@Ben_Curthoys already gave a perfectly cogent explanation on the Wales post why calling this a 98% false positive rate is incorrect. The false positive rate is not the ratio of false positives to correct positives; the false positive rate is the ratio of false positives to total subjects, and we don’t know the false positive rate because we don’t know the total number of subjects from which those positives were generated.
Cory, why do you continue to misrepresent the accuracy of this technology, even after the nature of your misrepresentation has been made clear? You don’t need such tactics to make the dangers of these systems clear, and deliberately misinforming your audience about the nature of those dangers just undermines your argument.
