You can't prove that 99.92% figure. ONS can only hazard a guess.
Those are the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM values, yes. If every single positive was false (extraordinarily unlikely) in testing datasets, those are the lowest possible values for specificity. A more realistic range would use that as the lowest estimate and 100% as the highest
-
-
Worth noting that we know the sensitivity of these tests, and it is not 0%, so a specificity of 99.92% is actually impossible. Using the ONS numbers, and a sensitivity of 80% (low, but for the sake of argument) you get a specificity of ~99.9947%
-
Based on what gold standard?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
100% is ludicrous. Did you look at the evidence I sent you t sting the hypothesis that they were indeed all false positives?
-
100% has been found in some situations. Obviously, it's not possible to have exactly 100%, but the difference between 99.99999 and 100 is not really observable
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.
