3 ms·

Ai et al. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32101510/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32101510/ analysis of 1014 patients in Wuhan; Yang et al. looked at another

Ai et al. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32101510/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32101510/ analysis of 1014 patients in Wuhan; Yang et al. looked at another 213 in Guangdong. Kucirka et al (https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1495 https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1495) did a pooled analysis of seven other studies and found that "over the 4 days of infection before the typical time of symptom onset (day 5), the probability of a false-negative result in an infected person decreases from 100% (95% CI, 100% to 100%) on day 1 to 67% (CI, 27% to 94%) on day 4. On the day of symptom onset, the median false-negative rate was 38% (CI, 18% to 65%). This decreased to 20% (CI, 12% to 30%) on day 8 (3 days after symptom onset) then began to increase again, from 21% (CI, 13% to 31%) on day 9 to 66% (CI, 54% to 77%) on day 21." You are mistaken.

tinus_hn 6y ago
Your first study takes rt-pcr testing as the reference and cannot make statements on its accuracy. Your second study is flawed as indicated by the comments on it, it’s a meta study based on poor data. If you choose a point and go looking for studies to support it, regardless of quality and ignoring studies that do not, that’s not science. And by the way, your studies are about something that is not important here. What is important here is if the patient carries virus particles in his airways so they can infect others, not if they are infected themselves.