So what's the true negative rate i.e. the chance that someone who DOESN'T get stopped DOES have drugs?
-
-
But...what if the dogs aren't right that much? What if, as many people argue, the dogs are wrong 50% of the time? Or 75%?
Show this thread -
Here's where it gets really problematic. Here's the table where the dogs are right 80% of the timepic.twitter.com/6IB2Jpy4KW
Show this thread -
And here are the tables for 50% and 25% - both of which have been observed in real lifepic.twitter.com/yOYKVtyggW
Show this thread -
As you can see, the predictive power goes down significantly. Even with 50% accuracy, only 1 in 5 of the people stopped will actually have drugs on themhttps://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1004530137872809984 …
Show this thread -
This is why when you are testing for an uncommon outcome, your test has to be REALLY GOOD Drug sniffing dogs, even by the best estimates, are not
Show this thread -
This goes doubly for screening large numbers of people. If you screen, say, everyone who goes into a music festival, you will likely catch few offenders but identify many totally innocent people
Show this thread -
So what should we do to prevent harm from drugs if we know sniffer dogs are ineffective? Tons of things. I'll make another thread about these options if anyone's interested
Show this thread -
Also P.S. I got a few pieces of terminology wrong - in particular, the first tweet should read "diagnostic test" not "intervention" - and also the "25% table" is slightly misleading as I've assumed that the negative predictive power is still 75% rather than 25%
Show this thread -
P.P.S TL:DR version is that drug sniffer dogs, even when they get it right 80% of the time, still make more mistakes than "hits" when not that many people have drugs
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.