3 ms·

So I used the sophisticated strategy of searching for the first test on https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19-emergency-use-auth

So I used the sophisticated strategy of searching for the first test on https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19-emergency-use-authorizations-medical-devices/eua-authorized-serology-test-performance https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/coronavirus-disease-2019... and up pops https://jcm.asm.org/content/59/1/e02104-20 https://jcm.asm.org/content/59/1/e02104-20 (it's a study validating the sensitivity and specificity of the test). You've raised the bar a long ways from except in a very small number of cases not actually validated in the field to perform that way to a comprehensive analysis of all tests that have even maybe been available. Of course, the 'very small number of cases' makes it impossible to argue without doing a comprehensive study, but it's clear enough that the widely used commercial tests were developed with the idea that they should minimize false positives and tested against pre-Covid serum.

lazide 6y ago
Thank you for digging that up! When I searched, I got a bunch of ads and junk from well before that study was run. Do you have any data on which tests are widely used? (As in by number of tests done?) I’m hoping it’s shifted the way you’re saying, but as of November there were more BS ones than legit ones, and it was hard to find a real validated test. None of the folks I knew getting antibody tests were able to find any of the validated ones. That validated tests are good is great if they are being used, or used widely. Because in November the ones being used widely were still junk, which was my point. If you have, per your study, 3 tests that are validated - are they used in the field for these studies? If so, objection withdrawn for current studies using them. If they are studies based on the older, unvalidated, and often junk tests - then that point still stands.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  I checked one test, using a non biased sampling method, and it contradicted the whole structure of your argument. Why would you expect anyone to continue the conversation on your terms?

lazide 6y ago

Thank you for digging that up! When I searched, I got a bunch of ads and junk from well before that study was run. Do you have any data on which tests are widely used? (As in by number of tests done?) I’m hoping it’s shifted the way you’re saying, but as of November there were more BS ones than legit ones, and it was hard to find a real validated test. None of the folks I knew getting antibody tests were able to find any of the validated ones. That validated tests are good is great if they are being used, or used widely. Because in November the ones being used widely were still junk, which was my point. If you have, per your study, 3 tests that are validated - are they used in the field for these studies? If so, objection withdrawn for current studies using them. If they are studies based on the older, unvalidated, and often junk tests - then that point still stands.

maxerickson 6y ago
I checked one test, using a non biased sampling method, and it contradicted the whole structure of your argument. Why would you expect anyone to continue the conversation on your terms?