If it said negative, it was always right,,
One in thirty , false positive?
That's a useful tool.
A test that yields twenty percent false positives and twenty percent false negatives is pretty crappy.

People who include car wrecks and gunshot are liars, E.

You can quit pretending that we are being unreasonable in our criticisms of the way things have been handled.
Including a death knowing it needs to be thrown out creates a higher number, telling people it's worse than it actually is.

It may be how it's been done, but why is it done so foolishly?
Why would anyone include a piece of data
Knowing
It needs to be removed?

Unless they want inaccurate and intentionally massaged higher numbers..

Eegore wrote on 07/24/20 at 21:43:19:

 "...The test predicted with 100% accuracy all of the negative samples, and 29 of 30 positive samples were predicted accurately ..."

Couple of questions;

How was the, ‘test’, ‘tested’ ?

Why do you believe that 3.3 out of 100 wrong ‘tests’ are good ?
Which would be, (how many ?), wrong out of 4 MILLION cases reported, (case being a positive, regardless of anything else)

Why is the word, ‘Predicted’, used to gauge the test ?
In my experience, ‘predicted’, is what, ‘could/should’, be.
Like a certain amount of powder, of a certain kind, in a certain case, with a certain bullet weight, which has a certain diameter, which has a certain coating, which is made of a certain material, which has a certain length. It is/can be, ‘predicted’, to propel that projectile at ‘X’ speed.

A, ‘test’, is absolute. In the above info, the actual shooting, then testing, will determine the actual FPS. Then in the real world, one can load something by, ‘prediction’, that it will above or below a certain FPS/FPE. Yet only a, ‘test’, can prove it is, or not.

Why do you believe a, ‘prediction’, is a ‘test’ ?

"Why do you believe a, ‘prediction’, is a ‘test’ ? "

  Because guaranteed accurate information about the future is impossible.  There are no "absolute" tests on a current live virus negative reading until we know for sure how long it can survive undetected in human fluid.  Technically all known virus are just "undetected" in humans as there is no way to forever rule out that the virus wasn't actually there.  All we know is no symptoms arise for the lifetime of that human.

 This is different than physical testing as the ammunition analogy represents the end of life of a human when the bullet has finished it's path of travel.  So if we take a direct analogue approach and take a human that lives to age 80, we would consider the path of the bullet being measured to take 80 years.  This is because we could not 100% accurately say where the bullet will land until it's path has been completed.


"How was the, ‘test’, ‘tested’ ?"

 This is an example and only an example of some of the information I know about this process.  This is not an attempt to indicate that the exact numbers, methods, procedures or actions of CU Boulder and Sawyer labs used this specific method in exactly the way I describe.  


 If you take 100 samples and you know 50 of them are not positive for SARS, by testing those samples 100 times by other means and getting 50 negative results it can be assumed, but never absolutely confirmed, that the 50 samples are negative for SARS.

Then test those 50 samples 100 times each for antibodies and get a 0% antibody result it can be assumed, but never absolutely confirmed, that the 50 samples are negative for SARS.

 Then repeat the process for the positive samples.  

 At this point each sample has been tested 200 times each, and each has been taken from humans that present either zero symptoms, or have 100% SARS-COV-2 symptoms and reflect samples of live virus viewed under laboratory equipment.

 Repeat the process again for all negative samples.

 Add live virus to another set of 50 positive and 50 negative samples.

 Repeat the process again for all samples.

 At this point there is a huge chance that all negative samples are negative, and all positive are positive, and another set had live virus injected further increasing the chance of a positive result.

 Check every sample for live virus under laboratory equipment 7 or more times.

 Get your New Test, test 100 samples, 50 positive, and 50 negative.  The New Test will either match the previous sample testing pool and visual confirmation of live virus, or it will not.  However since the New Test can not ever guarantee the future result of any event of any kind it can only make a prediction, that being that no virus exists under the conditions that we are able to detect virus at this time.

Eegore wrote on 07/25/20 at 14:11:56:

... the ammunition analogy
represents the end of life of a human when the bullet has finished it's path of travel.  ...  

OMG, just a fantastic deflection.

CHANGE, a analogy of a ‘recipe’,
to represent something completely different !!!!!!!

S.O.P.  

"It's insane that the USA even after 7 months is not able to get its citizens tested with results back within a day. I'm sure that Trump gets instantaneous test results."


 There are a lot of people in the US and limited laboratory facilities.  Testing at this magnitude has never been done before, personally I think it would be insane if we thought laboratories could handle half of the current demand.

"Might as well just include every death for a few months."

 Yeah.  They do that actually, but all year.

 That's my point.  Include things and then categorize after, instead of trying to categorize first and then later go "Oh Sh!t, we never made a category for this."

 SARS-COV-2 is unknown, a new strain of virus and we can't go around treating things like we already know what will happen.  Collect the data, categorize it.  That's provisional data.


"Those numbers are then used by people to make decisions, long prior to your highly touted filtering and winnowing out moment.."

 So since sh!tbag politicians want to use CDC data that the CDC very specifically says "Not for use" because of popular public opinion to get re-elected, the CDC needs to change their process to better fit the garbage public opinion and the duplicitous political process?

 How dare the CDC use proven method when they can cater to political opinion and garbage news. Lets continue to ignore the process worked for decades, but now all the sudden doesn't.

 If I clean a carb but know someone else will lie to you about that carb cleaning for personal gain, I should never ever tell anyone how I did it because I know someone else will lie about it.  That's the logic here.

We have an idiot driving the bus...
100 days to election.