Presumably bovine TB?
Well, from a statistical point-of-view, that's pretty damn good. If the test is as simple as described, then I would imagine the number of errant results to be less, not more - the simpler it is, the less there is to mess up. The 'test' for a throat infection is looking into someone's mouth and seeing if their throat is red. Sometimes simple observation is enough.
Added to that, I doubt the government would pay compensation if the test wasn't deemed sufficiently reliable...otherwise farmers who were a bit hard up could claim their herd had TB, get the first measurement taken, feed them McD's (oh, irony) for the next 48 hours and hopefully get a result.
Maybe there's no effort been put into finding a better test as improving on 99.99% would be rather tricky...
Seriously, though, is there any credible information that a bovine TB test isn't as accurate as advertised? I'd be interested to know if there is or not.
Bookmarks