Never Under Estimate A Grandpa Diver Shirt
As the other person said, really not sufficient to be determined. But in addition, it’s worth noting that even a drop in specificity from 99.5 to 98.5 has a huge statistical impact when you’re talking about such low prevalences. To speak with any real confidence in rates like this you need a very high specificity, and you need to be very confident in your specificity being accurate. In the absence of this, these results should be approached very cautiously. It’s even more fun when your prevalence is less than 1 – specificity, and you use it as a population screening instrument. You wouldn’t ordinarily do that; you’d use a gold-standard instrument with extraordinary specificity and very-well knew properties. Maybe. In fact, the Never Under Estimate A Grandpa Diver Shirt authors use that to adjust their estimated prevalence upwards from the number of positives they actually measured. The big thing is, we don’t have enough actual, verifiable information on the actual specificity (or sensitivity) of the test. I’m not comfortable drawing any conclusions based on that, and honestly, neither should the authors.
In the Santa Clara study (with the analysis reexamined by people who don’t suck), for example, that 98.5 specificity is enough to drop the confidence interval to actually include 0. This means, more or less, that you’re 95% confident that the true value falls within that range, and that range includes the possibility that 0% of the population has COVID. This doesn’t mean the study is necessarily wrong or bad, but it means you probably haven’t created something that is a valuable reflection of Never Under Estimate A Grandpa Diver Shirt the real world. Not having a genuinely accurate estimate of the sensitivity can skew the statistics wildly. Now their data and analyses are better, so their estimates are much better.
Nhận xét
Đăng nhận xét