3 ms·
Before you advocate 'surveillance testing', you should provide a link to hard data showing what the false-positive rate is. Not assurances of how accurate it m
by lurquer 7y ago
Before you advocate 'surveillance testing', you should provide a link to hard data showing what the false-positive rate is.
Not assurances of how accurate it might be...
I want a definitive false-positive rate.
Until we have that, surveillance testing may be more harmful than beneficial.
- claudeganon 7y agoThat’s insanity. The WHO themselves insisted that aggressive surveillance testing is necessary to formulate an adequate response and it’s what Korea and Singapore are doing right now. There have been no reports of widespread false positives, only false negatives, and even in that case, testing was ramped up because it’s better to catch some than none.
- lurquer 7y agoSigh... I wrote: "Not assurances of how accurate it might be..." Yet, that's exactly what you responded with... Once again, what is the false positive rate? If you don't know, so be it. But, if its 5% or so (like many similar viral tests), you may wish to give some thought as to what you are going to do with the tens of thousands of healthy 'false positives' your proposed surveillance testing will uncover.