Totally agree. The difference being a high false negative rate may be more dangerous because it may mean asymptomatic false negative carriers are still spreading the virus. The downside of a false positive is that people are self quarantining needlessly.
For a patient, a high false negative rate is usually worse. For an insurer, a high false positive rate is usually worse. The perspective matters.
> The difference being a high false negative rate may be more dangerous
At an individual level, false negative seems more dangerous. But at a macro level, a high false positive rate could lead to taking dramatically policy decisions
Sorry, I was editing my comment to add that very perspective just as you replied it seems.
I agree with the caveat that false negative rate is much more relevant for society when a disease is very contagious. Take measles, with an R0 in the teens. A high false negative rate can cause explosive growth in the numbers of people catching the disease, which I think is what makes it relevant to the COVID-19 scenario
What appears to be the potential danger of a high false positive is the narrative that it's safe to end stay-at-home because everyone already has/had it. Which seems to be the story being pushed with any talk of a lot of positives.
Nope, the narrative is "the mortality rate is similar to flu, therefore draconian measures aren't necessary".
Implementation examples: South Dakota and Sweden.
It seems clear that the infection rate has been severely under counted, meaning mortality rates are artificially high. Even better (from the standpoint of restarting) that "flu-like" mortality rate is concentrated in people over 60 years old.
What that all means together is the economy can easily restart, with the most vulnerable (old and sick) taking extra precautions.
This entire thing has been a fascinating exercise in how poorly central planning can work given bad information. The cure has been vastly more damaging than the disease.
For a patient, a high false negative rate is usually worse. For an insurer, a high false positive rate is usually worse. The perspective matters.