4 ms·
He did say that you tune them to minimize false negatives. That's a bit hand-wavy for something that appears to be the core issue with "test early, test often"
by Goronmon 2y ago
He did say that you tune them to minimize false negatives.
That's a bit hand-wavy for something that appears to be the core issue with "test early, test often", isn't it?
- mattmaroon 2y agoWell, it would seem hand-wavy to whichever scientists are tasked with improving it I'm sure! There's probably a lot of work involved. But it's pretty standard for new tests. The first ones are never the most reliable. Obviously the rate of false positives and expense of follow-up testing determine whether it's overall a good idea, but it probably will start out with a positive ROI that becomes a highly positive ROI pretty fast. I mean, yes, some people are going to freak out no matter how many times their doctor tells them about false negatives before they get the test. But overall this will save a lot of lives and as the test improves, a lot of money too.