows the university will go to them, force them to be tested, and imprison them. He also knows that practically nobody he knows who tested positive actually is sick, so the quarantine is useless.
 ----

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:26, 3 October 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	[https://www.statnews.com/2020/09/23/fast-low-cost-coronavirus-testing-avert-new-wave-covid-19/ Fast, low-cost testing is essential for averting a second wave of Covid-19] by MENACHEM FROMER, PAUL VARGHESE, and ROBERT M. CALIFFSEPTEMBER 23, 2020 notes that Abbot Labs's 5-minute test has a 1.5% false positive rate (a 98.5% "specificity").	+	[https://www.statnews.com/2020/09/23/fast-low-cost-coronavirus-testing-avert-new-wave-covid-19/ Fast, low-cost testing is essential for averting a second wave of Covid-19] by MENACHEM FROMER, PAUL VARGHESE, and ROBERT M. CALIFFSEPTEMBER 23, 2020 notes that Abbot Labs's 5-minute test has a 1.5% false positive rate (a 98.5% "specificity"). If universities use that test or one of similar quality, that just about matches the infection rates they're finding in students. No wonder it seems none them are actually sick (we can't tell for sure because universities are secretive about actual sickness rates and won't say whether any of the students testing positive have any symptoms).
		+
		+	This could backfire disastrously. Universities are acting as if students testing positive are deadly dangerous. They are obviously not. Students figure this out. Students might well conclude, as I have been thinking, that covid is harmless, not even producting symptoms in 99% of cases. They would then abandon all safeguards. But they would be wrong--- covid could still be a big danger; it's just that the supposed high incidence is a false product of university publicity.
		+
		+	Widespread testing is good, but it needs to be done intelligently, with full knowledge, understanding, and explanation that testing positive is not the same as (a) really being infected, (b) being infectious, or (c) being sick. It should be used for monitoring population levels, for tracing, and for mild precautions, not for quarantine.
		+
		+	The draconian quarantine policies backfire in another way. Their harshness means that if a student testis positive, he doesn't want to reveal his contacts because he doesn't want to ruin their lives. He knows the university will go to them, force them to be tested, and imprison them. He also knows that practically nobody he knows who tested positive actually is sick, so the quarantine is useless.

	----		----

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 ----
-[https://www.fda.gov/media/139743/download CDC Influenza SARS-CoV-2 (Flu SC2) Multiplex Assay|Instructions for Use] does not, shamefully, say in any clear way what its false positive and false negative rates are in its 11-page "Performance Characteristics" section. How shameful!
+[https://www.fda.gov/media/139743/download CDC Influenza SARS-CoV-2 (Flu SC2) Multiplex Assay|Instructions for Use] does not, shamefully, say in any clear way what its false positive and false negative rates are in its 11-page "Performance Characteristics" section. How shameful!  I looked around to see if they admit the false positive rate anywhere else. The FDA doesn't on its [FACT SHEET FOR HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS https://www.fda.gov/media/139742/download]. I find that incredible.  I should think one of the very most important facts would to be to tell testers to tell subjects the probability that a positive test result indicates you have a possibly deadly disease. They should tell them the false-positive rate, and then also explain Bayes's Rule and gives examples of the posterior probability that someone in a given population with a positive test has covid. For example, they should explain that if the false positive rate is 1%, and only .5% of the population has covid at the time the test is administered, a positive result is wrong with probability 67%; and that if   2% of the population has covid,  a positive test wrong with probability 33%. What they do say is this:
 ----

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:04, 3 October 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	[https://www.statnews.com/2020/09/23/fast-low-cost-coronavirus-testing-avert-new-wave-covid-19/ Fast, low-cost testing is essential for averting a second wave of Covid-19]	+	[https://www.statnews.com/2020/09/23/fast-low-cost-coronavirus-testing-avert-new-wave-covid-19/ Fast, low-cost testing is essential for averting a second wave of Covid-19] by MENACHEM FROMER, PAUL VARGHESE, and ROBERT M. CALIFFSEPTEMBER 23, 2020 notes that Abbot Labs's 5-minute test has a 1.5% false positive rate (a 98.5% "specificity").
−	By MENACHEM FROMER, PAUL VARGHESE, and ROBERT M. CALIFFSEPTEMBER 23, 2020 notes that Abbot Labs's 5-minute test has a 1.5% false positive rate (a 98.5% "specificity").

		+	----
		+
		+	[https://www.fda.gov/media/139743/download CDC Influenza SARS-CoV-2 (Flu SC2) Multiplex Assay\|Instructions for Use] does not, shamefully, say in any clear way what its false positive and false negative rates are in its 11-page "Performance Characteristics" section. How shameful!

	----		----