Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CDC Says Possibly 'Less Than Half' Of Positive Antibody Tests Are Correct
forbes ^ | Updated May 26, 2020, 07:56pm EDT | Tommy BeerForbes Staff

Posted on 05/28/2020 4:19:54 AM PDT by RaceBannon

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 last
To: lepton
If the test yields a false positive 5% of the time, in a population with 5% actual frequency, then it would mean that half of the folks testing positive wouldn’t actually have the disease.

I completely understand that. Have you ever looked at the specs for electrical meters or o-scope displays? The uncertainty is typically expressed as "so many percent of display value PLUS so many percent of full scale."

That pretty much holds with these tests. At low probability levels, the potential error rate ("offset") is high, as the population's positivity rises, the precision of the test increases.

On you second point (extra post): I agree that positives of people in the early stages of infection should be interpreted differently than those of other positives in presuming immunity. But, as the ratio of recoveries compared to infected rise, that becomes less of a consideration. It was a big factor 45 to 60 days ago.

61 posted on 05/30/2020 2:33:42 PM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

In the real world of In Vitro Diagnostic Kits and other text kits, a 50% false positive rate would have a rather difficult time being approved by the FDA.


62 posted on 05/30/2020 6:45:19 PM PDT by Toirdhealbheach Beucail (Am fear nach gheibh na h-airm 'n am na sith, cha bith iad aige 'nam a chogaidh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Toirdhealbheach Beucail

One would hope.

But accelerated approvals, or at least relaxed trial criteria, seem to be the order of the day. And I note that there are examples of hopeful but uncertain therapies today. Take, for example, the annual flu shot.

Regardless, no one is telling us what the accuracy or specificity of the kits used for measurement is... we just get numbers, without an estimate of their range of uncertainty.

Hopefully, that will improve soon.


63 posted on 05/30/2020 6:50:09 PM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
I recently had the antibody test and the results came up negative. My nephew was quite ill with the virus for about two weeks but yet his live in fiance never got sick and she recently tested negative for the antibodies when all logic says she should have contracted the virus.

In the 2017-18 epidemic, there were 48.8 million cases but yet over 280 million people never caught it, including me, despite no shut downs, no social distancing and no masks......

So my humble opinion is that you are either going to catch it or you won't and any actions you make take to try and protect yourself from contracting it are just a useless waste of time........

64 posted on 06/06/2020 9:28:56 AM PDT by Hot Tabasco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson