If an antibody test has a 99% sensitivity and specificity that sounds awesome, but if the prevalence of covid is 2% that means 1/3 of positive antibody tests are false positive. If the test is negative there is a < 1% the test is wrong. So positive results unreliable.
-
-
I am pretty sure that if the sensitivity and specificity are known you can figure out the infection rate from the proportion of tests that came out positive.
-
That's if it's even 0.99
some are out of this world - Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Mathsplained mansplained. What a red letter day!
- Show replies
-
-
-
always has to be a man in the mentions.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Well, aktually ...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Are you kidding me?
-
Crucial clarification... unclear how many millions would have died if we didn’t have someone to correct these mistakes.pic.twitter.com/6a4W0mLhoG
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
"Well actually" the discrepancy you're taking the time to point out is far less than the uncertainty built into any false positive/false negative estimates. So that result isn't really any better.
-
True. But is is a fuller explanation.
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.