But aren't we talking about rapid tests? There is a big difference between false positives when it comes to PCR vs rapid tests. False positives with rapid tests are known to be far less prevalent.
Other types of test are calibrated against PCR tests. That's why the article says:
"[...] finds the largest study to compare home rapid tests with gold-standard PCR tests"
PCR is assumed to be the truth to which rapid tests should aspire.
> False positives with rapid tests are known to be far less prevalent.
That's probably true if you use a normal definition of false positive, but under the intellectual framework public health uses you can't say this because you can't have less prevalent than zero.
"[...] finds the largest study to compare home rapid tests with gold-standard PCR tests"
PCR is assumed to be the truth to which rapid tests should aspire.
> False positives with rapid tests are known to be far less prevalent.
That's probably true if you use a normal definition of false positive, but under the intellectual framework public health uses you can't say this because you can't have less prevalent than zero.