Quote Originally Posted by Witton Park View Post
...
When you are talking about lower rates and higher rates, we haven't even come anywhere near the higher rates at which false positives become less significant than false negatives.
Again you seem to be talking about numbers, not actual significance. Deaths are more significant than having to stay at home for two weeks.

I agree with you that false positives with mass screening can result in more false positives than false negatives. I'm talking about the significance of these numbers. Personally I'd rather have 100 people stay at home for two weeks than 1 person die - does that seem reasonable?

And I think we all agree: we're against bad testing. Or rather we're against bad interpretation of tests (most medical tests are not 100%)

Quote Originally Posted by Witton Park View Post
...
The results of the testing have driven UK Government policy and world policy for 6 months.
The majority of testing previously has been on people with covid symptoms. In this sub-population the proportion of actual positives will be many-fold higher than in the general population.

Quote Originally Posted by Witton Park View Post
...
And the experts at SAGE and our Government act as if there is nothing to see here.
They are professional epidemiologists, used to interpreting results based on tests that are not 100% specific or sensitive.

Sorry to be harsh WP, but I wouldn't replace them with you just yet.