So far, all well and good. Lots of people correctly identified, not that many missed. Very few "false negatives" But wait, there's more
-
-
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.