4 ms·
This is wrong. Too false positive and people will start ignoring the results. Thats what happened in the current climate. You need consistently good days otherw
by remote_phone 6y ago
This is wrong. Too false positive and people will start ignoring the results. Thats what happened in the current climate. You need consistently good days otherwise over the long haul people will distrust and ultimately not follow.
- mlyle 6y agoYou mean false positives? This assay doesn't false positive that much-- specificity is estimated to be 96-97%.
- kbelder 6y agoThat's a false positive every day in a normal-sized school.
- remote_phone 6y agoYes. And then it’s not just one kid. It’s the entire class plus teacher. It would be a fire drill per day. And then they would need to take the tests every day until they are cleared. It’s not feasible.
- mlyle 6y agoIt isn't quite that bad, because the tests aren't independent. You end up with a few people who are disproportionately likely to test positive and can adjust appropriately your testing strategy for them. And even if that wasn't the case-- you keep a few people home (them + close contacts) until followup molecular testing returns a negative. Yes, it's a big hassle-- you're "falsely" forcing 10% of the student body into remote learning, but probably better than remaining closed.
- remote_phone 6y agoYes thank you I corrected.