So, here's our table. We've got positive and negative results for our test compared with the truth Here, I've plugged in the numbers for a prevalence of 5% (i.e. 5% of people have had COVID-19)pic.twitter.com/LTc08r14p7
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
So, here's our table. We've got positive and negative results for our test compared with the truth Here, I've plugged in the numbers for a prevalence of 5% (i.e. 5% of people have had COVID-19)pic.twitter.com/LTc08r14p7
Now, we know that sensitivity is 80.9% and specificity is 98.9%. Plugging those in, we get this tablepic.twitter.com/ahZXTRpx2D
From this, we can work out the Positive Predictive Value (PPV) = likelihood of a positive test having actually had COVID-19 Negative Predictive Value (NPV) likelihood of a negative test actually not having had COVID-19
Here's what that looks like for a population prevalence of 5% Of the people who test positive, only 79% actually have the disease. Of the negatives, 99% have never had itpic.twitter.com/45MF4mDplm
But if we vary the prevalence, the PPV and NPV change a lot! At 1%, PPV = 43% NPV = 100% At 20%, PPV = 95% NPV = 95%pic.twitter.com/VjEm7YGyPS
What this means is that if you run the test in a population where very few people who've had the disease, MOST of your positive tests will be false positives This means that your prevalence estimate might be double the true one (or more)
If instead you run the test in a population where many people have had COVID-19, you'll underestimate the prevalence by at least 10% Both of these aren't great scenarios
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.