BAYES' THEOREM: The basic reason we get so many false positives to COVID19. The disease is so rare that the number of false positives greatly outnumbers the people who truly have the disease: THE MATHS:
https://t.co/oLHyxYJW9H




https://t.co/29FNwq0Qw2
"The national statistician has downgraded its estimate of coronavirus in England on October 17 to just 4.89 people per 10,000." or ~ 0.05%. That means that only 1 in 2000 people may be carrying SARS related viral RNA fragments which could be 2 months old. https://t.co/XqpNaY6BzQ
— Robin Monotti FRSA MA BSc (@robinmonotti) December 8, 2020
https://t.co/rthjPRJWeB
ITALY: CONFIRMED BY ITALIAN HEALTH SERVICE: False positives to Covid19 test as diagnosis are 95%. Legal cases started against testing under charges of fraud to procure public funding, false alarm, ideological false, and manslaughter. pic.twitter.com/C9b7BbzdKa
— Robin Monotti FRSA MA BSc (@robinmonotti) November 25, 2020

#BAYESTHEOREM MEDICAL MASS TESTING CALCULATOR:
— Robin Monotti FRSA MA BSc (@robinmonotti) December 9, 2020
Try it yourself to understand how many false positives you get by changing minor variables: \U0001f447https://t.co/7wVMvrpgAW pic.twitter.com/PHbweWK1TK
https://t.co/kFnQVoCspb

LATERAL FLOW: False positive rate of "0.4% with a sensitivity of 58% and specificity of 99.6%, would mean that 100\u2009000 people being tested would find 630 positives\u2014of which only 230 would actually have covid-19, while 400 would be false positives.
— Robin Monotti FRSA MA BSc (@robinmonotti) November 17, 2020



https://t.co/8hsZ1hNjD7
Official estimates from mass testing in England (including asymptomatic) puts Covid19 "infections" at 0.9% https://t.co/2ljzi9YfKN
— Robin Monotti FRSA MA BSc (@robinmonotti) December 11, 2020
@lucyfrazermp 20/11:
— Edmund Fordham (@EdmundFordham) November 28, 2020
2. Apparently @MattHancock tells HoC 17/09 how ONS \u201cadjusts for False Positives\u201d. Looked it up.@DesmondSwayne asks;@MattHancock doesn\u2019t answer.
Obfuscates with \u201crigorous Bayesian mathematics\u201d
\u201cOne of his academics" will \u201ctake him through it\u201d
(thread) pic.twitter.com/42YO9vaioy



#BAYESTHEOREM @ Cambridge University. 0.4% of 262 students came back as positive after the first "test". All came back as negative after the second. Government only tests once. ONS would say there is 0.4% prevalence instead it's 0%. pic.twitter.com/zeAQAAOeRN
— Robin Monotti FRSA MA BSc (@robinmonotti) December 13, 2020

https://t.co/pZcFlMBKEZ
"I am very happy for one of my academics to take him through the rigorous Bayesian mathematics, which I am sure will help to elucidate the debate on this matter still further." @MattHancock to @DesmondSwaynehttps://t.co/pZcFlMBKEZ
— Robin Monotti FRSA MA BSc (@robinmonotti) December 15, 2020
https://t.co/aidVGWOVqH
Numerical details aside, the use of Bayes's theorem and the principle described are valid. Taught in epidemiology courses.
— \u05e4\u05e8\u05d5\u05e4' \u05d0\u05d9\u05d9\u05dc \u05e9\u05d7\u05e8 (@prof_shahar) December 16, 2020
Extreme example. If disease prevalence is zero, predictive value of positive test is zero. Every positive is false positive.
A similar graph in the thread pic.twitter.com/ddvBe36OmU
\u26a0\ufe0fWHO WARNING ON BAYES THEOREM & TESTING \u26a0\ufe0f
— Robin Monotti FRSA MA BSc (@robinmonotti) December 16, 2020
"Healthcare providers are encouraged to take into consideration testing results along with clinical signs and symptoms, confirmed status of any contacts"https://t.co/GkRJzdn70b pic.twitter.com/jXPQDqqnVE
More from Robin Monotti FRSA MA BSc
On the 19th March 2020 the WHO released this guidance intended for healthcare workers (HCWs), healthcare managers and IPC teams at the facility level & at national and district/provincial level:https://t.co/C4aV2BnMPj pic.twitter.com/tCk1EyLskV
— Robin Monotti (@robinmonotti) December 21, 2020
It clearly does indicate both the risks of bacterial infection & to prescribe broad spectrum antibiotics as part of treatment:
"Collect blood cultures for bacteria that cause pneumonia and sepsis, ideally before antimicrobial therapy. DO NOT
delay antimicrobial therapy"
"6. Management of severe COVID-19: treatment of co-infections
Give empiric antimicrobials [broad spectrum antibiotics] to treat all likely pathogens causing SARI and sepsis as soon as possible, within 1 hour
of initial assessment for patients with sepsis."
"Empiric antibiotic treatment should be based on the clinical diagnosis (community-acquired
pneumonia, health care-associated pneumonia [if infection was acquired in health care setting] or sepsis), local epidemiology &
susceptibility data, and national treatment guidelines"
"When there is ongoing local circulation of seasonal influenza, empiric therapy with a neuraminidase inhibitor [anti-viral influenza drugs] should
be considered for the treatment for patients with influenza or at risk for severe disease."
"Speaking through some masks dispersed largest droplets into a multitude of smaller droplets..smaller particles are airborne longer than large droplets (larger droplets sink faster), a mask might be counterproductive."
https://t.co/jBQlWRxcEL

Influenza like illness rates 3 times higher with cloth masks when compared to control group:
https://t.co/djT0mfutv9
Prof. Carl Heneghan, Oxford University: "The high quality trial evidence for cloth masks suggest they increase your rate of reinfection."

Please note, droplets smaller than 120 microns can't be measured. SARSCoV2 is 0.14 microns. This means that the nebulization effect of medical masks could not be measured, not that it does not happen. ⬇️
"Speaking through some masks dispersed largest droplets into a multitude of smaller droplets..smaller particles are airborne longer than large droplets (larger droplets sink faster), a mask might be counterproductive."https://t.co/jBQlWRxcEL pic.twitter.com/XeKYFmjsGs
— Robin Monotti (@robinmonotti) January 15, 2021
The really small aerosols <1 μm [the ones that pass through ALL surgical masks] can penetrate all the way to the alveoli - the basic units for gas exchange
4/In humans, larger aerosols deposit in upper throat, nose, & tracheobronchial region of the lung. Medium-sized aerosols mostly deposit in small airways further down. The really small aerosols <1 \u03bcm can penetrate all the way to the alveoli - the basic units for gas exchange. 4/7 pic.twitter.com/9ZJb4JrZqI
— Dr. Ali Nouri (@AliNouriPhD) December 29, 2020
More from Category c19
FACTS NOT FEAR
Covid 19 is a disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. SARS-CoV-2 is one of 7 coronaviruses known to man. 1/n
The pandemic is real. Excess deaths were observed in many countries. Not all countries were affected in the same way due to pre-existing immunity, the health status of the population and demographics (the proportion of elderly in the population) 2/n
https://t.co/65elPq3gp5

COVID 19 presents a high risk for the very few and negligible risk for the many.
The infection fatality rate in different age groups:
<19 y, IFR= 0.003%
20-49 y: IFR= 0.02%
50-69 y: 0.5%
>70y, IFR=
Not everybody is susceptible to the virus. If reinfected, pre-existing immunity from related viruses gives protection from developing the disease or from developing serious symptoms.
4/n
“The evidence that a subset of people has a cross-reactive T cell repertoire through exposure to related coronaviruses is
Title is "Maximum collaboration”, showing @BMI_Bund / Horst Seehofer had a secret paper drafted in the 1st COVID-19 wave that dramatically depicted the threat.
A scandal of gigantic proportions. Thread⬇️

2/: @welt released 2 versions: long version as print, short-edit, online.
This thread focuses on the long version. It's of crucial importance-people around the globe understand this earthshaking scandal. Share.
English: https://t.co/qAbU6D8c0P
German: https://t.co/W2i1FtVrCg

3/: Mid-March 2020: Federal Minister of the Interior-Horst Seehofer (@BMI_Bund, @cducsubt) was on the edge: Christian Drosten (@c_drosten) & Lothar Wieler (@RKI) urgently warned: Germany was threatened w/ dramatic consequences if the country returned to everyday life too quickly.

4/: Horst Seehofer sent his Secretary of State Markus Kerber into the lane. The plan was to bring together leading scientists: they should produce a paper that would then serve as legitimation for further tough political measures, beyond Easter - now known as the “panic paper”.

5/: Markus Kerber launched a corresponding call to researchers via e-mail, 4 days later, the request was fulfilled: A classified paper, which presented the danger posed by the virus as dramatically as possible, and which quickly spread through the media.
