3 ms·

Can you elaborate?

• heyitsguay 6y ago
  Since active covid cases are still pretty rare day-to-day at a population level, "Close to 100% accuracy" is ambiguous, and could be very good or basically useless. For example, if 3% of the people moving through that airport actually have coronavirus, a detector that just reads negative for everything would have 97% accuracy - but a 100% false negative rate.
  • dynamite-ready 6y ago
    Like, the reported stats are misleading? I get your point. Though this research has been going on for a while - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52686660 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52686660 - Would be helpful if the report did provide more details on the source for that figure.
    • heyitsguay 6y ago
      I wouldn't even say the reported stats are misleading, just that "accuracy" in a headline is too vague to ascertain performance when you're trying to detect (relatively) rare events.