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