-
-
His top numbers also don't add up to 100%.
-
This is an error that was due to me using 4% from one prevalence study. I found another one that was at the State level with good statistical power, peer-reviewed and referenced by the CDC. It had prevalence at just under 3%. 3% or 4% doesn't change the conclusions materially.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It’s that way on purpose. I could have included the conditional probabilities related to process false positives from RT-PCR, but this is about framing a conversation.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.