36% of our cohort represented serologic nonresponders
I don’t see any way in which the results of the French study are incompatible with a 64% true positive rate on “did this person previously have covid”. (Also, a 64% true positive rate is actually decent Bayesian evidence for having had covid, assuming a sufficiently large % of the underlying population has had covid, such that whatever the false positive rate is doesn’t cause most/all of your positives to be false positives.)
I don’t see any way in which the results of the French study are incompatible with a 64% true positive rate on “did this person previously have covid”. (Also, a 64% true positive rate is actually decent Bayesian evidence for having had covid, assuming a sufficiently large % of the underlying population has had covid, such that whatever the false positive rate is doesn’t cause most/all of your positives to be false positives.)