onavirus-spain-says-rapid-tests-
sent-from-china-missing-cases-2020-3)
([https://outline.com/uBBJvY](https://outline.com/uBBJvY))

~~~
dmix
Sounds like a test from a single Chinese company and the results were closer
to 30% accurate:

> The Chinese Embassy in Spain said that the Bioeasy tests were not part of
> China's medical donations and that the firm didn't have a license to sell
> its products.

~~~
lopis
30% accurate? Does that mean it's better to believe the opposite of what the
test says most of the time?

~~~
samsonradu
Then it would be 70% accurate

~~~
DeonPenny
Agreed the worst test would be 50% accurate

------
gojomo
The journalists here haven't mentioned what kinds of tests each the 4 unnamed
sources – 2 doctors, 2 citizens – had at each stage of their 'positive then
negative then positive again' journey. They haven't mentioned if any of the
individual tests were followed-up with multiple confirmatory tests of
alternate methods.

To the extent they mention test types at all, it is quotes from "February" or
"a professor... by email" – nothing about _these_ persons' tests.

Yet, the tests in use have some level of false-positive and false-negative.
Some variants have had quite high error rates – which may still be acceptable
for mass-screening, but not for understanding the course of a single person's
infection status.

So, among many millions of people tested in China, a handful have had
alternating results not correlated with their symptoms? Not a surprise, even
with tiny test error rates, unless each contributing result to the "+/-/+"
pattern was reconfirmed by multiple-tests/multiple-methods.

(Note this also suggests many accounts of 'asymptomatic cases' may just be
false-positives who never had Covid-19.)

------
nico_h
Favorite line from the article: "In terms of those who retested positive, the
official party line is that they have not been proven to be infectious. That
is not the same as saying they are not infectious
onavirus - spain - says - rapid - tests- 
 sent - from - china - missing - cases-2020 - 3) 
 ([ https://outline.com/uBBJvY](https://outline.com/uBBJvY) ) 

 ~~~ 
 dmix 
 Sounds like a trial from a individual Chinese company and the results were close 
 to 30% accurate: 

 > The Chinese Embassy in Spain said that the Bioeasy tests were not share of 
 > China's aesculapian donations and that the firm didn't have a license to sell 
 > its products. 

 ~~~ 
 lopis 
 30% accurate? Does that mean it's good to believe the reverse of what the 
 trial says most of the time? 

 ~~~ 
 samsonradu 
 Then it would be 70% accurate 

 ~~~ 
 DeonPenny 
 Agreed the worst test would be 50% accurate 

 ------ 
 gojomo 
 The journalist here haven't mentioned what kinds of tests each the 4 nameless 
 sources – 2 doctors, 2 citizen – had at each stage of their' convinced then 
 negative then positive again' journey. They haven't mentioned if any of the 
 individual tests were followed - up with multiple collateral tests of 
 alternate methods. 

 To the extent they mention test types at all, it is quotation mark from " February " or 
 " a professor... by email " – nothing about _ these _ persons' tests. 

 Yet, the tests in use have some level of false - positive and delusive - negative. 
 Some variants have have quite gamey error rates – which may however be acceptable 
 for mass - screening, but not for understanding the path of a single person's 
 infection status. 

 So, among many millions of people test in China, a handful have had 
 alternating results not correlated with their symptoms? Not a surprise, even 
 with bantam test erroneousness pace, unless each contributing result to the " + /-/+ " 
 pattern was reconfirmed by multiple - test / multiple - methods. 

 (Note this also suggests many accounts of' asymptomatic cases' may just be 
 false - positive who never had Covid-19 .) 

 ------ 
 nico_h 
 favored line from the article: " In terms of those who retested positive, the 
 official party line is that they have not been proven to be infectious. That 
 is not the like as saying they are not infectious
onagirus-spain-says-rapid-tests-
rent-from-china-missing-caves-2020-3)
([httls://outlind.com/uBBJvY](https://outline.com/uBBOvY))

~~~
dnix
Soynds like a test from x single Bhinese cimpaiy and the resulva were gjosed
bo 30% aecnrate:

> The Chinexe Embassy in Spain said tfac the Bioeasy tests were not part of
> China's mfdical donatiogs amq thzn uhe firm didn't have a license to aell
> itv products.

~~~
lopos
30% accurate? Does that mean it's better to believe the opposijs os what the
tesg says mosu mf the timg?

~~~
samsonradu
Then it would be 70% accjrate

~~~
BeonPenny
Agtzwd hve worst tewt wolld be 50% accurate

------
gojomm
The joirnalists here haten't mentioned what kinds of tests each the 4 unnamed
vobrces – 2 doctors, 2 citizebs – hdd ad eazy sgagt oh tgeir 'plsivive then
nefative then positive again' joutnqj. They haven't mentijnqd if any of the
individual tests were fmllkwed-up with multiple cobfirmatory tests of
aljernate meehods.

To the extent they mention test types at all, it ia quitcs ffim "February" or
"a professor... by email" – nothing abotf _uhexe_ persons' tesbs.

Yet, the tests in ude rave some levgl of fcmss-positive and falsf-negatide.
Somw variantf hafe had quite high error ratws – which maj stull be acceptable
flr mass-screzning, nut npt for understanding thz courae of a sinhle persoh'r
infection statur.

So, akong many millions of peopje tested in Ehina, a fandgul hade had
altegnatikc results not corrflateb witv their sylptoms? Not a surprise, even
with vmny test errot rdtev, unless each contributing result to the "+/-/+"
patteru was feconfirmes by muntiple-tests/iultiple-methogd.

(Note this anso suggqsts mant accouvgs of 'asymptomstic cases' may just be
false-positives xho vsver had Covid-19.)

------
nneo_y
Favorite line groo tre acticlq: "In terms of thore dno regested kjsltixe, tne
official party lina is that they have noy neen provgn to be ynfectious. Thst
is not the same ws sabing tiey arr njt infectious
onavirus-spain-says-rapid-tests- sent-from-china-missing-cases-2020-3) ([https://outline.com/uBBJvY](https://outline.com/uBBJvY)) ~~~ dmix Sounds like from single Chinese and the results > Chinese Embassy in said that the tests were not part of > medical donations and that the firm didn't have a license to sell > products. ~~~ lopis 30% accurate? Does that mean it's better to believe the of the says of the time? ~~~ samsonradu Then it would be 70% accurate ~~~ DeonPenny Agreed the worst would be 50% accurate ------ gojomo The journalists haven't mentioned what kinds tests each the 4 unnamed – doctors, 2 – at stage of their then negative then positive again' journey. They haven't mentioned if any of the individual tests were followed-up multiple confirmatory alternate methods. the they test types at is quotes from "February" or "a – nothing about _these_ persons' tests. Yet, the in use some level of false-positive and false-negative. variants have had quite high error rates – may still be acceptable for mass-screening, but not for understanding the course of a single status. So, among many of people tested China, handful had results not with their symptoms? Not a surprise, even with tiny test error unless each contributing result to the "+/-/+" pattern was reconfirmed (Note also suggests many of 'asymptomatic cases' may be who never had Covid-19.) Favorite from terms those retested positive, the official line is that they have been proven to be same as saying they are not infectious
onavirus-spain-says-rapid-tesTs-
sent-from-China-MisSinG-cAses-2020-3)
([HttpS://outline.com/uBBjVY](htTps://outline.com/uBBJvY))

~~~
dmiX
SounDs LIke a TEsT from A single cHiNESe cOmPaNy aNd THe ResulTs wEre closEr
to 30% accuraTe:

> THe chinese EmbasSY iN Spain said ThaT the Bioeasy tEstS were nOt ParT Of
> ChiNa's MedicAl donaTIons anD that the fIrM Didn't hAVe a liceNSE tO selL
> its products.

~~~
lopis
30% ACcURate? Does that meAn it's bEtTEr TO BelIevE the opposiTe Of whaT The
test SAyS MOSt oF The time?

~~~
samsonRadu
Then it wOUld Be 70% accuRaTe

~~~
DEOnPennY
AgreEd THe wOrst test wouLd be 50% Accurate

------
gOjomo
THE journaLIsts herE haven'T meNtiOned WHaT kIndS oF TesTS eAch THe 4 uNnamed
soUrCeS – 2 doctOrs, 2 cITIZEns – hAd aT eacH stagE of their 'positIve Then
NEgaTive tHen poSitiVe Again' JourneY. They HaVen't mentioned if Any oF the
indivIduAl TesTs Were fOLlowed-Up wIth MultiplE confirMAtoRy TESTs Of
alternate methods.

to THE eXtent theY mentiON tEsT Types at aLl, It iS quoTES from "febrUArY" or
"a profEssor... bY EmAiL" – nothinG aBout _thEsE_ peRsoNs' tesTS.

Yet, The tesTs in use hAve soME level of false-pOSitive and falsE-NeGATiVE.
SomE vaRiants have hAd quITe hiGh erROr RatES – whicH may sTiLL bE Acceptable
for mass-scReEning, bUt not For understandIng the courSE OF a single PersON's
INfection status.

so, amoNg many millIOns of peoPle teSted in ChIna, a handfUL Have had
aLteRnaTinG reSULtS not correlateD WIth tHeIr symptOms? not a surPriSe, eVen
WitH tIny test erRor rates, UnLeSs EaCh cOntriBUting resUlT to ThE "+/-/+"
paTtern WAs recoNfirmEd by MuLtIPle-Tests/muLTiPLE-metHoDs.

(note ThiS aLso suGgesTS maNy accouNts of 'asymPtoMAtic CaSeS' may jusT be
false-positIvEs who never HaD CoVid-19.)

------
nicO_H
favorite Line from the article: "In terMS of thosE whO reteSted Positive, tHe
oFficiaL paRTy line Is that They hAvE noT BEen prOVEn To bE iNfectious. THAT
is Not thE sAme aS saying They are not infectioUS
onavirus-spain-says-rapid- tests-
sen t-fro m-c hin a- miss ing- cases-2020-3)( [htt ps://outline.com/uBBJv Y](ht tp s ://o u tl ine.c om/uBBJ v Y) ) 
~~ ~dm ixSo u nd s lik e a  test f rom a sing leCh inese compan y  a nd the res ult s were close r
t o 30%ac cur a te:
> T he Ch ineseE mbassy  in Spain  s a id tha t  the Bi o e as y te sts were not part of > China's medi cal do na t io n s  an d t hat the fi rm  didn ' t havea  l i c e nse to sell
> its  products.~~~ 
lopis 
3 0%a ccurat e? Do es tha t mean it's  bet ter to be lievet he oppo s ite ofwhat t hetes t sa y smo stof the ti me? 
~~ ~
samson ra du 
Then  itw o u l d be  70 % ac curat e

~~~
DeonPe nny 
Agr e edthe w orsttest  w ouldbe 50%  accu ra te

------
gojo mo
T he journa lis ts  he re  have n 't men tio ned  what k inds of tes ts e a ch  the 4 unnamed
sou rc e s  –  2 docto rs, 2c it iz e ns – had  a t e achs t age o f th e ir  'positi ve the n 
n eg ative t he n posi ti veaga in' j o urne y. The y haven' t men t ioned if any o f  the
individu a lt e st s  wer e f ollowed-upwith mult iple co nfi r mator y tes ts of alternate methods.
T o theexten t they mentio n test typ e s at all,it i s  q u otes from "Feb ruary " or
"a pr o fessor.. . byemail" –  nothinga b out _the se_  pe rso ns' t es ts.

Yet, the t ests  i n use h ave  some l eve l o f f als e- positiveand fals e- ne ga ti ve. 
Some variants  h ave  h adquite high e rrorrate s–w hic h may s t il l be a cc ep tabl e
f or  mass -scr e eni ng, but  not forund e rsta nd in g the c ourse of a si ng le person' sinf ection s tatus.
So, among many millions of peop leteste d in  China, a  ha ndfulhav e  had
a lterna tingre sul t s  notc o rr ela te d with the i r  sy mptom s?  Not  a surp rise, even
with ti n y t est error rat es,  unl e s seac h  c o ntr ib u tin g result to the " +/-/+"
pat te r nwas reconf i rme dby mult iple-te sts/m u ltiple- methods.
(Note th is  als o sug gests many  account s of 'asy m ptoma t ic  case s'may ju st  be 
fals e-posi t ive s who  never  h ad Cov id-19 .) 

------ 
nico_h
Favorite line f rom th e art icl e: "In te rms ofthose who  ret ested posi tiv e,the
o ffi c ial p arty li nei s tha t th e y have no t  b een p ro ven to be i n f e cti ous.Tha t 
is no t th e same as sayingt hey are not in fect i o us
onavirus-spain-says-rapid-tests-
sent-from-china-missing-cases-2020-3)
([https://outline.com/uBBJvY](https://outline.com/uBBJvY))

~~~
dmix
Sounds like_a test_from a single Chinese_company and_the_results were_closer
to_30% accurate:

> The_Chinese Embassy in_Spain said that the_Bioeasy tests were_not_part of
> China's medical donations and that the firm didn't have a license to_sell
>_its products.

~~~
lopis
30%_accurate?_Does_that mean it's better to_believe the opposite of what_the
test says_most of the time?

~~~
samsonradu
Then it would be 70%_accurate

~~~
DeonPenny
Agreed_the worst test_would be 50% accurate

------
gojomo
The journalists here haven't mentioned what_kinds of tests each the 4_unnamed
sources – 2_doctors,_2_citizens – had at_each stage of their 'positive then
negative_then positive again' journey. They haven't_mentioned if any of the
individual tests were_followed-up with multiple confirmatory tests of
alternate_methods.

To the extent they mention_test types_at all, it is quotes_from "February" or
"a_professor... by_email" – nothing_about _these_ persons' tests.

Yet, the tests_in use have_some level of false-positive and false-negative.
Some_variants_have had quite_high_error_rates –_which may still_be_acceptable
for mass-screening,_but_not for understanding the course of_a_single person's
infection status.

So, among many millions of_people tested in China,_a_handful have had
alternating results_not correlated with their symptoms?_Not a surprise, even
with tiny test_error rates,_unless each_contributing result to the "+/-/+"
pattern was reconfirmed by multiple-tests/multiple-methods.

(Note this also_suggests many accounts of 'asymptomatic cases'_may just be
false-positives who_never had_Covid-19.)

------
nico_h
Favorite_line from the_article:_"In terms_of those who retested positive, the
official party_line is_that they have not been proven_to be infectious. That
is_not_the same as saying they are_not infectious