4 ms·
This article [0] suggests that false negative results will not be as problematic if we manage to start screening on a population level. Inaccuracy of up to 15%
by blompa 7y ago
This article [0] suggests that false negative results will not be as problematic if we manage to start screening on a population level.
Inaccuracy of up to 15% could still keep the viral R0 under 1.0 (the critical value for eliminating an epidemic).
From the article:
> "False negative rates up to 15% could be tolerated if 80% comply with testing, and false positives can be almost arbitrarily high when a high fraction of the population is already effectively quarantined"
https://medium.com/@sten.linnarsson/to-stop-covid-19-test-everyone-373fd80eb03b https://medium.com/@sten.linnarsson/to-stop-covid-19-test-ev...
- dx034 7y agoShouldn't we optimize for a higher number of false positives? In the end, sending someone in quarantine for 2 weeks without them being infected is probably less dangerous than a false negative. So making tests overly sensitive would seem more applicable to me here.
- adventured 7y agoNo, we should optimize for a balance between the two. For example a 150,000 batch of rapid tests China recently sent to Czechia had 80% error rates. You don't want to be mass quarantining people because of such terrible testing supplies.
- mschuster91 7y agoThere's nothing inherently bad with mass quarantines.
- chimprich 7y agoIf you're quarantining a large number of medics then that's potentially serious and possibly more dangerous overall if your numbers are off.
- dx034 7y agoYou could administer two tests for those, I believe that's what's already done.