I find it odd that this study of rapid antigen tests was only interested in false positives, and apparently made no effort to measure false *negative* results. The false positive rate was really low, though.
There were some past issues with high false positive rates in certain studies, so I think the objective here was just to put that to bed. It's good to know. False negatives are a little more complicated to adjudicate, since the comparator would be PCR and it could detect trace RNA a person might still have from 3 months ago--and is that really a positive?
I still would have liked to see it, but I can understand a researcher deciding to keep their scope focused and limited.
I am not unaware of the "What's a false negative?" issue. There's also the point (which I believe you made in an earlier CT) that if someone tests negative on an antigen test, they are almost certainly not infectious (at that moment) even if there are some reproducing virions in their body. So if you're worried about spreading the disease, is that a "false negative"?
As a alternative to cutting back to a twice-weekly schedule, maybe you could do two posts on COVID per week, and one subscriber-only post about other viruses.
I would be absolutely furious if you reduced the frequency of this newsletter. I might ... actually no. Of course we aren't going to be upset. As you say, the magnitude of the problem here in the States is currently far lesser, although South Korea is hitting death records, and I tremble to think what's happening in North Korea (where the government essentially is just pretending there is no disease).
2x a week makes sense. Here's hoping that the current covid retreat continues, and that maybe you'll eventually change it to 1x a week or even less frequent. Thank you for all the work you put into this newsletter, helping us better understand this strange new world.
Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00589-3
I find it odd that this study of rapid antigen tests was only interested in false positives, and apparently made no effort to measure false *negative* results. The false positive rate was really low, though.
There were some past issues with high false positive rates in certain studies, so I think the objective here was just to put that to bed. It's good to know. False negatives are a little more complicated to adjudicate, since the comparator would be PCR and it could detect trace RNA a person might still have from 3 months ago--and is that really a positive?
I still would have liked to see it, but I can understand a researcher deciding to keep their scope focused and limited.
I am not unaware of the "What's a false negative?" issue. There's also the point (which I believe you made in an earlier CT) that if someone tests negative on an antigen test, they are almost certainly not infectious (at that moment) even if there are some reproducing virions in their body. So if you're worried about spreading the disease, is that a "false negative"?
Yeah--so much of that side of it is definitional.
I think moving to twice a week would be fine, with maybe special editions when needed for something big/important/something catches your fancy.
I'd like to hear more about the viral origins of the placenta!
As a alternative to cutting back to a twice-weekly schedule, maybe you could do two posts on COVID per week, and one subscriber-only post about other viruses.
If you think my soft mind can survive exposure to all the world’s ignorance with only two of your booster shots a week, I will trust you!
I would be absolutely furious if you reduced the frequency of this newsletter. I might ... actually no. Of course we aren't going to be upset. As you say, the magnitude of the problem here in the States is currently far lesser, although South Korea is hitting death records, and I tremble to think what's happening in North Korea (where the government essentially is just pretending there is no disease).
I would love to hear about the origin of the placenta.
2x a week makes sense. Here's hoping that the current covid retreat continues, and that maybe you'll eventually change it to 1x a week or even less frequent. Thank you for all the work you put into this newsletter, helping us better understand this strange new world.
Fine with 2x a week. Let’s this all dissipates and we don’t need it at all
Once or twice a week is fine for me - less is more!