Fascinating ... thanks for the link!
It mentions that the test "isn't perfect" (and, realistically, no test ever is) ... but I would be interested to hear some concrete numbers, if possible (e.g., 98% effective, 75% effective, etc.).
Jack
Fascinating ... thanks for the link!
It mentions that the test "isn't perfect" (and, realistically, no test ever is) ... but I would be interested to hear some concrete numbers, if possible (e.g., 98% effective, 75% effective, etc.).
Jack