> therefore all tests with error rates are equally bad

I did not say that, nor even imply it.

Oh I don’t doubt there was funny business or fraud. What you’ve added is what the parent comment was missing; the reasons beyond the error rates.

> the test you Google is a false negative rate, which a simple fact that test can’t reliably diagnose everything even when run properly.

Yes I mentioned above it’s a false negative rate, right? And false negatives are potentially more dangerous for survival than false positives. Again, I was just reacting to the narrative about people getting scared by false positives, as if that was the primary problem. Your comment supports my claim that the error rate was not the primary problem, no?