Quote:
Originally Posted by 8rysh
I think your logic is sound, especially because the anti-gen tests DO have a high false-positive rate. I took one of those tests a couple months back and tested positive. A few days later I did the nose swab test and tested negative. This is just one anecdotal case, but I know others with similar experiences.
I'm wondering what the situation is going to be like if there are something like 100K positives. We're running at about 500-2000 cases per day, so antigen tests might pick up let's say 20K new cases (given they don't pick up everyone at every stage of infection), and even with a 2% false positive rate we'd have 100K false positives in the population of 5 million, for a total of 120K positives. So the false discovery rate would be 83% (in the sense that the a person who tests positive is still a 5-1 favourite to be negative).
I wonder what the political response would be to 100K positive tests.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8rysh
And if it's voluntary, why is it "selfish" to not take the test? Anyone calling this guy selfish in this scenario should be voluntarily getting tested right this very moment.
This is what I thought originally, but in their defence there are a few things to consider:
1) It's true that people in some other country could randomly get tested too and also cut off a potential chain of infections, but they would be the only person doing it, there's no matching action from other people. If the whole country is doing it then arguably there is a kind of social contract going on, i.e. I'm protected by other people testing and if I don't do it myself to protect them then I'm freeloading - "stiffing", the word Americans use for not tipping when it's not compulsory but expected seems to describe it.
2) My original position seems to have a major inconsistency in it:
Case A - I would trigger a positive test. Case B - I would not trigger a positive test.
In Case B it doesn't make much difference if I take it or not so let's look at Case A:
If I'm Case A but don't take the test, then obviously I don't tell people I'm Case A because I don't know myself.
If I'm Case A and I find that out, then I would tell everyone that I'm Case A rather than keeping it quiet. So why is it then better not to take the test? Wanting not to take the test seems to contradict the principle that information is of non-negative value.
3) Given the inconsistency in 2) people can be forgiven for being sceptical that I would react to a positve test the way I say I would.
BTW - the Prime Minister wants it to be "voluntary" in the sense that you can do the test or you can quarantine for 10 days
so I may well not have a choice about it anyway.