So, that's the lower limit of the specificity, and you're also assuming that there is a place in the world that is testing people with a population prevalence of 0.09%. Possible, but hilariously silly calculus
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
Also, hilariously, you're not even using the lower limit there but instead a number a bit lower. In practice, the rate of false positives is pretty negligible anywhere in the world
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @AndySwan @enjoyingthewind
You're right, it's mathematically possible, apologies. It is incredibly unlikely (you're still using a number lower than the LOWEST POSSIBLE specificity) but in a situation that ignores all epidemiology it is possible that a modest proportion of positives could be false
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
More reasonable: Specificity 99.995% Prevalence 1% 100,000 tests 5 FP 1000 TP FP<.5%
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Using the evidence from Australia: Specificity: 99.9997% Prevalence (in those tested): 0.1% 200,000 tests FP: 1 TP: 200 <1%FP
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @AndySwan @enjoyingthewind
It differs from place to place. Most tests above 30 are rerun no matter where you are tho
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
The UK ONS found similar numbers for specificity tho, so it's clear from international evidence that these figures are in practice correct
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.