Jihoesk tests can be fully falench alarm. Percent nothing

sla are different, but the result is the same. The five percent increase in the population of others did not differ from the large study. In both cases, the inaccuracy of the test is known and the inaccuracy of the missteps is not possible to drive in t. The following statistical analysis will be followed.

Pt percent. tyi tenths of a percent. Very different differences, which can describe the same fact, ie that the antibodies against the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 have a small fraction of them.

After the results come to light at first glance, they are deceptive. In fact, both results were quite practical and practically tot. How is it mon? The explanation is simple: the tests used are not as accurate as we would think.

The number of falench alarms (falen positive tests) is at one of the pouitch test and ten percent. So if we tested a thousand samples taken in 2015, about a hundred of them would have a positive result. On the back of a virus that didn’t exist at the time.

Pt percent, plus minus pt percent

We start in other cases, where, according to the first from the end of last week, five percent of those tested were positive for antibodies to the new coronavirus. The total number ranges between five and ten percent, depending on the profession, wrote the List First, which saw the information first.

It sounds hard, but it’s a long way from that. No one at this time is willing or able to state how much exactly was in the sample. There are units of percent positive results, but I can’t say more accurately, Martin Kuba, a politician and politician, told Technet.cz. When the results will be detailed, he did not say exactly that it will be discussed and debated in the coming days.

There is nothing to do with the composition of this data. According to the percentage units of positive results of the test without further details, this means that even in the tested sample, the sample that actually contained the antibodies did not actually exist.

As? Martin Kuba confirmed that the Anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA test from Euroimmun was used in the test. With his help, the presence of two types of antibodies against the new coronavirus, specifically IgA and IgG, was mixed.

Its parameters can be found on the website of the manufacturer, we will be interested in one thing in particular: the probability with which the test will show the correct – ie negative – result of someone who does not have infusions in the body. It is called specificity.

Depending on the manufacturer, this specific test for IgA antibodies has approximately 88 and 92 percent specificity. Otherwise, and in 12 percent of cases, the inaccuracies inaccurately show a positive result, even though in reality there are no counterparts in the given sample. Going differently, if about nine results of IgA counterattacks in an uninfected hunter come out as if he had sold the infection.

Interactive graph
reliability of testing

The following is an interactive graph illustrated only.

  • It’s not both simulation and prediction
  • Nen to epidemiologick model
  • It does not contain reln data
  • Do not predict how many people become infected with coronavirus

The aim of the graph is to show the principle of test reliability and especially the verticality of the “falench” can be found on the reliability of the test used.


Reliability test – illustration

Poet testovanch: 1tisc member

Prevalence in the population: 1

Specific text: 95

Text sensitivity:95

mn set
Nakaen Hello Total
Shot rod
Positive result
Negativn vsledek
Warning: this simulation or prediction of contagion. Slou vhradn
for illustration.

You probably know her, there’s a problem. Pr units of percent is the result below the test resolution. According to the manufacturer, such a floor could appear even if you only loved samples from people who had never actually sold the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

The situation would be different if we knew that those few percent of positive results were achieved only with the change of IgG antibodies. The accuracy (specificity) of the test in this case is about 99.6 percent in t, according to the manufacturer. In the case of a combination of the men of both counterattacks, it would be you. Such information is not available to us, nor does it change anything about the result.

First of all, it could be said that the average result is somewhere between 0 and 10 percent. It is still possible that due to the error rate of the test, all positive results could be falen, more precisely, one falen positive.

When 0.4 me bt 0, but also 3

The result from other of them, even through an seemingly large difference, is very similar to that of the nationwide survey of the study. Its preliminary results were presented in the public so that the results are per mille. When you look at them in a little more detail, find out that this is not true. The presentation presented at the press conference stated the range, which always started at zero and ended with a maximum of low percentage units. See for yourself.


Preliminary results according to people who had a positive result in the rapid test for the presence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in a pre-test in R at the end of April.

In other words, the tests revealed 107 of the 27 people tested with a positive result, but this is not the result of the study. There is no doubt that it was at least an error due to the properties of the test that cannot be corrected in any way. After sweating out the error rate, we have or only so much that the result is somewhere between 0 and 3 percent depending on the location. More precisely, it is not possible at this moment, because the tests cannot be fully relied on.

It should be noted that there are methods to clear the result, and in both cases something like this is going to happen. For example, in other Czechs, according to Martin Kuba, in several ways. In addition to thorough statistical processing, the tests give a comparative result for different counterparts and, after re-inspection of positive samples, other tests. We will then publish the complete results and all data will be open and accessible, said Martin Kuba.

This could be a real pnos study. Comparison and quality control of the test is a key if we want to get an accurate overview of how bad it is, who sold it and who did not.

It will be similar in the nationwide study. In its framework, the authors also took a number of samples of ill blood, which are just beginning to be examined (more in our detailed view of the results). Further research can be performed on them, such as how the immune system responds to SARS-CoV-2, how high the levels of specific antibodies are, whether asymptomatic cases can be identified, and especially how accurate the tests are available to us.

All we know now is that they are not one hundred percent. So do not look at the exact results; Inaccurate tests cannot result in such results. Paradoxically, inaccurate tests are more relevant to these tests than to the people tested and whether they have encountered a new coronavirus.

Update: To complete the question in the discussion, we have added an explanation of the term sensitivity and specificity to the article and thus added an explanation explaining the treatment of these test parameters in the event.