« Reply #1 on: May 02, 2020, 08:15:01 PM »
Thanks again, but I still do not see any evidence of the application of these findings in practice. This uses a tiny sample and awaits peer review.
indeed but the swab tests have been in action longer and are giving circa 70% accuracy
(mind you how would they know -- if there wasn't a live-in or a follow up, to ask about symptoms or indeed the asymptomatic negatives that were really positives
either way it's a guide and a help so long as it is employed, and 'our lot' are so centralised, they refused an initial chance to get the new kits which can be posted out (better than a letter from Boris methinks
re peer review, tiny samples etc -- true but these are extreme times and that is why emergency license has been given with conditions to data collect etc etc
also at least they can now for example double test if required ie a confirmatory swab test after a saliva or vice a versa if it is for front line staff -- so we should know more info as roll-out continues.
This sort of EUA waiver though i think must not be actioned where vaccine trials are approaching production.
There needs to be care there for sure.
Look up results, trials for the present swab tests, whether they too were released on 'exceptions or emergency licensing. Find out their accuracy data (which as I say both Val and I have read is around 70%.
the saliva tests are now in the wild being used for the USAF and the States of California and Arizona in fair and increasing numbers, so data should be forthcoming and ongoing.
Mind you double blind testing etc isn't exactly ethical in these situations. but there will be follow up or double testing so time will tell.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2020, 09:30:07 PM by stog »