Also, that blog doesn't correct for test characteristics properly. The Rogen-Gladen estimator is a better way to do this (although of course still imperfect - Bayesian inference much better if you've got the time)
Hilarious, but no it simply means that, again, the test specificity is very high and thus the false positive rate is extremely low as demonstrated mathematically above
-
-
Wishful thinking I'm afraid. I've presented you with evidence and you are reverting to stating what you believe to be true. I give up.
-
What an odd thing to say. As I've pointed out, the evidence you presented has nothing to do with the matter at hand, and the mathematics is very simple
- 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.