This (I think?). I am not a doctor or biologist. Anyone who knows more than me, which is not a high bar, please step in and correct me. Based on quick amateur

This (I think?). I am not a doctor or biologist. Anyone who knows more than me, which is not a high bar, please step in and correct me. Based on quick amateur reading of the paper, the rate of crude positives (1.5%) might be entirely real cases, entirely false positives, or anywhere in between. The real rate of infection could be anywhere from 0% to 5%. The authors report around 3,500 real tests and 30 known-negative tests. We need 30,000 real data points (or 300 known-negative tests) to conclude anything. (Right?) I am not criticizing the experts who conducted the study. Thank you for doing the study. I'm only trying to understand what the study reveals. It may reveal that the group needs 10x more funding right away.