News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Potential false-positive rate among the 'asymptomatic inf... by nn35 on Friday March 13, 2020 @10:48AM (#22567651)
Are you confused or am I misreading your comment? The result is that 80% of positives are false positives, not that 80% of all tests are false positives. (IMO it is still fishy.)
Re:Potential false-positive rate among the 'asymptomatic inf... by anaphor on Friday March 13, 2020 @10:56AM (#22567725)
I wasn't implying that 80% of all tests were false positives. I'm talking about P(You don't have coronavirus | You test positive). 80% is far beyond what would be normal for these types of medical diagnostic tests. I would expect something like 1% or less for a really good test, and around 10% for a bad one, but I don't know if the test the Chinese were using is really bad in some way, which is why I'm asking for clarification there.
Re:Potential false-positive rate among the 'asymptomatic inf... by rossdavidh on Friday March 13, 2020 @11:00AM (#22567761)
80%...in asymptomatic cases. So if most of the people who get tested DID show symptoms, the false positive rate generally could be far worse.

But, it would suggest downsides to more general testing.

Re:Potential false-positive rate among the 'asymptomatic inf... by dnautics on Friday March 13, 2020 @11:50AM (#22568208)
But if your diagnostic criteria is showing symptoms later, then you are ejecting the entire population of carriers who might be, say, teeming with the virus but showing zero symptoms, for perhaps a genetic or "dumb luck" reason.