/sci/ - Science & Math

99% Is correct anyone not getting it is a brainlet. The first statement does not mean anything, we are all affected by Corona.

first statement doesnt affect the outcome.
you are 100% infected, by a 99% acc test.

yes it's 9%

Not a conditional probability so 99%

>>11642478
From a mathematical standpoint there is a 99% chance you're infected. From a practical standpoint you're 100% infected and will be quarantined.

>>11642507
>>11642513
>>11642518
>>11642519
Let's test 100000 people.
>100 are infected
>99 correct positives
>1 false negative
>999 false positives
>99 + 999 = 1098 total positive readings
that's ~9% accuracy

>>11642530
I forgot to do this:
>99/1098 = 0.09016393442

>>11642478
>/sci/'s looking a little bit too heterosexual today. I know how I can fix this

>>11642545
Didn't realise there was another thread, sorry anon.

>>11642530
>>99 correct positives
This could anywhere from 0 to 100.

>>999 false positives
No, if there are 99 true positives then there are 189 false positives. And there are 98901 true negatives.

>>99 + 999 = 1098 total positive readings
>that's ~9% accuracy
You're calculating sensitivity, not accuracy. Accuracy = (99+98901)/100000 = 99%

>Everyone waiting for the TN TF autist to swoop in
https://youtu.be/zP-u_Rzoa58?t=45s

>>11642649
The autist has landed

>>11642530
you're just testing 1 people retard

>>11642764
>Let's test 100000 people.
lrn2read

>>11642795
The test tested you (1) not 1000000 people. retard

>>11642478
Depends on things which are not given here, like why am I being tested in the first place.

>>11642800
no u

>>11642809
>t. arrested for pedophilia

>>11642530
idiot

>>11642860
>i have no argument

>>11642530
Its a possible answer if sensitivity and specificity are the same but you don't know that from the question.
The test may give no false positives but only false negatives.
So the test would be incredibly strict and if you are tested positive you will always be true positive

If I test 10000 people I know that 100 will get a wrong result.
I also know that there will be (ideally) only 10 infected.
There can be between 0 and 10 false negatives (FN) and the number of false positives will be 100-FN.
If there are 0 false negatives there will be only false positives and the chance of infection is 0.
At best it will be ~9%

>>11642955
>>11643041
>>11642725

>>11643048
You consider basic knowledge of diagnostic test evaluation autism?

In the real world the answers are limitless depending on a number of factors, but in the context of this specific question, and the way it is worded, the answer is obviously D

>>11642478
It is probably D as 99% of the population chose D.

99%, the first statement doesn't change the accuracy of the test. If you test positive there is a 99% chance you are actually infected.

>>11643054
it's a FB meme, not a Uni exam
only an autist obsesses like you

>>11643113
It's the first time I have ever seen this question.
Maybe you are too obsessed with FB and 4chan.

>>11643132
>t. lying autist

>>11642478
Picture it, say there's a million people in the population, a thousand of them have corona. The test manages to test positive for 990 people with corona, and positive for 10,000 people without corona. Of the people who tested positive you have a 990 in 10,990 chance to have corona, which is roughly 9%

>>11643133
Aren't autists incapable of lying?

>>11643153
That's what they want you to think, the sneaky bastards.

>>11642478
This problem is boring because there is no possibility of winning a goat.

>>11643161
Damn. I wonder who could be behind all this. I bet the question is only a secret plan to undermine our understanding of truth.

Do murder hornets give you corona chan?

In any case this should tell you that accuracy means nothing if prevalence is low. That is why you want to do a pre-screening usually

>>11642530
>>100 are infected
>>99 correct positives
wrong. you are making an assumption that 99% of infected are tested right AND 99% of clean are tested right. You can't do this. You could test 100% of infected people correctly and less than 100% of infected people correctly (aka false positives, but no false negatives). this is how tests are designed in practice too.

>>11643041
this is correct

>>11643203
>>11643113

>>11642478
Assuming that it is 99% likely to detect COVID-19 if present, and 0% to falsely claim to have detected something it didn't detect, then the correct answer is 100%.
Press S to spit on OP's grave

>>11643234
>being correct and educated on high school statistics is autism
is this what brainlet cope looks like?

>>11643240
>autism intensifies

>>11642724
>>11642725
>>11643048
>>11643113
>>11643133
>>11643234
>>11643243
now this is autism. waiting around for the actually intelligent people to show up just so you can spend all thread calling them autists.

>>11643252
takes one to know one

>>11643171
Yes. I know this because my father works at the WHO

Smart person bere, the answer is 9%. I’ll post the computations if any brainlet is not convinced

>>11643239
>Assuming that it is 99% likely to detect COVID-19 if present
That's not what accuracy means but OK I'll play along

TP/(TP+FN) = 0.99

TPR+FNR = 0.001

TPR = 0.99*0.001 = 0.00099

>and 0% to falsely claim to have detected something it didn't detect
You can't assume that but OK: FP = 0.

TP/(TP+FP) = TP/TP = 1

So your misinterpretation of accuracy isn't even relevant since you immediately get an answer by assuming FP = 0.

>>11643368
Please do, I enjoy debunking flawed reasoning.

>>11643468
>So your misinterpretation of accuracy isn't even relevant since you immediately get an answer by assuming FP = 0.
Actually it is relevant. All it does is make the .1% and 99% figures irrelevant.

>>11643490
How? The question is asking for TP/(TP+FP) which is immediately equal to 1 if you assume FP=0. So no other numbers are relevant.

>>11643473
Not him, but clearly the question supposes that the test will give the correct answer 99% of the time, regardless of whether you're sick or not.
Now we just compute

[eqn]\mathbb{P}(\text{infected}|\text{positive})=\frac{\mathbb{P}(\text{positive}|\text{infected})\cdot\mathbb{P}(\text{infected})}{\mathbb{P}(\text{positive})}
\\\mathbb{P}(\text{infected}|\text{positive})=\frac{\mathbb{P}(\text{positive}|\text{infected})\cdot\mathbb{P}(\text{infected})}{\mathbb{P}(\text{positive}|\text{infected})\cdot\mathbb{P}(\text{infected})+\mathbb{P}(\text{positive}|\text{not infected})\cdot\mathbb{P}(\text{not infected})}
\\\mathbb{P}(\text{infected}|\text{positive})=\frac{99\%\cdot0.1\%}{99\%\cdot0.1\%+1\%\cdot99.9\%}\approx 9\%[/eqn]

>>11643550
>The question is asking for TP/(TP+FP) which is immediately equal to 1 if you assume FP=0. So no other numbers are relevant.
That's exactly what I said. It's relevant to the question because the question is asking for the chance of being infected. I provided the answer. .1% and 99% are irrelevant. 100% is the answer to being infected if the result is positive.

>>11643559
>clearly the question supposes that the test will give the correct answer 99% of the time, regardless of whether you're sick or not.
Incorrect, accuracy simply means the percentage of times the test is right. It doesn't tell you anything about the specificity and sensitivity being equal.

>>11643600
Technically correct, but specificity=sensitivity is the only reasonable way to interpret the question so that it has an answer.

>>11643562
>That's exactly what I said.
Well that's exactly what I said. So are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?

>It's relevant to the question because the question is asking for the chance of being infected.
I didn't say it's irrelevant to the question, I said it makes your interpretation of accuracy irrelevant.

> I provided the answer.
No, you provided a false assumption and an arbitrary assumption that made the first assumption irrelevant. The actual answer would be based on information in the problem, not information you made up that trivialize the problem.

>>11643626
It has an answer: the chance is between 0 and 1/11

>>11643626
The only reasonable way to interpret the problem is to not make up arbitrary assumptions. There are many reasonable sounding assumptions you could make, but they're still arbitrary. Indeterminate is still an answer.

>3+5+x=?
>a) 9
>b) 7
>c) 0
>
>/sc/i: well, since we don't have x but we must have an answer, we must make the reasonable assume it is 1 making the answer definitively 9.

>>11643648
autist go home

>>11643648
No its not (in this problem), but there is a 9% choice, so clearly the reader was intended to make that assumption

“Arbitrary” assumptions are made all the time when it comes to combinatorics and probability problems, otherwise every problem statement would be 3x as long or riddled with needless terminology, neither of which is worth adding just for a couple of spergs that want to argue on a taliban ukulele building forum

Answer is 99%, 9% is the quota of people that tested positive in a population that actually have the virus. It's stated right there that it is 99% accurate so the answer is shown to you, sensitivity does not matter.

>>11643631
>Well that's exactly what I said. So are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?
Agreeing that TP/(TP+FP) is 1 if FP is 0 and that the other numbers are therefore irrelevant
>I said it makes your interpretation of accuracy irrelevant.
irrelevant to what?
>No, you provided a false assumption and an arbitrary assumption that made the first assumption irrelevant.
I made only one assumption, and it made some of the given information irrelevant.
>not information you made up that trivialize the problem.
The problem is trivial regardless, if we know what is meant.

>>11643721
>No its not (in this problem), but there is a 9% choice, so clearly the reader was intended to make that assumption
There's also a 0.1% choice, so "clearly" the reader was intended to make the assumption that P(positive|infected) is close to 0. Not to mention that you don't even get 9% as the answer if you assume P(positive|infected) = 0.99

>>11643730
>9% is the quota of people that tested positive in a population that actually have the virus.
Because?

>>11643758
>Agreeing that TP/(TP+FP) is 1 if FP is 0 and that the other numbers are therefore irrelevant
So you agree with everything I said.

>irrelevant to what?
To answering the question.

>I made only one assumption, and it made some of the given information irrelevant.
No, you made an assumption about what accuracy meant and you made an assumption about the false positive rate.

>The problem is trivial regardless, if we know what is meant.
You don't know what it means, so it's not trivial to you.

>>11642478
This is the third or fourth thread about this bullshit

>>11643807
I know, and people still don't understand what accuracy means. Crazy.

>>11642764
then how do you know the infection rate

>>11643203

wrong. google diagnostic test calculator faggot.

If a test is 100% accurate, it is always right.
If a test is 0% accurate, it is a woman.

If a test is 99% accurate it is accurate 99/100 times.
if a test is 1% accurate, it is accurate 1/100 times.

If a disease effects 0.1% of the population then it is one tenth of a percent, or 0.01/10 which is 0.001 decimal.

if you test 100,000 then 100,000*0.001 is 100 people who are affected by the disease.

You don't know which 100 people are positive though, so you test everyone to find your 100 guilty individuals.

However since 1/100 people without the disease will give a false positive, 1/100 of this is 0.01*100,000 which means 1,000 people will be false positive

Additionally, since only 99/100 people with the disease will test real negative, there is 1 person that will test false negative who actually is positive.

So you have 1099 "positive" results, and the rest of the results are negative results. This is completely different then having just 100 positives on a 100% accurate test.

so if you are real positive, then you are in a group of 100 people out of a group of 1099 which is approximately 9% probability that your results are accurate.

If the virus effected like 80% of people that it came into contact with them the test would report more accurate results.

if the test effected 100% of people that came into contact with it,.and were tested then it would be 99% accurate, not 9%

same way if the virus effected 0% of people. The test would not be accurate at all.

The further the infection rate is away from the accuracy of the test, the less accurate the test will be.

99%

THE FIRST PERCENTAGE DOES NOT FUCKING MATTER YOU TARDS!

>>11645203
Diagnostic test calculator shows he's right. You can't get the numbers you claimed just from knowing accuracy and prevalence.

>>11645280
>However since 1/100 people without the disease will give a false positive
Wrong, try again.

>>11645286
It matters a lot. Without it the answer can be anywhere between 0 and 1. With it the answer is between 0 and 1/11.

>>11645315
autism, the post

>>11645280


If a disease effects 80% of the population then.. .

if you test 100,000 then 100,000*0.8 is 80k people who are affected by the disease.

1/100 people without the disease will give a false positive.. 1/100 of this is 0.01*100,000 which means 1,000 people will be false positive

Additionally, since only 99/100 people with the disease will test real negative, there are 800 people that will test false negative who actually are positive.

So you have 80,000 real positives, but the test gives 1000 false positives and there are 800 false negatives.

so if you are real positive, then you are in a group of 80,000 people out of a group of 80200

80000/80200 is around 99%

if everyone is infected then it's 100,000 positive for real but 1000 false negatives, so you have a 100,000/99900 or 100% chance of having it regardless of what the test says,

specifically because the infection rate matters.


>>11645280

>>11645338
>1/100 people without the disease will give a false positive
See >>11645315

>>11645311

Yes you can...

>>11645353
you entered wrong numbers... do you not know how percentages work?

>>11642478
Since the length of infection is 120 minutes long, it still takes 120 minutes to become infected regardless of how many tests are done.

>>11645349
>>11645330

>>11645471
I'm not him but I think I got it right, here.
If it isn't come and say which. The answer is still around 9%

>>11645552
I'm sorry I got a detail wrong. It all checks out beyond that.

>>11643164
Wrong. There is a 32% chance of winning a goat.

>>11643171
There is a 1% of being infected by hornets, but a 99% of you infecting them.

>>11645560
And now change it so you have 100 false negatives, no true positives and 900 false positives and calculate

this thread went a lot more smoothly than the carnage yesterday >>>/pol/256272747

>>11645603
>>11645330

>>11645622
Are you even aware on which board you are on?

>>11645613
Incorrect. There are 17.

>>11642518
>>11642545
>>11642649

All correct

>>11645640
Wrong. The answer is undefined.

>>11645640
FB meme trolling board

>>11645664
Wrong. Ill reiterate this very specifically so you can see the flaw in your reasoning.

A person can either be healthy, H, or infected, H'
A person can either test positive, +, or negative, +'

The test having a 99% accuracy means that, 99% of the time, it will return the correct result. Mathematically, this is:

Positive given the person is healthy, P(+|H) = .01

Negative given the person is healthy, P(+'|H) = .99

Positive given the person is infected, P(+|H') = .99

Negative given the person is infected, P(+'|H') = .01

You are told that you are tested positive. You want to find the probability that you are infected, GIVEN that you are positive, or P(H'|+)

P(H'|+) does NOT necesarilly equal P(+|H')

To find P(H'|+) you can use bayes formula (the derivation of which is left as an exercise to the reader)

P(H'|+) = [P(+|H') * P(H')] / [P(+)]

With P(+) being the probability that a person is infected, or [P(+|H') * P(H')] + [P(+|H) * P(H)]

[P(+|H') * P(H')] can also be rewritten as P(+ ^ H'), or the probability that a person is positive AND infected.

In English, this all means the following:

"The probability that a person is infected, given that they have tested positive, is equal to the proportion of the population that has tested positive and is infected, over the proportion of the population that has tested positive"

So then the answer is C. 99%

>>11645674
autist. no one is confused about the math.
it's the autist who is confused about the question.
It's not an academic university examination,
it's a joe sixpack fb meme.
the issue isn't the virus, it's about conditional math being a bit surprising.

christ what an ocd retard you are, take your meds

>>11645674
Your definition of accuracy is wrong.
In diagnostic tests it refers to the ability to classify a certain percentage of people correctly.
To know how accurate a single test is we have to know sensitivity and specificity. These describe how likely it is that you are correctly identified as sick or healthy.

>>11645691
>If a test is 100% accurate, it is always right.
>If a test is 0% accurate, it is a woman.
>If a test is 99% accurate it is accurate 99/100 times.
>if a test is 1% accurate, it is accurate 1/100 times.
>If a disease effects 0.1% of the population then it is one tenth of a percent, or 0.01/10 which is 0.001 decimal.
>if you test 100,000 then 100,000*0.001 is 100 people who are affected by the disease.
>You don't know which 100 people are positive though, so you test everyone to find your 100 guilty individuals.
>However since 1/100 people without the disease will give a false positive, 1/100 of this is 0.01*100,000 which means 1,000 people will be false positive
>Additionally, since only 99/100 people with the disease will test real negative, there is 1 person that will test false negative who actually is positive.
>So you have 1099 "positive" results, and the rest of the results are negative results. This is completely different then having just 100 positives on a 100% accurate test.
>so if you are real positive, then you are in a group of 100 people out of a group of 1099 which is approximately 9% probability that your results are accurate.
>If the virus effected like 80% of people that it came into contact with them the test would report more accurate results.
>if the test effected 100% of people that came into contact with it,.and were tested then it would be 99% accurate, not 9%
>same way if the virus effected 0% of people. The test would not be accurate at all.
>The further the infection rate is away from the accuracy of the test, the less accurate the test will be.

>>11645693
Specify “accurate”

PCR tests have a 99.9% specificity (no false positives). Roche’s new antibody test has a 99.8% specificity and a 100% sensitivity.

If you test with the Roche test and test negative you 100% know you are not positive (no false negatives), but only 99.8% certain you are positive for antibodies (0.2% false positives).

This is regardless of how many in the population are infected.

So the answer is obviously C

>>11645748
>autistic screeching

>>11645691
I can feel this thread growing inside me. I am nurturing it, helping it develop. Soon it will be born, become life itself. I will suckle this thread to my teat and feed it with my rich and creamy nipple milk.

But you wouldn't know anything about this because you are a woman.

>>11645753
Look up a diagnostic test calculator and see for yourself.
Your looking for the positive predictive value. Also it will give you a description of accuracy.
https://www.medcalc.org/calc/diagnostic_test.php

>>11645762
>>11645622
>>11645586

Today I learned its far more fun to derail a retarded thread than it is to argue with a retard.

>>11645764
>in sane

>>11645767
No its not (in this problem), but there is a 9% choice, so clearly the reader was intended to make that assumption
“Arbitrary” assumptions are made all the time when it comes to combinatorics and probability problems, otherwise every problem statement would be 3x as long or riddled with needless terminology, neither of which is worth adding just for a couple of spergs that want to argue on a taliban ukulele building forum

>>11645773
>Look up a diagnostic test calculator and see for yourself.
>Your looking for the positive predictive value. Also it will give you a description of accuracy.
>https://www.medcalc.org/calc/diagnostic_test.php

>>11645753
Obviously real tests perform better.
Although I wouldn't believe a 100% value, it might be very close to that but still.

>>11645778
If I test 10000 people I know that 100 will get a wrong result.
>I also know that there will be (ideally) only 10 infected.
There can be between 0 and 10 false negatives (FN) and the number of false positives will be 100-FN.
>If there are 0 false negatives there will be only false positives and the chance of infection is 0.
At best it will be ~9%

>>11645774
Have you considered the possibility that it is a question designed to troll people?
It doesn't need to be any of the given answers.

>>11643171
Yes. Hornets carry the genes to fly into your uterus and lay coronachan in your testicle 32% sack along with taking a goat right in the pusey or taint

>>11645776
autist, not about virus

https://anesi.com/bayes.htm

>>11645784
I know at best its ~9% and at worst 0.
All this can happen while still having an accuracy of 99% as it is commonly defined for diagnostic tests.

>>11645793
Yes it argues that prevalency is required to calculate the positive predictive value which is what the question ultimately asks for

>>11645787
Wrong. This thread is a work of creation. We are creating LIFE here. Soon it will no longer need us to sustain itself. To be honest I feel fearful of the future. What if this thread turns against us?

>>11645778
>real tests perform better.
nah, it's done twice or more to get a good result

>>11645792
Your maths is wrong. There is only a 19% chance of your testicles becoming infected with goat virus.

>>11645808
Incorrect, accuracy simply means the percentage of times the test is right. It doesn't tell you anything about the specificity and sensitivity being equal.

>>11645811
Well if you put it like this

Good to see people have finally learned to treat a shitpost thread for what it is.

>>11642478

Here's a question. In the real world where diagnostic testing actually takes place do you think everytime a persons sample gets tested in the lab with X assay the doctor immediately goes 'Well I need to know the prevalence of the population with Y disease' and then adjust the likelihood?

>It looks like the flu, he has all the symptoms of flu, this highly accurate test (~99% correct of the time) but the flu prevalence is only 0.1% so the chance he actually has it is only 9%!
>Patient probably doesn't have the flu.

The parameters of a diagnostic assay once determined are exactly that and work independently of prevalence (and I use prevalence in the epidemiological sense of the word).

>>11642530
>>11642649
where are you guys getting the more false positives than actual positives from?

>>11642955

>>11645814
ok sweetie

>>11645353
>durrr

>>11646030
False positive rate = 1-prevalence- accuracy+true positive rate = 0.009+true positive rate

So the false positive rate must be greater than the true positive rate.

A false positive is only a negative if the negativity of the positive is positively greater than the negativity.

Combined with the baseman mechanics described by retard here>>11645811 It becomes trivially simple to describe the ascribed problem with a prescription as endorsed by the cunt seen here>>11646047. We can then safely conclude that dy/dy equals a reciprocity infection rate of approximately 1%.
So the correct answer is C.
t. Astrophysicist.

>>11646385
This is why nobody trusted astrophysics and had to toss you out of the larger physics group onto your own

>>11646385
>Astrophysicist
"universe is H, He and metals"
ty for coming... NEXT!

You took the test
The test has 99% accuracy
You tested positive
Therefore, there is a 99% chance you were infected.

The first statement, that covid affects 0.1% of the population is irrelevant, since YOU took the test, and YOU tested positive.

>>11646424
Wrong.
t. Nuclearbiologist

>>11646403
>>11646422
Both erroneous.
t. Pychicistician

>>11646424
>Therefore, there is a 99% chance you were infected.
You have a 99% chance of the test being true given you got a test result. That's not the same as the chance the test result is true given you got a positive test result.

>>11646501
Incorrect. You need to apply the sigma function to account for sensitivity of the accuracy, which in turn is measured by the accuracy of the sensitivity.
Therefore the answer is C.

>>11642478
there's 2 possibilities. one is you are actually infected and got a true positive, the other is you aren't infected and got a false positive. we can assume the question wants us to believe there's a 0.1% base chance of you being infected before taking the test, otherwise it cannot be answered

so to get the answer, we need [chance you are positive and infected]/[chance you are positive]

0.001*0.99/(0.001*0.99+0.999*0.01)=0.00099/0.01098=~9.016% so none of the answers are correct

>>11642478
jesus why are people here so fucking retarded

>>11646011
No but you don't go out and test everybody randomly if you expect the prevalence to be pretty low.
You will try to find a cheap selection method that increases the prevalence in your test population. For example testing only people with suspicious symptoms and people they have been in contact wirh

>>11646665
>0.001*0.99
Incorrect. 0.99 is the chance a test result is true, not the chance you get a positive result given you are infected.

>>11646665
Wrong meathead.

>>11646681
Incorrect, everyone here is a genius.

>>11646745
>>11646754
don't reply to me ever again

>>11646760
OK

>>11646745
Your math is wrong, its trivially simple. The correct answer is 9.016. You would know this if you hadn't been born with a can of Pork'n'Beans for a brain.

>>11646760
Wrong again. I never replied to you and never will. Tank up on some brain cells, nugget.

>>11645932
imagine being so butthurt about being wrong you spend an entire thread shitting up the thread insisting anyone who BTFOs you has autism and insisting the thread is just for shitposting

>>11646777
Another incorrect conclusion. This thread is for serious discussion. Take your schizo posts somewhere else.

>>11646766
Not an argument. Thanks for admitting your answer is wrong.

>>11646789
How many errors do you have to make? After all this time even a retard could have figured it out. You must be super retard.

>>11646783
Nice autism.

>>11646777
>A false positive is only a negative if the negativity of the positive is positively greater than the negativity.
>Combined with the baseman mechanics described by retard here>>11645811 (You) It becomes trivially simple to describe the ascribed problem with a prescription as endorsed by the cunt seen here>>11646047. We can then safely conclude that dy/dy equals a reciprocity infection rate of approximately 1%.
>So the correct answer is C.
>t. Astrophysicist.

>>11646794
See >>11646789

>>11646798
Pure autism

>>11646795
I know at best its ~9% and at worst 0.
All this can happen while still having an accuracy of 99% as it is commonly defined for diagnostic tests.

This is factually and legally correct. Cry more retard.

>>11646795
see >>11646777
you are bascially saying "i was merely pretending to be retarded" except you are autistic enough to spend over a day contantly posting about about how you were merely pretending.

See>>11646799
See >>11646794 (You)
See >>11646789
>>11646799 (You)
See >>11646783

>>11646801
Hows them pork'n'beans stirring?

>>11646805
Look up a diagnostic test calculator and see for yourself.
Your looking for the positive predictive value. Also it will give you a description of accuracy.
https://www.medcalc.org/calc/diagnostic_test.php

I can feel this thread growing inside me. I am nurturing it, helping it develop. Soon it will be born, become life itself. I will suckle this thread to my teat and feed it with my rich and creamy nipple milk.

But you wouldn't know anything about this because you are a woman.

>>11642478
None of the answers are right.

>>11646801
see
>>11646795
>>11645762
>>11645691
>>11645506
>>11645330
>>11643674
>>11643243
>>11643234
>>11643133
>>11643113
>>11643048
>>11642725
>>11642724

>>11646826
>>>11646801
>see
>>>11646795
>>>11645762
>>>11645691
>>>11645506
>>>11645330
>>>11643674
>>>11643243
>>>11643234
>>>11643133
>>>11643113
>>>11643048
>>>11642725
>>>11642724
>>11646801
see
>>11646795
>>11645762
>>11645691
>>11645506
>>11645330
>>11643674
>>11643243
>>11643234
>>11643133
>>11643113
>>11643048
>>11642725
>>11642724

>>11646818
I feel my sanity slipping.
Arguments are slowly coagulating into a state defying all boolean logic.

>>11646826
>>11646801
see
>>11646795
>>11645762
>>11645691
>>11645506
>>11645330
>>11643674
>>11643243
>>11643234
>>11643133
>>11643113
>>11643048
>>11642725
>>11642724
>>11646801
see
>>11646795
>>11645762
>>11645691
>>11645506
>>11645330
>>11643674
>>11643243
>>11643234
>>11643133
>>11643113
>>11643048
>>11642725
>>11642724

>>11646834
You are okay. I will let you suckle at my teat.

>>11646826
>>11646830
>>11646837
meta-autist

>>11646818
behold. the problem is indeterminant. Both of these situations meet the requirement for 99% accuracy as you can see by the number for accuracy in the bottom table. The predictive power, however, is completely different in both situations.

>>11646802
>I know you're right
>cry more retard

You know what? You guys are absolute cunts. OP made a nice thread about a statistical problem, one with REAL WORLD implications. And could you lot treat it seriously? Could you just respect this fine thread? No. You couldn't do that. No, instead you all came along here and SHITTED all over it. With your smart alec replies, your nonsense comments, all your trolling and insults and horrible copy pasting.

Well, I hope you lot are feeling proud of yourselves. You have actually made an absolute an absolute crapfest here. Poor OP is probably crying. You people are shameful and a complete disgrace to science.

>>11646857
only the first one is me.

>>11646826
>>11646830
>>11646837
Very much autistic indeed.

>>11646875
>gets absolutely btfo by >>11646869
>proceeds to try to ignore it and further derail the thread so that he doesn't have to face the fact that he is wrong

>>11646869
This is an accurate description of sensitivity. But the sensitivity of the accuracy is not accurately sensitive enough.
But +1 for trying.

>>11646857
No sloppy seconds for you, friend.

>>11646875
It's just one retard who got mad his answer was wrong and decided to shut up the thread by calling anyone who got the right answer autistic.

>>11646886
you can't just string together random words and call that an argument. i proved you wrong with your own tools. get fucked. this thread is officially over now that I have demonstrated with your own tools that the problem is in fact determinant. you will never recover from this.

>>11646898
*indeterminant

>>11646884
What? Are you the OP? Dude, I was just trying to defend you. I meant what i said. This is a great thread and I genuinely think its terrible the way people have been treating you. All this bullying. You probably get enough of that at school without having to face it here.

>>11646897
Wrong. Again. I never called anyone autistic. Please get your facts right. I am beginning to think you might be a troll.

>>11646898
Incorrect. Lets examine the evidence as seen here.
there's 2 possibilities. one is you are actually infected and got a true positive, the other is you aren't infected and got a false positive. we can assume the question wants us to believe there's a 0.1% base chance of you being infected before taking the test, otherwise it cannot be answered

so to get the answer, we need [chance you are positive and infected]/[chance you are positive]

0.001*0.99/(0.001*0.99+0.999*0.01)=0.00099/0.01098=~9.016% so none of the answers are correct
>Therefore, there is a 99% chance you were infected.
You have a 99% chance of the test being true given you got a test result. That's not the same as the chance the test result is true given you got a positive test result.
You took the test
The test has 99% accuracy
You tested positive
Therefore, there is a 99% chance you were infected.

The first statement, that covid affects 0.1% of the population is irrelevant, since YOU took the test, and YOU tested positive.

I am sure you will see your errors now.

>>11646895
retard

>>11646931
So you can't deal with the fact that the actual answer is not a given option and you do a bunch of mentsl gymnastics to get an answer that is given?
That's pretty autistic.

>>11646934
Incorrect. If I test 10000 people I know that 100 will get a wrong result.
>I also know that there will be (ideally) only 10 infected.
There can be between 0 and 10 false negatives (FN) and the number of false positives will be 100-FN.
>If there are 0 false negatives there will be only false positives and the chance of infection is 0.
At best it will be ~9%

>>11646983
You simply dont understnad the problem. Its very simple. Try again. First try to grasp this.
A false positive is only a negative if the negativity of the positive is positively greater than the negativity.

Combined with the baseman mechanics described by here>>11645812. It becomes trivially simple to describe the ascribed problem with a prescription as endorsed by the cunt seen here>>11646047. We can then safely conclude that dy/dy equals a reciprocity infection rate of approximately 1%.
So the correct answer is C.
t. Astrophysicist.

>>11647001

>>11646897
You are a bit slow, Sweetie.

>>11647005
I see. I guess I can't argue with an astrophysicist, the true chads of science

>>11647017
I dont get it. Why is the orange haired guy getting angry? This doesnt make any sense. Please explain.

>>11647026
It will all make sense when the time has come

>>11647026
he's a healthy negative

But I want to know now.

>>11647032
In that case the answer is clearly B. 99%

>>11646875
>>11646886
>>11646895
>>11646912
>>11646926
>>11646931
>>11647001
>>11647005
>>11647020
>>11647032
>>11647040
Maximum autism

>>11647124
You do realize you are being played like a toy? Oh no wait, sorry, of course you dont.

>>11642478
>>11642507
>>11642513
>>11642518
>>11642519
ALL
>>11642530
>>11642532
>>11643069
>>11643098
>>11643105
>>11643144
OF
>>11643239
>>11643559
>>11643562
>>11643730
>>11643721
>>11645280
THESE
>>11645283
>>11645286
>>11645338
>>11645353
>>11645552
>>11645560
ARE
>>11645674
>>11645748
>>11645767
>>11645753
>>11645774
>>11646385
>>11646424
FUCKING
>>11646612
>>11646665
>>11646766
>>11646798
>>11646818
>>11646931
>>11647005
>>11647040
WROOOOOOOONG

>>11647218
>she went through the entire thread to pick out every "wrong" answer.
Yikes, that's a lot of 'tism.

>>11647218
Wrong. They are all correct. Learn some biology.

t. Astroturfengineer

>>11647218
>>11642478 (OP)
>>11642507
>>11642513
>>11642518
>>11642519
ALL
>>11642530
>>11642532
>>11643069
>>11643098
>>11643105
>>11643144
OF
>>11643239
>>11643559
>>11643562
>>11643730
>>11643721
>>11645280
THESE
>>11645283
>>11645286
>>11645338
>>11645353
>>11645552
>>11645560
ARE
>>11645674 (You)
>>11645748 (You)
>>11645767
>>11645753 (You)
>>11645774 (You)
>>11646385 (You)
>>11646424
FUCKING
>>11646612 (You)
>>11646665
>>11646766 (You)
>>11646798 (You)
>>11646818 (You)
>>11646931 (You)
>>11647005 (You)
>>11647040 (You)
WROOOOOOOONG
Wow, I account for nearly half those answers. I need to stop watching so much netflix.

>>11647234
Yeah, shes taken it to a whole new level. It really needs a name of itself to distinguish from just plain ordinary vanilla autism.

>>11647339
autizm?

>>11647348
Yeah, I think you might be onto something here, that "z" looks real fancy and stuff. Maybe double down on it.
Zautizm
Mmm, on second thoughts, nah, I dont see "Zautizm" catching on.
Perhaps just denote that its a superior form of autism by adding a "+" at the end?
Autizm+

>>11647214
What kind of toys do autists play with?

>>11647530
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMe2oD0rOa4

Seriously, are all of you retarded? Has nobody heard of fucking Bayes theorem before?

>>11647586
Of course not.

>>11647586
wrong.

>>11647586
>Seriously, are all of you retarded?
Yes.
>Has nobody heard of fucking Bayes theorem before?
You figure out the probability of that, given the first answer.

>>11642530
Imagine being this bad at basic math.

You have 100000 people, so 100 are sick and 99900 are healthy. Of the 100 that are ill 99 test positive, 1 test negative and 1 of the healthy ones tests negative. So, you take the amount of people who are sick and testes positive (99) and divide it by the total amount who tesed positive (100), you get 0,99 and that's 99% chance of you testing positive and being sick.

>>11647807
>Of the 100 that are ill 99 test positive
Why?

>>11647586
Bayes theorem is useless here. A confusion matrix is much more useful.

>>11647860
Because the test has an accuracy of 99%, meaning the result is correct in 99 tests per 100 performed

>>11647913
99% Is correct anyone not getting it is a brainlet. The first statement does not mean anything, we are all affected by Corona.

>>11642513
first statement doesnt affect the outcome.
you are 100% infected, by a 99% acc test.

>>11647913
Yes, but you're saying 99 positive tests out of 100 are correct, not 99 tests out of 100 tests are correct. All 99% accuracy tells you is that 99000 tests are correct. That could be all 100 positive tests and 98900 negative tests, or 0 postive tests and 99000 negative tests, or anything in between.

>>11647951
What kind of toys do autists play with?

>>11647586
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMe2oD0rOa4 [Embed]>>11647530
>Yeah, I think you might be onto something here, that "z" looks real fancy and stuff. Maybe double down on it.
>Zautizm
>Mmm, on second thoughts, nah, I dont see "Zautizm" catching on.
>Perhaps just denote that its a superior form of autism by adding a "+" at the end?
>Autizm+

>>11647930
So you can't deal with the fact that the actual answer is not a given option and you do a bunch of mentsl gymnastics to get an answer that is given?
That's pretty autistic.

>>11642843
>you're just testing 1 people retard
you're just testing 1 people retard

>>11647923
>>11647930
>>11647976
>>11647979
>>11647984
>>11648003
Sperg chimping out.

>>11647913
see the image attached to >>11647218

in both cases, the accuracy (number of correct tests over total tests) is 99%. However, in both cases it is also clear that the likelyhood that someone infected will test positive is NOT 99%. In the case with 0 false negatives, the liklihood that someone with the disease will test positive is 100%. In the case with all false negatives, there is 0% chance that someone with the disease will test positive.

this is why this thread still survives. Statistics is often counter intuitive. People are making assumptions that they don't realize they are making.

>>11647984
>>11647930 (You)
So you can't deal with the fact that the actual answer is not a given option and you do a bunch of mentsl gymnastics to get an answer that is given?
That's pretty autistic.
>>11648003
>>11642843
>you're just testing 1 people retard
you're just testing 1 people retard>>11648020
>>11647923 (You)
>>11647930 (You)
>>11647976 (You)
>>11647979 (You)
>>11647984 (You)
>>11648003 (You)
Sperg chimping out>>11648082
>>>11647913
>see the image attached to >>11647218
>in both cases, the accuracy (number of correct tests over total tests) is 99%. However, in both cases it is also clear that the likelyhood that someone infected will test positive is NOT 99%. In the case with 0 false negatives, the liklihood that someone with the disease will test positive is 100%. In the case with all false negatives, there is 0% chance that someone with the disease will test positive.
>this is why this thread still survives. Statistics is often counter intuitive. People are making assumptions that they don't realize they are making.
.

>>11649199
pretty colors means
conclusive proof answer is b or c or s if not d

>>11647869
This is literally a textbook conditional probability problem

>>11642478
Tested for what exactly?

COVID-19 is a disease onset by the infection of coronavirus SARS-COV-2. You could be infected with the virus but not have the disease. And given how COVID-19 is a SARs disease and any set of conditions developed from any group 2 coronavirus would effectively render the diagnosis to be COVID-19--meaning you could NOT have SARS-COV-2 but still have the disease COVID-19

>>11649279
Since it's about music and music is harmonic the harmonic mean must remain constant. 21120+140=2160+1x⟹21120+3120=2160+1x⟹14120=1160+1x⟹1130=1160+1x⟹130=160+1x⟹130−160=1x⟹260−160=1x⟹160=1x⟹x=60
So it takes 60 minutes for 60 players to play it.

>>11649299
Sperg chimping out.

>>11647642
So you can't deal with the fact that the actual answer is not a given option and you do a bunch of mentsl gymnastics to get an answer that is given?
That's pretty autistic.

>>11649279
What is P(positive test|infected)?

>>11649199
>>11649205
>>11649914
>>11649916
>>11649918
Super autistic spammer

>>11649943
The autist has landed

>>11649948
Super autistic spammer

>>11643169
it's a FB meme, not a Uni exam
only an autist obsesses like you

>>11649948
Sperg chimping out.

>>11647218
>>11642530
>>11642518
>>11642545
>>11642553
>>11642649
>>11642860
>>11642850
>>11642935
>>11642955
>>11643041
>>11643048
>>11643054
>>11643054
All of these are wrong

>>11642530
You blithering retard

>>11649949
>>11650031
>>11650068
>>11650074
Samefag, autism style.

>>11650103
You blithering retard

>>11650089
Samefag, autism style.

>>11642532
From a mathematical standpoint there is a 99% chance you're infected. From a practical standpoint you're 100% infected and will be quarantined.

>>11647639
Tested for what exactly?
COVID-19 is a disease onset by the infection of coronavirus SARS-COV-2. You could be infected with the virus but not have the disease. And given how COVID-19 is a SARs disease and any set of conditions developed from any group 2 coronavirus would effectively render the diagnosis to be COVID-19--meaning you could NOT have SARS-COV-2 but still have the disease COVID-19

>>11642478
This is the problem with you libertarian retards. You somehow expect parents to educate their children on finance even if the parents have never been educated about it themselves. We fucking know that not every parent is fiscally responsible so how are they supposed to teach their kids?


Just make home finance a part of a mandatory life skills class in the final year of high school. You somehow expect a magic world in which everyone is taught finance yet refuse to acknowledge the necessity of the one institution that can make that a reality.

>>11642478
It is falsifiable, and it has been proven wrong. But rather than abandoning it at that point in favor of better paradigms, the Marxist here refuses to do so, which makes it pseudoscience. Which is why the fact that no class consciousness occurs has to be alleviated with "false consciousness", and why Marxian economists have to invent dozens of new terms and schemes to explain why the tendency of profit to fall is actually true, rather than just abandoning it altogether which is what almost every economist does.

>>11642478
Depends, what percentage of the population has been tested? Are we to assume that 100% of the population received a covid-19 test?

>>11642478
What percentage of the population is tested? Also by 99% accurate, what do you mean? That out of 100 people, 1 person will test positive when they are not infected, that out of 100 people, 1 person will test negative when they are infected or out of 100 people 1 person will have a wrong diagnosis? If you test 100% of the population, 1% will falsely test positive when they are not infectious, where as only 0.1% of the population is tested positive correctly, so 0.1%/1% = 10%. Now since that is not part of the answer, I'd assume that the 99% applies also to the test showing negative when positive. This gives us a 1% of the 0.1% being tested negative when they should be positive, and 1% of 99.9% being tested positive when they should be negative. This gives us 0.099/0.999 = 9.90% if you tested positive.

>>11651586
idiot

bro are people fucking retarded or something
its 99% its D how the fuck would you get anything else
i can see getting A if you didnt actually really read the question but the other shit is inexcusable

can everyone who thinks its anything other then D take this test and post their results?
https://www.aptitude-test.com/reading-comprehension.html

>>11651812
>>11651855
Super autistic spammer

>>11650119
You blithering retard

>>11642478
>0.001 * 7.8e9 = 7,800,000 infected
>(7.8e9 - 7.8e6) * 0.01 = 77922000 false positives, if all were tested
>7.8e6 * 0.99 = 7722000 correct positives
>7722000/(7722000+77922000)=0.497 chance of being one of the correct positives.
The answer is 50% You're either infected, or you aren't.

>>11652077
Nvm, I forgot a zero, it's actually 9.016% just like all the other anons said

>>11642478
For those who don't get the trick...

AIDS effect 0.1% of the population.
A test for HIV is 99% accurate.
You test positive for HIV.
What is the chance you actually have AIDS?

>>11643105
>>11642649
>>11642518

P sure most of this thread is trolling but fuck it

Look at the makeup of the set of people who test positive.

There are two ways to test positive.
1. Have corona (p = 0.001) and test accurately (p = 0.99) -> .001*.99= .00099

2. Don’t have corona (p = 0.999) and test inaccurately (p = 0.01). You can already see that both probabilities are larger than in #1. .999*.01 = .00999

So if all you know is you tested positive, it’s a little more than 10 times more likely you’re in group 2 than group 1

.00099 / (.00099 + .00999) = .0901 or a 9% chance

>>11642478
>242 replies

That's it, there is no hope for humanity, I'm atlas shrugging out of this business

>>11647586
It’s just shitty trolling.

>>11652285
Mmmm no, it says the test is for "it" which can only refer to COVID-19, not the novel coronavirus causing COVID-19.

>>11652366
>1. Have corona (p = 0.001) and test accurately (p = 0.99) -> .001*.99= .00099
wrong

>>11652366
>1. Have corona (p = 0.001) and test accurately (p = 0.99) -> .001*.99= .00099
This implies that 0.99 is the chance of a positive test being accurate, but all the question says is that 0.99 is the chance of a test being accurate. So for example, if 0/9 positive tests are accurate and 990/991 negative tests are accurate, then 990/1000 tests in total are accurate. Or if 1/11 positive tests are accurate and 989/989 negative tests are accurate, then 990/1000 tests are accurate. Or anywhere in between as long as 0.99 of the tests are accurate.

>>11652077>>11652285
>>11652285
>>11652366
>>11652375
>>11652383
>>11652518
>>11652524
>>11652538

>Samefag, autism style.

>>11642478
I want you to imagine a seagull. Now imagine that seagull taking a shit. A big gooey seagull shit, full of some sticky white urea and black feces. Imagine that shit falling onto a big rock somewhere near the sea.
Now the seagull is joined by the rest of the flock. A very big flock. Each and every seagull dives down and takes a shit right on top of the original shit. One after another. Until there is huge pile of steaming seagull shit. It keeps on growing as the seagulls return and dump their shit on the same spot. Eventually it becomes a vast mountain of shit. It is truly an impressive sight, for a pile of seagull shit.

>>11652905
wrong

>>11653524
I want you to imagine a seagull. Now imagine that seagull taking a shit. A big gooey seagull shit, full of some sticky white urea and black feces. Imagine that shit falling onto a big rock somewhere near the sea.
>Now the seagull is joined by the rest of the flock. A very big flock. Each and every seagull dives down and takes a shit right on top of the original shit. One after another. Until there is huge pile of steaming seagull shit. It keeps on growing as the seagulls return and dump their shit on the same spot. Eventually it becomes a vast mountain of shit. It is truly an impressive sight, for a pile of seagull shit.

>>11642478
It's 9.01% if you select a person at random from the population; if you are being tested you probably have symptoms so the 0.1% chance of having it isn't representative of your situation

>>11653599
wrong

>>11642478
It's called "the paradox of the false positive"

Say you have a new disease, called Super-AIDS. Only one in a million people gets Super-AIDS. You develop a test for Super-AIDS that's 99 percent accurate. I mean, 99 percent of the time, it gives the correct result – true if the subject is infected, and false if the subject is healthy. You give the test to a million people.
One in a million people have Super-AIDS. One in a hundred people that you test will generate a "false positive" – the test will say he has Super-AIDS even though he doesn't. That's what "99 percent accurate" means: one percent wrong.

What's one percent of one million?
1,000,000/100 = 10,000

One in a million people has Super-AIDS. If you test a million random people, you'll probably only find one case of real Super-AIDS. But your test won't identify one person as having Super-AIDS. It will identify 10,000 people as having it. Your 99 percent accurate test will perform with 99.99 percent inaccuracy.

-Cory Doctorow, Little Brother

>>11653647

/THREAD

>>11642507
see:
>>11653647
it's B. 9%
If you test 1000 people, and the actual % of people infected is 0.1%, and the test has a 99% accuracy rate, that means a 1% INaccuracy.

Which means it'll say 10 people are infected. While only 1 really should be. So the test is, even though 99% accurate... when testing for very rare things... it performs with 90%+ INaccuracy.
Chance you're actually infected? ~9%

In reality any test will have different probabilities of false negatives and false positives

>>11653647
>>11653695
you are still assuming that 99% accuracy means is 99% accurate for both infected cases and not infected cases separately.

>>11652518
COVID-19 is a disease, not a virus. You get tested for the virus to diagnose the disease

>>11653705
'tis what non-autists do

>>11653647
The autism is strong with this Spergy

>>11653649
wrong

>>11653885
The projection is strong with this Spergy

>>11653695
sperg more spamlord

>>11653879
retard

>>11653896
retard

>>11653705
super autism engaged.

>>11653898
double retard +1

>>11653888
sperg more autlord

>>11653901
double retard +2

>>11653904
精子をより君主にする

The question states “a test” but does not state it’s the test you took.

Due to that fact the 99% is irrelevant as it’s not guaranteed that’s the test you took.

That leaves only the first part of the question as an applicable guarantee, as you are part of the population.

Ergo, the answer is A.

>>11642478
Is this the thread where everyone comes for a dump?

Yup, looks like it. Great. I am real need of a good dump. Let me tell you about it. When I'm taking a dump I like to role play. My fav is pretending to be a mission controller counting down an Apollo launch. I count it down trying to reach "LIFT OFF!" just as my shit drops out. I then fist pump the air. If it's one of those difficult shits which sort of get stuck half way out I then say "Houston, we have a problem."

>>11653906
私のペニスを吸う

>>11653921
once post # reaches 300, it won't bump anymore,
can't happen soon enough

>>11653913
dumbass spergy autistic

>>11653928
But I have more shitting to do! I have some fascinating stories about my various craps that I want to share with everyone. :(

>>11653927
تەمى يوق ، ھەتتا تۇرغۇدەك دەرىجىدە كىچىكمۇ ئەمەس

You know what? You guys are absolute cunts. OP made a nice thread about a statistical problem, one with REAL WORLD implications. And could you lot treat it seriously? Could you just respect this fine thread? No. You couldn't do that. No, instead you all came along here and SHITTED all over it. With your smart alec replies, your nonsense comments, all your trolling and insults and horrible copy pasting.

Well, I hope you lot are feeling proud of yourselves. You have actually made an absolute an absolute crapfest here. Poor OP is probably crying. You people are shameful and a complete disgrace to science.

>>11653939
මම ඔයාගේ අම්මට කෙලෙව්වා, ඇය ඒකට කැමතියි

>>11653943
ის უკვე ათი წელია მკვდარია, ასე რომ, ვხვდები, მილოცვები

>>11653950
Heздapмa янa ўcмiхaлacя

>>11653964
చిన్న విషయాలు ఎల్లప్పుడూ ఆమెకు అలా చేశాయి

>>11642518
This.

>>11654042
Wrong

>>11654042
ਆਟਿਸਟਿਕ

lmao this guy is STILL seething that we was proven wrong.

>>11653879
It says the test is for the disease.

>>11642478
you are being retarded.

0,1%

>>11654523
wrong

>>11654553
wrong

>>11653701
correct

>>11654489
retard

>>11654566
wrong

>>11654438
yes he isn't

>>11654470
>చిన్న విషయాలు ఎల్లప్పుడూ ఆమెకు అలా చేశాయి

>>11652090
wrong

Well fuck. I see you pack of assholes are still shitting over OP's thread. Jesus Christ. I hope you are satisfied. You have basically buried this fine thread under a pile of SHIT. Your SHIT. This thread is now a BIG pile STEAMING SHIT. You nasty little faggots. OP was probably expecting to see a fine level of well argued and informed intellectual debate, but instead he will see this heap of HUMAN SHIT. OP is probably crying in his mommies panties now thanks to you lot.

>>11654600
>OP is probably crying in his mommies panties now thanks to you lot.
why her panties? is he a cross dresser? maybe a tranny?

>>11653928
>once post # reaches 300, it won't bump anymore
wrong

>>11654623
incorrect

>>11654615
Quite possibly. But then maybe its his daddies panties he is crying in. This deserves a full investigation. I am onto it.

OP. When you cry yourself to sleep every night, do you use your mommies panties or your daddies panties?

>>11654653
This information is not conducive to establishing the panties OP uses. Please stay on topic in future.

>>11654615
Look, its a terrible situation, but information about the panties OP uses has not been forthcoming. Despite my most valiant efforts. We may have to consider using statistical methods to infer the panties OP is most likely to use. I know its not an ideal situation but at the moment, in the absence of hard evidence, I feel we have no other choice.

>>11653911
Personally I have enjoyed shitting on this thread. I have had it bookmarked. Every now and again I quickly copy paste some shit onto it in between binging on Netflix.
I am not sure why its been such a delightful experience to crap all over OP. Maybe its to do with the stupid question written by some dumb retard who spergs out because people answer it exactly as it is written, rather than what he intended to ask. Maybe its because there has been a few laughs with other posters doing exactly thing as myself. Taking a good shit on a shit thread,

But I hope OP remakes it again ( which would be the fourth time by my count ) so we can enjoy more fun times and add the contents of our collective colons on yet another worthless pile of crap.

>>11642478
It's 0% because the virus isn't real.

>>11655319
correct