3 ms·

The key point is in “basically” its a metaphor. The test kits have a 40% false positive and alternative test kits which may test using an entirely different met

The key point is in “basically” its a metaphor. The test kits have a 40% false positive and alternative test kits which may test using an entirely different method may improve this. If you think a 40% false positive is good I urge you to actually read the who guidelines which both state this information and recommend testing people multiple times over two weeks. Source is who technical guidelines for testing on their site.

fspeech 7y ago
The key point is information (more precisely "mutual information"). A positive test gives you information that says you have it while a coin toss tells you nothing.
CobrastanJorji 7y ago
A 40% false positive may be acceptable for purposes of quarantining, so long as the false negative rate is low and the percentage of healthy people being tested is relatively low. It'd be a bit like a bloom filter of quarantine. Can this person skip quarantine? Test says okay. Can this other person leave? Test says no, but that's not solid evidence that they have the disease.
- kalium_xyz 7y ago
  It also has a large false negative, see the posts i replied to
  - CobrastanJorji 7y ago
    Oh, well in that case, yeah, I agree, that's not very useful.
claudeganon 7y ago
I’ve seen no evidence of this rate of false positives, only for false negatives (which is a problem across these tests for respiratory illnesses). What’s your source on the false positive rate?
- kalium_xyz 7y ago
  Dismiss my claim on false positives, dont have source on that rn.
  - martingoodson 7y ago
    Then please edit your original comment to correct this false information.
joe_the_user 7y ago
Source is who technical guidelines for testing on their site. I can't see any easy way to get that info from your description. Can you give an actual link?
- kalium_xyz 7y ago
  https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/technical-guidance https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2... Start reading here: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/330857/WHO-2019-nCoV-SurveillanceGuidance-2020.3-eng.pdf https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/330857/WHO-...
  - joe_the_user 7y ago
    I'm not seeing any references to the accuracy or inaccuracy of the test. They mention a severe case that's negative should be re-tested and that samples from the lower respiratory tract are better. That is the thing. This discussion started around whether the CDC should have created their test and the claim was the CDC's actions were a response to the inaccuracy of the WHO test. But part of the accuracy of any test is whether the virus in a location at all - if the virus is, say, only in a person's lungs, any test will have trouble using blood or spit.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

fspeech 7y ago

The key point is information (more precisely "mutual information"). A positive test gives you information that says you have it while a coin toss tells you nothing.

CobrastanJorji 7y ago

A 40% false positive may be acceptable for purposes of quarantining, so long as the false negative rate is low and the percentage of healthy people being tested is relatively low. It'd be a bit like a bloom filter of quarantine. Can this person skip quarantine? Test says okay. Can this other person leave? Test says no, but that's not solid evidence that they have the disease.

kalium_xyz 7y ago
It also has a large false negative, see the posts i replied to
- CobrastanJorji 7y ago
  Oh, well in that case, yeah, I agree, that's not very useful.

claudeganon 7y ago

I’ve seen no evidence of this rate of false positives, only for false negatives (which is a problem across these tests for respiratory illnesses). What’s your source on the false positive rate?

kalium_xyz 7y ago
Dismiss my claim on false positives, dont have source on that rn.
- martingoodson 7y ago
  Then please edit your original comment to correct this false information.

joe_the_user 7y ago

Source is who technical guidelines for testing on their site. I can't see any easy way to get that info from your description. Can you give an actual link?

kalium_xyz 7y ago
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/technical-guidance https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2... Start reading here: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/330857/WHO-2019-nCoV-SurveillanceGuidance-2020.3-eng.pdf https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/330857/WHO-...
- joe_the_user 7y ago
  I'm not seeing any references to the accuracy or inaccuracy of the test. They mention a severe case that's negative should be re-tested and that samples from the lower respiratory tract are better. That is the thing. This discussion started around whether the CDC should have created their test and the claim was the CDC's actions were a response to the inaccuracy of the WHO test. But part of the accuracy of any test is whether the virus in a location at all - if the virus is, say, only in a person's lungs, any test will have trouble using blood or spit.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]