This is interesting - saying that if the incidence of COVID out...

This is interesting - saying that if the incidence of COVID out in the community is low (and they point out that actual levels encountered while conducting vaccine trials WERE very low), then the actual number of False Positives when using a test that nominally appears quite accurate is actually much higher than logic would suggest. Not being a statistician by any means, I struggled a little with the maths - but accept that each False Positive will be inconvenient at the very least for the subject and a real challenge for the authorities...

So what happens when schoolchildren are tested regularly? What happens to a child who tests positive? No point sending them to the School Sick-room... Can't just send them home? What about the False Positive cases?? Similarly for travellers hoping to board a flight. How do we minimise the number of False Positives to minimise the inconvenience and cost of unnecessary lockdowns (including close contacts/immediate family)?

The problem of what to do with the True Positives remains.

However it occurs to me that if anyone gets a positive result for their RAT, it should be a requirement that they immediately take a second RAT for verification. In nearly all cases, a True Positive will continue to show positive whereas a False Positive is extremely unlikely to test Positive again. That minimises the dislocation caused by False Positives in a cost-effective manner a few extra RATs... I'm sure ADO and the other test-providers won't mind!!

So has my limited knowledge of statistical likelihood in a world of low actual virus presence let me down? Or is it really as simple as that?