The Corona Virus

[sinkov]

[QUOTE=oldcolner;39645566]

I'm just glad that you became a fireman and didn't pursue a career in the health care sector. [/QUOTE

Me too 59

Sinkov is only looking at one side of this, there are also false negatives. For all tests the size of these rates dwarf false positives, so Sinkov needs to get his calculator out again

Here’s a Harvard Review

A large and growing number of laboratories and companies offer these tests, so accuracy may vary. At the date of this posting, more than 170 molecular tests, two antigen tests, and 37 antibody tests are available.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/...-2020081020734

What about accuracy?

Molecular Tests
False negatives — that is, a test that says you don’t have the virus when you actually do have the virus — may occur. The reported rate of false negatives is as low as 2% and as high as 37%.
The false positive rate — that is, how often the test says you have the virus when you actually do not — should be close to zero.
Most false-positive results are thought to be due to lab contamination or other problems with how the lab has performed the test, not limitations of the test itself.

Antigen
The reported rate of false negative results is as high as 50%, which is why antigen tests are not favored by the FDA as a single test for active infection. However, the FDA recently provided emergency use authorization for a more accurate antigen test. Because antigen testing is quicker, less expensive, and requires less complex technology to perform than molecular testing, some experts recommend repeated antigen testing as a reasonable strategy.
According to one test manufacturer, the false positive rate of antigen testing is near zero.

Antibody Tests
Having an antibody test too early can lead to false negative results. That’s because it takes a week or two after infection for your immune system to produce antibodies. The reported rate of false negatives is 20%. However, the range of false negatives is from 0% to 30% depending on the study and when in the course of infection the test is performed.

Thanks OC, you're confirming that the testing regime is an even bigger shambles than I'm saying it is.

[oldcolner]

[QUOTE=sinkov;39645611]

Thanks OC, you're confirming that the testing regime is an even bigger shambles than I'm saying it is.

Not really I’m saying the opposite to you, as there are more a Covid positive people than the figures suggest. You said the reverse.
it’s clear Covid testing is evolving and there are lots of players as the market is massive. Harvard don’t say it’s a shambles.
From a standing start to have any tests at all is a miracle.
You are a perfectionist, but what other technology has got off the ground in that time. The car is still evolving after 120 years the first electric cars started around the same time as petrol and may take over now.
A dose of realism says it’s not perfect, it’s just an indicator of spread or containment.

Given there are more false negatives than positives means quoted death rates will be lower than actual deaths too. Another off your pet concerns.