You can still do this kind of audit, but you need to test a statistically significant number of samples in your "spot check" such that you know you some of them will be infected. The number will vary depending on the incidence of a particular type of infection present, but this is data that should be available.

I agree that sending control samples can also be effective, though. But if you need to send the whole organ to the test lab (and not just a small tissue sample), you probably don't want to be wasting healthy organs by infecting them. Better to just wait until you have an organ that's known to be infected already.

I agree with you, also the bogus argument of "since most people are HIV free..." assumes direct testing instead of pooled testing (using modern information theoretic optimized pooled testing).

A bit of data is most informative if the entropy is 1 bit as well. A signal that is true most of the time, or a different signal that is false most of the time is less informative. Use pooled testing such that the result is true or false half of the time.

Had information theoretically justified pooled testing been applied from the start, then:

* 1) control-testing the testing contractors would have been straightforward and passing 10 control samples by chance would have a likelihood of 1 over 1024.

* 2) it would have made obvious that saving money on control-testing the contractors would hardly save any money

* 3) even in the bad scenario that control testing was skipped, the issue of contractors cheating would have surfaced much faster, since combining the pooled tests to identify which patient tests positive would constantly result in mysteries, meaning control-testing needs to be enabled, not the mathematics of pooled testing brought in doubt.

* 4) testing pharma industry hates pooled testing, as it means technological competition instead of sales growth by abusing the naive but false "common sense" that you need as many tests as patients tested.

on a side note: assuming tests with different operating point on the RoC curves (having different false positive vs false negative ratios) have different prices, do we know if the operators blatantly provided fabricated results, or if they blatantly ignored basic mathematics and thought the more expensive tests could be substituted by the cheaper ones even if intended for a different purpose?

consider a test designed for telling a patient that we diagnosed HIV, and then consider a test designed for screening an organ to be inserted into a patient.

do you think they should both use the same test? or do you think it wiser to have the diagnosis test have lower false positive rates, and the organ screening test to have lower false negative rates?

> Internally this kind of corruption is more difficult because you have more control

If we anthropomorphise the regulatory body, sure. In reality, there isn’t evidence either way. Corrupt governments handing work to the private sector is a proven efficiency booster. Meanwhile, competent governments Severn Trenting everything is textbook (on the political left).

Outsource to 2+ contractors, use pooled testing, and use control tests to steer that percentage of tests towards those contractors that score better on the control tests. Obviously the contractor should not be allowed to know which samples are control tests.

Yes you’re right. I was wrong. I confused it with the case where you both have HIV since they can be different strains.

> Censorship is preventing you from saying something.

That's exactly what happened. His channel was blocked by order of a judge. Censorship.

> Arresting you for committing a crime is not censorship.

Criminalizing any form of political idea absolutely is political censorship. The whole purpose of heavily punishing crimes is to prevent said crimes from occurring. Punishing certain political positions is therefore equivalent to preventing said political positions from being expressed.

If we're gonna stoop to this tyranny, then I'm gonna start enumerating a whole slew of equally harmful or even worse ideas for the tyrant's perusal. Let's start with the complete erasure of socialism and communism and everything related to it, and the incarceration of every single subversive person involved with it.

Why censor nazis but not these communists? Makes absolutely no sense. If they censor nazis but refuse to censor these socialists whose dictatorial regimes have genocided their own populations, I'm gonna start drawing some very uncomfortable conclusions about the way the world works.

> Germany is a democracy where you’ll land in jail for defending the creation of a nazi party. Is that censorship?

I'm sure everybody feels righteous about banning nazis. The problem is that banning nazis is unconstitutional here in Brazil. Nazis are just a political party, the national-socialist worker's party, ironically. And in Brazil, any and all forms of political censorship is prohibited.

I have no idea what the german constitution says. Maybe it is constitutional there.

From a moral standpoint, though, I see no reason to believe it's not censorship. Plenty of consumer media depicting nazism needs to be "adapted" in order to be published in Germany. That's China tier protection against harmful ideas as far as I'm concerned. I certainly consider it to be censorship. I have no idea whether german law considers it so.

> Is anyone actually proposing the abolition of private property and the seizure of the means of production by the proletariat?

Lula has literally recorded himself saying the state should seize people's inheritances and then determine "what people need to survive" so that it can give them exactly that.

These guys are socialists and communists, there is absolutely no doubt about it. I have no idea why I have to prove this every single time. They're pretty proud of being what they are.