David Hicks

Scientist

[David Hicks @DH_Neuro]

New paper out today in NRR. #tdp43 #Alzheimers

https://t.co/NxLQ3xa3yn

[Sonia Sodha @soniasodha]

A scientist writes a piece about masks that Facebook flags as false information. What’s going on?

On the scientists who get coopted into the disinformation wars:

https://t.co/7dnGoLCIbY

[David Hicks @DH_Neuro]

@youth_unheard Literally the only people who think those figures should be the same are those who don't understand immunoassays.

[David Hicks @DH_Neuro]

@MarkReady47 @ClareCraigPath That's saying the assay is run for 45 cycles. The Ct value is independent of this. In addition to which, Ct values are predicated on using a fluorescence-based platform, which many UK tests don't use.

[David Hicks @DH_Neuro]

@MarkReady47 @ClareCraigPath The judgement was that there were too many caveats in interpreting Ct values to be used as a diagnostic in that particular case. However, these caveats around the Ct value don't apply in UK testing. Not to mention the judges' misreading of the literature.

[David Hicks @DH_Neuro]

@ClareCraigPath Of course that wasn't what the court said, but never mind.

[David Hicks @DH_Neuro]

@dominicallkins @mrscorer @TiceRichard Both tests are accurate and also consistent with each other.

[David Hicks @DH_Neuro]

@dominicallkins @mrscorer @TiceRichard But these assays have wildly different sensitivities and measure different things. Apples and oranges.

[David Hicks @DH_Neuro]

@jayhay84 @ClareCraigPath @Clairina Basically, if you get a positive result from either test, there's about a 99.5% chance you're positive. If you get a negative PCR result, about 99.5% chance you're negative. If you get an LFT negative, there's about a 77% chance you're negative.

[David Hicks @DH_Neuro]

@WindsorEater @ClareCraigPath LFTs are immunoassays, which, by their nature are nowhere near as sensitive as a PCR.

[David Hicks @DH_Neuro]

@WindsorEater @ClareCraigPath Yes, both of those things are true.

[David Hicks @DH_Neuro]

@JohnBradbury12A @ClareCraigPath It's not meant to be used as a test analogous to PCR. The rationale is to identify highly infectious asymptomatic people without the need for a lab. The results show it does this effectively in the pilot study.

[David Hicks @DH_Neuro]

@JohnBradbury12A @ClareCraigPath About 23%.

[David Hicks @DH_Neuro]

@mummy2webbs @dontbetyet @ClareCraigPath There are several meta-analyses saying broadly the same thing, but try Buitrago-Garcia et al. in PLoS Medicine.

[David Hicks @DH_Neuro]

@dontbetyet @ClareCraigPath No, the relative risk of asymptomatic transmission is about 0.35.

[David Hicks @DH_Neuro]

@ClareCraigPath What the Liverpool lateral flow study has done is identify just under 200 asymptomatic people who would be classed as "highly infectious".

[David Hicks @DH_Neuro]

@tomyoung79 @ClareCraigPath Liverpool Council tweeted the data 16h ago.

[David Hicks @DH_Neuro]

@tomyoung79 @ClareCraigPath 0.37% is not the lateral flow positivity rate for Liverpool. It's above 0.6% for residents and a tick above 1% for people from neighbouring areas.

[David Hicks @DH_Neuro]

@brianwinteruk @PiePony1 @Fox_Claire My guess would be that they denied it because it's impossible.

[David Hicks @DH_Neuro]

@JohnDStats @AnthonyLander @NancyHaven @ClareCraigPath Since the specificity and sensitivity are >99%, the key seems to be the apparent prevalence. What value did you use?