> The PCR test has an incredibly low false positive rate, below 1%. Do you have a source, offhand? The problem with asserting any sort of false positive rate i

> The PCR test has an incredibly low false positive rate, below 1%. Do you have a source, offhand? The problem with asserting any sort of false positive rate is that you need to benchmark against a source of truth. What source of truth are we talking about? A second PCR test? Clinical diagnosis? If we benchmark against the clinical diagnosis, for example, then clearly this is a huge false positive rate -- most of the patients are clinically diagnosed as negative, which is all this article is saying. Benchmarking against a second test doesn't really tell us much if trace signals are being amplified, or if the laboratory is in any way compromised because of the urgency of the testing.