Did it say the test was 70% sensitive, or 70% specific?
Printable View
See you are dull. You cannot grasp that I don't give a toss about your 'renowned' critical thinking and that I will not debate it with you.
Apply your critical thinking to that statement
Pass, I've just gone back to look for you and that Yankee site is now asking me to log on, it originally allowed me to see it but not now (I wonder if they want money or summit, blydi capitalists), mathematical equations all over the place, deep stuff.
It seems like they are not impressed with a 2 out of 3 ratio, because of the accuracy range which seemed to be averaged out at 70, I personally think it's pathetic effort for a test to have such low accuracy, a little like weathermen, you know if you say the weather will be the same tomorrow as it is today you would be right more often than the weather forecasters (well they used to say that used to be the case, don't think anything has changed).
Yes, but my question shows it isn't as clear cut as a weather person getting the weather wrong 70% of the time. It's also lacking an article from the science community, as far as I can tell.
Basically saying a test result is x% accurate is meaningless in my opinion.
You need to know if it is specific or sensitive. The other thing that is missing here is the base rate - which is what we don't know with covid. The base rate will be different dependent on if you are testing only symptomatic or sick people, or if you are testing the whole population. If you are only testing people who you believe have it, then the false negative rate will be higher (in other words, the specificity of the test becomes skewed towards the 70% figure you are quoting).
If you are testing people who most likely don't have it, then you have more potential of false positive tests. However, there is no way of knowing that a test subject definitely doesn't have the virus.
I put very little weight on the 70% accuracy figures based on the above, and also on the lack of citation from the science community.
I've told you how to find it and I can't get in now, I only wanted to find references to the 70% thing for you which I did, I only glanced at the Wall Street thing and it was all algebra, logarithms, equations etc, I don't know but I would be surprised if it did not meet your criteria.
I seen an expert on TV saying something along the lines of if somebody has the full blown symptoms he would be 90% certain that person has it yet the test we were using was only 70% accurate, and he apparently is an expert and he was talking about the 70% success rate or should that be ,30% failure rate.
I have found it. The table is based on 70% sensitivity and 95% specifity. It doesn't take into account the unknown base rates, and it is based on a report from China that tests could have a 70% sensitivity rate.
The article is also a month old, but that is not my issue with the 70% figure. My issue is that, without knowing the base rate of the sub population being tested, and without considering there will be more false negatives if tests are only carried out on a population based on the assumption that the subject is likely to have covid at the time of testing.
As I said earlier, the 70% accuracy is not relevant unless we know what the base rate is. And, with this virus, we won't know the base rate. Ergo, I am not putting any value on the 70% accuracy. Of course, if you can provide links that show the specificity and sensitivity of the various tests, based on different populations and with a known base rate, I am open minded enough to have my mind changed.
I have shown why I am skeptical about the 70% figure, can you explain why you are certain the figure is correct?
I've been looking but I still cannot find any information on how one volunteers to be one of the 'army' of people to monitor this tracing app. No info on it what so ever!
Can anyone steer me in the right direction?
Is there a Welsh government hotline or something?
No no butt, you have showed Porthcawl.
What is this base rate you refer too ?
What is specificty and sensitivity you refer too ?
If you are not putting a value on anything then your posts are meaningless, if you have no idea if the accuracy of the tests are very close to the 70% figure often routinely quoted, or if they are higher or lower, then you going on about the testing accuracy is pointless.
I'm not saying the figure is or isn't correct but it seems to be widely accepted, you dispute it yet you don't say if in your view the figure should be higher or lower.