False positive is actually a really strong possibility. Trump has been tested at least once a day since March, or about 200 days.
If the chance of a false positive is 1%, then he should have tested positive at least twice by now (ie 2 false positives per 200 tests). But even the best tests for any virus is around 5-10%, and so he should have tested positive 10-20x by now
You're counting a positive as someone who isn't sick, doesn't have symptoms and isn't contagious. The US test is 32x more sensitive than even the test used as the standard in the research above. ie - it's complete horseshit.
If someone isn't sick, doesn't have symptoms and isn't contagious that's a false positive. The tests are too sensitive, they aren't even testing for sick or contagious people. By using your logic any test can be made to make anyone look positive.
False positive is actually a really strong possibility. Trump has been tested at least once a day since March, or about 200 days.
If the chance of a false positive is 1%, then he should have tested positive at least twice by now (ie 2 false positives per 200 tests). But even the best tests for any virus is around 5-10%, and so he should have tested positive 10-20x by now
As funny as it would be for him to tweet "Psych! LOL" tomorrow, I'm pretty sure they would have been through all of this before issuing a statement.
The odds of Trump and his wife getting false positive results at the same time are very small.
Disagree, the tests are faulty and inconsistent
less than 3% of positive PCR tests for covid were actually viable virus even at a 35 Ct.
97% could not be cultured/were not live. these people were not sick nor contagious.
this test is seriously over-sensitive.
fun fact: the 40Ct used in the US is 32X this sensitive.
https://twitter.com/boriquagato/status/1312016471372042246?s=20
Your own post says the false positive rate is 5-10%.
Using the worst case of 10%, the probability of two consecutive false positives is 0.1 * 0.1 = 0.01, or 1%.
So, you are disagreeing with YOURSELF.
You're counting a positive as someone who isn't sick, doesn't have symptoms and isn't contagious. The US test is 32x more sensitive than even the test used as the standard in the research above. ie - it's complete horseshit.
being overly sensitive doesnt equate to a false positive.
If someone isn't sick, doesn't have symptoms and isn't contagious that's a false positive. The tests are too sensitive, they aren't even testing for sick or contagious people. By using your logic any test can be made to make anyone look positive.
I doubt he would publicly announce a positive test w/o having ran it 2x or 3x considering the possibility of a false positive.
That’s not how statistics work
That is how they work. You can take multiple tests at one time to help identify false positives, but my description was correct
That's not true and he's almost certainly tested twice to reduce false positives for the low selectivity of the tests.
But not everyone is tested twice. And even if you are with enough of a population being tested you'll still come back with more false than true.