Quote Originally Posted by trampie09 View Post
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.
I have already explained what the base rate is, and how not knowing the base rate (which we don't) will effectively mean the "70% accuracy" figure is meaningless.

I have also explained how, in testing only people believed to have the infection, we will get a higher number of false negatives by the very nature of the testing parameters.

I have explained, in a few posts, why I am not giving too much credence to the 70% accuracy figure. You haven't explained (other than "a lot of people say so, but I can't tell you who") why you are putting a lot of credence into the 70% accuracy figure.