4 ms·
>You can see from the figures released by various governments on testing rates vs cases that the false positive rate on tests is very low This sounds like circ
by trompetenaccoun 5y ago
>You can see from the figures released by various governments on testing rates vs cases that the false positive rate on tests is very low
This sounds like circular logic, or I'm misunderstanding what you mean. How were these "cases" confirmed? By testing? It would help if you cited the figures where the reliability of the tests can easily be seen.
Btw, my point was exactly that the issue isn't with the test itself but the interpretation thereof. Most people do not understand how they work and so they don't understand that even healthy people can test positive depending on the criteria we use to define "positive". But positive doesn't mean sick and it doesn't necessarily mean infectious either. By itself it doesn't mean anything.
- grey-area 5y agoTo take one example the uk gov reports testing around 1 million a day for an extended period with only 2-3k positive and there is no strong correlation between testing rates and cases. That indicates a very low false positive rate - a significant false positive rate would give a higher baseline and a stronger correlation.
- trompetenaccoun 5y agoOf course there is strong correlation between testing rates and cases. If you don't test clinically you can't know you have them. Tanzania for the longest time didn't do any testing at all and as a result officially had 0 cases. You've not supplied any data supporting your false positive hypothesis.
- grey-area 5y agohttps://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/ https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/