The microblog: 2022.02.09 17:05:59

2022.02.09 17:05:59 (1491443267917197315) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Halvar Flake (@halvarflake)" (1491425694538407940):

See, e.g., Policymakers are typically awed by the Power of Science and won't realize that these are garbage conclusions calculated from a garbage model of testing as a process blindly carried out every N days, for example with N=7 or N=14. @ct_bergstrom

2022.02.09 17:12:56 (1491445017571119104) from Daniel J. Bernstein:

When a case lasting 9 days is caught by a blind 14-day test, it has more than a 50% chance of being gone after another 5 days. Dress this up as a scientific report and it turns into government-policy decisions that mislead many people who were in fact tested for other reasons.


2022.01.08 23:10:46 (1479938658253766657) from "Carl T. Bergstrom (@CT_Bergstrom)":

3. The CDC did not provide much justification for the decision, but this is the sort of question one can address with computer models. We (@RS_McGee, @ay_zhou, @hewillia34, David Brazel, and I) have spent the past ten days working on this. Here is an early peek at our findings.

2022.02.09 15:56:08 (1491425692000854023) from "Halvar Flake (@halvarflake)":

Is there *any* scientific evidence behind the 5-day isolation period? I know of no single person that had Omikron that had a negative antigen test 5 days after testing positive; and all publications argue that you're infectious as long as your antigen is positive.

2022.02.09 15:56:09 (1491425694538407940) from "Halvar Flake (@halvarflake)", replying to "Halvar Flake (@halvarflake)" (1491425692000854023):

Why are the Swiss guidelines "5 days of isolation, 48h after cessation of symptoms", when obviously almost everybody is still infectious at that point?