All of that being true, the observable - and demonstrable - false positive rate is roughly 1 per 2,000 true negatives, for a specificity of 99.95% or higher. Thus, you would only expect a PPV of 50% if the tested population had a prevalence of <0.1%
Sorry what? As I said, if we assume that the PCR test used by ONS is totally worthless and NEVER picks up any actual infections, because the rate of +ve results is ~8 per 10,000 the minimum POSSIBLE specificity is 99.92%
-
-
For the ONS data. You can't then extrapolate that to pillar 1 and pillar 2 testing over the summer which selected the population in a totally different way.
-
This is test specificity, not population prevalence. Applying the test specificity to a different prevalence is of course another point, but that's not what we were discussing
- 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.
