|
|
|
|
|
|
by hdkrgr
2129 days ago
|
|
|
This makes it sound more dramatic than it is. Let's assume the "real" share of infectious people in the population is 10/100k (That's twice as much as the most recent reported 7-day incidence (5.1/100k) of new infections for Leipzig, the area where the study was performed.) Further let's assume a PCR Test has a 30% FNR, and a 10% FPR (numbers completely made up, I don't have a source). Then out of 1500 People who have tested negative, we'd expect 0.05 to have the virus. |
|
|
Once the expected value starts to creep over 1, then that's enough to infect quite a lot of people. It's not too much past that to expect that one of the infected has 'underlying condition' and risking death.
In British Coloumbia there's been a big outbreak due to a single gathering in the interior, notably (shamefully) attended by Medics and Doctors.
It's a little risky.
It's just not the time to have major gatherings, but at least this one is in the service of the science of 'stopping it' - which is better than most places are doing.