> Antibodies are definitive proof of a previous infection, which is what I was talking about.
When the studies in question have a high rate of false positives, that is absolutely not the case. It may simply be a statistical anomaly, from taking the incorrect confidence interval.
Currently, from the studies taken, it looks like we have high rates of both false negatives, and false positives. Which means that the testing does not give you an accurate picture of whether a population group has previous infections or not.
When the studies in question have a high rate of false positives, that is absolutely not the case. It may simply be a statistical anomaly, from taking the incorrect confidence interval.
Currently, from the studies taken, it looks like we have high rates of both false negatives, and false positives. Which means that the testing does not give you an accurate picture of whether a population group has previous infections or not.