Not my point, it's an excerpt from the article.
Yeah and by having everyone go back to work and start passing this virus around the workplace hammering people, that is also not good for the economy.
True it could be used by that manufacturer to test that their next batch of test kits are functioning better.
The FDA approved it for use in research. The doctors were very likely acutely aware of the accuracy rating of the test kits. Even if they didn't account for the margin of error, which I doubt an MD would ever do that, but even if they did, it's still a random group of anonymous people and a high percentage with antibodies.
Everything is a cluster fuck with testing right now, I am not sure why you are defending it so much.
There are also issues with testing in a known hotspot and selection bias with the participants, all these factor are cause for concern, I haven't seen this work published anywhere, even on a preprint server, just in the news
This was a very random group of anonymous people. It has some value. It's also consistent with other studies, one of which is an in depth epidemiological study out of Germany that was peer-reviewed. I get that you are highly aware of which threads you want to bump and when and that it's more important than the content of your comment, but it's just bad optics when you use this tactic while also dismissing research out of hand.
With the political pressure being put on the FDA and CDC by Trump and both agencies run by his appointees, the information quality, test and drug approvals are suspect, they might be about as good as China's was, the government response is worse and the American government is lying far more than China ever did, Trump is the American government BTW, he runs the administration and the checks and balances have been broken. They are under pressure to rapidly approve serological tests that other western countries won't.
Kind of a sloppy circle of disqualification you have there...
Have they gotten repeatable results yet?
Based on a newspaper article, we know nothing about the selection process, I heard they advertised for volunteers, the work hasn't even showed up on a preprint server. There is limited knowledge of the study's testing quality and potential biais.
Thank you. Speaking of seeking attention, why so many threads? I’m glad to see you are making an effort to be amicable though lol.
So you didn't read it...
I am?
So you demand nothing less than lab generated test results in order to make a conclusion regarding infection rates, but you'll except a lockdown that is causing food shortages because a politician said so?
www.uni-goettingen.de
I don't demand anything. I am just trying to not be stupid and get my wife sick because I got cabin fever and ran out of lighters.So you demand nothing less than lab generated test results in order to make a conclusion regarding infection rates, but you'll except a lockdown that is causing food shortages because a politician said so?
PS:
The German study is peer reviewed.
Information for the Media - Georg-August-Universität Göttingen
Website of the Georg-August-University Göttingen
The fact that the FDA recently approved a Canadian serological test that Health Canada would not say as a lot. Trump is the head of the administration and he has corrupted everything and almost everybody he has come into contact with. I was referring to the FDA approved tests part, it means little these days. The research shows selection bias too, but since it is only a news story at this point, we can't have a real good critical look at it, the researchers are fine, the study, perhaps not so much. One thing is for sure though, we can't use it to generalise, it was done in a hot spot and the selection was biased.
So you're saying that the lockdowns aren't working?
It's a newspaper article, and the information presented was incomplete, it cannot be used to bolister an argument until we see at least the preprint. You want to hold the discussion to reasonable standards of evidence, or so I thought.