3 ms·
At the height of the "second wave" here, it was estimated that around 0.8% of the population was infected at the time. That means that if you were randomly test
by collyw 6y ago
At the height of the "second wave" here, it was estimated that around 0.8% of the population was infected at the time. That means that if you were randomly tested there was a greater chance that you would have a false positive than an actual infection.
- mrtksn 6y agoThat would be unfortunate to all those prevalence studies where the difference between 1.1 and % 0.3 means the world for them. They may never know if it was %0.5 or %0.8 of the people infected. On the other hand, it's a pretty good accuracy when you have a hospital full of sick people. Sure, you may end up recommending 14 days of staying at home every now and then when it's not necessary. See, the PCR test is just one of the clues that is used to diagnose people. Negative test with clearly Covid-19 symptoms and medical image of the lungs showing spots gets you a bed and treatment in the hospital. Positive test and no symptoms gets you stay at home and wear a mask recommendation.
- collyw 5y agoThat's why I said they were completely unsuitable for mass testing. I said nothing about them being used where covid is suspected.