4 ms·

Yeah, this is absurd. Surveillance testing isn’t even being done at anywhere near the levels to make this claim, nor are any of the only known effective mitigat

Yeah, this is absurd. Surveillance testing isn’t even being done at anywhere near the levels to make this claim, nor are any of the only known effective mitigation strategies, like bans on mass gatherings, being put in place. Compare this to what is being done in Singapore with effective quarantines and extensive contract traces, or Korea with on-demand, drive-thru testing, and the complacency is staggering. The CDC isn’t even releasing treatment details for recovered patients so doctors and hospitals can prepare to respond: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/03/01/health/coronvirus-patient-research-cdc/index.html https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/03/01/health/coronvirus-patient...

lurquer 7y ago
Before you advocate 'surveillance testing', you should provide a link to hard data showing what the false-positive rate is. Not assurances of how accurate it might be... I want a definitive false-positive rate. Until we have that, surveillance testing may be more harmful than beneficial.
- claudeganon 7y ago
  That’s insanity. The WHO themselves insisted that aggressive surveillance testing is necessary to formulate an adequate response and it’s what Korea and Singapore are doing right now. There have been no reports of widespread false positives, only false negatives, and even in that case, testing was ramped up because it’s better to catch some than none.
  - lurquer 7y ago
    Sigh... I wrote: "Not assurances of how accurate it might be..." Yet, that's exactly what you responded with... Once again, what is the false positive rate? If you don't know, so be it. But, if its 5% or so (like many similar viral tests), you may wish to give some thought as to what you are going to do with the tens of thousands of healthy 'false positives' your proposed surveillance testing will uncover.

4 ms·

Yeah, this is absurd. Surveillance testing isn’t even being done at anywhere near the levels to make this claim, nor are any of the only known effective mitigat

by claudeganon 7y ago

lurquer 7y ago
Before you advocate 'surveillance testing', you should provide a link to hard data showing what the false-positive rate is. Not assurances of how accurate it might be... I want a definitive false-positive rate. Until we have that, surveillance testing may be more harmful than beneficial.
- claudeganon 7y ago
  That’s insanity. The WHO themselves insisted that aggressive surveillance testing is necessary to formulate an adequate response and it’s what Korea and Singapore are doing right now. There have been no reports of widespread false positives, only false negatives, and even in that case, testing was ramped up because it’s better to catch some than none.
  - lurquer 7y ago
    Sigh... I wrote: "Not assurances of how accurate it might be..." Yet, that's exactly what you responded with... Once again, what is the false positive rate? If you don't know, so be it. But, if its 5% or so (like many similar viral tests), you may wish to give some thought as to what you are going to do with the tens of thousands of healthy 'false positives' your proposed surveillance testing will uncover.