Showing Cold Symptoms, Elon Musk Tests Positive - and Negative - for Covid-19 (seattletimes.com) 216
"Elon Musk predicted in March, at the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, that there would be 'probably close to zero new cases' in the United States by the end of April," reports the Washington Post.
"Now, the Tesla chief executive is trying to figure out whether he has a virus that has killed at least 242,000 Americans." The billionaire said early Friday that he's experiencing cold-like symptoms, but that four rapid tests have produced two positives and two negatives — an experience that left him questioning the process.
"Something extremely bogus is going on," Musk, 49, tweeted. "Was tested for covid four times today. Two tests came back negative, two came back positive. Same machine, same test, same nurse..."
UPDATE: Thursday Musk tweeted he was also in the process of getting "PCR tests" — plural — "from separate labs," with results to be delivered within 24 hours. On Saturday, Musk then tweeted the news that he "most likely" has a moderate case of Covid-19.
Musk had said he had "symptoms of a typical cold," tweeting that for the past few days he's had "slight fever" and "mild sniffles" — and that he'd been taking NyQuil.
"Now, the Tesla chief executive is trying to figure out whether he has a virus that has killed at least 242,000 Americans." The billionaire said early Friday that he's experiencing cold-like symptoms, but that four rapid tests have produced two positives and two negatives — an experience that left him questioning the process.
"Something extremely bogus is going on," Musk, 49, tweeted. "Was tested for covid four times today. Two tests came back negative, two came back positive. Same machine, same test, same nurse..."
UPDATE: Thursday Musk tweeted he was also in the process of getting "PCR tests" — plural — "from separate labs," with results to be delivered within 24 hours. On Saturday, Musk then tweeted the news that he "most likely" has a moderate case of Covid-19.
Musk had said he had "symptoms of a typical cold," tweeting that for the past few days he's had "slight fever" and "mild sniffles" — and that he'd been taking NyQuil.
Duh (Score:3, Insightful)
I really didn't realize he was this stupid. I thought he was just a comedian.
But this isn't even funny.
Like, dude, don't you have to study statistics and probability to be an engineer... or a business person?
Rapid tests are rapid because of a tradeoff in precision and accuracy.
Re: Duh (Score:3)
Re: Duh (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it is disturbing for idiots who haven't noticed all year when people get a test, then they get tested again, they're always also waiting on the results of additional tests.
That's the way it works with a novel virus. The tests aren't that good at first. So you take them multiple times. All year. Everybody has been needing multiple tests.
Confidence in lab diagnostics is for people who understand numbers. For everybody else it is magic, and all you need to know is this: The doctors you have are the ones you have to trust. Your magical thinking is deep. But no, you don't get to choose your timeline. This timeline has these various tests.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation needed.
I'll not give you the benefit of the doubt, since practically the entire medical industry has been advocating for nothing like what you've described [cdc.gov].
Re: (Score:2)
please tell that idiot GP to go away again.
my wife is a nurse, they are testing all the residents and staff of her nursing home every 10 days. all those people have to be tested on the same day.
3-4 days later there is a 10% randomized follow up test. to make certain any potential false negatives where actually false negatives.
This is for every nursing home in at least the north east. not sure outside of New England.
Who is getting hit hard now? all the rural areas that denied safe distancing, denied mask
Re: (Score:3)
As one of those who actually know, this is bullshit. The rapid tests that you're comparing this to weren't developed and deployed in less than 6 months. They were painstakingly developed over years and years in order to optimize true
Re: (Score:3)
That's a really bad tradeoff for either a 50% false positive rate or a 50% false negative rate.
Re: (Score:3)
Assuming he is telling the truth, and assuming the tests were properly administered. The rapid tests are about 75% accurate if administered by a trained healthcare professional, or about 50% accurate if administered by a trained member of the public or military.
Anyway he must know by know, assuming he did the sensible thing and got a more reliable test immediately which takes several hours to produce a result.
Re: Duh (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
1) We know he has it, we don't have to pretend to wonder at the answer
2) No, it isn't a "bad tradeoff" it is a rapid test, and repeated tests confirmed detection of the virus.
3) Not finding what you were checking for is not at all the same as finding what you were checking for. This test is not designed to tell you that you don't have the virus. It either detected it, or didn't detect it. That is all. It is perfectly normal and expected for some people to have a level of the virus that would be detected 50
Re: (Score:3)
I'm told this test is to determine if you do not have the virus as its positive detection rate is so fallible. (84% according to the manufacturers)
So if you test negative - then you do not have the virus. If you test positive, then you should go and have a better test.
Are you sure? AFAIK, none of the rapid tests that are FDA-approved for use in the United States have specificity below 95%, and most are higher than that. Yes, that means there's maybe a ~5% chance of cross-reactivity with the worst of those tests, but for the most part, a positive rapid test is considered definitive enough that you don't need a subsequent test (unless you're Elon). A negative test, however, is not (unless you test positive for something else).
Re: (Score:3)
Page 12 of the manufacturer specs [fda.gov] shows the sensitivity rate of 84%.
Sure, it says that, but right below it, the same page says "NPA: 100% (C.I. 98%–100%)". That means that 100% of all positive results are expected to be positive. And no, they do *not* say that if you get a positive result, you need to get tested properly. What that text says above is that just because you have COVID-19, that doesn't mean you can't also have something else, and that if it is critical to know whether someone has it, a follow-up test with a different method is a good idea.
The reason f
Re: (Score:2)
PCR test time, doofus.
Re: (Score:3)
What about this is stupid? He got got sick and got a test (already smarter than a lot of dumb fucks out there who just go to work like normal). He went and got the recommended test, disagreed with the result and is now awaiting a PCR test. If you consider that stupid you may as well question most of the population of America.
Now on the topic of testing as well the rapid test was not generally considered to lack repeatability. It lacked specificity meaning it was likely to produce false negative tests, but i
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps he's not an expert on infectious diseases.
Re: Duh (Score:2)
I am kind of surprised at his statements too. I knew this stuff before I got out of HS. Out of UG, I understood the mechanics and statistical reasoning behind it. Forget engineering, how does he understand high level factory yields... especially in auto industry, and not have the basics here?
Re: Duh (Score:2)
Re: Duh (Score:4, Interesting)
If that's what he is pointing out, then he doesn't understand basic statistics.
To make up if the tests are worth it, one must consider prior probabilities, false positive rate (aka specificity) and false negative rate (aka sensitivity) and run Bayesian analysis. So you need at least these 3 numbers in addition to the test results in order to decide if the results are meaningful.
Considering how these tests are designed, he is most likely to be positive for real.
Here is a little story to illustrate that. Imagine a perfect test: you press a button and a little light turns on if you have covid, it works by magic so no mistake is possible. The only problem is the button: 50% of the time, it doesn't register the press and therefore the light don't turn on, and because there is no control light, you don't know if the light is off because you don't have covid or because of a mispress.
You press the button 4 times.
If you have covid, you can expect the light to turn on 2 out of 4 times: 2 mispresses and 2 actual positive tests, as it happen in Musk's case. There is absolutely no way it can happen if you don't have covid.
If you don't have covid, the light will never turn on.
In reality, it is more complicated than that, we don't have magical tests and false positives are always a possibility. But a 2/4 positive test doesn't mean the test is insignificant.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't think you can say that. How good the test is at detecting the presence of the virus and how good it is at detecting the absence of the virus are probably different specs.
Also, probably how much of what the test is testing for (depends on test) is present in the sample, would be a factor too in the test's accuracies.
But take that with a grain of salt, I'm not qualified, and didn't check my hypotheses.
Re: Duh (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The summary doesn't mention the likelihood of false negatives or false positives. Most tests are tailored to be accurate one of those ways.
In the case of False positives only happening 0.5% of the time then he's very likely got COVID.
In the case of False negatives only being wrong 0.5% of the time then he very likely hasn't got COVID.
A quick scan of the article by SeattleTimes shows nothing useful with regards to this and since I don't know the exact name and perhaps version of the test he took, I can't dra
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Every business is "essential" to someone. If it's your paycheck on the line then my guess is that you'd make a case on how your job is "essential".
If your job wasn't "essential" then would anyone pay you to do it? No, of course not.
Re: Duh (Score:5, Informative)
Manufacturing cars is not essential in the short term.
During WWII, we went four years without any new cars at all, and we managed just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite true, they had imported new cars from the USSR.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
I am unaware of any manufacturing requirements in the service of national security that would necessitate the commandeering of a Tesla factory at this time.
Maybe not having hundreds of thousands die of an avoidable illness?
We're on track for achieving half of the deaths we suffered during all of WWII in less than one year. Back then, all those people sacrificed their lives in an effort to fight off conquest by totalitarian enemies. Now, people are apparently sacrificing themselves at an even faster rate for the freedom not to wear a mask and to act like things are business as usual.
Right now, this must truly be the greatest generation, sacrificing so much for so little.
Re: (Score:3)
Those poor people who want to be as selfish as the wealthy and admired for it, need only follow the commands of the wealthy to become rich too. Unfortunately for them, lacking a pile of money to hide behind causes a different outcome.
Peace is good for business
-- Ferengi rule of acquisition # 35.
War is good for business
-- Ferengi rule of acquisition # 34.
A pandemic that makes dying a growth industry, creates jobs: Yay, pure capitalism. That makes wealthy people (whose wealth protects them from
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe not having hundreds of thousands die of an avoidable illness?
Which has what to do with a factory? Have you ever been in a car factory? It's not a rock concert. It's not some Trump rally. It's not a customer facing service industry spreading viruses rapidly though members of the public. If there's one job you want during a pandemic it's a factory worker, social distancing is pretty much implied in the industry.
That's before you COVID management plans are relatively simple to make and quite easy to enforce. I mean the down side is that I get a PCR test twice a week now
Re: (Score:3)
You're missing the point. In WW2 factories converted to making other machinery and resources were diverted. Cars weren't produced because they couldn't be. Everyone still had jobs and factories weren't going to be closed.
Today, no one really needs a new Tesla, just like everyone got by without new cars then, but Tesla wants to stay in business so it needs to make cars.
Not sure why Elon Musk's sniffles warrant an article. Who gives a shit? He's a cultist, he can suffer the consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
All those wartime jobs were funded solely by direct payments from the government.
If you're concerned about jobs now, just have the government pay everyone to sit at home and play sudoku. In the big picture, it would be less pointless than using huge amounts of natural resurces to build military equipment at taxpayer expense just so that it can all be blown up.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe not having hundreds of thousands die of an avoidable illness?
Who mods up this kind of bullshit exaggerated statements?
Current death toll in the United States is almost 250,000. Are you claiming that the deaths are going to suddenly stop next week, not reach a total of 300,000, and therefore, by your definition, not be "hundreds of thousands"?
Re: (Score:3)
250,000 is disputed.
Not by anybody with a firm grip on reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Who has to "justify having a job, [sic] while others loose [sic] theirs"? If one person "looses" their job, are we all to quit in protest? Is it the "right thing" for the country for there to be 100% unemployment and for literally every service to shutdown immediately because not everyone has work? Make total Trump-sense.
What's a "Biden Turd"? Trying to make that a thing? Pathetic.
Re: (Score:3)
I hope that he and you both die.
Me too, those people who say all this is just a simulation are nuts!
Re: (Score:2)
How do you get a 40% false negative from two positives tests and two negatives tests?
Re: no duh at all (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Hey look, someone is thinking. And it's not Elon Musk.
Seriously, the worship of this financing asshole really needs to stop. He's not a technical person, just as Steve Jobs wasn't.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
> He's not a technical person, just as Steve Jobs wasn't.
"He left in 1992 to study economics and physics at the University of Pennsylvania; he graduated in 1997 with a Bachelor of Science (BS) degree in economics from the Wharton School and a Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree in physics from the College of Arts and Sciences."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I don't know. Physics sound somewhat technical to me. He is also able to answer technical questions from audience. Either he has paid people in the audien
Re: (Score:2)
A BA degree in Physics is not a BS degree in Physics. It's a liberal arts degree.
It isn't quite a "physics for poets" degree, but it isn't at all a "tech" degree.
Re: (Score:3)
A BA degree in Physics is not a BS degree in Physics. It's a liberal arts degree.
It isn't quite a "physics for poets" degree, but it isn't at all a "tech" degree.
Sorry, that's not correct. At many (I'd guess most) universities, a BA in Physics is very much a tech degree. At TAMU, for instance, the curriculum for a BA and BS is almost identical until you hit senior year.
https://physics.tamu.edu/wp-co... [tamu.edu]
https://physics.tamu.edu/wp-co... [tamu.edu]
I don't see how anyone can look at that BA curriculum and conclude a BA "it isn't at all" a tech degree.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
lol @ Musk fanboys modding down factual statements. Guess you agree with him that servers on Microsoft® Windows® is a great idea!
No, the ISS is lit up at night by Sun servers and that is what is why it is more visible over central California than up in Redmond Washington because the servers there run only on MSIS systems not a true ISS compatible system like the servers from the Sun. Elon knows this but converting to MSIS might make the ISS more visible to a larger portion of the world, would it not?
No surprise that he had non statistical test results, the technician was most likely scared shitless of popping his sinus and breaking t
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent troll bro. BTW I'm pretty sure they had idiot partisans demonstrating against masks in 1918 too.
Re: (Score:2)
A few years, up to nearly their entire normal lifespan. Multiply average premature years by number of fatalities. You ass.
Re:Duh (Score:4, Funny)
Donald Trump is ostensibly... successful too.
Successful? If he had taken the money he got from his father and invested it in an index fund, he would have more money than he does now. I wouldn't call someone who's below average "successful" at business.
He's Positive (Score:5, Informative)
Was tested for covid four times today. Two tests came back negative, two came back positive. Same machine, same test, same nurse..."
The false positive rate on those tests is pretty low, but the false negative is pretty high. Chances are he's positive
Re: (Score:2)
The false positive rate on those tests is pretty low
Actually you have that totally backwards.
A BD spokesperson said the company is aware that "a small number of nursing homes in the U.S. are reporting multiple false positive results" from tests run on its machines
https://www.medtechdive.com/ne... [medtechdive.com]
CDC and Harvard say high negatives (Score:5, Insightful)
You point out a news article in which one particular company reportedly had some false positives, which is surprising because in lab tests their test didn't have false positives.
According to a Harvard study and the CDC, the most common type of tests has a false negative rate up around 20% and a false positive rate of about 3% which the false negatives increasing if the test isn't taken within the first few days of symptoms.
If the antibody level is low, that'll give a negative - there just isn't enough antibody to register.
Musk probably had a low level of antibodies on this particular day. Not zero, so one test picked up on it, but low enough that the other test didn't detect it.
If you have four smoke alarms in your house and two are going off, something is probably burning.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't you want it the other way around? A high false negative rate allows infectious people to go about in public under the false assurance that they are not sick, at great harm to the public. A high false positive rate OTOH only results in quarantining som
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Wouldn't you want it the other way around? A high false negative rate allows infectious people to go about in public under the false assurance that they are not sick, at great harm to the public. A high false positive rate OTOH only results in quarantining some people who aren't sick as if they are sick, and the harm is limited to those individuals. If you want to err on the side of safety, you want to tune your tests to have as close to a zero false negative rate as possible, even if that makes the false positive rate spike. Preventing one sick person from going about and potentially infecting others prevents more harm, than quarantining several people who are not sick.
I think it depends on which side you're on. As a health care professional and probably most people, a high false positive is preferable because of what you say. Then we have the unscrupulous business owners and others that just want people to get back to work and their normal lives no matter how many gets sick and dies ;)
I don't know how those tests work, but I can imagine that a false negative is easier to get than a false positive. I assume that the tests work by testing the presence of something in the b
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, in this case probably the other way around might be better. Particularly because a better test, the PCR test, is available. When a better test is available, it's handy to have a screening that can give one of two answers:
Negative: You don't have the disease
Potentially positive: The better test should be done
This test, like most, works by detecting something in the abnormal case (infected). So the actual possible results are:
A. Infection detected
B. Nothing detected
It detects active antibodies.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't you want it the other way around?
Yes you would. But people didn't make some trade off when designing the antigen test. The PCR test is significantly more difficult and time consuming. Which brings you to the applicability for basic screening. If you're in quarantine the answer is easy, you want the PCR test with its higher specificity. However if you're random sampling a population not in quarantine do you want an antigen test that gives results straight away and may instantly pick out people for quarantine potentially missing infected peo
Re: (Score:2)
You point out a news article in which one particular company reportedly had some false positives, which is surprising because in lab tests their test didn't have false positives.
Yes, the EXACT company in question - BD. If you'd read TFA, you'd see that Elon was talking about the BD test, and the article I linked to above is specific to that machine.
I mean how much more evidence do you want that the BD has unacceptably high false positives?
From the FDA:
Consider any positive result presumptive from tests using the BD SARS-CoV-2 Reagents for the BD Max System. Consider confirming with an alternate authorized test.
https://www.fda.gov/medical-de... [fda.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Well then that does make your comment a bit more applicable to this particular case, doesn't it. :)
Re: He's Positive (Score:2)
Well before I really understood a pregnancy test I thought the accuracy was in question. Once I understood the test, only a false negative is possible. You do not produce HCG unless you are pregnant. Likewise I think a test that sees the presence of a coronavirus would be enough to err on the side of caution. A false positive is only likely if he had contracted some other coronavirus. Best to play it safe.
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest you look into that again. There are a whole range of reasons why there might have elevated HCG levels in a womens urine and she is not actually pregnant. To get you started I suggest reading the following
https://www.healthline.com/health/pregnancy/false-positive-pregnancy-test
Re: He's Positive (Score:2)
You do realize the very article you linked had to reach pretty far to get you 7 reasons. For starter the first 3 ARE pregnancy related. Just because the the egg failed to implant properly does not mean you were without a fertilized egg. In fact only #6 and, possibly, #7 are a valid cause. If you are taking hcg as a therapy you are already under the care of a fertility doctor or OB and would have told you not to take an EPT. Misreading a faint line and thinking its just light in color? Come on, thats not ev
Re: He's Positive (Score:2)
Pretty Obvious (Score:2)
Smell test (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And he's taking NyQuil for his symptoms, not getting hooked up to a ventilator.
Well, his whole career revolves about being one of the smartest people in the world, which he undoubtedly has been up to this point.
Hopefully he wont end up with COVID brain fog. Only the tiniest touch of that side effect could knock him out of the top one-in-a-100-million level of intelligence and leadership ability, which would throw a big wrench in his goal to pioneer the first mission to Mars while sumultaneously saving the environment here on Earth.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, his whole career revolves about being one of the smartest people in the world, which he undoubtedly has been up to this point.
He's good at sales and convincing smart people to work for him.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude. Seriously. We're out of hospital beds in the country. Flattening the curve was so they could keep up.
We're a week or two away from bodies in the hallways and tents for triage in the midwest. And it's getting too goddamn cold for tents.
Re: He's Positive (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And you are delusional.
Re: (Score:3)
We can't stop a virus like this, people will still get it.
We absolutely can stop a virus. What you really mean is that it will cost you too much money if we do, and you'd rather let people die than make less money. And that's a perfectly valid (if appalling) position to hold, but at least have the balls to admit to it.
The claim was "15 days to flatten the curve". That wasn't to stop people from getting it, it was known that it would still spread through the population. It was known that vulnerable people would still die from it. The point was to spread out the hospitalizations so that people would not die needlessly for lack of hospital beds.
Which we did, but we reduced the restrictions too soon and too quickly under pressure from the lunatic fringe on the far right, and now cases are getting out of control again, to such an extent that they're having to reopen the emergency field hosp
How... (Score:3)
is this relevant to anything or even slightly newsworthy?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Lord Musk's life may be in danger! If he dies, we all die!
Re: (Score:3)
Lord Musk's life may be in danger! If he dies, we all die!
Dude, we are _all_ going to die! It usually happens around 80 years after you were born.
Re: (Score:3)
It's worth amplifying the fact that one of the most prominent COVID sceptics has now got it himself. Might make some people who believed him reconsider their decision to ignore it.
The long term effects could be devastating for someone like Musk who is constantly busy, but he will get the best healthcare money can buy and isn't in any of the major risk categories (as far as we know) so has a good chance of making a full recovery.
Re: (Score:2)
It's worth amplifying the fact that one of the most prominent COVID sceptics has now got it himself. Might make some people who believed him reconsider their decision to ignore it.
Trump already got it and nobody changed their mind as to weather it was real or not. Musk isn't even a rounding error compared to that.
Re: (Score:2)
Lord Musk's life may be in danger! If he dies, we all die!
We'll all die anyway.
If Musk dies we all die on Earth. Otherwise a handful will die on Mars instead.
Re: (Score:2)
That said, perhaps he just happened to be near the threshold of detectability today. Clearly a biological process like infection is not instantaneous and on the progression from negative to positive there must be an indeterminate point between.
Re: (Score:2)
The test sensitivity threshold example is mildly interesting, but this is still mostly reading as a celebrity gossip piece to me.
Re: (Score:2)
i was told (unscientifically) that the test i got "amplifies" whatever it finds
Then you didn't get the rapid test. It's PCR testing that amplifies the samples. It's extremely sensitive, as you don't have to have a high viral load at all to test positive.
But it also has an extremely low false positive test, because the RNA sequences have to actually be there to get a positive result.
Re: (Score:2)
perhaps he just happened to be near the threshold of detectability today.
If that was the case, he would not have had two positives.
Re: (Score:2)
It is, but probably not for you ...
Re: (Score:2)
is this relevant to anything or even slightly newsworthy?
It would be an issue if there were other cases at SpaceX, given that they are scheduled to launch astronauts to the ISS Sunday (postponed from Saturday due to weather).
Quantum physics (Score:2)
PCR is easy (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead of twittering like a president on crack, maybe he could just run the PCR test himself?
Itâ(TM)s easy .. takes about an hour. Then he can run a gel, confirm that he got specific amplification (aka a nice band, not a smear, of the expected length of DNA). Then, as additional proof he can excise that band from the gel and sequence it either conveniently on a USB nanopore sequencer (yes nanopore sequencers have an error rate but itâ(TM)s good enough since you donâ(TM)t need exact bp match) or Sanger sequence it. That would have a near zero false positive rate literally in the one in trillions.
The whole thing wonâ(TM)t take long, high school kids can do it.
Re:PCR is easy (Score:5, Interesting)
First, they're RNA viruses, so you need to do reverse transcription PCR. You could say "reverse transcription PCR is just one enzyme different from regular ol' PCR", and you'd be mostly right. Hence all the other requirements, including good primers and tuning of annealing temps, etc apply as well.
Second, RNA - even viral genome RNA - is inherently less stable than DNA. This is largely because RNAse enzymes are extremely ubiquitous and very very hardy. You can put human RNAses through an autoclave and they'll still chew up loose RNA.
Third, you have to hit the sweet spot on specificity. We've already observed several variants of Covid19 in the wild (including the famous example of the poor bastard in Las Vegas who has caught two of them at different times). You want to make sure you're loose enough to catch Covid19 variants without being so loose that you're catching standard conoronaviruses that bring so many standard seasonal colds around.
There's a reason why we're looking for more certified lab techs right now to handle these samples, and why we're looking for better bioinformaticians to set up the processing pipelines for the data that comes from running the PCR tests.
I'm writing this as someone who holds a PhD in biochemistry. I've done this. I recently had a recruiter reach out to me to see if I'd be willing to help with a local Covid19 diagnostic facility (I politely declined).
Re: PCR is easy (Score:3)
I use to do work in bioinformatics pipelines. Background in computer science and mathematics with experience in bioforensics. Now I teach rudimentary English in podunk China. I have a relatively easier life with a higher standard of living. It's funny... you never appreciate what you have until it's lost which while brain drain is an issue here in China, the impact in America is underestimated too... Many educated people without attachments simply want to understand more of the world than the average
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of twittering like a president on crack, maybe he could just run the PCR test himself?
There's a lot of dumb posts on this story, but I think you won the dumb award of the day for this comment.
Worried about accuracy? Don't, just do your own test following these easy steps that are normally done by trained lab technicians who still don't produce perfect results!
Re: (Score:2)
This test was requested by NASA because he wanted to attend a SpaceX launch. Now he can't go, and getting his own test might not be acceptable to NASA. They probably have rules and specific tests/contractors that they have validated.
Re: PCR is easy (Score:2)
Re:PCR is easy (Score:5, Informative)
The Danish health authorities recommended earlier this week that people stop using that specific test because it has close to a 50% error rate - making it really not much better than guessing.
Here is the study on the test (Score:4, Insightful)
It has a quite high false negative rate several days after the start of infection, when the virus load is low. Then the PCR test detects a lot more positive results than this. That should not be an issue though, since people are not really infectious with such a low load.
The number of positive samples in the study is really small though.
Wierd guy (Score:2)
Must is obviously an extremely smart guy, but some of the things he says are just bizarre. He seems to be prone to believe in conspiracy theories - have to wonder if it's related to his mental health issues (he's suggested he might be bipolar).
As an engineer/scientist why would you take 4 tests using the EXACT same machine/nurse/test when you obviously regard some component of this setup as faulty?!! OK, so he's finally gone for a different test (PCR vs antibody), but his conspiratorial view of the first 4
False positives vs false negatives (Score:3)
When taking my first Covid test I asked the doctor about the antigen test (which is what I was administered). Her explanation is similar to what I read here:
https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com]
https://www.aafp.org/family-ph... [aafp.org]
My understanding is that the antigen test has a high false negative rate because it isn't as sensitive. However, it is specific so it has a low false positive rate. That is, if it comes back positive, there is high probability that you are infected. If it comes back negative then it's a tossup.
If that's correct, and Musk has had two positives, it sounds very probable he has Covid. The negatives would then suggest that his antigen levels are near the sensitivity limit of the test.
Since he's rich he should just take the test hourly and build up some nice time-dependent statistics for us all.
"Something bogus going on" (Score:2)
What is with people assuming something sinister, conspiratorial, or otherwise suspicious when reality doesn't work out the way they anticipated. Thankfully, scientists don't proceed that way, and Elon is no scientist.
The rapid tests are notably unreliable, and that is why many states that have travel restrictions require quarantine or a negative PCR test, specifically, to travel there (I had to do this when I traveled to Vermont in September).
Er (Score:2)
We used to joke about people posting cat videos and what they had for lunch.
Now we gotta hear about Famous Guy's every sniffle?
Or is this supposed to be schadenfreude?
Not useless (Score:3)
I get that the reflex is to discard the antigen test due to its potential for it, say, a 50% false negative rate. But the rapid (antigen) tests have a low false positive rate.
So the way I see it, if you have a test that is 50% false negative and 1% false positive, but you can administer the test frequently and on a massive scale, then it's still incredibly useful. If you test 1 million people with it, such a test will let you identify and isolate half of the positive cases. That massively reduces the potential for spread. If you do that every few days, it even more useful.
The caveat there is that a 1% false positive rate means that of the million people, you will be unnecessarily isolating 10,000 every few days.
Re: Ahh to be a billionaire in america (Score:2)
There are multiple drive thru covid tests in my town. You drive up and get a test. Usually isnâ(TM)t even a line. I even know a bunch of homeless people who got the test. Tests are not in short supply in the USA. In some cases you have to either have a doctors note, show symptoms, or say you have been exposed. That third one is such an low easy bar that anyone can lie about it.
I agree that 4 in one day seems a bit excessive but I personally have had 2 and my wife works at the hospital and has one
Re: (Score:2)
Many people can't merely "drive up", some don't have a car and some can't afford the time. Meanwhile, Musk has a private nurse serve him, no doubt paid for my Tesla stock holders.
You friends with a "bunch of homeless people"?
Sure, just lie about it. What's not to love about this post?
Re: (Score:2)
There are multiple drive thru covid tests in my town. You drive up and get a test. Usually isnâ(TM)t even a line. I even know a bunch of homeless people who got the test. Tests are not in short supply in the USA. In some cases you have to either have a doctors note, show symptoms, or say you have been exposed. That third one is such an low easy bar that anyone can lie about it.
I agree that 4 in one day seems a bit excessive but I personally have had 2 and my wife works at the hospital and has one a week so has had dozens already.
Must vary widely. Took more than two hours start to finish after arrival at the testing location, when my relative's asthma doctor wanted to "rule it out" last week, in our not particularly big or small town, with not particularly high or low caseload.
And it was an organizational crap show. The location's website said they would do it in your car, but they eventually brought her inside from the full parking lot, after long delays, seemingly forgetting she was there, her having to go in anyway to remind the
Re: Really? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But having more DUI check points won't find greater numbers of offenders if they don't exist. The idea that infection rates are going up only because of testing is moronic.