3 ms·
What's the stronger interpretation?
by treis 7y ago
What's the stronger interpretation?
- scrollaway 7y agoThey say they have not had false positives or false negatives. If that's not a lie, then that's not a lie. It does not mean the test is perfect, but it likely means the false result rate is low.
- treis 7y agoIm not sure what you think the stronger interpretation is?
- lelandbatey 7y agoI believe that Scrolloway is saying that the "strongest plausible interpretation" of this statement from the OP: > Our initial data show no false-positives and no false-negatives out of all specimens assayed. Is: > the false result rate [of the test] is low While you originally responded to the statement from the OP with: > [You're saying that] your test is perfect? Color me skeptical.
- dang 7y agoThat he was simply making a claim about what their initial data show. That is not a claim to perfection. Indeed, the whole point of saying 'initial' is to leave open the possibility that later data show something different.
- treis 7y agoPersonally, I don't think your interpretation is more charitable. If they think that their initial results possibly aren't correct then launching a business and claiming things like "Extremely Accurate" and "on par or better than other COVID-19 tests available" is fraudulent.
- johncolanduoni 7y agoTheir initial results may be correct, but it is unlikely they’ve had the chance to do enough of them to pin down a failure rate with any precision. They also claim that other available COVID-19 tests haven’t undergone enough verification to establish a solid error rate, and if that’s so “on par or better” on the evaluations that have been run is fair as well.