I think I'd agree. There's a belief out there that RT-PCR picks up everything, but that's really not the case once you get into the literature. If you assume a false-negative rate of around 30% and virtually zero false-positives, which seems to be reasonable based on the numbers I've seen, then the numbers of this study look quite different.
@BE @harold @augieray
"The COVID-positive group was constituted by two subgroups: biological-confirmed COVID-19 (positive RT-PCR at any time during the 2-week quarantine or positive serology at the end of quarantine), and probable-COVID (participants with specific symptoms (ageusia and/or anosmia, or at least 3 symptoms associated with COVID-19, according to the CDC criteria), despite negative RT-PCR and serology)."
Thank you! I absolutely misread the probable-COVID part on the first read. The double parenthesis got me, even on the second read.
Tested negative *and* asymptomatic is definitely a smaller amount than a 30% false-negative rate.
