RATs have a much lower accuracy than PCR tests, but are still vital detection tools thanks to their accessibility. “Most are probably around a 75% sensitivity,” said Dr Michael Lydeamore, an infectious disease modeller at Monash University. “Meaning if you have Covid … you have a 75% chance of testing positive. Compare that to PCRs, which are about 99%. So there’s a big gap there.”
A 25% false negative rate? What a fucking worthless test.
>RATs have a much lower accuracy than PCR tests, but are still vital detection tools thanks to their accessibility.
>“Most are probably around a 75% sensitivity,” said Dr Michael Lydeamore, an infectious disease modeller at Monash University. “Meaning if you have Covid … you have a 75% chance of testing positive. Compare that to PCRs, which are about 99%. So there’s a big gap there.”
A 25% false negative rate? What a fucking worthless test.
Maybe as a surveillance tool you could understand disease trends for 10,000 random samples if it simply sucked and was not a weapon of mind control.
For an individual or medical diagnosis? Worse than worthless.
Maybe as a surveillance tool you could understand disease trends for 10,000 random samples if it simply sucked and was not a weapon of mind control.
For an individual or medical diagnosis? Worse than worthless.
(post is archived)