Paul Saladino· MD
we would rather have false positives than false negatives we don't want to miss people so that they don't spread it
Loading…
The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
we would rather have false positives than false negatives we don't want to miss people so that they don't spread it
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
why is negative predictive value important in a test like this you don't want somebody who has the virus to test negative because what is that person gonna do they're gonna go right back out and infect other people unknowingly
the most dangerous scenario to miss is the person who's positive not symptomatic