 |
|
Hopefully this study is better designed than the Santa Clara
Posted on: April 24, 2020 at 20:01:19 CT
JeffB MU
Posts:
72409
Member For:
21.47 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
one, which I think has been withdrawn now.
It sounds like there are multiple serum tests out there but only one has been approved after accuracy testing. Even a relatively low false positive rate can really throw the accuracy off... even to the point of making it useless.
http://www.tigerboard.com/boards/view.php?message=16901359
Don't believe the hype! New optimistic coronavirus research seriously flawed
by Dr. Chris Martenson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8Pv77R3g1E
Bottom line, it is good if they fully give out the details of how the study was designed and carried out, along with the type of serum test used. That first one was a Chinese test, one of the first available here. The accuracy sounds good, at about 95% against false positives. Unfortunately, that's terrible with regards to the accuracy in the first study.
One good thing with this study vs the Santa Clara one is that this one is using random selection (though the people can still refuse, of course, so there's still the potential for some self-selection or de-selection bias). The Santa Clara study asked for volunteers via Facebook ads & compensated for the higher percentage of wealthier respondents via mathematical weighting.
It sounds like there are multiple serum tests out there but only one has been approved after accuracy testing. Even a relatively low false positive rate can really throw the accuracy off... even to the point of making it useless.
http://www.tigerboard.com/boards/view.php?message=16901359
Don't believe the hype! New optimistic coronavirus research seriously flawed
by Dr. Chris Martenson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8Pv77R3g1E
Bottom line, it is good if they fully give out the details of how the study was designed and carried out, along with the type of serum test used. That first one was a Chinese test, one of the first available here. The accuracy sounds good, at about 95% against false positives. Unfortunately, that's terrible with regards to the accuracy in the first study.
One good thing with this study vs the Santa Clara one is that this one is using random selection (though the people can still refuse, of course, so there's still the potential for some self-selection or de-selection bias). The Santa Clara study asked for volunteers via Facebook ads & compensated for the higher percentage of wealthier respondents via mathematical weighting.
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
Hopefully this study is better designed than the Santa Clara - JeffB MU - 4/24 20:01:19