Thanks WP, I hadn't read through a lot of the earlier posts on this thread.Originally Posted by Witton Park
And yes, that's a good point that I hadn't previously considered: When the actual infection rate is very low, the issue of false positives is not dwarfed so much by the effect of the false negatives. So in essence it might be a small red herring, but it's in a small pond.
I'm not sure where things will go with "sorting" it. There are obvious steps to improve specificity and sensitivity (eg, increasing the number of samples per person or even tests per person), but this would have a detrimental effect on the number of tests than can be carried out per day. So at the moment it's a bit of a balancing act.
Also, although we're envisaging a worst-case situation where all the false negatives immediately go and mingle in society, in fact many of these people will probably stay at home because they'll be ill. It's only asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic people who will return to their normal routine.
