> The current tests have a 0% false positive rate. Need a citation on this. In order to even make a strong statement about the false positive rate you need to

> The current tests have a 0% false positive rate. Need a citation on this. In order to even make a strong statement about the false positive rate you need to have some sort of alternate confirmation mechanism, usually clinical diagnosis or another more comprehensive test. That kind of work takes time and we haven't gotten to the point where we know this. False positives in the test are one possible reason for the resurgence in Singapore; the initial screenings were overreporting the number of cases leading to a false sense of security, followed by a surge in real cases as the spread continued. EDIT: A quick look at some of the tests available indicate that currently providers are not publishing specificity/sensitivity numbers in general under the accelerated release guidelines. One I did find was biomedomics test [1], which claims "The overall testing sensitivity was 88.66% and specificity was 90.63%", so ~10% of negative cases will show as positive. [1] https://www.biomedomics.com/products/infectious-disease/covid-19-rt/ https://www.biomedomics.com/products/infectious-disease/covi...