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.
It's both sensitivity and specificity that determine false positive rate. Do you have a link to the prison study? I'd like to see what they did to confirm the positive test results.
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.
It's both sensitivity and specificity that determine false positive rate. Do you have a link to the prison study? I'd like to see what they did to confirm the positive test results.