I think it is a great step forward towards creating an useful, cheap and available instrument to diagnose COVID-19, but there are a couple of things I would like to point out (please correct me if I'm mistaken): - Although our current Gold Standard, PCR does provide false negatives if the patient is not currently symptomatic. Also, it depends on how and where the sample was taken (anatomical location). Finally, diferent brands could also perform diferently. - If you dont confirm your test with the Gold Standard (as it is here, where negative results from the test being developed were not tested with PCR afterwards), then you are entering into confirmation bias and therefore overestimating the performance of the test. - Very small sample size could under or overperform the test (probably overperform in this case). Again, thank you very much for your research, great and clear presentation, and thanks UCTV for uploading these videos.
And at no stage do any of you encourage us to boost our immunity systems. You are absent from knowledge and you guys absolutely should be promoting prebiotic and probiotics. Both of those words mean, create life and feed life.
It would be interesting if you took this same study and called it " How herd immunity evolves" Did you say no one that partidipated in your study died?
Testing is only meaningful if one can have the test results back in good time to act. This is not the case in the United States. We furthermore do not know much about this virus nor are we pursuing meaningful research on its long-term consequences.
The opportunity has been squandered. With numbers rising daily and lack of informed leadership testing and tracing is impossible. The current administrations roadblocks will prolong the carnage.
I think it is a great step forward towards creating an useful, cheap and available instrument to diagnose COVID-19, but there are a couple of things I would like to point out (please correct me if I'm mistaken):
- Although our current Gold Standard, PCR does provide false negatives if the patient is not currently symptomatic. Also, it depends on how and where the sample was taken (anatomical location). Finally, diferent brands could also perform diferently.
- If you dont confirm your test with the Gold Standard (as it is here, where negative results from the test being developed were not tested with PCR afterwards), then you are entering into confirmation bias and therefore overestimating the performance of the test.
- Very small sample size could under or overperform the test (probably overperform in this case).
Again, thank you very much for your research, great and clear presentation, and thanks UCTV for uploading these videos.
And at no stage do any of you encourage us to boost our immunity systems. You are absent from knowledge and you guys absolutely should be promoting prebiotic and probiotics. Both of those words mean, create life and feed life.
It would be interesting if you took this same study and called it " How herd immunity evolves" Did you say no one that partidipated in your study died?
Testing is only meaningful if one can have the test results back in good time to act. This is not the case in the United States. We furthermore do not know much about this virus nor are we pursuing meaningful research on its long-term consequences.
The opportunity has been squandered. With numbers rising daily and lack of informed leadership testing and tracing is impossible. The current administrations roadblocks will prolong the carnage.