The tests used in the US have 70% sensitivity... aka wrong 30% of the time, which is why hospitals have to run the test 3x before they really consider it ruled out
Seriously? Do you have that sensitivity info anywhere? I made my first post about how most of the positive tests were false positives. It'd be interesting to see actual sensitivity and specificity numbers.
Damn. With those numbers you could mathematically show just how bad the false positives/negatives are. I've never bought into the asymptomatic carriers thing.
There are definitely asymptomatic carriers given that one prison study showing over 95% of positives had no symptoms. False positives wouldn't explain that kind of percentage even with the low sensitivity test.
The tests used in the US have 70% sensitivity... aka wrong 30% of the time, which is why hospitals have to run the test 3x before they really consider it ruled out
Seriously? Do you have that sensitivity info anywhere? I made my first post about how most of the positive tests were false positives. It'd be interesting to see actual sensitivity and specificity numbers.
I don't have the information at hand, but I heard it directly from one of the lead infectious disease docs at a hospital.
Damn. With those numbers you could mathematically show just how bad the false positives/negatives are. I've never bought into the asymptomatic carriers thing.
There are definitely asymptomatic carriers given that one prison study showing over 95% of positives had no symptoms. False positives wouldn't explain that kind of percentage even with the low sensitivity test.
But what are they testing for antibodies or the virus itself? Everyone has antibodies in them. https://www.britannica.com/science/antibody