This is the first time I've ever seen anything in the media other than on sites like this one that acknowledges false positives are an issue:
This is the first time I've ever seen anything in the media other than on sites like this one that acknowledges false positives are an issue:
Well-spotted! And the 8% is about right at the moment (I have 7%).
Patrick Vallance was saying today that the test and trace works better with a lower prevalence. 😮
It is low prevalence where the PCR fails due to the false positives having proportionately more of an influence!
Well-spotted!
It's my neck of the woods. 🙂
It appears that this press article was written by someone who has no understanding of False Positives and discussed by the people in charge as though only a minor issue.
Mike Yeadon, Carl Heneghan and others have clearly shown that a false positive of 1% means that the WHOLE testing system is flawed and therefore of no use.
Not a crack then just bloody stupid officials.
It appears that this press article was written by someone who has no understanding of False Positives
Yeah, I get that the writer and all the people quoted in it haven't got a bloody clue, but at least the guy quoted accepts false positives are a "thing".
I am going to write to him.
I need an "idiot's guide" - so many people seem to think the FPR means the number of positive results you get that are false, and therefore aren't too concerned, because they think an FPR of 1% would mean if you tested 100 people, 99 would be true positives and 1 would be false, which wouldn't be a big deal.
Could somebody point me in the direction of a suitable source (or create one) - level pitched at, say, a bright 5-year-old, then there's a chance that a council official might understand it!
