4 ms·
> If there is no way to detect false positives, then everyone is a false positive. That does not logically follow. Proof by contradiction: I have invented a
by afarrell 6y ago
> If there is no way to detect false positives, then everyone is a false positive.
That does not logically follow.
Proof by contradiction:
I have invented a dumb test for COVID-19: I look at a linkedin profile of someone, then I lick a block of salt. If my tongue tastes salty, then I conclude they have COVID-19. Trivially, my test has no way to check for false positives. So, if ran this test on someone, your statement implies that they would be a false positive and therefore they would definitely be free of COVID-19.
Unless you think my salty tongue has magical COVID-curing powers, then even a broken clock is still right twice a day.
- konjin 6y agoI've never seen anyone use false negatives to argue that we should accept false positives as reasonable. I guess there's a first time for everything. But to answer your question, yes, it would be statistically prudent to assume that everyone who passed your test is free of covid because the proportion of the general population who have it is less than 1% currently and your test produces a 100% positive rate. This is a specific case of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor%27s_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor%27s_fallacy