Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Squinch

(60,081 posts)

1. Apparently the current longer tests have plenty of false negatives too.

Reply to sl8 (Original post)

Tue Apr 21, 2020, 07:35 AM

Apr 2020

I only say that because of anecdotal observation of a number of acquaintances who tested negative before they tested positive.

If this trst allows us to get 85% out of circulation and do it quickly, lets not scrap it till something better comes along.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

7 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Study Raises Questions About False Negatives From Quick COVID-19 Test [View all] sl8 Apr 2020 OP

Apparently the current longer tests have plenty of false negatives too. Squinch Apr 2020 #1

"not too good" is quite the understatement Pacifist Patriot Apr 2020 #2

How's "as good as the rest." Igel Apr 2020 #6

I haven't seen any numbers I'd trust. Pacifist Patriot Apr 2020 #7

Trump Test. It's only a safeinOhio Apr 2020 #3

14.8% is bad, but isn't this (believe it or not) superior some of the other Mike 03 Apr 2020 #4

That's actually better than the current influenza swab elias7 Apr 2020 #5