[2006alum]

Presumably this would be great if true, as it would imply a much lower IFR. A few things give me pause:

1. They estimate that their test has a sensitivity of 80.3% and specificity of 99.5%. I'm not an expert, but doesn't the claimed specificity seem really high for basically ANY test? And doesn't a test that has a 99.5% specificity and an 80.3% sensitivity seem kind of wonky?
2. The 95% Confidence Intervals for the sensitivity was 72.1-87%, for specificity 98.3-99.9%. Aren't those fairly high to be extrapolating so much from this data? 
3. For whatever it's worth, John Ioannidis is identified as one of the co-authors.

[2006alum]

Presumably this would be great if true, as it would imply a much lower IFR. A few things give me pause:

1. They estimate that their test has a sensitivity of 80.3% and specificity of 99.5%. I'm not an expert, but doesn't the claimed specificity seem really high for basically ANY test? And doesn't a test that has a 99.5% specificity and an 80.3% sensitivity seem kind of wonky?
2. The 95% Confidence Intervals for the sensitivity was 72.1-87%, for specificity 98.3-99.9%. Aren't those fairly high to be extrapolating so much from this data? 
3. For whatever it's worth, John Ioannidis is identified as one of the co-authors.