[dxyms]

>If you get a positive with an uncertainty in its accuracy, at the very least, the test is repeated. But even more, you can use the information from the investigation of the reason for the false positive to improve the tests in the first place.

This assumes that the false positive is caused randomly. That's not the case. False positive tests are usually followed by false positive tests. Then it will take years to find out if it was a false positive or not.

[ggrrhh_ta]

That is very interesting. I assumed that false positives is generally a testing error (testing with another method or from another company would not lead to the same result). If the false positive is a result of a non-dangerous anomaly of the person being tested, then, I see how testing without symptoms can be worse.

[jghn]

Herein lies the real issue. Biology is a very, very messy science. So yes it could just be a testing error. But it might not be. It might be that something in your body behaves in a way that's unexpected. It might be some other non-dangerous anomaly as you cite.

We understand far more than we did say 20 years ago. But the problems are non-trivial on a scale most people don't appreciate.