[2006alum]

Sure.  Would be nice if people refrained from implying that I'm racist, particularly since I'm fairly certain that my circle of friends includes more people of color than most on this board.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/jerrydbayless/status/1097149262779998209?s=20[/tweet]
Let's not go there. Since each of us went to Stanford, unless one attended back when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, my baseline assumption is that all of us have a diverse circle of friends, and that many of us are POC.

---
Turning back to the subject of this thread, can anyone with medical/biochemistry/(advanced stats?) training care to assess this statement:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/ImmunoFever/status/1249454273672302593?s=20[/tweet]

What would be an acceptable rate of false positives? 1%? Do we just need to wait until there's a sufficient percentage of the underlying population that has had the virus, i.e., a higher incidence rate? I recall seeing models suggesting we'd need incidence rates into the 20-30% range at least to bring a test with a 3-4% error rate down to sufficient accuracy that individuals could reasonably rely on the results.

I guess I'm starting to worry that a widely disseminated quasi-reliable antibody test might cause as much harm as good, but it's not clear to me who is going to stop such tests from being distributed and relied upon by people desperate to try to return to normal?

[2006alum]

Sure.  Would be nice if people refrained from implying that I'm racist, particularly since I'm fairly certain that my circle of friends includes more people of color than most on this board.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/jerrydbayless/status/1097149262779998209?s=20[/tweet]
Let's not go there. Since each of us went to Stanford, unless one attended back when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, my baseline assumption is that all of us have a diverse circle of friends, and that many of us are POC.

---
Turning back to the subject of this thread, can anyone with medical/biochemistry/(advanced stats?) training care to assess this statement:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/ImmunoFever/status/1249454273672302593?s=20[/tweet]

What would be an acceptable rate of false positives? 1%? Do we just need to wait until there's a sufficient percentage of the underlying population that has had the virus, i.e., a higher incidence rate? I recall seeing models suggesting we'd need incidence rates into the 20-30% range at least to bring a test with a 3-4% error rate down to sufficient accuracy that individuals could reasonably rely on the results.

I guess I'm starting to worry that a widely disseminated quasi-reliable antibody test might cause as much harm as good, but it's not clear to me who is going to stop such tests from being distributed and relied upon by people desperate to try to return to normal?