3 ms·
Right. The point is that due to testing issues (false negatives at 33%[1], not done properly, etc.) a positive test result after a negative result (when COVID s
by _wldu 7y ago
Right. The point is that due to testing issues (false negatives at 33%[1], not done properly, etc.) a positive test result after a negative result (when COVID symptoms are present) is not a sign of re-infection or relapse but an indicator of testing problems/issues.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/questions-about-accuracy-of-coronavirus-tests-sow-worry-11585836001?mod=e2tw https://www.wsj.com/articles/questions-about-accuracy-of-cor...
- icegreentea2 7y agoYeah, it's a huge problem. But I think its also very important to be precise about it. Careless phrasing about test kit performance can make people think that the problem is that our test kits "just need to be better". These test kits can have fantastic sensitivity when measured on a per sample basis, and absolutely awful clinical sensitivity at the same time. We're incredibly unlikely to get significantly better clinical sensitivity, especially for tests appropiate for population level screening over any reasonable time frame, so our strategies and plans are going to have to accommodate that.