I think an article about false positive rates, and signal to noise, is indeed interesting. Discussing how most of the tests we have float around 1%-2%, and lean

I think an article about false positive rates, and signal to noise, is indeed interesting. Discussing how most of the tests we have float around 1%-2%, and leaning on that to argue that reopening may be safe when tests are steady around those levels, may actually be worthwhile. Unfortunately, the article doesn't do that. Instead, it: - Calls into question the legitimacy of coronavirus death impact, consulting a flat death without considering the externalities of reduced risks that lockdowns bring about. - Links to the article suggests healthy people shouldn't be wearing masks, even though many people are contagious well before showing symptoms. - Calls into question Spain's second wave as false, the result of over-testing, even though [it isn't, the case count is rising far above any expected false-positive rate, and people are dying there](https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/spain/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/spain/). - Puts forth the sentiment: "The idea that [lockdowns] create other, bigger problems simply didn’t occur to [Public Health England] — or worse, it did but they didn’t care." If the article addressed this head-on and used that metric to determine which lockdowns might be necessary, that'd be one thing. These conclusions, however, are a bit inexcusable.