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
#BMJResearch update: Corticosteroids probably reduce mortality and mechanical ventilation in patients with covid-19 compared with standard care, whereas azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, interferon-beta, and tocilizumab may not reduce either https://t.co/oQ3lTWUqaz
— The BMJ (@bmj_latest) December 18, 2020
This meta-analysis of controlled trials only looks at hospitalized patients. How long were the patients ill for before being hospitalized? One week? Two? Three? Too late for zinc ionophores (HCQ) (+ZINC? No zinc no point..) to work. Severe illness becomes bacterial in nature.
Was azythromycin administered when the bacterial infections were also too advanced? I have seen Azythromycin work with my very own eyes but that's not to say that if administered too late it may not save the patient. How many patients were given AZT & ventilated? It's all timing.
All the meta-analysis is telling us is if you leave it too late you may have missed the early window for antiviral zinc treatment (Zn+HCQ) & that if you are given AZT when you are ventilated or very severe it may too late for it to save you & corticosteroids may be last resort.
And of course antibiotics need also probiotics, or they may harm the bacterial flora which is part of the immune response. Difficult to tell from a meta-analysis how this problem was managed.
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."
More from Category c19
Thread 1:
If you study the field you will see viral nebulization is a technique used to get higher infectivity of viruses. This is used with ventilator patients suffering from pseudomonas aeruginosa infections. Nebulize bacteriaphage to get deep into the lungs and kill bacteria. pic.twitter.com/82lNRMrXl4
— Kevin McKernan \U0001f642 (@Kevin_McKernan) October 24, 2020
Masks increase mortality because breathing through them nebulizes aerosols into smaller ones which bypass mucosal immunity & reach all the way into the alveoli, leading to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).
"Aerosols..within the most breathable size range between 0.5 & 5 μm, can carry SARS-CoV-2 deep to the terminal alveoli..if this transmission pathway does exist, it would bypass the mucociliary clearance & incubation period of the virus in the upper
The filtration material itself of N95's average pore size ~0.3−0.5 μm does not block finer aerosol laden with virions penetration, not to mention surgical masks.