Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins
The issue with any test is that it cannot serve two masters. Tests are evaluated by their sensitivity and specificity.
The more sensitive you make a test, you make it less likely to miss someone (false negative), but you run the risk of identifying people as having a disease when they really don't (false positive). With testing sensitivity, you want to identify the true positives.
The more specific a test, the less likely you are to misidentify someone as having a disease when they don't (false positive), but if the test is too specific, you might miss people who have the disease (false negative).
It helps to think of them like a guard dog. An overly sensitive test will be like a dog that barks at every sound, no matter how minor. Will they identify an intruder this way? Yes, but they will also bark at a lot of things that aren't. An overly specific test will be like a dog that doesn't bark until they see someone with a gun in your bedroom. Will the dog not wake you up multiple times per night? Yes. But they also won't alarm you until it is too late.
|
Yep.
I think we got it all wrong with using the PCR test to find asymptomatic spread or potential of in that it will throw alot of "positives" that aren't really positives. It just wasn't really designed as a true public health tool.
Plus with this whole thing, the biggest issue we're having is time or lack there of. We need to identify those who are actually transmitting or shedding virus, not really those who have slight positives.