This is making me crazy! (COVID stats).

[LAS14]

One of the statistics that I've heard many times (although not really frequently) is that the most common COVID test returns a 30 to 40% false negative. I've heard it from what I thought at the time were reliable sources. My ICU physician daughter-in-law thought it was true some weeks ago when she tested negative.

But today I heard that there was a large study run by the Cleveland Clinic which ccompared 5 COVID tests, among them the new Abbott 15 minute test. Their results were that Abbott was the worst with a 14.8% false negative and that that was not acceptable.

Now I've always wondered about this 30% false negative figure. What good is a test at that rate???? But why was it so commonly accepted. Lots of DUers accepted this as fact.

There's so little you can count on information-wise. Like I said, this is making me crazy.

Can anyone explain what's going on???

tia
las

P.S. Abbott says this result was based on improperly administered tests. Where the sample was diluted before being put in it's machine. I think I got that right. Is it a machine???

[Nictuku]

1. I thought I heard that the 15 minute test

I thought I heard the 15 minute test was used to test everyone that was around the president. Interesting.

[Phoenix61]

2. Here's the article.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/04/21/838794281/study-raises-questions-about-false-negatives-from-quick-covid-19-test

“All of the tests do miss a number of patients — anywhere from 5 to 30%," says Dr. Alan Wells, a professor of pathology at the University of Pittsburgh. "So this is not unique to ID NOW."

[LAS14]

3. Thanks! nt

[Igel]

4. It's the number I keep using

and I heard the same story. I was on a deadline and just now have time to maybe think, but in a few minutes have to go back to trying to figure out what it means to be a teacher. And have Zoom meetings coming up. Argh.

I know that some of the early tests had a 30%+ false negative rate--and I've read that PCR tests are often unreliable.


That may not be true for tests made elsewhere, so I know I'm rethinking some of my assumptions.

At the same time, a lot of media focus is on playing gotcha. "Ah, so you have this nice new thing? Screw you, I'm going to be as pessimistic as possible and find somebody who agrees with me." I fall in the same trap--skepticism serves our interests best, but at some point it's just nay-saying. Abbott is donning a white hat? Shit, can't let that stand. (Of course, the media sometime go the other route, and just manage to navigate an obstacle course of things against their favorites without ever seeing to notice the obstacles. Start with bias masquerading as skepticism and critical thinking and it never ends well.)

https://www.livescience.com/covid19-coronavirus-tests-false-negatives.html is a source I might have used. (Not a source I did use, it doesn't read familiar.)

And if you're into Pro Publica, here ya go:

https://www.propublica.org/article/coronavirus-tests-are-being-fast-tracked-by-the-fda-but-its-unclear-how-accurate-they-are .

The thing is, Pro Publica's purpose is "expose abuses of power and betrayals of the public trust by government, business, and other institutions," and if there's nothing to expose there's no reason to be there. Everybody needs to believe they're important, which means if you dig and don't find an abuse where you know there must be one, you dig until whatever you find can be used to justify the claim that you found abuse of power and betrayal of public trust.

[LAS14]

5. Thanks. Some interesting angles here. nt