You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » links » Link 1557295 | Random (Thread)

This is a normal post So he claims
Unfortunately he doesn’t even name the tests in order for viewers to verify those claims.

ALWAYS go back to source data. If you can’t do that because it’s not provided, then treat any wild claims with deep suspicion.
 (I helped save b3ta! wheresthefish Partly filled with wrong, Sun 20 Dec 2020, 19:16, Reply)
This is a normal post Not sure what you're asking
The general name for the tests are lateral flow tests

The specific ones he has in front of him are all listed on rapidtests.org

links mentioned are in the description

Michael's Time article:

time.com/5912705/covid-19-stop-spread-christmas/

Rapid Tests:

www.rapidtests.org/
 (L E T S G O "Stop buying into and spreading this shit", Sun 20 Dec 2020, 19:46, Reply)
This is a normal post Source data. Peer reviewed scientific papers that validate your claims.
The Time article is basically the same guy making the same argument. It can be discounted.

The other site appears to be a pressure site created by a well-intentioned amateur, inviting me to "Write my Rep". The only thing close to a scientific paper that I could find linked within had the following footnote:

"NOTE: This preprint reports new research that has not been certified by peer review and should not be used to guide clinical practice."

Which is awkward.



Also, it is probably worth noting that there has been an active trial of these Lateral Flow tests within Liverpool for about the last two months. They're still in Tier 3.
 (I helped save b3ta! wheresthefish Partly filled with wrong, Sun 20 Dec 2020, 21:29, Reply)
This is a normal post well he does mention papers he's written
I agree they should be cited and it's unfortunate that they're not. But on the other hand, this is a pulpy pod-cast so not surprising. He's a university prof so I imagine there are peer reviewed articles by himself or his lab out there.

The main point I got from this conversation regarding these tests is that they are 50% accurate when compared to PCR tests - which is what the liverpool pilot was all about- but they are +99% at detecting active virus. the PCR test is finding the RNA signature, something you can be shedding weeks after the infection has passed. I hold out hope that these new fast tests will become available to the public and that they make a difference when rolled out to schools next month. I'm sure it would be a game changer if you could get a pack of 5 tests for £20 at boots.
 (L E T S G O "Stop buying into and spreading this shit", Sun 20 Dec 2020, 21:55, Reply)