it not a matter of "turning out". It's shortcomings were in the government guidance. Their report had a headline rate 99.6% specificity for these tests, though it didn't provide the supporting data. but in the same guidance in the accompanying annex, it had a single sentence: “the measured test sensitivity, in ideal hands is 76.8%” but “is likely to be lower under operational conditions.” this seems quite pertinent to bury in the annex, don't you think?
An actual subsequent trial of the test showed 50% specificity, and crucially missed 1/3 of high viral load cases
So some vblogger you've posted making the claim it could have saved 1000s of lives seems highly dubious. It seems more of a case of the government dangerously bigging-up some new test far more than is supported by the data.
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Mon 21 Dec 2020, 0:12,
Reply)
OK
please tell me, this 'missing 1/3 of high loads' fact. which I do not dispute. Does that refer to active or inactive virus? Because as I keep trying to say, it is my understanding that this test will not detect inactive viruses. This point is key. Also I think calling him 'Some vblogger' is a little defamatory, the man is an 'immunologist, epidemiologist, and physician at Harvard'. So he's not just some vblogger. Having said that I agree that this podcast may not represent the ultimate truth on the matter and I am trying to have an open mind on this. In other words I agree that it's pinch of salt time, And I have changed the description to reflect this, but my current position is that we should not dismiss it as untrue.
(, Mon 21 Dec 2020, 10:42, Reply)