3 ms·
What's wrong with 10% of them being false positives? (also I think it's 9%)
by klmadfejno 6y ago
What's wrong with 10% of them being false positives? (also I think it's 9%)
- binarymax 6y agoBecause with a false positive antibody test then you can still contract and be a carrier. This is a problem for the immunity passport proposals (which I think are a terrible idea anyway, but that’s beside the point)
- misun78 6y agoWhy do you think immunity passports are a terrible idea? What else works better barring a long term vaccine?
- klmadfejno 6y agoIf my job prospects are shut down because I don't have immunity, I'm going to try and get infected.
- Marsymars 6y agoThis is especially bad if there's no government-sanctioned method for infection - then you end up with a mess of asymptomatic people trying to get infected while they're already infectious.
- MertsA 6y agoIt doesn't have to be perfect. If 90% of the at risk population where it's allowed to spread has immunity, then that's high enough that the virus would logarithmically decay. That's often referred to as "herd immunity". So long as on average cases result in less than one additional case you're fine. 1000 cases with an uninhibited net reproductive rate of 4 with a population that's 90% immune would result in the next "generation" having 400, then 160, then 64, then 26.... You get the point.
- service_bus 6y agoThe person you are responding to is suggesting a scenario like the movie 'contagion' where people marked clean are given a wristband or pass of some kind. In reality testing can be used as an effective tool regardless of whether or not people can be 'certified'