For example - if you tested everyone in the world for Smallpox (now eradicated and thus impossible to actually have) with a test 99.999999% specific would would still get 7000 positive results.
(In this case, taking a minimum value is better for your argument. The true test specificity is likely to be ~99.99% or higher, which would make your original point wrong unless the prevalence was virtually 0%)
-
-
With a specificity of 99.95% then you would expect all of the summer ONS 'cases' to be false positive. Either that or you assume 100% specificity with R-value rock steady at 1.0000. Here is evidence so far that summer COVID was minimal -https://logicinthetimeofcovid.com/2020/09/07/waiting-for-zero/ …
-
That is incorrect. With a % positive of 0.5% (the average over summer). and a specificity of 99.95% you would expect that roughly one in 10 cases detected would be a false positive, so around 10% As I've noted, the specificity is probably higher, but that's the lower bound

- Show replies
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.