The meme is talking about a common probability error that surveys have shown even doctors are prone to making.

Why you’re probably ok:

The rarity of the disease far exceeds the error rate of the positive test. Meaning, the disease occurs in 1 out of a million people, so if you are tested at random and show positive, you only have a 1 out of 30,000 chance (the 3% false-positive rate) of being the the 1 person who truly has the disease.

  • Bwaz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    11 hours ago

    What statistician is this referring to? Certainly not one who understands probabilities. The first number has nothing to do with it. You tested positive, and there’s only a 3% chance that result is wrong. Time to settle your affairs.

    • drcobaltjedi@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      10 hours ago

      In a sample of 1 million people, 1 person will have the disease, 30,000 however will test positive for having the disease. Notice how the false positives count is way higher than the actual positive count.

      • stephen01king@piefed.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 hours ago

        Is 97% accuracy rate the same as a 3% false positive rate? It might be a combination of false positive and false negative rate.

        • Zorcron@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Accuracy is defined in relation to a specific population or dataset with a specific rate of disease, not for any individual. To properly characterize the test, you need to know the specificity and sensitivity, and together they tell you how a test will perform on an individual and how much an individual’s pre-test probability increases in the case of a positive test or decreases based on a negative test.

          Don’t worry if it’s confusing, Baysean statistics is often counter-intuitive.

          If you’re interested, here is a very good 3Blue1Brown video that explains the concept very well.

          • stephen01king@piefed.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            8 hours ago

            Thank’s for the link. Probability and statistics in general is not intuitive to me, not just for this type.

      • Bwaz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 hours ago

        How does that matter if I have a 97% chance of actually having the disease? A lot more people than I have won the lottery, doesn’t have a thing to do with whether I will.

        • drcobaltjedi@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Its right 97% of the time. That does not mean you have a 97% chance of having the disease. The 3% error rate accounts for significantly more false positives than it accounts for false negatives on a disease that’s 1 in a million. Again, with a 3% error rate, there will be 30000 false positive test results in a million. 30000 in a million is a larger number than 1 in a million.

    • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      As far as I can see, you can’t really fear or rejoice with the results until you know the false positive/negative ratio.