Read on Twitter
lateral flow testing seems to be generating quite a lot of interest as a way to separate actual clinical cov infection from positive PCR tests from trace or "dead" virus.
if this is correct, it implies that ~80% of lvpl PCR +'s are non clinical.
this has profound implications.
if this is correct, it implies that ~80% of lvpl PCR +'s are non clinical.
this has profound implications.
if PCR is picking up trace virus that is non clinical and not able to replicate, that "false" epidemiological signal will get stronger later in an epidemic when more people have recovered and more trace virus is around to find.
we've known that. https://twitter.com/boriquagato/status/1330277330128936960?s=20
we've known that. https://twitter.com/boriquagato/status/1330277330128936960?s=20
in this case (assuming the LFT results are accurate) PCR is showing a 3.3% positive rate vs a 0.6% from LFT.
that's a massive difference.
it probably inverts the disease trend in liverpool.
assuming it works well, this could be an important tool.
that's a massive difference.
it probably inverts the disease trend in liverpool.
assuming it works well, this could be an important tool.
i'm not yet confident enough in LFT to make a strong claim about accuracy
does anyone have some good data on it?
i'd like to get more educated on it and how it works and has been working.
it's clear PCR has become more problem than answer.
exploring other options seems wise.
does anyone have some good data on it?
i'd like to get more educated on it and how it works and has been working.
it's clear PCR has become more problem than answer.
exploring other options seems wise.
