https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/04/19/fatal-flaw...
Shouldn't we use this simply because the false positive of 2%-1% is lower than those tests we are using for making policies right now.
Also this article has one weird thing I picked up on and maybe I someone can verify it but they've said 100 people died in Santa Clara country but I could find 73 possible covid-19 deaths. All of those haven't been verified. This is based on April 17th numbers
Let's say the false-negative rate is 0% and the false-positive rate is 2%. For sake of argument, let's say that 0.05% actually have Covid. If you tested 10000, 5 people have it in reality but your testing would show that 205 people tested positive.
This is better than the false positive of other tests like the normal tests with a 10-15% false positive rate. https://abc7news.com/coronavirus-test-free-testing-update-ac...
Also this
We did learn from the study that the population rate isn't outrageously high, like 30%, but I'm not sure what more we can confidently say beyond that.
So these test a more accurate than either of the more accurate test to diagnose Covid-19 from what I've found
https://twitter.com/foxjust/status/1251270848075440133/photo...
If the bar for retraction of a paper is that people are misinterpreting it, then most of the studies on masks should be retracted as well.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v...
https://twitter.com/foxjust/status/1251270848075440133/photo...