« Tell me what makes you mad | Main | Their real enemy is not bad data. But data. Period. »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I'm confused about the true positive rate. If 10% of the population has antibodies and the false negative rate is zero shouldn't we get 10 true positives for 100 tests?


(P): Be careful about the baseline number. Out of 100 people, 10 has antibodies; out of those 10, all 10 test positive so false negative rate is zero. And the true positive rate is 100%. But you can't say 10 true positives for 100 tests because the other 90 tests were done for those without antibodies - and there's where the false positives come in and make trouble!


Maybe I am confused about the definition of prevalence. This is the phrase I'm stuck on: "while the other 10 percent truly positive begets 1 positive per 100". If ten out of every hundred people are truly positive, how come we only get one positive result from testing them?


"The 2 percent error rate when applied to 90 percent of the population who do not have the coronavirus generates 1.8 positive results per 100 while the other 10 percent truly positive begets 1 positive per 100, even assuming zero false negative. " - if the false negative rate is zero, then for those 10 people that actually have the virus they would all test positive. Compared to the 1.8 people out of 100 who would not have the virus but test positive anyway. It feels like the comparison is 1.8 false positive to 10 true positives, not 1 true positive.


(P), TBW: Yes, I see where I flipped the numbers. Fixed the text. Thanks!

Antonio Rinaldi

Or assume 2% prevalence, so with 2% false positive rate and 0% false negative rate you obtain 2 true positives among every nearly 4 positives (~50%).


"after they have recovered at which point they are not infectious."

This has yet to be proven. A fair assumption, but yet to be proven.


Ben: Yes that point can't be underlined enough although should we start with it, the entire enterprise of antibody testing is pointless! My understanding is that it is technically true that antibodies confer immunity but sometimes the duration of immunity is short especially if the virus may mutate.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Kaiser Fung. Business analytics and data visualization expert. Author and Speaker.
Visit my website. Follow my Twitter. See my articles at Daily Beast, 538, HBR.

See my Youtube and Flickr.
Numbers Rule Your World:
Amazon - Barnes&Noble

Amazon - Barnes&Noble


  • only in Big Data

Next Events

Jan: 10 NYPL Data Science Careers Talk, New York, NY

Past Events

Aug: 15 NYPL Analytics Resume Review Workshop, New York, NY

Apr: 2 Data Visualization Seminar, Pasadena, CA

Mar: 30 ASA DataFest, New York, NY

See more here


R Fundamentals, Principal Analytics Prep

Numbersense: Statistical Reasoning in Practice, Principal Analytics Prep

Applied Analytics Frameworks & Methods, Columbia

The Art of Data Visualization, NYU

Signed copies at McNally-Jackson, NYC

Excerpts: Numbersense Ch. 1, 7, 8. NRYW

Junk Charts Blog

Link to junkcharts

Graphics design by Amanda Lee