3 ms·

I think given the 85 to 99% probability[1] that any particular person hasn't been infected you can more or less trust a negative result. The flip is positive re

I think given the 85 to 99% probability[1] that any particular person hasn't been infected you can more or less trust a negative result. The flip is positive results are likely to be false positives. [1] Current preponderance of the evidence gives those numbers. Unless the person was part of an outbreak cluster in a communal living situation like prisons, cruse ships, or nursing homes. Or a work place like a big open office, meat packing plant, etc.

taeric 6y ago
That is my point, I know how those numbers land. Such that with those numbers, I agree I should trust it. But this paper seems to paint that as not the percentage. With the seemingly crazy story regarding blood type recently, it definitely has me doubting some. (For a little more context, I and my entire family of six had fevers near the start of this. With me having a very hard time breathing. Was worse than when I had walking pneumonia. Like I said, I ticked the ILI number, they even sent me for an x-ray. Was before we acknowledge community spread here in Seattle, though.) Don't get me wrong. Not doing anything "risky". Nor do I want to hurry a reopening. The narrative around all of this is hard to swallow, though.