The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
I don't think you can really fully understand testing if you don't understand what to do in the presence of a positive or negative test and if you don't know the sensitivity and specificity of it and the prevalence you're kind of hosed
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.
if you know the sensitivity and specificity of a test you still have to know the prevalence of the disease in the population to really understand positive and negative predictive value of a test