News Focus
News Focus
Post# of 257553
Next 10
Followers 69
Posts 4516
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 12/13/2009

Re: biocqr post# 231115

Saturday, 04/18/2020 7:43:20 PM

Saturday, April 18, 2020 7:43:20 PM

Post# of 257553
Again I would caution conclusion of that result. They tested 3,330 with 50 positive, resulting 1.5%. This wasn’t random sample testing. To get that 50-80 fold numbers they depended on double adjustments of both sensitivity/specificity and population tested vs population from the county.

Test kit estimate “sensitivity of 80.3% (95 CI 72.1-87.0%) and specificity of 99.5% (95 CI 98.3-99.9%)”, but they gave strong disclaimer and warning about their final conclusion could be substantially off, due to test kit actual sensitivity/specificity and population selection bias I highlighted:

https://twitter.com/jq1234t/status/1251198958195654658?s=21

https://twitter.com/jq1234t/status/1251207334002638858?s=21

Their population adjustment was even more questionable.

Discover What Traders Are Watching

Explore small cap ideas before they hit the headlines.

Join Today