The post calls it a “false positive rate”, which a statistician wouldn’t, but it clearly explains what it means by 98% inaccuracy. There’s nothing misleading about it.
The maths of how test accuracy translates to confidence in the result, dependent on the rarity of the thing being tested, is so counterintuitive to lay people that IMHO it would be actually be misleading to report the true false positive rate.
“Our test is (eg) 99.9% accurate”, when the end result is that 98% of those accused are innocent, is exactly the kind of statistic those in power misuse to hide what they’re doing.
