04-22-2020, 05:16 AM
(04-21-2020, 05:07 PM)Taem Wrote: I wonder, do you still feel I am being irresponsible with the information I'm giving out? Because I just saw the same info I'm spouting printed in no less than five (5) additional news presses, so eight (8) in total; I can provide links if you'd like. If anything, I'm just spreading "real" news here friend, instead of the fearmongering you hear spouted by the big news conglomerates of the day.
I feel you are being irresponsible. Those 'news' articles you are referencing were done using a preprint paper that had not had any peer review done on it.
Quote from header of the referenced paper.
Quote:This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/...20062463v1
And as the note says, it should not be used to guide clinical practice; much less public safety policy.
There were several bias in how they collected the data and the testing procedures that were used in the data that they did collect. The sampling was done through facebook linking and at a time when it was next to impossible to get a test done. This was leading to groups that thought they needed to be tested seeing this as their only way to get a test done. This leads to a strong bias that a higher proportion of those that were in the test sample had likely been exposed compared to the population as a whole since it was not even close to a true random sample of the population.
In addition to that the virus testing that they apparently used was one from China that has been subsequently been evaluated in Europe. The evaluation that was done placed at 9th in accuracy out of 9 testing kits checked in the study.
For a full rundown on the problems with that preprint that lead to all those articles check this link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8Pv77R3g1E
The section about the Stanford study starts at about 5:40min.