Hey @carloserp-2000,

thank you for the comprehensive reply.

but what happens with the asymptomatic? How much is the number? 'Could it be included in the equation?

That's the root of the tragedy!
Even though the Bayes method indicates a much lower rate of infected people (in Venezuela for instance about 95% of the tests is false-positive) I assume many more people are infected. This is not covered by Bayes due to a prerequisite is that there are clear symptoms or undoubtedly sick people. For instance, if you suffer from a rare disease, let's say one person in 10000 and you show the symptoms which primarily belong to the disease then a test with high specificity and sensitivity would show the right result. Nevertheless, if you apply the test to 10000 healthy people you will receive a lot of false-positives. This is a really hard situation for physicians. Can you trust the test? Can you trust the symptoms? The improvement of the tests will change almost nothing. A better idea would be to improve pre-diagnostics. No random testing, specific testing. With this approach, you will yield more reliable results.

Stay healthy and thanks for reading (sorry I was too lazy to write it in English, maybe I will create another version in English, or maybe Spanish ;-)

Best Regards

Chapper