3 ms·
Is this the NYT article you're talking about?: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/health/22whoop.html https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/health/22whoop.html Ca
by alvah 6y ago
Is this the NYT article you're talking about?: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/health/22whoop.html https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/health/22whoop.html
Can you explain to the layperson why it's "basically bullshit"? The NYT article I linked describes a real-world scenario where a fake outbreak (100% of cases were false positives) actually occurred (note: I am not claiming Covid-19 is fake).
Also, specific false positive rates aside, is it not likely we're now approaching a rate of "cases" which is hard to distinguish from false positive tests, which would help explain the drop in hospitalization / ICU / mortality?
- javagram 6y agoKeep in mind that article is from 13 years ago. > Many of the new molecular tests are quick but technically demanding, and each laboratory may do them in its own way. These tests, called “home brews,” are not commercially available, and there are no good estimates of their error rates. The technology, as mentioned, was new at the time and not even commercially available. There have been 13 years of improvement since then.
- nl 6y agoThere's an NYT article from this on the Covid test issues.