<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Error rates and CoVID-19 antibody tests in Tech Talk</title>
    <link>https://community.isc2.org/t5/Tech-Talk/Error-rates-and-CoVID-19-antibody-tests/m-p/34840#M2588</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;We, in security, know that there are errors that are false positives, and errors that are false negatives, and that both can create problems.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;At the moment, everybody is eagerly looking forward to serology tests for CoVID-19.&amp;nbsp; These are tests (usually blood tests) that determine if you have antigens or antibodies related to defence against the SARS-CoV-2 virus.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;At least, they &lt;STRONG&gt;try&lt;/STRONG&gt; to determine that.&amp;nbsp; Because, well, errors.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;A &lt;A href="https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/04/15/834497497/antibody-tests-for-coronavirus-can-miss-the-mark" target="_blank" rel="noopener"&gt;good article&lt;/A&gt; on this is available at NPR.&amp;nbsp; If you want the tl:dr version:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If the test has 99% specificity, and you live in an area where only 1% of the population is actually infected, then when you get a "positive" test, and are reassured that you are immune, you actually only have a 50/50 chance that you encountered the virus, and do have any defence.&amp;nbsp; (In BC, where I live, the infection rate is about .03%, so the chance that a positive test is of any use at all is far worse.)&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2020 01:07:22 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>rslade</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2020-04-16T01:07:22Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Error rates and CoVID-19 antibody tests</title>
      <link>https://community.isc2.org/t5/Tech-Talk/Error-rates-and-CoVID-19-antibody-tests/m-p/34840#M2588</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;We, in security, know that there are errors that are false positives, and errors that are false negatives, and that both can create problems.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;At the moment, everybody is eagerly looking forward to serology tests for CoVID-19.&amp;nbsp; These are tests (usually blood tests) that determine if you have antigens or antibodies related to defence against the SARS-CoV-2 virus.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;At least, they &lt;STRONG&gt;try&lt;/STRONG&gt; to determine that.&amp;nbsp; Because, well, errors.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;A &lt;A href="https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/04/15/834497497/antibody-tests-for-coronavirus-can-miss-the-mark" target="_blank" rel="noopener"&gt;good article&lt;/A&gt; on this is available at NPR.&amp;nbsp; If you want the tl:dr version:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If the test has 99% specificity, and you live in an area where only 1% of the population is actually infected, then when you get a "positive" test, and are reassured that you are immune, you actually only have a 50/50 chance that you encountered the virus, and do have any defence.&amp;nbsp; (In BC, where I live, the infection rate is about .03%, so the chance that a positive test is of any use at all is far worse.)&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2020 01:07:22 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.isc2.org/t5/Tech-Talk/Error-rates-and-CoVID-19-antibody-tests/m-p/34840#M2588</guid>
      <dc:creator>rslade</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-04-16T01:07:22Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

